THE HON SENATOR DAVID FAWCETT
LIBERAL SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA
DEPUTY CHAIR, JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
TRANSCRIPT
Interview with David Schulberg on J-AIR (88 FM) – 16 Aug
David Schulberg
Senator David Fawcett is a Liberal senator for South Australia and the Deputy Chair of the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Senator David Fawcett stood up in Parliament last week and asked Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong whether the Albanese Labor government would be changing its position on the legality of Israeli settlements and the language it uses to describe the occupied territories.
So welcome to the program, David.
Senator Fawcett
Thanks, David.
David Schulberg
So just to kick off, David, I’m just going to play a short audio grab from last week where you asked some questions to Penny Wong and we’ll take it from there. Okay?
Senator Fawcett
Sure.
[Audio excerpt starts]
Senate President
Senator Fawcett.
Senator Fawcett
Thank you, President. My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Will the Albanese Labor Government be changing Australia’s position—in terms of how we describe Israeli settlements as being legal or not under international law? Will the Albanese Labor government also be changing Australia’s position to formally recognised such territories as occupied Palestinian territories?
Senate President
Minister Wong.
Minister Wong
I thank the Senator for the question and I acknowledge his interest and expertise in national security and foreign affairs matters and what I would say to him is that this Government is guided by the principle of advancing the cause of peace and progress towards a just and enduring two state solution. And it is clear that viewing the conflict from one perspective will not achieve such peace, and any lasting solution to the conflict cannot be at the expense of either Palestinians or Israelis.
[Audio excerpt ends]
David Schulberg
So, David, I’m sure you remember the questions you asked last week and the response, which has been all over the media ever since. So what do you make of Penny Wong’s remarks that Labor’s policy is guided by the principle of advancing the cause of peace and progress toward a just and enduring two state solution?
Senator Fawcett
Well, my concern, David, is that, in fact, by making some unilateral decisions around how to describe territories and whether they’re legal or not—particularly essentially defining… or making a statement that doesn’t define boundaries, but declaring them all illegal actually flies in the face of the principles that both sides of politics have held to in Australia over a number of years, which is not to apply unilateral actions.
And the Oslo Accords, which was one of the few times where the PLO actually sat down with Israel— one of the specific prohibitions out of that agreement was unilateral measures, because it would undermine movement towards a peaceful outcome. And so the context of those questions on that day was that there had obviously been a leak out of the Labor caucus and the media was starting to report there would be an announcement, but we hadn’t seen any details.
And so you’ll have heard in the form of the question it was basically seeking information as to what was the Albanese Government actually proposing to do.
David Schulberg
If you wouldn’t have posed the questions, would Penny Wong have made her statement in the Parliament on that day?
Senator Fawcett
I don’t know. She doesn’t confide those things to me, David. But certainly the leak was out; the media had been reporting. So even if I hadn’t asked the question, I’m sure at some point members of the media would have pursued her over those issues.
David Schulberg
Yes. Whether it was in the parliament or in front of the media microphones. The statement that she made in direct response to your questions, where she says that they’re guided by principles of advancing the cause of peace and progress toward a just and enduring two state solution. Do you really think that by those actions that she can actually say that?
Senator Fawcett
Well, look, I think there’s some inconsistencies there. I mean, as the media—in fact, not just media, but a number of spokesmen, including people from the Labor Party—have indicated, the National Conference of the Labor Party, which is being held sort of late this week, into the weekend, has obviously been a driving force for the timing of this.
Both Prime Minister Albanese and Senator Wong have been on the public record in the past, both in those conferences and in the Parliament sort of pushing for a harder position that’s pro-Palestine. So, you know, there’s not a lot of surprise there, but I think the timing has been very much driven by their National Conference. But to the point of principal and her comment about rebalancing: I would actually say that if you make the contention that you are rebalancing by aligning with the United Nations when it comes to Israel, I think that’s a very hard position to defend because the United Nations has been incredibly unbalanced towards Israel.
Just in, if you look at the number of resolutions concerning individual nation states in the period between 2015 and 2022, there were some 140 that were condemning Israel and only 68 for the rest of the world. And if you look at what has occurred around the rest of the world—from conflicts to human rights violations, to a whole range of issues—that is unbalanced in anyone’s terms.
And to align Australia with that position, I think it’s actually cause for concern here.
David Schulberg
Even Penny Wong would admit that the United Nations is biased and has been concerned about the [inaudible] of that on the whole issue. So how much damage would you say that Labor’s hardening of its stance on its interpretation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has caused?
Senator Fawcett
Well, we will tell in a way by what happens this weekend. Obviously, the intent… I think it’s two issues they’re obviously trying to quell at this National Conference. One is around AUKUS and the agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom over security and technology sharing. But the other pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. If despite these changes that they have made to Australia’s position the—I think what Michael Danby calls the—“Socialist Left” of the Labor Party aren’t happy and they push for a resolution to be moved at the conference despite these compromises, then I think you’ll see that it’s actually just empowered the people who are pushing for a unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state. And I think there’s a fair bit of wisdom over the years going right back to Madeleine Albright back in 1994, where she said you have to be really careful with language and anything that infers sovereignty is actually going to detract from the possibility of final status issues being resolved successfully.
David Schulberg
So do you believe that Labor is being ruled by political factions that are threatening to undermine the Albanese Government if they don’t get their way over key issues?
Senator Fawcett
Look, I doubt they would undermine the government, per se, because they would want to see Labor remain in power, but would they undermine his authority? Quite possibly. But I think the reality is they want their way on a range of issues and this—for a long time—has been one of the key issues for the left of the Labor Party.
David Schulberg
In my view, they want their way and that overrides the sort of moral and ethical consideration of issues in their own right.
Senator Fawcett
Well, and, David, that’s one of my concerns is that, you know, this whole issue is one of the most complex foreign policy / foreign affairs issues that has been in the world for decades. And the narrative which is put forward is a very simple narrative about: the land was stolen; it’s been occupied; it should be given back. But it ignores the history of the Jewish people in Israel.
It ignores the fact that even in the early part of the 20th century—when people were returning to Israel—the land they had there was bought legally. And so: when the 1948 invasion occurred by the Arab coalition, and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a raft of areas occurred—it ignores all of that history, the legitimate claims that the Jewish people not just have from religion and history, but even legal claims to ownership of property [inaudible]. So that the sort of statements that came out that included Gaza, for example. You know, Israel withdrew from Gaza nearly two decades ago, unilaterally—in a sign of goodwill—and it was immediately occupied by Hamas, who launched thousands of rockets on Israel and want to see Israel wiped off the map. And yet the statement that was made by the Labor Party just ignores—in fact, gets wrong—that fact. And so you need to question how much thought has gone into the facts as opposed to just pushing the simple narrative.
David Schulberg
On Mark Dreyfus’s website, there’s an article titled “Labor’s Policy on Israel and the Palestinian Territories” that he published there when he was in Opposition in April 2021. I invited Mark Dreyfus to respond to what he wrote there, but apparently, as a member of the Cabinet, he’s bound by Cabinet solidarity and can only publicly support any decisions that are made in Cabinet.
On his website, in that article, Dreyfus extols the so-called bipartisanship that’s been a highlight of Australia’s policy toward Israel. Would you say that Labor, under the direction of Albanese, have put paid to any notion anymore of bipartisanship on the Israeli-Palestinian issue?
Senator Fawcett
Look, on some areas, they appear to be holding the line, and Minister Wong was very clear that when it comes to the International Court of Justice, for example—the ICJ—that Labor, at least at this point in time, will continue to oppose any referral of Israel to the ICJ. But the reality is the Coalition has been very strong—and even on issues such as U.N. Resolution 2334, which Foreign Minister Wong quoted. In 2014, then Foreign Minister Julie Bishop actually got world headlines because she said, Well, look, if we’d been on the Security Council—which we weren’t at the time—she said, We would have voted against that resolution—which went to the issue of settlements—because she said there is nothing in international law—and she is an accomplished lawyer—that she could point to that actually indicated that settlements were illegal. And she said these sort of one sided motions—which that one was—she said Australia has a long history of opposing. So for Senator Wong to make the claim that she’s just returning to former positions is not actually substantiated by statements that former ministers have made.
David Schulberg
On your website, you wrote in October 2022, an article “State of Israel: Good foreign policy requires consultation with allies and other nations”. Labor argues that in fact it has been in touch with other nations on issues touching Palestine. Last month, the governments of Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom jointly said that they are deeply concerned about recent events in the occupied West Bank, including Israel’s decision to expand its illegal settlements there amid rising violence, saying they further reduce the prospects for peace.
And now Senator Wong argues that Australia’s stance on Israel and Palestine aligns exactly with that of the UK and the European Union. Does this diminish any criticism that might be levelled at Labor for its policy shift?
Senator Fawcett
Well, again, I would argue that the way they have actually put their statement doesn’t reflect the facts. And the point about Gaza is one. The fact that they talk about all settlements being illegal doesn’t reflect the fact that there are new buildings occurring in existing settlements. And with the split of that territory: if you recall, going back in history, that the West Bank was divided into three contiguous zones, some of which weren’t subject to final status negotiations.
There’s some pretty broad statements there that I don’t think are consistent with previous Australian positions and again, her main comment was that she was aligning with people like the EU and the UN—and the UN, I don’t think is a body that we actually want to align ourselves with when it comes to issues around Israel.
David Schulberg
She actually referred to the European Union, not the not the UN in that last example. But I want to say to you, do you think that Labor is showing that it’s too willing to overlook the parlous state of the Palestinian society and its leaders, while not doing much really to stop terrorist attacks against Israelis and the spread of hate speech in their social media and the preponderance of anti-Semitic tropes that are perpetuated via their education system.
Senator Fawcett
Well, I come back again to the simple narrative which is adopted by the Left of the Labor Party regarding Palestine, and it ignores both the historical things I talked about before. But it also ignores all the points you’ve just raised. And in fact, in Estimates just this year, we have raised with the Foreign Affairs Department their ongoing funding for UNRWA when the education materials, which are provided by the Palestinian Authority to young children glorify the whole concept of being a martyr.
And I, for one, and I know a lot of Australians would object to the concept of taxpayers’ money going to actually support the provision of educational materials to children that incite violence. And again, a lot of people call out things like settlements and say this is breaching things like the Oslo Accords and others. But there’s also a very clear elements in those agreements which says that the Palestinian PLO—or now PA—need to confiscate illegal weapons, need to take active measures to stop terrorism, and yet they’re actively promoting terrorism.
So if you combine that with the fact that they have been unwilling to engage with Israel on a number of occasions, whether it’s Camp David or right through to Prime Minister Olmert and his offer—I think it was 2008—for peaceful solutions and the fact that now the Palestinian—or the people living in the Palestinian region have both the Palestinian Authority, which has a whole bunch of questions around its efficacy, but then also Hamas, which is sworn to the destruction of Israel, it’s hard to see where there is actually a partner for peace for the Israeli government.
David Schulberg
Yes, that is certainly a fair way of describing the situation. My gripe is the— we see criticism coming and it’s levelled at both sides and doesn’t really look at the gravity of what is happening on the Palestinian side.
Senator Fawcett
Well, indeed. And in fact, many of the recent outbreaks— for many years now, but even the recent ones with the outbreaks of violence, you know, a lot of the reporting highlights the Israeli response in defence of its citizens, but it doesn’t highlight the coordinated and planned attacks on civilians by terrorists. And when they report on Palestinian children being killed, they don’t report often that they’re 14, 15-year-olds who were carrying weapons and engaged in violent activities.
So, there’s a there’s a lot of bias in the reporting, in the narrative that’s presented to people.
David Schulberg
Now, you’ve highlighted a very example that I took to the ABC about the statement the children were killed and no acknowledgement of exactly who they were—wearing military uniforms. I’ve only got a couple of minutes with you still David. I just don’t know— you probably didn’t hear the beginning of the show, but I had somebody on: Stephen Flatow from the US.
He’s never been to Australia, but he has written an article titled “Should Israel refer to Australia as occupied Aboriginal Territory?” What do you make of that suggestion?
Senator Fawcett
Well, I think my answer would be, no, they shouldn’t. And I have concerns about a lot of the narrative that underpins things like the debate around the Voice. So, no, I wouldn’t accept that. But I do think it’s important that we look at history and I think, again, coming back to the situation with Israel, looking at the sort of mandate around the Transjordan, you know, post the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and, you know, 1948 invasion, etc.
You know, there is a whole raft of complexity here in which the Jewish people have a very legitimate claim. Yes, there are people who weren’t Jewish living in the area, but the narrative, which is very one sided and portrays Israel as a illegitimate invader, I think is unjust in itself. And I would be encouraging this government to not take unilateral decisions that affect final status issues which actually empower and encourage people like Hamas and others.
If you look at the people who welcomed their decision, they’re not exactly friends of peace.
David Schulberg
Well, thank you very much, David, for speaking with me on the Israel Connexion today. It’s been a pleasure.
Senator Fawcett
Thanks, David.