Australia’s Jerusalem Embassy move sinks in sea of Islamic threats
Forget about Australia moving its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Indonesian threats to not sign a free trade agreement with Australia – coupled with veiled Malaysian suggestions of terrorist attacks on Australian targets if the Embassy is moved – will suffice to burst Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s thought-bubble.
Australia gave Indonesia $360 million in aid in 2016 and was the world’s 16thlargest donor in giving $15 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Indonesia gave UNRWA $5000.
Malaysia gave nothing to UNRWA in 2016.
Indonesia and Malaysia – two Islamic states – flex their muscles on Islamic claims to Jerusalem – yet do not financially support their Islamic brethren.
Morrison first flagged the Embassy move on 16 October at a joint press conference with Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne:
“Now, in relation to our diplomatic presence in Israel. What I have simply said is this – we’re committed to a two-state solution. Australia’s position on this issue has to date assumed that it is not possible to consider the question of the recognition of Israel’s capital in Jerusalem and that be consistent with pursuing a two-state solution.
Now, Dave Sharma, who was the Ambassador to Israel, has proposed some months ago a way forward that challenges that thinking and it says that you can achieve both and indeed by pursuing both, you are actually aiding the cause for a two-state solution. Now, when people say sensible things, I think it is important to listen to them”
Australia’s commitment to the two-state solution– the creation of a second Arab state – in addition to Jordan – in the territory that comprised the 1922 Mandate for Palestine – is based on:
- The 1993 Oslo Accords and
- The 2002 President Bush Roadmap:
Intensive negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation spanning the last 25 years have failed to achieve this two-state solution– being unable to agree on whether the new State should:
- Be demilitarised
- Include all the territory of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) with East Jerusalem as its capital
- Exclude all Jews currently living there necessitating their resettlement in Israel.
Australia is not alone in clinging to this outdated two-state solution. Countless UN Resolutions calling for this two-state solution continue to consume reams of paper and dominate meetings of UN committees, the General Assembly and Security Council – rather than considering alternative solutions to ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.
Morrison probably did not realise how close he was to committing Australia to a very different two-state solution when he told the press conference:
“The whole point of a two-state solution is two nations recognised living side by side. And so, opening up that discussion does provide us with the opportunity, I think, to do what Australians have always done and that is to apply a practical and common-sense and innovative role in trying to work with partners around the world to aid our broader objectives, in this case a two-state solution.”
That alternative two-state solution involves Jordan and Israel – the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine – currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of the territory comprised in the Mandate – negotiating the allocation of sovereignty in the last remaining 5% between their two respective States.
This solution was first suggested by the League of Nations in 1922: one Jewish State and one Arab state living side by side in former Palestine in peace with each other. Redrawing the international border between Jordan and Israel in direct negotiations would complete this two-state solution.
Moving Australia’s Embassy to Jerusalem would be a no-brainer under the 1922 two-state solution.
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators – whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog
L’État d’Israël a le droit, comme tout pays libre et indépendant, de localiser sa capitale où bon lui semble. Mais je pense que transférer en ce moment pour un pays sa capitale de Tel Aviv vers Jérusalem rend plus difficile la reprise des négociations pour une paix <
Rene
Le retrait des ambassades de Jérusalem – Pays-Bas, Haïti, Côte d’Ivoire, Zaïre (maintenant République démocratique du Congo), Kenya, Bolivie, Chili, Colombie, Costa Rica, Équateur, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Uruguay et Venezuela Le Paraguay et la Bolivie – n’a pas permis de mettre fin au conflit judéo-arabe.Enlever Les ramener à Jérusalem pourrait.
TRANSLATION:
Withdrawing the following Embassies from Jerusalem – Netherlands, Haiti, Côte d’Ivoire, Zaire (now Dem. Rep. Congo), Kenya, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela. Paraguay and Bolivia – did not bring an end to the Jewish-Arab conflict. Returning them to Jerusalem could.
Bella
I am a little confused by your comment.
You state:
“I strongly support the three state solution which is constantly being described incorrectly as a two state solution.”
Do you support the creation of another Arab state between Israel and Jordan? If so, please elaborate on your reasons.
It was never afloat in Australia even before the Wentworth by-election. Only Josh Frydenberg is supporting it publicly now.
Adrian:
Nonsense.
Dave Sharma wrote an article on moving the Australian Embassy to Jerusalem on 18 May 2018 – well before the Wentworth by-election was conceived on 31 August
https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/us-has-broken-taboo-on-jerusalem-australia-should-lend-support-20180518-p4zg0v.html
Tony Abbott and Alex Hawke have also publicly supported the move.
You need to get your facts straight before expressing your opinion.
Sharma is not in government, while Tony Abbott is a “has been” out of favour with many government MP’s and many Australians. Alex Hawke is a NSW factional leader, I understand, but so what.
I bet that the embassy will remain were it is in Tel Aviv. Trade Minister Chobo recently said Tel Aviv, in his view, is the best place for the embassy and other ministers have gone silent mostly in the issue.
A move will cost we taxpayers millions for no rational reason or benefit to Australia. I understand the embassy serves citizens of both Israel and Palestine plus Australians visiting Palestine and Israel too. Correct me if I am wrong as I have not been to either country.
I did visit Egypt in 1985 (as a tourist), when I was an officer in the Australian Army and checked out North Africa WW2 battle sites and Sinai, including the former IDF elevated platoon and company defensive post on the real border with Egypt, with an Army mate who was a UN peace monitor.
The Coalition will be out of government after the May 2019 election and parliament has only about 15 sitting days before the election.
Adrian
You state:
1. “Sharma is not in government, while Tony Abbott is a “has been” out of favour with many government MP’s and many Australians. Alex Hawke is a NSW factional leader, I understand, but so what.”
So what? You misleadingly stated that only Josh Frydenberg publicly supported the Embassy move. That’s what – you are knowingly and wilfully misinforming readers.
2. “A move will cost we taxpayers millions for no rational reason or benefit to Australia”
The move would end Australia discriminating against Israel as the only country in the world where Australia does not have its embassy located in its capital. America, Guatemala and Brazil have recognised this discrimination and acted. Others will follow. Australia at the moment will allow its foreign policy to be dictated by Indonesia and Malaysia. If you are happy to see Australia dictated to in this fashion then so be it. More threats will continue to be made on other issues in the future.
3. “I understand the embassy serves citizens of both Israel and Palestine plus Australians visiting Palestine and Israel too. Correct me if I am wrong as I have not been to either country.”
You are wrong – once again. Don’t you think it would be wiser to do your own research before making a comment such as this? It is mischievous and misleading and shows you are prepared to shoot from the mouth rather than doing your homework before rushing to comment.
The remainder of your post is irrelevant to the subject matter of my article and does not merit or warrant a response.
Hi,
Thanks you David Singer !!!
Excellent Post; looking forward to future posts
Love the bit about “donations”
Indonesia gave UNRWA $5000.
Malaysia gave NOTHING to UNRWA in 2016. and their “Palestinian” Brothers
======================
As we all know (or ought to)
1. Two State “Solution” did occur ~1922 where JEWS lost the “debate” against Arabs; They got ~77% and Created JORDAN; we were left with ~23%; [Problem Solved?];
2. The OSLO SECOND “Two State Solution” brought INTIFADA & many Died as a Result. After 25 Long Years I would call OSLO Dead and Buried!
3. There are Already 22 MUSLIM ARAB States in the Middle East (Many “New” ones Created in 20th Century. Jordan; Syria; Lebanon; Morocco; Mauritania; Algeria; Tunisia; Libya; Sudan; Somalia; Egypt; Saudi Arabia; Yemen; Oman; Qatar; Bahrain; Kuwait; Iraq; Djibouti; United Arab Emirates; the Comoros Emirates. do we really need ONE More on the Door Steps of ISRAEL
4. The STATE of “Palestine” NEVER Existed in the HISTORY of Mankind; it was OFFERED to be FIVE Times and REJECTED;
5 REJECTED mainly because only Portions of Land of Israel (including Portions of Jerusalem); BUT THEY WANT IT ALL! That is their wish is to form “Palestine” on the GRAVE of ISRAEL (G-d FORBID!)
Joe – the problem was 95% solved in 1922.
Sovereignty in the remaining 5% of the Mandate territory still remains to be allocated between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate.
I strongly support the three state solution which is constantly being described incorrectly as a two state solution.
In your excellent article you have pointed out some important facts, including that there is already a two state solution – Jordan and Israel.
The incorrect use of language such as incorrect reference to two states when it should be three contributes to the rewriting of history and misrepresentation of Israel that is so pervasive in media. Stop feeding our enemies with ammunition. It’s about time the creation of an additional state for ‘Palestinians’ was universally referred to correctly as a ‘three state solution’.
King Abdullah II and his forbears may not like the facts – but then they are Hashemites with no lineage in the area!