Australia’s new stand on Jerusalem is myopic and dangerous

The decision this week by Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — without relocating the Australian embassy at this stage — is a political stunt aimed at pleasing his country’s Jewish voters and lobby, rather than serving the broader national interests. It constitutes a reversal of decades-old policy by Canberra on the Middle East’s most complex conflict. In addition, it puts Australia at odds with its Muslim-majority neighbors and Arab trading partners. Ironically, the decision fails to satisfy Israel’s right-wing government as well.

All that Morrison has done is shoot himself in the foot and put Australia at odds with the rest of the world. The decision is not backed by his political opponents, who believe he is putting his own political interests ahead of those of the country. In an attempt to balance out his decision, Morrison said that Australia still supports a two-state solution and that it is committed to recognizing a future state of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital when the city’s status is determined through a peace deal. For both Israel and the Palestinians, that is both contradictory and insulting.

But the reality is that Australian policy is changing. This month Australia voted, for the first time, against a UN resolution that explicitly denies Israel’s claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem. It was one of 10 countries that voted no, while 148 countries voted for the resolution.

Even more worrying was Australia’s vote against a resolution debunking Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. That meant that, for the first time in decades, Canberra rejected Syrian claims to the Golan Heights by not acknowledging the pre-1967 territorial lines as an international border. How this change in position helps to deliver a comprehensive peace process in the region is an enigma.

The decision to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is, despite its shortcomings, a free gift to that country’s far-right politicians, who reject any Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem. At a time when Israel is violating international laws as an occupying power by building unlawful settlements, confiscating land and imposing collective penalties against millions of Palestinians, the Australian move can only be seen as provocative and a violation of international law.

The decision to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is, despite its shortcomings, a free gift to that country’s far-right politicians, who reject any Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem.

Osama Al-Sharif

No wonder, then, that it has been slammed by Indonesia, Malaysia, Jordan, the Arab League and the Palestine Liberation Organization. It puts Australia’s ties with the Arab world, the Gulf states in particular, in jeopardy. For example the UAE’s investments in Australia are worth more than $20 billion, with bilateral trade reaching more than $6 billion annually. The trade surplus, in favor of Australia, with Saudi Arabia was estimated at more than $1 billion in 2016. Annual two-way trade between Australia and the MENA region is worth more than $10 billion annually, more than 80 percent of which is with the GCC region.

Meanwhile, total bilateral trade between Australia and Israel in 2017 was about $700 million, with Israeli exports constituting more than $500 million.

Arabs, or those of Arab origin, make up about 1 percent of Australia’s 24 million population, with Muslims representing more than 2.4 percent. It is easy to figure out where Australia’s long-term national interests lie, but the issue is more complicated.

Australia is not a banana republic and so whether it sides with international law, UN resolutions and universal values matters to the Palestinians and the world. By jeopardizing Australia’s moral position through myopic political decisions, the case for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in our region is undermined. Other countries where the US and Israel have influence might be encouraged by Canberra’s latest flip regarding the Palestinian issue to follow suit. How does that help restore the rights of the Palestinians and their struggle to rid themselves of occupation?

On the other hand, the Australian move must be dealt with firmly by Arab and Muslim countries. It is shocking that Bahrain chose to water down the effects of the decision, while clearly breaking rank with the rest of the Arab countries. It is also puzzling that few Arab countries have so far come out to condemn the move, symbolic as that may be.

This erosion in Arab countries taking a stand over one of the most uniting, as well as just, issues is an indication of the growing political marginalization of this region. It is the outcome of years of internecine conflicts and failures to carry out resolutions that would have served the people of the region and prevented foreign interference.

The shift in Australia's long-standing policy might not have changed things on the ground, but it must be seen as a blow to the Palestinians, the Arabs and Muslims around the world. A firm response is warranted, albeit unlikely, and therein lies the danger that other countries might follow.