Diplomatic tensions have erupted over Australia’s decision to reverse the recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, while some of the Labor government’s own MPs are alarmed at how the policy shift was managed.
The decision – signed off at a cabinet meeting just hours after the government denied it had changed the policy – was criticised as “hasty” by the Israeli prime minister, Yair Lapid. His foreign ministry summoned the Australian ambassador to an urgent meeting to demand an explanation.
Indonesia, however, warmly welcomed the decision, as did Palestinian advocates in Australia who branded the previous government’s policy as “dangerous political posturing”. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, conceded late on Wednesday that “some things can always be done better” but defended his government’s decision, saying it had been Labor policy since 2018.
We take a look at why the issue is so sensitive, how the change of policy came about, and what the reaction has been.
Why is the issue so sensitive?
The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jerusalem’s Old City includes some of the holiest sites to Jews, Muslims and Christians and it is thus sought by both parties as their capital.
The city was split in two in 1948, with East Jerusalem falling under Jordanian rule until 1967 when it was captured by Israel during the six-day war.
In 1980, Israel’s parliament – the Knesset – passed a law describing Jerusalem as Israel’s complete and unified capital, a move the Israeli supreme court later held effectively amounted to the annexation of East Jerusalem.
The UN security council passed a resolution in 1980 condemning the legislation as “a violation of international law”, and called on “those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City”.
Where do most countries have their embassies to Israel?
Most countries – including Australia, the UK, France and Germany – have their embassies in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem.
The then US president Donald Trump ordered the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv in 2017 as he “determined that it is time to officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel”. The US embassy in Jerusalem opened the following year, and the current Biden administration has not reversed that shift.
What did the Morrison government do?
At first, Australia’s then prime minister, Scott Morrison, suggested he was open to following Trump’s move. He announced a review of Australia’s stance in the final week of the 2018 Wentworth byelection campaign. At the time, Labor accused Morrison of playing “games with longstanding foreign policy positions five days out from a byelection”.
But two months later, the Morrison government settled on a fallback policy that did not go as far as Trump. The December 2018 policy was to recognise West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital but not to move the Australian embassy there until after a peace agreement. Morrison noted that West Jerusalem was already the seat of the Knesset and many of the institutions of the Israeli government.
Morrison also acknowledged the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a future state with its capital in East Jerusalem, while saying “slavish adherence to the conventional wisdom over decades” would only entrench “a rancid stalemate”.
Did Labor tell voters whether it would keep that policy?
Yes, Labor signalled its opposition to the policy shift from the beginning, arguing it had been done for political purposes and was a departure from Australia’s longstanding bipartisan position.
Penny Wong, who is now foreign affairs minister, said in December 2018 that Labor “does not support unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and in government would reverse this decision”.
So why did Australia’s move come as a shock?
After the UK’s new prime minister, Liz Truss, revealed she was considering moving the British embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Guardian Australia started asking the Australian government questions about its current policy.
When asked whether the government had acted on Wong’s promise to reverse the Morrison move, a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson said on 7 October: “The Australian government continues to consider the final status of Jerusalem as a matter to be resolved as part of any peace negotiations.”
But the old language about recognising West Jerusalem remained on the Israel section of the Dfat website until a few days ago. Guardian Australia revealed in a story published at 4pm on Monday that Dfat had quietly removed those passages.
At 9.20pm, Wong’s office distributed to the media what is known as a “non-denial denial” of the story. A spokesperson said “no decision to change” the Morrison policy “has been made by the government” – a procedural point that focused on actions to date but did not close off the possibility in the near future.
Several Jewish community representatives were surprised by the story and contacted the government seeking clarity – and were similarly told that no change had been made. Within hours, however, community leaders were notified that a change had now been made: cabinet signed off on the shift at a meeting on Tuesday morning.
When Wong announced the decision at a press conference, she said the government was simply reaffirming “Australia’s previous and longstanding position that Jerusalem is a final status issue that should be resolved as part of any peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people”.
While consistent with Labor’s pre-election statements, the formal policy shift appears to have been signed off swiftly without the normal groundwork and stakeholder management. It was announced on the Jewish holy day of Simchat Torah.
What has been the international response to the decision?
The Israeli foreign ministry summoned the Australian ambassador to a meeting to register its “deep disappointment in the face of the Australian government’s decision resulting from short-sighted political considerations”. Lapid suggested the shift had been handled in an unprofessional manner.
However, the head of the general delegation of Palestine to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific, Izzat Abdulhadi, said the change in language was “welcomed and an important step in the right direction towards meaningful implementation of the two-state solution”. The Indonesian government also welcomed the shift.
The vice-president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network on Wednesday said the “flawed political stunt” by the former Morrison government had “completely undermined efforts for Palestinian self-determination” and said Israel’s assertion that the entire city was exclusively theirs denied “Palestinian connection to their ancient spiritual, cultural and economic capital”.
What about the domestic political reaction?
The Coalition has criticised this week’s “shambolic” and “completely unnecessary” decision. Its foreign affairs spokesperson, Simon Birmingham, argued the lack of consultation with the Israeli government was an “extraordinary bungle”. He said West Jerusalem was “the functional capital” of Israel and would likely be Israeli territory under any peace deal.
The government has also faced criticism from some of its own parliamentarians. The federal Labor MP for the Victorian seat of Macnamara, Josh Burns, apologised to the Jewish community for the “insensitive timing” of the announcement and said capital cities should be “sovereign decisions for countries”. Independent MPs Allegra Spender and Zoe Daniel have also criticised the change.
But the leader of the Greens, Adam Bandt, welcomed “the reversal of this provocative move by Scott Morrison”.
