But one of the statements that was made publicly by leaders was that Gaza had been occupied for 75 years. Given the recent change in the terminology used by the government to Occupied Palestinian Territories, does DFAT support that view that the Palestinian territories have been occupied for 75 years?
Senator FAWCETT: I will kick off while the chair’s distracted—always a good tactic. Given the unfortunate events in the Gaza strip and the Hamas attack on Israel, I think most Australians were concerned to see some extreme elements amongst protests in Sydney, with statements made essentially glorifying and rejoicing in the acts committed by Hamas. But one of the statements that was made publicly by leaders was that Gaza had been occupied for 75 years. Given the recent change in the terminology used by the government to Occupied Palestinian Territories, does DFAT support that view that the Palestinian territories have been occupied for 75 years?
Ms Adams : I don’t think I’m going to give a yes or no answer to that. The terminology question has been discussed before. I have nothing new to say on the terminology.
Senator FAWCETT: This is a question about a claim that is being put to the Australian people, and which has been reported by the media, that Israel has occupied Palestinian territory for 75 years. That is not limited to the West Bank nor to Gaza; it is in totality. It goes to the very essence of whether the state of Israel is legitimate. Does DFAT support the terminology that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories for 75 years, or do you refute that claim?
Senator Wong: I was distracted. What was the first part of the quote you referenced?
Senator FAWCETT: The process—I understand and empathise with the Palestinian diaspora the distress they feel, but claims were made by leaders in Sydney were that Israel has occupied Palestinian lands for 75 years. I’m asking: does DFAT dispute those claims? It goes to the validity of Israel’s right to exist as a state.
Ms Adams : You’ve made me regret that I’ve let my Middle Eastern policy colleagues go back and run the crisis centre! I’m not going to be in a position to make a definitive statement about DFAT views.
Senator Wong: Perhaps I can assist on this. We made a decision, and if you want to ask a lot of questions about this, I’ll try to assist. But I have I think rightly allowed a number of officials who are dealing with the current crisis to return to the department. We have adopted the term Occupied Palestinian Territories, which aligns with the UNSC resolution and the approach taken by the majority of the international community. This includes the United Kingdom, the European Union and New Zealand. In using this term, we are clarifying that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza were occupied by Israel during the 1967 War. You then I think suggested that somehow—I don’t actually quite understand the position you’re putting—
Senator FAWCETT: Minister, won’t you just clarify—
Senator Wong: Please let me finish. There’s somehow a suggestion that the Australian government position in relation to Israel has changed. It hasn’t. And I have—
Senator FAWCETT: No. What I’m asking is that there has been a public statement—
CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, I don’t want to interrupt, but the minister was actually still trying to conclude her answer to you—
Senator FAWCETT: But she’s struggling to answer the question, and I just want to restate the question.
CHAIR: Minister, you have the call.
Senator Wong: I was going to go on to say that we repeatedly asserted, both then and now, our support for Israel’s right to exist and our support for a two-state solution. I appreciate you may have different views, Senator Fawcett, but that is the Australian government’s view. If I may say, it has generally been a bipartisan position. In relation to the protest, there were a lot of comments made at that protest, if it is the one I’m thinking about. I was asked a question on the Monday morning following one of the protests, which may be the one you’re referencing, including some of the comments made. I made the point, which I have continued to make, that there is no place in this country for incitement of hatred, for statements of prejudice, for antisemitism or for Islamophobia.
Senator FAWCETT: Minister, the crux of the question was the statement of 75 years of occupation.
Senator Wong: It’s not our statement.
Senator FAWCETT: I’m not accusing the government of it being their statement. What I’m saying is that, as a narrative that has been pronounced in Australia by communities and reported in the media, I think it is important for the government to indicate that it’s not the government’s position that the Palestinian territories have been occupied for 75 years because—
Senator Wong: We support a two-state solution.
CHAIR: Minister, could you let the senator conclude his question, please?
Senator FAWCETT: Narratives are important because they tend to build views and actions within communities, and it’s important for the government to indicate whether or not it refutes—and I’m assuming it does—the narrative that the Palestinian lands have been occupied for 75 years. That would go to the very existence of Israel, which I’m assuming because—as you’ve said, Minister— for many years, and on a bipartisan basis, we have recognised Israel as a state and its right to live within secure border.
Senator Wong: Correct. I don’t know why I have to say this again, frankly, but I’m happy to say again that Australia supports Israel’s right to exist. The Labor government and foreign minister were involved in the UN decisions which implemented partition. We support a two-state solution.
Senator FAWCETT: Can I take it from that you don’t agree with the narrative of 75 years of occupation?
Senator Wong: I’ll use my words. We support the right of Israel to exist and we support a two-state solution.
Senator FAWCETT: Regarding the term ‘illegal settlements’, I understand from FOI documents that there was a brief provided to the government regarding that.
Senator Wong: I have let all these officials involved in this go, so if we’re going to do this can we come back to it? I thought there might be some questions, but if you’re going to go into the issue of legality of settlements, UNSC resolutions et cetera, I will need those officials to return. I’m happy to make a time for them to come back.
Senator FAWCETT: I’m more interested to just understand the process within government—not the department—in terms of the engagements and briefings, for example, of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister before this position was adopted.
Senator Wong: We’ll need the officials to come back, so we’ll come back to it.