Australia joins UN effort to revive a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine

• Australia will recognise Palestine during this month’s UN General Assembly.
• The UN recently endorsed the New York Declaration, which sketches a time-bound framework for two states.
• The United States and Israel oppose the initiative; many European and Arab governments support it.
• Canberra argues recognition is necessary to maintain a political horizon and reduce civilian harm in Gaza.
• Leaders will meet again around September 22 to turn the declaration into a workplan.

Australia has committed itself to a significant diplomatic step: recognition of the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong confirmed that the move will come during the high-level week, aligning Canberra with a group of governments seeking to inject momentum back into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The decision follows the New York Declaration, adopted by the General Assembly on September 12 with 142 votes in favour, 10 against and 12 abstentions, as reported by Reuters.

The declaration emerged from a July conference convened by France and Saudi Arabia. It condemns Hamas’s attacks of October 2023, calls for hostages to be released, urges an end to the war in Gaza and demands that Israel halt annexation and settlement activity. Crucially, it lays out a transition in which a reformed Palestinian Authority governs both territories, with support from donors and a temporary UN-mandated stabilisation mission. Its annex outlines sequencing, oversight and civilian-protection measures. Such detail is rare in General Assembly texts.

For Canberra, recognition is not presented as an endpoint but as leverage. Wong has stressed in interviews and statements that Hamas will not be part of any legitimate Palestinian government, and that recognition is tied to governance reforms. Australia wants to ensure aid flows more effectively, that civilian suffering is reduced and that there remains at least the outline of a political horizon. Wong’s August 11 statement framed recognition as a practical step to keep diplomacy alive.

Washington does not share this view. In an explanation of vote, the U.S. mission said the declaration was misguided, warning it would not advance credible negotiations and might complicate efforts to secure hostage releases. Israel has dismissed the text outright and is scathing of the European and now Australian recognition drive. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently condemned Belgium’s decision to recognise Palestine, calling it “weak,” an assessment he and his ministers are likely to repeat in response to Australia’s move.

The cluster of recognition announcements is not accidental. France said on July 25 that it would recognise Palestine at the General Assembly. The United Kingdom and Canada followed with their own declarations, linking recognition to ceasefire conditions and institutional reform. Belgium said it would go further, pairing recognition with sanctions on settlement products. The effect is to concentrate diplomatic attention at UN week, using coordinated announcements to raise pressure on both sides of the conflict.

Australia’s contribution may be modest in scale but matters symbolically. It is the first time in decades that Canberra has made such a visible foreign policy move in the Middle East outside of military commitments. It places the government in line with European partners but at odds with Washington, its key security ally. Navigating this tension will not be straightforward. Wong has been careful to stress that recognition is consistent with support for Israel’s security and with longstanding bipartisan commitments to a two-state solution.

The declaration’s operational proposals matter as much as the symbolism. It calls for a UN-mandated stabilisation mission to provide civilian protection during a transitional phase. This would require member states to commit personnel, funding and logistics—something not guaranteed given the likelihood of a Security Council veto. It also demands Palestinian Authority reforms, including anti-corruption measures and new elections. Donor support is expected to be tied to such reforms. For Australia, this may mean scaling up aid in ways that are visibly accountable, a theme underscored in its August 4 announcement of further humanitarian support.

Domestic politics complicate matters. The opposition has pledged to reverse recognition if it comes to power, insisting statehood must follow negotiations, not precede them. Jewish organisations in Australia have expressed alarm, warning the move could embolden rejectionists. By contrast, Arab community leaders and humanitarian groups have welcomed it as overdue. Public opinion remains divided, though polling suggests growing support for recognition in the wake of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Regionally, recognition aligns Canberra more closely with Indonesia, Malaysia and Gulf states, all of which back concrete moves toward two states. This may improve Australia’s diplomatic standing in its neighbourhood but comes at the cost of friction with the United States and Israel. For Albanese’s government, this is a calculated trade-off: it signals independence in foreign policy while remaining inside the Western alliance system.

The coming weeks will reveal whether this calculation pays off. Leaders plan to reconvene around September 22 to translate the declaration into a workplan: ceasefire monitoring, sequencing of political steps, donor coordination for Gaza’s reconstruction and training and vetting of Palestinian security forces. If these discussions produce concrete mechanisms, recognition may have served its purpose as leverage. If they do not, sceptics will view it as empty theatre.

Australia’s wager is that recognition, tied to reform and accountability, can tilt incentives toward moderation. The risk is that it achieves little beyond diplomatic friction. The opportunity is that it helps build a coalition willing to attach real costs and benefits to behaviour on both sides. Whether that opportunity is realised depends not on the words adopted in New York but on whether governments are willing to follow through with resources, monitoring and sustained political pressure. For now, Canberra has chosen to place itself inside that coalition, in the belief that a tangible political horizon, however fragile, is better than none at all.