Anyone wondering why Australia is confronting an antisemitism crisis should pay close attention to a revealing exchange between Senator James Paterson and Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
It exposed a troubling contradiction in Australia’s approach to Palestinian statehood – Western governments continue to demand accountability from Palestinian leaders while offering diplomatic recognition without clearly explaining what happens when commitments are not fulfilled.
Paterson asked Wong whether the Albanese government had changed its policy so that Australia could recognise a Palestinian state without requiring the parties to meet the commitments and conditions previously established for recognition.
Wong’s response was, in my view, telling: ‘The Palestinian people want a state.’
Of course they do.
I want a Boeing 747, but no one is giving me one. Wanting a state and demonstrating the responsibilities necessary to govern one are two entirely different things.
Paterson pursued the obvious contradiction. Why would the Palestinian Authority honour its commitments if Australia was prepared to recognise Palestinian statehood regardless?
‘Why would the PA feel any need to deliver on these commitments given that you won’t change your policy?’ he asked.
Wong dismissed his characterisation: ‘These are your words and I disagree with them.’
But disagreement does not resolve the question.
For years, Western governments have insisted that Palestinian statehood must be accompanied by credible governance, democratic accountability, institutional reform, security guarantees and a genuine commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel.
These were supposed to be the foundations of a viable and peaceful state.
Yet recognition is increasingly being treated not as the outcome of demonstrated responsibility, but as an instrument to encourage responsibility at some unspecified future date.
Apparently, Western governments believe that if they offer enough diplomatic rewards, Palestinian leaders will eventually embrace peaceful coexistence. Never mind the persistent rejectionist rhetoric, the glorification of violence, or the refusal by some Palestinian factions to accept Israel’s existence. For those factions, the objective has never been coexistence with Israel, but Israel’s destruction. Yet Western governments continue behaving as though another diplomatic concession might somehow change that.
The distinction is enormous. And so is the naivety of assuming that rewarding intransigence will somehow produce moderation.
When governments announce political rewards before reforms have been delivered, they risk undermining the very leverage that might have secured those reforms.
Why undertake difficult reforms, confront entrenched corruption or demonstrate meaningful accountability when Western governments appear willing to offer diplomatic legitimacy without insisting on measurable results?
Why make politically costly compromises when the international community continues lowering the price of recognition?
And the timing could scarcely have been more revealing.
On 27 October, millions of Israelis were exercising their democratic right to vote in a national election, deciding who should govern them and holding their political leaders accountable at the ballot box.
Contrast that with the Palestinian Authority, which has not held a presidential election since 2005. Mahmoud Abbas continues to govern more than two decades after his election, without having faced the voters again.
Israel’s leaders face the possibility of removal through elections. The Palestinian Authority’s leadership has avoided that electoral test for more than twenty years.
That contrast raises an obvious question for Penny Wong: Why should Palestinian statehood recognition proceed without a clear requirement for renewed democratic legitimacy?
Perhaps the international community should consider whether its approach is perpetuating the very conflict it claims to want to resolve.
By repeatedly offering diplomatic rewards without demanding democratic accountability, an unequivocal rejection of terrorism and genuine acceptance of Israel’s right to exist, Western governments just embolden those who reject peaceful coexistence.
What might change if international recognition were no longer treated as an entitlement, but as something contingent on demonstrable commitments to peace?
What if Palestinian leaders understood that rejecting Israel’s existence, glorifying violence and avoiding democratic accountability carried real diplomatic consequences?
Then there is the Palestinian Authority’s controversial prisoner-payment system, condemned by critics as ‘pay for slay’.
The system historically provided payments to prisoners convicted of security offences, including attacks that killed Israelis, and to families of those killed. Although reforms have been announced, questions remain about whether incentives linked to violence have genuinely ended, or if it is just a ‘rebranded’ pay-for-slay system.
Australia continues to provide assistance to Palestinians. That does not establish that Australian funding directly finances these payments, but it makes transparency, independent oversight and enforceable safeguards essential.
Wong should be explaining precisely how Australian assistance is protected from misuse and what consequences follow if Palestinian institutions fail to meet their commitments.
The same principle should apply to recognition.
There is another consequence that deserves serious consideration.
Australia’s antisemitism crisis cannot be explained by foreign policy alone. Nor is criticism of Israel inherently antisemitic.
But when political discourse demands accountability from Israel while minimising Palestinian leadership failures, it reinforces a distorted understanding of responsibility.
Jewish Australians should not face intimidation, harassment or collective blame for events overseas as much as Russians in Australia should not be held accountable. Political leaders must challenge that hatred unequivocally while maintaining consistent standards in their international diplomacy.
Recognition may be intended to strengthen moderate Palestinian leadership and preserve the possibility of a two-state solution. Yet without enforceable conditions, it may instead convince leaders that international pressure on Israel can substitute for institutional reform.
Senator Paterson’s question therefore deserves a substantive answer.
If recognition proceeds regardless of whether commitments are fulfilled, what leverage remains?
What consequences follow when promises are broken?
And what message does that send to Palestinian leaders about the seriousness of Australia’s demands?
The Palestinian Authority does not need to make a mockery of Western governments. Western governments are doing a fine job of that themselves when they offer diplomatic rewards without demonstrating that their own conditions matter.
If the international community genuinely wants peace, it must stop confusing recognition with reform and diplomatic gestures with meaningful progress.
Because rewarding promises without demanding results is not a strategy for lasting peace. It is an invitation to continue the status quo.
The post Why would the Palestinian Authority change? appeared first on The Spectator Australia.
