Australia’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state is neither a clear and obvious moral move to make, nor is it profoundly wrong. It is a vexed call. Anyone who claims otherwise is blinded by their own bias.

It is easy to see why Albo has done what he has. Within the Labor Party and within his faction, the Left, the PM has long been an activist for the Palestinian cause. 

Since becoming Labor leader, and then PM, he has tempered that activism. But he now sees an opportunity to push the national position into line with his long-held principles.

It’s not unfair to say that for the PM, this move fills a void that the defeat of the Indigenous Voice referendum left in his ideological heart. He’s achieving something a younger Albo would have been proud of. 

But is it the right move?

The PM is aligning Australia with a broader push among key allies to recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September, hitching us to a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict before some believe the timing is right. 

Albo has only made the move with international cover. The US won’t recognise Palestine anytime soon, certainly not before hostages are released by Hamas, but Australia is following the lead of the UK, France, Canada and New Zealand in doing what it has.

Albo’s announcement doesn’t therefore put Australia at the vanguard of Western nations shifting their position.

The government’s line is that recognising Palestine supports a ceasefire, pressures the Palestinian Authority to reform, isolates Hamas and keeps a political horizon open as the debilitating war drags on. The symbolism of recognising Palestine is designed to create diplomatic momentum.

By formally recognising Palestine as a state, Anthony Albanese is achieving something a younger Albo would have been proud of… But is it the right move? 

That said, there are clear counterarguments too. Hamas is still holding in excess of 50 Israeli hostages in appalling conditions, and using some as propaganda.

The terrorist organisation hasn’t been extinguished, nor has it recanted its support for wiping Israel off the face of the map. It won’t even acknowledge the October 7 attacks were wrong. 

And it would be foolish to think the growing tide of support for recognising Palestine at this time isn’t a PR victory for the terrorists, however much Western nations might hope Hamas has been marginalised going forward.

We’ve seen Hamas come back from the dead before.

But there’s a domestic political layer to Albo’s decision that is also hard to ignore, and can’t be disconnected from what he has done.

Albo’s calculation – and the ‘allies’ he owes an apology 

Recognition of Palestine plays well in Labor heartland seats with large Muslim communities, where the issue resonates deeply. 

Especially in Western Sydney, where they are a major voting bloc in an area dominated by Labor.

Some of Labor’s Right-faction MPs have long supported Israel’s cause in the Middle East. But the changing demographics in their electorates have increasingly given them pause for thought.

They are now in lockstep with Albo, discarding their past positions.

By contrast, many Jewish Australians see Albo’s move as a moral error and a strategic misstep. 

Foreign Minister Penny Wong and the Labor cabinet were much more cautious on this issue earlier in the conflict. 

Ed Husic, once the innovation minister, has been consistently vocal on Palestine, despite being part of Labor’s Right faction. 

When he was still in cabinet, Husic – the first Muslim to be made a minister in Australia – pushed for the government to do more, but was left isolated. 

Now he’s been left out from the decision-making table altogether, dumped from Cabinet. Where is his apology?

And Senator Fatima Payman’s break with the party over what should happen in Gaza was rounded on by Albo at the time. He called for her to resign. 

So does ‘rogue’ senator Fatima Payman get an apology? She left Labor over her stance on Gaza – and Albo then called for her to resign her seat in the Senate

Ed Husic (on far right, marching over the Sydney Harbour Bridge) – the first Muslim minister in Australian government – was vocal about the Palestine issue at the Cabinet table… He’s now been left out of Cabinet altogether. Where is his apology?

Would she now be welcomed back into the Labor fold, if that’s what she wanted? 

Her only crime was being ahead of her time, and challenging the PM at a more delicate moment – when his government had a slender majority… and an election to win!

None of this proves that Albo’s Palestine decision is driven by electoral arithmetic or changing political fortunes. 

But it’s hard to separate the very political incentives for Albo to back Palestine from his own decisions. 

That won’t surprise anyone who has watched Albo’s political evolution over the years.

Move raises some very thorny questions 

Meanwhile, it can’t be forgotten that many hostages from the October 7 attacks remain unaccounted for. 

Extending the hand of recognition before their release risks giving away our moral and diplomatic leverage for nothing concrete in return. 

It’s not that the principle of Palestinian self-determination is wrong, but doing it in the middle of stalled hostage diplomacy looks premature.

Hamas’s atrocities lit the fuse for the current phase of conflict. Recognition can now be read, however unfairly, as failing to separate legitimate aspirations for Palestinian statehood from Hamas’s terrorism and atrocities.

The government argues recognition and fighting Hamas aren’t mutually exclusive, citing the precedent of Australia maintaining relations with states even when parts of them were under ISIS control. 

You can thank the former university debater Tony Burke for that little piece of rhetorical gymnastics. It’s far from a perfect analogy.

Syria and Iraq were internationally recognised states long before ISIS arrived, Palestine is not. The question is whether recognition now advances a workable end state, or just adds to the noise and weakens the only democracy in the Middle East: Israel. 

Ask yourself this: would Hamas consider what Albo has done a win? That might not be sufficient reason not to act, but if the answer is ‘yes’ at the very least it should temper enthusiasm for the move.

A Getty Images photo of Gaza City today as Palestinians, deprived of basic necessities such as shelter, food and clean water, struggle to survive. Recognition of a Palestinian state, if tied to real reform and enforceable conditions, could form part of a viable future for Israel and Palestine. But right now, the conditions don’t seem to be in place

The next problem is the Palestinian Authority itself. It is riddled with patronage and lacks legitimacy with its own people, making it weak. 

The government says it has secured commitments from the Palestinian Authority on some of these fronts: governance reform, elections, an end to prisoner payments, demilitarisation, schooling reform and assurances that Hamas will have no role in a future Palestinian state. 

It’s a big ‘if’ that these conditions could stick. Recognising Palestine, in the hope that the Palestinian Authority does better than it has in the past, might be wishful thinking. 

History suggests a fragile Palestinian Authority risks being toppled or outmanoeuvred by Hamas the moment international pressure eases.

While the fact Israel is a democracy surrounded by authoritarian states doesn’t excuse some of its conduct in Gaza or its settlement policies, it should also give pause for thought before further isolating it without a clear plan for what comes next.

If the strategic goal is to bend Israel back toward a negotiated two-state outcome, recognition has to be part of a broader package: security guarantees, reconstruction planning and conditions on both sides.

Moving in step with Western allies can create an impression of momentum, but it also risks masking these hard realities on what must come next. Recognition doesn’t bring hostages home, reform the Palestinian Authority or disarm Hamas. 

Those outcomes depend on leverage and regional buy-in. Albo’s move helps with the latter but not the former.

So I’m left where I started, able to see both sides. Recognition of a Palestinian state, if tied to real reform and enforceable conditions, could form part of a viable future for Israel and Palestine. 

It signals the outcome most want and draws a line against Hamas. 

But right now, the conditions don’t appear to be in place, including the unavoidable reality that Israel shows no sign of trusting the process and the US strongly disagrees with what its allies, including us, are doing.