Email to Minister Penny Wong, and three follow-ups.
John Kilcullen

First Message 17 October 2024

Dear Minister Wong,

I suggest you consider calling on the UNSC to take action regarding the horrendous events in the Middle East. The UN was designed to deal with threats to world or regional peace. We have forgotten what powers it was meant to have because of the frequent exercise of the Veto by the Security Council permanent members. Maybe such a veto is not so likely at present, because the Biden-Harris administration must be looking for a reason to change its stance. Maybe the US, UK, France, China, Russia, can work out a course of action without provoking a US veto.

Australia can refer the matter to the Security Council. You do not have to get the agreement of the US, or any other country, to do so: Australia by itself could put the matter before the Security Council.

Here are some relevant extracts from the UN Charter.

Article 34

The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 35 (1)

Any Member of the United Nations [e.g. Australia] may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

For your Government to refer the matter to the UNSC would not be to take sides, it would not threaten “social cohesion”. The Security Council would have to design a course of action that was fair to all parties to the disputes. The course of action would probably involve coercion: it is clear, after all these years, that pretended negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and their neighbours will not lead to any result. It is necessary for the great powers to exert pressure. That is what UNSC was designed to do.

Let me offer some criticisms of current Labor policy. (I am a member of the ALP and have been for many years).

(1). Recognition of Palestine, as is, as a state would be an empty gesture. Many countries have done that, and it has made absolutely no difference to the situation of the Palestinians. That is because Palestine is not in fact a state, and recognising it as such would be a fiction. (You have assured Jewish Australians that there will be no such recognition.) The Palestinian Authority was never a state and is now discredited among Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2005 for a three-year term; there have been no elections since, because his party would have been defeated.

(2). There never will be a two-state solution, because Israel will never tolerate a Palestinian state, which it regards as a threat to the existence of Israel. This has always been Netanyahu’s position (see note 8A) and most Israelis agree with him.

(3). There is not and never has been a “peace process”. At various times, as a result of US pressure (the US would like the issue to go away) Palestinians and Israelis have pretended to negotiate, but never in good faith.

(4). No one has the authority to set a “time-line” for the realisation of a Palestinian state, and such a time-line could not be enforced. Entry to the UN is determined by Art.4 of the Charter, which gives no place to time-lines.

Expelling the Israeli ambassador and various other proposals from people concerned about Israel’s behaviour are likely to be ineffective, in my opinion. What is needed is for the UNSC to do the job it was designed to do, and Australia can initiate that.

After many years of attention to this subject (see here, here, here) I have no optimism for a happy outcome. In the short term I think the objectives should be (1) an immediate, unconditional and permanent cessation of military action; (2) relief of distress, release of hostages, just and public processing of administrative detainees; (3) a truth-and-justice process, and (4) bringing to justice and punishment of all who have committed war crimes/crimes against humanity too serious to be dealt with by (3), no matter what their political or military office.

In the long run (the very long run) I think the aim must be a single multi-cultural state of Israel/Palestine within the borders of League of Nations Mandated Palestine. The collective “self-determination” of Jewish and Muslim Israelis/Palestinians must be within the framework of a single democratic state. (Israel defines itself as the nation-state of the Jewish people”; on Zionism as nationalism see here). Canada has led the way on thinking about multi-cultural (i.e. multi-national) states.

Meanwhile I suggest you avoid describing Israel as an ally or friend: Australia’s relationship with Israel is that of one UN member with another, no more special than our relation with Peru. Also, avoid referring to Israel as a democracy: a state that rules over a population half of whom have no right to vote, or no possibility of influencing government, is not a democracy. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed: neither the British when they ruled Palestine nor the Israelis have ever sought consent from the Arab Palestinians.

And I suggest you also avoid talking about social cohesion: to many people it seems you are asking them not to care, or not to express their thoughts or feelings, about the death and destruction Israel is raining down on Palestinians. The only way to protect social cohesion in this country is to take action to stop the death and destruction.

Second Message 11 June, 2025

Dear Minister Wong,

Last October I wrote to you suggesting that Australia put the Israel/Palestine conflict before the UNSC and urge that body to intervene. See message [above].

I am writing to urge you again to take that action. In the meantime other countries have put a resolution on the matter before the UNSC, but the US vetoed it. This cannot be the end of the matter. I suggest that there be a new attempt, initiated by you, with a resolution that includes whatever the US requires. This may take some negotiation with the US, but as an AUKUS member, as one of the closest supporters of the US, Australia should be able to work out something the US would accept.

As I understand it, the US requires that Hamas immediately and unconditionally release the hostages it holds and that Hamas fighters lay down their arms and leave Gaza. Those requirements ought to be accepted. Hostage-taking is cruel and immoral, and Hamas does no good by continuing the fight in Gaza. 

Provided the resolution calls for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire and for immediate and unconditional lifting of all restrictions on the entry and distribution of humanitarian aid in Gaza under UN supervision, it does not really matter what else is added to it.

The various other things the Australian government has done, or is being urged to do, seem to me to be very unlikely to bring about any change in the Israeli government’s behaviour. But Israel could hardly ignore a united call by the UN Security Council.

Third message, 6 August 2025