Given that a week ago Donald Trump effectively dumped the 20-year US commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as part of a permanent Middle East peace agreement, Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Australia, so soon afterwards was always going to present Malcolm Turnbull with something of a diplomatic challenge.
What we’ve learned in the opening stanza of the Trump presidency is that the Turnbull government prefers not to be publicly at odds with the new occupant of the White House.
Privately, it’s another matter. The sensational Washington Post report of the tense conversation between Trump and Turnbull over the refugee resettlement deal in early February confirmed that the Australian prime minister believes he has Trump’s measure in a personality sense, and doesn’t resile from giving it to him in private.
In any case, in public, once the Israeli prime minister made landfall in Sydney on Wednesday, there would be a careful diplomatic line to walk to ensure that Turnbull was not going to follow Trump blindly down the road of recasting foreign policy in the Middle East as a reality television show, a spin-off of Deal Or No Deal titled: Bring Me Whatever Deal You Want, Bibi.
And Turnbull walked it.
He made it clear that Australia remains committed to a two-state solution. In so doing, Turnbull pretended that the US hadn’t just turfed its longstanding support for the same model of Middle East peace. Trump’s new position on Israel, Turnbull reasoned, had been a bit “over-interpreted”.
It hasn’t, actually. The president’s comments last week were a clear departure from the position of previous administrations – but never mind. Saying bystanders have got it wrong is much less searing than saying Trump mucked it up. To put it another way, a brief swerve into the bushes is more manageable than a head-on collision.
So Turnbull zoomed past the obvious difference with the Trump administration with a small rhetorical fiction, then proceeded to wrap his more hard-nosed advice to Netanyahu in a flutter of compliments.
Turnbull thought Israel had been very hard done by in the United Nations, which passed a resolution last December condemning Israel’s controversial settlements program in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The Australian government would not support “one-sided resolutions” (which was simply a reiteration of Australia’s position at the time, but helpfully dressed up by the Australian newspaper for propaganda purposes as a blistering repudiation of the UN) or boycotts.
There were words of comfort, too, from Turnbull, about Israel’s right to be secure, and to protect its citizens.
Having swerved, flattered and pacified, Turnbull then moved to the nub of the issue.
Get on with it, Bibi, was the Australian prime minister’s exhortation, delivered in a cloak of unctuousness. Turnbull thought now might be a good time to “come back to the table” and reach an agreement.
“Perhaps the moons are aligning,” he prodded, whimsically.
Bill Shorten wasn’t moon gazing, he was also swerving through potential landmines, trying to look through a clear campaign within his own Labor ranks, spearheaded by a bunch of luminaries, to get tough with Israel.
Shorten, like Turnbull, was for the two-state solution (take that Bob, Kevin, Bob, Gareth). “We expect the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel’s legitimate right to security. Now, of course, we acknowledge the people of Palestine’s legitimate aspirations for a state of their own and this will take leadership from both sides.”
In an attempt to hold at bay a concerted push for his party to adopt a policy of the diplomatic recognition of Palestine, Shorten and his foreign affairs spokeswoman, Senator Penny Wong, have had to make it known they will criticise Israeli settlement building during their bilateral meeting with Netanyahu.
In public though, discretion was the better part of valour.
The opposition leader thought the parties ought to return to direct negotiations and refrain “from actions that jeopardise this”. He meant aggressive settlement building of course.
But best not mention the s-word, not while polite people are having a bite of lunch. Bibi might not like it.
Katharine Murphy Political editor
Given that a week ago Donald Trump effectively dumped the 20-year US commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as part of a permanent Middle East peace agreement, Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Australia, so soon afterwards was always going to present Malcolm Turnbull with something of a diplomatic challenge.
What we’ve learned in the opening stanza of the Trump presidency is that the Turnbull government prefers not to be publicly at odds with the new occupant of the White House.
Privately, it’s another matter. The sensational Washington Post report of the tense conversation between Trump and Turnbull over the refugee resettlement deal in early February confirmed that the Australian prime minister believes he has Trump’s measure in a personality sense, and doesn’t resile from giving it to him in private.
In any case, in public, once the Israeli prime minister made landfall in Sydney on Wednesday, there would be a careful diplomatic line to walk to ensure that Turnbull was not going to follow Trump blindly down the road of recasting foreign policy in the Middle East as a reality television show, a spin-off of Deal Or No Deal titled: Bring Me Whatever Deal You Want, Bibi.
And Turnbull walked it.
He made it clear that Australia remains committed to a two-state solution. In so doing, Turnbull pretended that the US hadn’t just turfed its longstanding support for the same model of Middle East peace. Trump’s new position on Israel, Turnbull reasoned, had been a bit “over-interpreted”.
It hasn’t, actually. The president’s comments last week were a clear departure from the position of previous administrations – but never mind. Saying bystanders have got it wrong is much less searing than saying Trump mucked it up. To put it another way, a brief swerve into the bushes is more manageable than a head-on collision.
So Turnbull zoomed past the obvious difference with the Trump administration with a small rhetorical fiction, then proceeded to wrap his more hard-nosed advice to Netanyahu in a flutter of compliments.
Turnbull thought Israel had been very hard done by in the United Nations, which passed a resolution last December condemning Israel’s controversial settlements program in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The Australian government would not support “one-sided resolutions” (which was simply a reiteration of Australia’s position at the time, but helpfully dressed up by the Australian newspaper for propaganda purposes as a blistering repudiation of the UN) or boycotts.
There were words of comfort, too, from Turnbull, about Israel’s right to be secure, and to protect its citizens.
Having swerved, flattered and pacified, Turnbull then moved to the nub of the issue.
Get on with it, Bibi, was the Australian prime minister’s exhortation, delivered in a cloak of unctuousness. Turnbull thought now might be a good time to “come back to the table” and reach an agreement.
“Perhaps the moons are aligning,” he prodded, whimsically.
Bill Shorten wasn’t moon gazing, he was also swerving through potential landmines, trying to look through a clear campaign within his own Labor ranks, spearheaded by a bunch of luminaries, to get tough with Israel.
Shorten, like Turnbull, was for the two-state solution (take that Bob, Kevin, Bob, Gareth). “We expect the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel’s legitimate right to security. Now, of course, we acknowledge the people of Palestine’s legitimate aspirations for a state of their own and this will take leadership from both sides.”
In an attempt to hold at bay a concerted push for his party to adopt a policy of the diplomatic recognition of Palestine, Shorten and his foreign affairs spokeswoman, Senator Penny Wong, have had to make it known they will criticise Israeli settlement building during their bilateral meeting with Netanyahu.
In public though, discretion was the better part of valour.
The opposition leader thought the parties ought to return to direct negotiations and refrain “from actions that jeopardise this”. He meant aggressive settlement building of course.
But best not mention the s-word, not while polite people are having a bite of lunch. Bibi might not like it.