Australia has no mandate to shape peace

Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada have announced an International Peace Fund for Israelis and Palestinians. Each government will contribute the equivalent of approximately AUD$2 million over three years to civil society organisations involved in dialogue and peacebuilding.

There is nothing inherently wrong with supporting cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians. There are people on both sides doing serious and courageous work. The question is whether the governments behind this initiative have shown the judgement required to decide which organisations and ideas should be supported.

Australia’s recent record gives little confidence.

Under Penny Wong, Australian policy has become increasingly dependent on joint declarations and diplomatic gestures presented as progress towards a two-state solution. In practice, the government has placed growing pressure on Israel while expecting far less of Palestinian political leaders and institutions.

This was most clearly demonstrated by Australia’s recognition of the State of Palestine in September 2025, announced alongside Britain and Canada.

Recognition had generally been understood as something that would follow negotiations over borders, governance, security, and mutual recognition. The Albanese Government reversed that sequence, arguing that recognition could itself encourage a political settlement.

It did so despite the Palestinian Authority’s lack of democratic legitimacy, its inability to govern Gaza and the continuing power of Hamas. Australia referred to commitments from Mahmoud Abbas to hold elections and reform Palestinian governance, finance, and education, but recognition was granted before those commitments were fulfilled.

A major diplomatic concession was handed over in advance rather than retained as leverage for meaningful reform.

Coming after the atrocities of 7 October 2023, the timing was deeply troubling. The government did not set out to reward Hamas, but foreign policy must also be judged by the incentives it creates. Recognition after mass murder and hostage-taking risked conveying that violence against Israel could produce greater international pressure and faster diplomatic gains.

The government says its approach is necessary to preserve the prospect of two states. Yet Western support has never been the missing ingredient. The central obstacle has been the refusal of major Palestinian political movements to accept Jewish national sovereignty as legitimate and permanent.

No peace process can succeed while Israel’s existence, rather than a particular government, border or policy, is treated as the original injustice. It cannot succeed while terrorism is celebrated and compromise is portrayed as betrayal.

The new fund says very little about these realities.

Australia, Britain, and Canada say they want to strengthen moderates, marginalise extremists and rebuild trust. They have not yet explained how organisations will be selected or how they will determine whether an applicant is genuinely committed to coexistence.

The reference to funding “trusted” organisations is particularly vague. Who decides which organisations are trusted? Will officials examine their leadership, partnerships, educational material, funding sources, and public advocacy?

Some peacebuilding organisations do valuable work. Others speak the language of dialogue to Western donors while supporting boycotts, campaigns to isolate Israel or political arguments that deny Jewish national legitimacy.

Australian taxpayers should be told whether organisations that reject Israel’s right to exist will be eligible. The same applies to groups that glorify terrorists, excuse attacks on civilians or use peacebuilding grants to pursue political campaigns against Israel.

The government has announced the fund before publishing its governance arrangements, selection criteria, or accountability measures. Those details will determine whether this is a credible peace initiative or simply another international program built around agreeable language.

Australia’s domestic record should also restrain its ambitions.

The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion is examining the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, the experiences of Jewish Australians and the adequacy of government responses. Its establishment followed repeated warnings that anti-Israel activism was spilling into intimidation, exclusion, and hostility towards Jews.

A country still investigating how antisemitic radicalisation became so dangerous within its own borders should be careful about claiming the ability to identify and marginalise extremists in Israeli and Palestinian society.

Australia’s influence in the region is also limited. Penny Wong has acknowledged that Australia is not a central player in the Middle East. It has little leverage over Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Iran or Hezbollah, and it is not a principal mediator in negotiations over hostages, ceasefires, or postwar arrangements.

The repeated agreement of Australia, Britain and Canada does not make their position balanced or authoritative. It may simply mean that three like-minded governments are validating one another’s assumptions.

For the fund to have credibility, recipient organisations should be required to reject terrorism, recognise the national rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, and demonstrate that their work advances coexistence rather than political campaigning. Their leadership, partnerships, funding, and public activities should be open to scrutiny. Grant decisions and outcomes should be published.

The initiative must also account for the collapse of Israeli trust.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Hamas seized control two years later and built an extensive military and terrorist infrastructure. For many Israelis, 7 October confirmed that withdrawal without enforceable security arrangements and profound political change can expose the country to greater danger.

Any peacebuilding program that ignores this will fail.

Palestinian leaders and civil society figures seeking international support must be prepared to tell their own people that Israel will continue to exist, that terrorism has harmed Palestinian interests and that peace requires acceptance of Jewish national rights alongside Palestinian aspirations.

Australia can support those willing to undertake that work. What it cannot credibly do is behave as though its own policies have earned it special diplomatic or moral authority.

The Albanese Government recognised Palestinian statehood before the reforms it sought had occurred. It has repeatedly joined initiatives that increase pressure on Israel while showing little capacity to influence Palestinian political behaviour. At home, it is still dealing with a grave deterioration in the security and confidence of Jewish Australians.

That record does not prevent Australia from contributing. It should, however, require far greater humility.

Without strict standards, public accountability and an honest understanding of the forces that have destroyed previous opportunities for peace, this fund risks paying for the language of coexistence while avoiding the political beliefs that have kept peace out of reach.