The Australian government formally recognized a “State of Palestine” on Sept. 21, 2025. One year later, we must ask: What did recognition achieve?
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said recognition was predicated on commitments from the Palestinian Authority: recognition of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security; democratic elections; demilitarization; and reforms to governance, finance and education. The government was equally categorical that Hamas “must have no role in Palestine.”
A year later, progress on those commitments deserves scrutiny.
The Palestinian Authority has not held a presidential election since 2005. Palestinian political institutions remain deeply unstable, and questions persist about governance, education, financial accountability and the implementation of promised reforms.
The controversial Palestinian “pay for slay” program is an important example. This program pays salaries to Palestinian terrorist prisoners and their families. Many rightly view it as incentivizing terrorist violence. P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree in February 2025 replacing the previous system with a needs-based welfare model. Critics, including Israel, have disputed whether these reforms genuinely ended such payments.
Another contrast is striking: The United States has denied Abbas a visa to attend the U.N. General Assembly for a second consecutive year and extended restrictions on Palestinian officials, a decision the Palestinian Authority condemns.
In other words, Australia relied on commitments from Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to justify recognizing Palestine, even as Australia’s principal strategic ally barred him from entering the United States.
Since Oct. 7, Australia has committed more than $100 million in humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Australians are entitled to know where that money has gone, what safeguards prevent its diversion and what auditing has established about its ultimate recipients. Recognition should not mean accepting promises without demanding evidence they have been fulfilled.
Then there was a warning sign the government could hardly have missed: Hamas, which Australia lists as a terrorist organization, welcomed Australia’s decision.
That does not mean that the Australian government supports Hamas. Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have repeatedly said that Hamas must be disarmed and excluded from Palestinian governance. But when Hamas welcomes an Australian foreign-policy decision, Australians are entitled to ask why.
The domestic context has since become immeasurably darker. Since Oct. 7, Australia has witnessed demonstrations involving extremist symbols and rhetoric, alongside an alarming rise in antisemitism. Then, on Dec. 14, 2025—the first night of Chanukah—15 people were murdered on Bondi Beach by armed father-and-son terrorists.
Since Bondi, Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) director-general Mike Burgess has warned of an ominous security environment, with Australian agencies reportedly preventing four major terror plots and 16 other serious threats.
No one is suggesting that recognizing Palestine caused the Bondi massacre. Governments are, however, accountable for national security and their response when overseas conflicts spill over into hatred at home.
Recognition should not mean accepting promises without demanding evidence they have been fulfilled.
Consistency also matters.
Wong has repeatedly condemned the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Australia has denied or cancelled visas for Israeli political figures and various speakers, prompting questions about whether comparable standards are consistently applied to extremist speakers from other ideological backgrounds.
The Australian government has granted almost 3,000 visas to Palestinians since Oct. 7. The Home Affairs Department maintains that applicants undergo security and character checks. Given the difficulty of verifying identities and backgrounds in a war zone controlled for years by Hamas, Australians are entitled to scrutinize these processes and ask how security risks are identified.
Similar questions surround Australian women and children returning after voluntarily living under the Islamic State. The government says citizenship significantly constrains its ability to prevent them from doing so, but questions remain about risk assessments and continuing security monitoring.
Meanwhile, the government’s hostility toward Netanyahu is no surprise and has a long history. In 2000, for example, Albanese led protests critical of Israel while the country was led by the center-left government of Ehud Barak. So, using Netanyahu as an excuse for hostile policies toward Israel is clearly nonsense.
Wong maintains that Australia condemns Hamas, supports Israel’s right to exist and regards a two-state solution as the only sustainable path to peace. It is worth asking whether her actions are consistent with this or simply reflect a foreign policy hostile toward Israel and Zionism. The answer appears to be the latter.
Furthermore, recognition does not overcome a fundamental obstacle: Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist, while other Palestinian factions remain hostile to permanent coexistence. Advocates of the two-state solution argue that Palestinian statehood and institutional reform provide a pathway out of the conflict. Critics contend the political and security conditions necessary for two peaceful states do not currently exist.
Australia’s recognition of Palestine was presented as a practical contribution toward peace. Its first anniversary therefore deserves more than ceremonial language. It deserves an accounting.
What promised P.A. reforms have been enacted? What independent verification exists regarding financial reform and prisoner payments? What progress has been made toward demilitarization? How will Hamas be permanently excluded from government? What measurable contribution has Australian recognition made toward peace and security? When will genuinely democratic elections take place?
These are valid questions for all countries that recognized a non-existent “Palestine” a year ago.
This year, there is a poignant coincidence: The first anniversary of recognition fell on Yom Kippur, a day dedicated to reflection, repentance and accountability. The holiday’s principle of honest self-examination is one that every government should embrace when considering what kind of country it wishes to leave future generations.
A year after recognition, Albanese, Wong and their government should reexamine the assumptions that underpinned their actions, considering the subsequent reality and the decisions that helped propel antisemitism to levels unprecedented under any other government.
If the Palestinian Authority has delivered the reforms Australia expected, the government should identify them and provide the evidence that they took place. If it has not, Australians deserve to know what consequences will follow, as well as why Australia committed a further $25 million in aid to the Palestinians in July if these conditions have not been met.
Above all, the lives of Jewish Australians must never become a game of roulette.
