Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAustralian shift on Israel 'part of more balanced approach' to Middle East
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has described the Australian governments shift in favour of Israel on two key UN resolutions, including softening its stance on settlement expansion in the occupied territories, as part of a move towards a more balanced approach to the Middle East.
Australia now abstains on whether the Palestinian territories should be subject to the Geneva convention and on defining Israeli annexation of land in the occupied territories as in breach of international law. Under both previous prime ministers Australia had upheld the general assembly resolutions.
This shift reflected the governments concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced, the foreign minister said through a spokeswoman. The government will not support resolutions which are one-sided and which prejudge the outcome of final-status negotiations between the two sides.
Australia is now one of only eight nations to abstain on the resolution relating to Israeli settlement in the occupied territories and one of five to abstain on the Geneva convention resolution.
The stance has been criticised by the shadow foreign affairs minister, Tanya Plibersek, who said Australias position had shifted without debate or consultation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/australian-shift-on-israel-part-of-more-balanced-approach-to-middle-east
Australia now abstains on whether the Palestinian territories should be subject to the Geneva convention and on defining Israeli annexation of land in the occupied territories as in breach of international law. Under both previous prime ministers Australia had upheld the general assembly resolutions.
This shift reflected the governments concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced, the foreign minister said through a spokeswoman. The government will not support resolutions which are one-sided and which prejudge the outcome of final-status negotiations between the two sides.
Australia is now one of only eight nations to abstain on the resolution relating to Israeli settlement in the occupied territories and one of five to abstain on the Geneva convention resolution.
The stance has been criticised by the shadow foreign affairs minister, Tanya Plibersek, who said Australias position had shifted without debate or consultation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/australian-shift-on-israel-part-of-more-balanced-approach-to-middle-east
It comes as no surprise that a RW government that's secretive and authoritarian would make such a sharp U-turn in policy and not bother telling the Australian people. Spying on Indonesia, now this, it makes me wonder what's coming next...
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 877 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Australian shift on Israel 'part of more balanced approach' to Middle East (Original Post)
Violet_Crumble
Nov 2013
OP
delrem
(9,688 posts)1. In general the English speaking world isn't making me proud.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)2. What is a "shadow foreign affairs minister?"
Is that the person the opposition party would have made foreign minister if their party controlled the government?
Anybody know?
-Laelth
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)3. It's pretty much what you said...
I keep on forgetting that things don't work the same elsewhere...
Shadow ministers are members of the opposition, chosen by the Leader of the Opposition.
Shadow ministers have the important responsibility of scrutinising (closely examining) the work of the government and individual ministers. Each shadow minister concentrates on the work of a particular minister and government department. Shadow ministers also put forward and explain opposition policies.
Top-level shadow ministers form a Shadow Cabinet which meets regularly to develop these policies.
If there is a change of government a shadow minister may become a minister. This is why it is important for them to understand the work of the department they 'shadow' and consider how they would run their portfolio.
http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/ministers_shadow_ministers.html
Shadow ministers have the important responsibility of scrutinising (closely examining) the work of the government and individual ministers. Each shadow minister concentrates on the work of a particular minister and government department. Shadow ministers also put forward and explain opposition policies.
Top-level shadow ministers form a Shadow Cabinet which meets regularly to develop these policies.
If there is a change of government a shadow minister may become a minister. This is why it is important for them to understand the work of the department they 'shadow' and consider how they would run their portfolio.
http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/ministers_shadow_ministers.html
Laelth
(32,017 posts)4. Nifty. Thanks for the response. n/t
-Laelth
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)5. I don't think that they are reading the tea leaves very well...
Admittedly, they are mostly reverting to the stance that the conservatives took during the Howard/Downer years, but that was during the Second Intifada and the administration of George Bush. Instead you now have the US Secretary of State saying that the US does not accept the legitimacy of settlements, and the EU formulating guidelines on denying funding to NGOs involved in settlement enterprises.
They are already in trouble with the Indonesians, who will not like this either. Nor will the Malaysians.