The border is the 1967 Green Line. A UN Commission of Inquiry has found Israel responsible for genocide in Gaza; the party accepts that finding and holds that Israel must answer at the International Court of Justice. Every military export stops while it is unresolved. One standard, applied to every state, including allies.
Sovereign Australia recognises the State of Palestine on the 1967 Green Line, with East Jerusalem as its capital, alongside the State of Israel within secure and recognised borders. Australia’s recognition, granted at the United Nations in September 2025, stands and is not reopened.
The Green Line is the line from which the International Court of Justice measured the occupation in its advisory opinion of 19 July 2024, finding Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful and requiring it to end. Variations are for the two parties to agree between themselves, and cannot be created unilaterally by settlement, annexation or fact on the ground.
On 16 September 2025 the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry found that Israel is responsible for the commission of genocide in Gaza: four of the five acts defined in Article II of the Genocide Convention established, and genocidal intent established on the record of statements by senior Israeli officials. It recommended that genocide charges be added to the International Criminal Court warrants, and that states cease transferring arms that may be used in genocidal acts.
Sovereign Australia accepts that finding as credible and adopts it as the basis of policy. It is a finding by a standing UN commission, not a determination by a court — and the court proceeding is unfinished. South Africa’s case is in written pleadings, with a Reply and Rejoinder ordered on 21 May 2026 and no merits judgment delivered.
Israel must answer at the International Court of Justice, and Australia should say so and act accordingly in the meantime. The obligation under the Genocide Convention is to prevent, and prevention is not satisfied by observing.
The conduct of the campaign in Lebanon raises the same questions and belongs in the same forum. No international court or commission has yet made a determination on it. The ICC investigation and any competent Court proceeding should extend to Lebanon, with Australian support for the referral and the funding of that work.
Palestinians need a home in their own nation. Moving the population of Gaza to Australia, or anywhere else, works against the Palestinian cause: permanent removal from the land is the outcome the displacement is designed to produce, and every population transfer out of Gaza makes the two-state settlement less achievable.
What the party demands instead is safe space for Palestinians inside the two-state solution — a viable state on the Green Line, with the security, reconstruction and guarantees that make living in it possible. Australia’s effort goes to securing that, to the reconstruction of Gaza, and to humanitarian access in the meantime.
This is the position most states in the region have taken, deliberately. Under the Arab League’s Casablanca Protocol of 1965, Palestinians in member states were granted rights to work, residence and travel while retaining their Palestinian nationality. The retention is the point: naturalising a displaced population converts people holding a right of return under General Assembly Resolution 194 into citizens of somewhere else, and settles the question without a negotiation. Australia does not assist in extinguishing Palestinian status by absorbing it.
Settlements in the occupied territory are unlawful — the position of the UN Security Council in Resolution 2334 and of the International Court of Justice in July 2024. Australia does not recognise any Israeli sovereignty beyond the Green Line and opposes annexation in any form, including de facto annexation by administrative measure. Goods produced in settlements are excluded from preferential treatment and labelled as originating in the occupied territory.
Israel is to prosecute its own settlers. Violence against Palestinians and their property — assault, arson, killing, destruction of olive groves, seizure of land and water — is criminal conduct under Israeli law in territory Israel controls. Monitoring by Israeli legal organisations, principally Yesh Din, has found that the great majority of investigation files close without indictment and only about three per cent end in conviction. Targeted sanctions apply to those engaged in settler violence, land seizure and settlement construction, and to the officials responsible for those policies, until enforcement is demonstrated in charges and convictions rather than undertakings.
The Australian Government’s position is that it does not export weapons to Israel. It also participates in the global supply chain for the F-35, which is operated by the Israeli Air Force. Both statements are true at once, which is why repeating the first has not settled the question. The UN Special Rapporteur’s report of October 2025 named Australia among the states continuing to grant or partially retain permits, and identified continued transfer of F-35 parts.
Suspend all of it. No weapons, platforms, parts, sub-components, explosives, propellants, energetics, electronics, software or dual-use items — nothing that contributes to the war effort, by any pathway, direct or through a third country or a multinational program including the F-35. The suspension holds while the Commission’s finding stands unresolved by the Court.
With it: publish the full register of permits, end-users, components and destinations, which is currently not public, and legislate an end-use test that applies to parts, components and dual-use goods rather than only to complete weapons. The Arms Trade Treaty does not distinguish between defensive and non-lethal transfers, and neither should Australian law. The same test applies to any recipient where a competent body has found a serious risk of the transferred item being used in atrocity crimes.
Australia does not know who its citizens have fought for. There is no register of Australians serving in the armed forces of foreign states, no declaration requirement and no reporting obligation. Service in a recognised state’s regular forces is not an offence and Sovereign Australia does not propose to make it one; not knowing is the problem to be fixed.
A full register. Australian citizens and permanent residents who serve, or have served since October 2023, in the armed forces of any foreign state must declare it. Commonwealth-maintained, with aggregate numbers published by country and year and individual records available to the Australian Federal Police, the courts and any lawful inquiry. Failure to declare is an offence. It applies to every country without exception — Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Russia, China and all others.
Accountability. Australia has universal jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under Division 268 of the Criminal Code. Where credible evidence exists that a person subject to Australian jurisdiction participated in atrocity crimes, in any conflict and in any uniform, the AFP investigate and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions decides on the evidence, with the war-crimes investigative capacity funded to do the work.
The political veto goes. Division 268 proceedings cannot commence without the written consent of the Attorney-General, which places a political decision in front of a criminal one and is the reason the provisions have almost never been used. The consent requirement is removed.
No safe haven. A foreign soldier credibly alleged to have committed atrocity crimes should not enter, transit or reside in Australia without that allegation being examined. Visa decisions and entry screening apply the same test to every foreign military.
Committed already in the federal platform, under the foreign-influence Royal Commission: registration and disclosure of foreign-aligned political activity, with no exemption for an ally. Within scope are the description by former Foreign Minister Bob Carr of the pro-Israel lobby as the largest foreign influence operation run in Australia, research finding that Australian parliamentarians take more privately sponsored trips to Israel than to any other country, and sponsored travel by senior figures during periods of active international scrutiny. These are facts on the public record and may have ordinary explanations; the Commission exists to establish which, under oath.
The identical test applies to pro-Palestinian organisations, China-aligned bodies, United States-funded institutes and every other externally funded attempt to shape Australian policy. A standard that exempts a friend is not a standard.
Memo 11 — Israel and Palestine: The Party Position. The full position issue by issue, with the legal findings attributed to the bodies that made them, and a table of where all five parties stand on each question. With sources.