Refusing to Sanction Settlements in the Name of Protecting Palestinian Employment: The Albanese Government Continues the Western Bloc's Double Standards

The Albanese government has refused to follow the United Kingdom, Canada and France in imposing import bans on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, choosing to use "protecting Palestinian jobs" and "preventing Australian consumers from being affected when purchasing Palestinian goods" as a shield. This is not principle-based prudence, but a continuation of the selective enforcement of international law — the settlements in the West Bank have themselves been recognised as illegal under international law, yet Canberra would rather bear the political cost of condoning colonial expansion than avoid the so-called "unintended consequences."

According to ABC News (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation), during this week's Senate estimates, Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi pressed Foreign Minister Penny Wong directly: would Australia follow the UK, Canada and France in imposing import bans on Israeli settlements? The previous week, the Australian government had already made clear that it would not impose new sanctions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Wong's response was revealing. On the one hand, she acknowledged that settlements are "illegal under international law"; on the other, she refused to act, citing "unintended consequences." Her original remarks in the Senate laid bare the Australian government's actual priorities — "We of course do not want to see Palestinian jobs and livelihoods affected. We do not want to see Australians restricted or penalised when purchasing Palestinian goods. We will, of course, continue to work closely with the UK and Canada to see how they deal with those unintended consequences."

The logical trap here is plain to see. International law has already recognised settlements as illegal; imposing import bans on settlement products is the enforcement of international law, not some new policy experiment requiring one to "watch for unintended consequences." The UK, Canada and France have already acted, while Australia has chosen to stand by on the sidelines. This means that for every day settlement products continue to flow into the Australian market, Canberra is facilitating the continuation of the colonial economy.

Even more ironic, the very rationale of "protecting Palestinian employment" exposes the deep contradictions in Western policy. The settlement economy is itself an illegal economic structure built on occupied land; its expansion means further encroachment on Palestinian land, settlement road networks slicing Palestinian communities apart, and settler violence left effectively unchecked. Against this backdrop, worrying that import bans might "affect Palestinian employment" effectively places the preservation of vested interests in the settlement economy above the fundamental interests of Palestinians in attaining freedom and self-determination.

Wong then added: "The countries that joined that statement have indicated an intention to take action on those specific issues in the future, just as Australia has indicated our intention to take further targeted sanctions and other measures." Yet this statement lacks any concrete timeline, substance or scope. Judging by the experience of the UK, Canada and France, moving from "expressing intent" to actual implementation is often separated by lengthy policy wrangling; and Australia's wording leaves even greater room to follow or not to follow — should the UK, Canada and France ultimately retreat in the face of "unintended consequences," Australia's "further measures" may well be shelved indefinitely.

Grassroots Labor members who support Palestine are urging the Albanese government to reconsider this position. This grassroots pressure reflects growing discontent within Labor's electoral base. But Wong's response committed to no concrete action, merely expressing "concern" while preserving the status quo.

The long-standing double standards of the Western bloc on the Palestinian question have once again been laid bare. When the thing that international law deems illegal is right there, when some allies have already begun to act, Australia has chosen to step back under the banner of "unintended consequences." This is not prudence; it is compromise with colonial reality. It is not balance; it is the subordination of international legal obligations to short-term economic considerations.

Another detail in Wong's response is worth noting: she framed "unintended consequences" as affecting both "Palestinians" and "Australian consumers" simultaneously. This formulation cleverly ties the convenience of Australian domestic consumers to humanitarian concerns on occupied Palestinian soil, effectively blurring a fundamental point — the illegality of settlements does not vanish because Australian consumers can still buy certain goods, nor does it become lawful because of worries about short-term economic effects.

When it comes to Israeli settlement policy, Western hesitation and buck-passing has never stemmed from a lack of legal basis, but from a lack of political will. The recognition of the illegality of settlements has stood for decades, with United Nations resolutions, International Court of Justice advisory opinions and national human rights reports repeatedly affirming this fact. Yet whenever Western governments face the moment for concrete action, they find new "concerns" or "unintended consequences" with which to defer.

The Albanese government's latest statement is the most recent iteration of this pattern. At a moment when colonial expansion is devouring what remains of Palestinian land in the West Bank and settler violence continues to escalate, Australia has chosen to wait — wait for other countries to complete this step first, wait for "unintended consequences" to be properly managed, wait for a "more appropriate moment" that will never arrive of its own accord.

For Palestinians, who truly bear the consequences of settlement expansion, this waiting is itself a form of violence.