As a political leader in there are endorsements you want, endorsements you can live with and endorsements you would rather never have come your way.
Undoubtedly the latter includes the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which has now endorsed Anthony Albanese’s decision-making credentials as Prime Minister. It has welcomed his decision to recognise Palestine as a state.
When the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda rag, The China Daily , offered glowing praise of the job Albo has been doing during his recent trip to Beijing, that was the sort of endorsement you can live with.
There are obvious downsides to be sure, but as our largest trading partner Albo would have found it somewhat comforting to know that his relationship with the Chinese President was going so well.
The PM is yet to receive anything but a half-hearted Donald Trump endorsement. While a US President lavishing praise on an Aussie PM is usually a good thing (think George W Bush describing John Howard as a ‘man of steel’) in the Trump era – where he is extraordinarily unpopular in – little is ordinary.
But getting back to Hamas and its burgeoning love affair with Albo, to be fair to the PM it was always going to happen once he recognised Palestine.
Hamas wants more than that of course. It wants Israel wiped off the face of the map, literally!
But recognition of Palestine as a state by a nation like was always going to win Hamas applause, because it works as a propaganda tool.
Which is also why opponents of Albo pleaded with him not to give them such a victory. At least not before the hostages have all been released.
It may or may not have been a mistake to follow the likes of Britain and France in recognising Palestine now. History will tell us its consequences for better or worse in good time.
And Albo being praised by Hamas is, of itself, nothing to write home about. He has always been highly critical of the terrorist group, as indeed he must.
But the PM certainly stuffed up when he rejected Benjamin Netanyahu’s view that recognising a Palestinian state would be ‘rewarding Hamas’.
Let’s revisit the tape:
JOURNALIST: ‘When you spoke to Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister, I imagine he argued that in recognising Palestinian statehood, it would be rewarding Hamas. He’s said that publicly, we’ve heard the same comment from Marco Rubio, and indeed we’ve heard it from the Coalition as well. What’s your answer to that assertion?’
PRIME MINISTER: ‘Hamas don’t support two states. Hamas support one state, in their words, from the river to the sea. Hamas do not support recognising the right of Israel to exist. This is an opportunity to isolate Hamas that has been forged by the very clear statements of the Palestinian Authority on June 10 and the very clear statements of the Arab League.’
Saying that was always going to leave Albo with egg all over his face when Hamas publicly recognised Albo’s news, as they have now done, claiming this decision shows ‘political courage’.
It’s not that the principle of recognising Palestinian statehood is inherently wrong.
Most ns accept the long-term logic of a two-state solution and want to see a viable pathway towards peace.
But timing matters.
Doing it while more than 50 hostages remain in Hamas captivity, without meaningful reforms inside the Palestinian Authority, risks giving away leverage without securing anything in return.
It also muddies the waters by making it harder to separate legitimate aspirations for Palestinian statehood from the terrorism that lit the fuse for the current conflict.
Supporters of the government argue that recognition pressures the Palestinian Authority to reform, bolsters moderates and helps isolate Hamas in the long run.
The problem is that the Palestinian Authority’s track record inspires little confidence. Riddled with patronage, unpopular with its own people, and lacking control in Gaza, it risks being outmanoeuvred by Hamas the moment international pressure eases.
Without a credible plan for governance, security, and free elections, recognition alone may prove an empty gesture.
There’s also the question of Israel’s response. Isolating the only functioning democracy in the Middle East without a parallel package of security guarantees, reconstruction planning and conditionality on both sides is a high-risk move.
Recognition might create a sense of diplomatic momentum alongside allies such as the UK and France, but it doesn’t in itself bring hostages home, reform the Palestinian Authority or disarm Hamas.
Those outcomes require sustained leverage, regional buy-in and trust.
At present none of those are in ready supply.
In the end, Hamas’s endorsement of Albo’s decision is not a decisive reason to oppose recognising Palestine, but it should at least give the Prime Minister pause for thought.
Symbolism has consequences, and the wrong symbolism at the wrong time can embolden precisely those actors and its allies are trying to marginalise.
Whether the PM’s call is remembered as a principled stand or a premature gamble will depend entirely on what follows, and whether those lofty aims can be turned into tangible, lasting progress.