**Core Facts - VERIFIED:**
In June 2014, the Abbott Coalition government did indeed signal a shift in Australia's terminology regarding East Jerusalem, with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop indicating Australia would stop using the term "occupied" to describe East Jerusalem and the West Bank [1][2].
**The Specific Policy Change:**
During a visit to Israel in June 2014, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop stated that Australia would no longer automatically refer to East Jerusalem as "occupied territory" [1].
Attorney-General George Brandis subsequently confirmed this position in the Senate, stating the government would refer to "East Jerusalem as 'disputed' territory" rather than 'occupied' [3].
**Wall Height Claim - MISLEADING:**
The claim that Israel's separation wall is "twice as tall as the Berlin Wall" requires clarification.
While some sections are indeed more than twice the height of the Berlin Wall, the wall's height varies considerably, with average sections being lower.
The comparison is technically accurate for some sections but presents a misleading overall picture [5][6].
**Israeli Supreme Court Ruling:**
The Israeli Supreme Court has indeed ruled in cases (such as Beit Sourik Village Council v.
The Government of Israel, 2004) that the territories are "occupied" under international law for the purposes of applying the Fourth Geneva Convention [7][8].
**International Law on Occupation:**
The international legal community, including the UN, International Court of Justice, and International Committee of the Red Cross, has consistently held that East Jerusalem and the West Bank constitute occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention [9][10].
Following Bishop's statements:
- Arab and Islamic countries threatened trade sanctions and boycotts of Australian goods [11]
- Palestinian representatives strongly protested the change [12]
- Indonesia, Australia's largest Muslim neighbor and an important trading partner, expressed serious concern [11]
- The Australian government eventually softened its position, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott stating Australia would not change its terminology after all [13]
**Australia Reverted to Traditional Position:**
By November 2014, under significant diplomatic pressure, the Abbott government backed down.
在 zài 畢普 bì pǔ 發表聲 fā biǎo shēng 明 míng 後 hòu : :
Abbott stated Australia had "no intention" of changing its terminology regarding East Jerusalem [13].
Australia continued to use the term "occupied Palestinian territories" in official UN statements and diplomatic communications [14].
**Context of Bishop's Visit:**
The timing of Bishop's comments (June 2014) coincided with her visit to Israel.
She made these statements while meeting with Israeli officials, which raised questions about whether the position was properly considered or announced prematurely [1][2].
**Previous Australian Government Positions:**
The claim doesn't acknowledge that Australia's position on this issue has varied over time:
- The Howard government (1996-2007) generally avoided strong language on settlements [15]
- The Rudd/Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) took a more critical stance on Israeli settlements [15]
- The Abbott government's attempted shift represented a return to Howard-era positioning [15]
Without being able to access the specific video content, I can note general concerns about YouTube as a primary source:
- **Credibility concerns:** YouTube hosts user-generated content with varying levels of accuracy and editorial oversight
- **Potential bias:** The video may be from a partisan source, advocacy organization, or individual commentator without journalistic standards
- **Verification difficulty:** Without viewing the specific video, the credibility, authorship, and factual basis of the claims made within it cannot be assessed
- **Not a primary source:** YouTube videos typically repackage or comment on news events rather than being original sources themselves
For factual claims about government policy, more authoritative sources (government statements, parliamentary records, mainstream journalism) are preferred.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
The Labor governments (Rudd 2007-2010, Gillard 2010-2013) took notably different approaches to Israel-Palestine terminology:
**Labor's Position on Settlements:**
Under Labor, Australia:
- Referred to Israeli settlements as "illegal" under international law in UN statements [16]
- Maintained consistent use of "occupied Palestinian territories" in all official communications [16]
- Changed voting patterns at the UN General Assembly to be more sympathetic to Palestinian positions [16]
**Rudd's UN Statement (2011):**
Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd stated in the UN General Assembly in 2011: "We continue to believe that Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal under international law" [17].
* * * *
This direct language calling settlements "illegal" was a significant shift from previous Coalition governments.
**Partisan Divide:**
There is a clear partisan divide on this issue:
- Labor governments generally align with international consensus terminology ("occupied")
- Coalition governments have historically been more sympathetic to Israeli positions, with the Abbott government's 2014 attempted shift being the most notable example
**Key Difference:**
Labor did not attempt to change terminology away from "occupied" - in fact, they reinforced this terminology during their term.
The status of these territories was legitimately disputed and subject to negotiation [3]
**International Context:**
Australia's attempted shift was out of step with international consensus:
- Most Western nations, including the US, UK, EU members, refer to the territories as "occupied" [9][18]
- The US, despite being strongly pro-Israel, still uses "occupied" in official terminology [18]
- Australia's attempted change would have aligned it with very few countries (primarily Israel itself) [18]
**Australia's Broader Israel-Palestine Policy:**
While the attempted terminology change was significant symbolically, Australia's actual policy positions remained largely consistent:
- Australia continued to support a two-state solution [13]
- Australia continued to fund Palestinian aid programs [14]
- The practical impact of the terminology change (which was ultimately reversed) was primarily diplomatic rather than substantive
**Trade and Diplomatic Considerations:**
The reversal of the policy after diplomatic pressure highlights the real-world consequences of such terminology changes.
Australia's trade with Arab states ($10+ billion annually) and diplomatic relationships with Muslim-majority countries were at stake [11][19].
**This WAS Unique to Coalition:**
The attempted terminology shift was genuinely unusual in Australian foreign policy.
* * * * 國際 guó jì 背景 bèi jǐng : : * * * *
No previous Australian government had attempted to abandon the "occupied" terminology, and the subsequent Coalition government (Turnbull/Morrison) did not pursue this change further [15].
The claim contains verified elements but also includes misleading framing and omits critical context.
**Verified Elements:**
- The Coalition government did indicate it would stop using "occupied" to describe East Jerusalem [1][2][3]
- The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled the territories are occupied [7][8]
- International law considers these territories occupied [9][10]
- The separation wall does have sections significantly taller than the Berlin Wall [5][6]
**Misleading Elements:**
- The claim presents the policy as settled and ongoing, when in fact it was announced in June 2014 and effectively reversed by November 2014 due to diplomatic pressure [13]
- The wall height comparison, while technically accurate for some sections, is presented without the nuance that heights vary considerably
**Missing Critical Context:**
- The government reversed its position after diplomatic backlash [11][13]
- Australia continued using "occupied" terminology in official UN communications [14]
- The practical impact was symbolic rather than substantive
The claim contains verified elements but also includes misleading framing and omits critical context.
**Verified Elements:**
- The Coalition government did indicate it would stop using "occupied" to describe East Jerusalem [1][2][3]
- The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled the territories are occupied [7][8]
- International law considers these territories occupied [9][10]
- The separation wall does have sections significantly taller than the Berlin Wall [5][6]
**Misleading Elements:**
- The claim presents the policy as settled and ongoing, when in fact it was announced in June 2014 and effectively reversed by November 2014 due to diplomatic pressure [13]
- The wall height comparison, while technically accurate for some sections, is presented without the nuance that heights vary considerably
**Missing Critical Context:**
- The government reversed its position after diplomatic backlash [11][13]
- Australia continued using "occupied" terminology in official UN communications [14]
- The practical impact was symbolic rather than substantive