NZ's stance on Palestinian state: 'Many expected a more robust response'

New Zealand's reputation could take a hit on the global stage, following the government's decision not to recognise Palestine as a state at this time, says an international relations expert.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters outlined the position at the United Nations over the weekend, saying that with Hamas in place as the de facto government of the Gaza Strip and no clarity on next steps, there is not a fully legitimate and viable State of Palestine for New Zealand to recognise.

University of Otago Professor Robert Patman said New Zealand was often seen as a "fair-minded" and "scrupulous" about upholding international law.

He questions whether New Zealand will now be seen as aligning with the United States and Israel over this issue in which the majority of countries disagree.

He said there was a "principle at stake", the "right of political self-determination" which was in the UN Charter.

He said most Palestinians don't like Hamas, and have nothing to do with Hamas, and most of the victims had been women and children.

"Are we saying we will not acknowledge their right to political self determination unless conditions A, B and C are met.

"I think the dangers of denying that right are much greater than recognising."

Patman said if you deny that right, you were "basically saying that you find what Israel is doing acceptable".

Patman called Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu's comments at the UN, in which he vowed to "finish the job" in Gaza, "pretty chilling" given what had already occurred.

He worried New Zealand had not shown the same "political courage" as when Helen Clark refused to support the US's invasion of Iraq.

"That was a small country acting with enormous courage and sticking to international law," said Patman, referencing also the country's opposition to apartheid and the decision to embrace non-nuclear security in the 1980s.

"I hope that many countries don't reach the conclusion that we have lost our nerves and that we are simply trying to stay in the good books of more powerful countries like the United States and Israel."

Patman was surprised the government did not align with the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada on recognition, and he was puzzled by the government basing its decision around timing - because the government had not produced any evidence.

"It's incumbent on the government now to explain why they think the prospects for a Palestinian state will improve by delaying this decision.

"Many people in this country expected a more robust response than simply saying the time is not right. The time will never be right for Israel under Mr. Netanyahu."

Patman also questioned whether domestic politics played a part in the decision - "This is a coalition government."

"There are differences of view, perhaps within all three parties, and that may have influenced the attempt to find a middle position which all parties could live with."

'Sensible position'

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour acknowledged there were almost always differing positions in Cabinet. "If everyone already thought the same, we wouldn't need to have meetings."

But he said the government "carefully considered" the facts, and came to a "sensible position".

"Our government should hold its head high, as should all New Zealanders, in relation to this decision.

"We have carefully and soberly considered a very difficult situation where there are no easy options, and we have come to the most rational response that a government could make at this time."

On whether the government had evidence there would be a time in the future where Palestine could be recognised as a state, he said it was incumbent on the people in the Middle East to "improve the situation" so New Zealand could recognise a state with a government it could "do business with."

"And recognise in such a way that doesn't risk being seen as rewarding bad behaviour."

Cabinet made the in-principle decision on 15 September - choosing between continuing the 'when, not if' approach or recognising the State of Palestine with a certain set of of conditions.

The options were:

1) Maintain current approach: Continue to indicate that while it is a matter of when, not if, it would be premature to recognise the State of Palestine at this time, as questions remain about the state's viability and legitimacy - and because Hamas continues to hold hostages, terrorise Gaza and threaten Israel.

2) Recognition of Palestine, with conditions: Recognise the State of Palestine, whilst simultaneously making clear that New Zealand's engagement with the Government of Palestine (i.e. the Palestinian Authority) would continue to be conditioned on the exclusion of Hamas from present and future Palestinian governance structures and respect for Israel's right to exist in peace and security.

Seymour would not comment on the second option, saying he cannot speak to cabinet discussions.

He acknowledged there were a "range of views" amongst New Zealand's "traditional allies".

"I look at what Singapore said, I look at what Japan said. I look at the position of the United States.

"They too are important friends and allies of New Zealand, while some of our other traditional allies have taken a different view, what's important is that New Zealanders can know that our government has gone through a robust process to arrive where we've arrived."

Mixed reaction

There had been mixed reaction over the weekend as New Zealand responded to the government's decision.

Justice for Palestine co-covernor Samira Zaiton told RNZ it was a "profound failure of leadership" and a "profound display of cowardice" by this government, "not just for us at home, but on the world stage".

"It is shameful and it is cowardly, and I'm really embarrassed."

She said for Palestinians, "Palestine exists, and Palestine has always existed".

"And despite the attempt to exterminate us, we will continue to exist.

"So recognition or not, we will keep going, and we will be free."

The question was about how the government would support that, Zaiton said.

She was surprised by the decision, and that perhaps it had been "generous" to have hope in the government.

"For them to do this very, very bare minimum morsel of good, which would be to recognise Palestine.

"I just thought that we would be, we'd follow with the rest of our traditional allies, but instead, we have sided with the United States and Israel."

She said New Zealand did not need to be a leader on the issue, but the "least we could have done was to join the chorus of member states and been a part of the majority".

"Our decision in the future isn't going to change what happens on the ground in Palestine, nor is it going to end the genocide and apartheid and occupation. It was one step that could have been also merely symbolic."

Another group, Aotearoa for Palestine, condemned Peters' address, and announced an Auckland Harbour Bridge protest to demand sanctions.

The New Zealand Jewish Council, however, supported the decision, saying it agreed the conditions were not right and had not been met for statehood.

President Juliet Moses told RNZ recognising a Palestinian state right now would likely prolong the war and move the parties further away from a negotiated two state solution.

She said in order for a state to be recognised, the "very first thing" was for the 48 hostages who remain in Gaza to come home.

"We don't know how many of them are alive. Some of them are. We do know they're being held in horrendous conditions.

"They've been held now for over 700 days."

The second thing was Hamas needed to be removed from power, Moses said.

"It cannot be near power. It cannot have the ability to govern Gaza again or to do another attack like it did on October 7, 2023.

"There will never be a movement towards peace or even a sustained ceasefire while Hamas remains in power."

Moses supported a two-state solution.

"We acknowledge that ideally, there will be a Palestinian state and a Jewish state coexisting alongside each other, both in peace and security."

Another Jewish group, Dayenu: New Zealand Jews Against the Occupation, said it was appalled by the government's decision, and that Cabinet hadn't been brave enough to do "even the basics".

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.