Statements by Foreign Minister Winston Peters in Parliament yesterday suggest that New Zealand’s caution on recognising Palestine has left it clinging to a shrinking minority of states unwilling to make a firm commitment to recognition.
Peters would not even go as far as to endorse Britain’s conditional commitment, which could see recognition granted in September.
In a series of statements, Peters has maintained that the only questions about New Zealand’s Palestinian recognition are “when, not if”.
But when he was pressed yesterday on when “when” might be, he reverted to the usual recitation of demands that Hamas release the Israeli hostages as a pre-condition for recognition.
That, however, has not stopped 147 of the United Nations’ 193 members from recognising it.
Among those recognising Palestine are France, Ireland, Norway, Spain and Sweden; European countries which in the past New Zealand has usually joined in UN resolutions on Israel-Palestine issues.
New Zealand has, under previous Governments, been a progressive force at the UN on Palestine.
That has been so much so that in 2016, in protest at a New Zealand vote at the UN, Israel withdrew its Ambassador from New Zealand.
But it was clear in 2017 that Peters was uncomfortable with the positions the Key Government had taken, and he had an enigmatic reference to them included in the 2017 Labour-NZ First coalition agreement.
It would seem that his caution continues and is seeing New Zealand slowly move away from the position it held in 2016 to one closer to Australia, which has traditionally been one of Israel’s strongest supporters at the UN.
Peters first statement yesterday was the press release which said New Zealand was with a group of states that “have already recognised, have expressed or express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine, as an essential step towards the two-State solution, and invite all countries that have not done so to join this call.”
This group included Australia but not Britain.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Tuesday issued a statement saying his country would recognise Palestine In September unless the Israeli Government took substantive steps to end “the appalling situation in Gaza” and committed to a long term sustainable peace, including allowing the UN to “restart without delay” the supply of humanitarian support to the people of Gaza to end starvation, agreeing to a ceasefire, and making clear there would be no annexations in the West Bank.
Labour’s Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Peeni Henare, asked Peters about recognition in Parliament yesterday.
And Peters produced a very different set of conditions to Britain as a precursor to recognition.
He put the onus on Palestine.
“We do need to see progress on some of the fundamental issues relating to a Palestinian State’s legitimacy and viability, including representative governance, commitments to non-violence, regional support, and security guarantees for Israel,” he said.
“If we recognise the State of Palestine, New Zealand wants to know that what we are recognising is a legitimate, representative, viable political entity.”
Henare asked Peters whether any New Zealand recognition would be in line with that of Britain.
“We are not going to adopt the colonial mindset of some MPs. We remember the Statute of—,” Peters replied before he was interrupted by Greens Co-Leader Chole Swarbrick who said, “you just said it was conditional!”
Peters: “We remember—listen, you might learn. We remember the Statute of Westminster 1933, adopted by this country in full force in 1947. Those are the facts. Get an education.”
(The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 granted New Zealand full legislative independence from the United Kingdom.)
Peters’s hedging on the question of recognition reflects the position he took in 2016 after Foreign Minister Murray McCully spearheaded a move to have New Zealand co-sponsor a UN Security Council resolution which said that Israel’s West Bank settlements contravened the Fourth Geneva Convention.
That prohibited states from building on lands they had occupied by an act of war.
Whilst the resolution by itself was not enforceable, it would provide an important declaration for the International Criminal Court to find the Israeli Government and its Ministers guilty of war crimes.
But New Zealand’s role provoked a furious response from Israel (and Australia).
And from within National, two Cabinet Ministers, Chris Finlayson and Judith Collins, criticised McCully’s move.
Peters, then campaigning against National, seized the opportunity and, when he joined the Labour Government after the 2017 election, had a demand that the new Government would “Record a Cabinet minute regarding the lack of process followed before the National-led government’s sponsorship of UNSC2334.” (McCully’s resolution)
The New Zealand Israel Institute, a pro-Israel lobby group, was in no doubt about the argument, nor where Peters stood.
Its website said the two politicians shown by the Institute’s survey in 2017 to have held favourable views on Israel were David Seymour and Winston Peters.
“From many conversations on social media and elsewhere, it is evident that some Israel supporters who were long-time National supporters changed parties and voted for Winston Peters,” the website said.
However yesterday, a spokesperson for Peters said the New Zealand Government continued to support Resolution 2334.
“New Zealand co-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 2334, which declared Israeli settlements illegal. We continue to support that resolution,” he said.
“In addition, New Zealand has placed travel bans on extremist Israeli settlers who have destabilised the West Bank,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General has made it plain that a two-state solution with recognition is the only answer for the Middle East.
Speaking on Tuesday at a UN special conference on the Middle East, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that for decades, Middle East diplomacy had been far more about process than peace.
“Words, speeches and declarations have little meaning to those on the ground as destruction and annexation bulldoze ahead,” he said.
He stressed that the obligation was on all of us to prove that this effort was something different.
“Let us reject the false choice between Palestinian statehood and Israeli security — there is no security in occupation.”
Rather, Israel’s legitimate security concerns must be addressed, he said, “and so must the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people”.
“We cannot wait for perfect conditions — we must create them.”
