Winston Peters declares “No recognition of Palestine”
Winston Peters declares “No recognition of Palestine”
Written By:
- Date published:
11:59 am, September 27th, 2025 - 79 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, david seymour, Donald Trump, gaza, israel, nz first, Palestine, winston peters -
Tags:
As outlined yesterday, Winston Peters has done what this government has been signalling.
He has toed the USA and Israel line, declined to recognise the Palestinian state, and his speech has been littered with Israeli talking points.
New Zealand is on a very specific side of history at this point, and it’s one that aligns with the USA and Israel’s world view.
This week, The Post also published an article lobbying for the non-recognition.
Our close allies (UK, Australia, Canada etc) have all said recognition is an important step to preserving the two state solution.
Peters, who lamented that he lost an opportunity to speak to President Trump this week, clearly sees it differently.
There were early signs: Luxon saying recognition would mean little. David Seymour openly arguing that there is no genocide, despite world experts and former IDF an Israeli leaders confirming that there is. But they still made us wait – with Peters saying multiple times this week he needed “more facts” and “more days” to make it a democratic decision.
It’s an historic day, and not necessarily for the right reasons.
This indicates we are following T Rump. Like we did not already guess.
Peters had his chance on the World stage…and this will be his defining moment. All his anti woke ranting..and he's shown how much weaker than any supposed woke he railed at. Beneath contempt.
This is the article, it is by one of their staff.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/360827598/recognising-palestine-easy-whether-it-means-anything-question
Since it was written POTUS 47 said he would not recognise Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
They had another one from some formal Israeli organisation but I see Thomas Manch (the author in the link) was also on the case. Thanks SPC
Boston had this on their site earlier.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360826726/why-new-zealand-should-impose-more-extensive-sanctions-israel
Dr David Cumin is a director of the Israel Institute of New Zealand.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360834222/nz-must-hold-its-principles-not-supporting-palestinian-state
This David Cumin?
https://www.fsu.nz/about
/sarc
Thanks SPC – that's the one.
Mickey, the …..
NZ's day of shame!
Where is our PM to answer questions on NZ's position re not recognizing a Palistinian state? Haven't heard anything from Luxon so far! Hiding away maybe?
Mary, wondering where Luxon is is waste of time, energy and breath. He is a lazy coward who doesn't know what a leader is, and couldn't do the role even if he did.
SHAME on you Winston Peters, SHAME on you David Seymour, SHAME on you Christopher Luxon. A trio of gutless wonders. Kowtowing to the Tangerine Turd, no doubt.
Spineless even. Our CoC govt adopts a pro-genocide position. Israel will not stop until the threat is 'eliminated', and the threat is Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
The gutless, spineless trio will, however, be patting themselves on the back for taking the focus off all their abysmal failures on the domestic front.
Our close allies might just as well have said recognition is an important step towards giving everyone a free unicorn, so it's good that Winston Peters isn't participating in that farce.
The "two-state solution" is a fantasy of western liberals. It's never been wanted by the Arabs and since the second intifada it hasn't been wanted by the Jews either. The US has been able to twist both sides' arms to make them pretend to negotiate every now and then, but that's as near as anyone's going to get.
For once, Luxon was speaking the truth. There is no state to recognise, and pretending to recognise one achieves nothing beyond giving Hamas a minor propaganda victory.
And for once, David Seymour's argument is correct. It doesn't matter who claims there's a genocide if the facts don't support the claim.
I agree, that part was ridiculous. Refusing to participate was a no-brainer from the start.
It has been by the PLO since 1993 and is near unanimous in the Arab League atm.
According to whom? What does the Jews even mean?
The Oslo Accords agreed to by Israel was that there was no presumption of a Palestinian state resulting.
Has Likud ever acted in support of there being two states at any time since 1977?
Likud need to appreciate what their terms for membership in the UN are (set in 1949) and realise they are now the biggest threat to the continuance of the recognition of their own state.
They seem blinded by ambition/hubris.
In English, for western consumption, yes. But even then, you won't find any leader who'll state publicly that they accept permanent Jewish self-determination in Israel and no "right of return" for people claiming to be refugees from "Palestine." You also won't find one who'll accept a two-state deal, because they'd be assassinated shortly afterwards.
"According to whom? What does the Jews even mean?"
Liberal leftists may balk at references to "the Arabs" and "the Jews" but that's what the term "two states" means: a Jewish one and an Arab one.
"Has Likud ever acted in support of there being two states at any time since 1977?"
Israel's a democracy, so there are parties that represent all political outlooks. And the fact that the party that opposes a two-state solution is dominating Israeli politics now should tell you something.
Anybody that puts Palestine in quotes is a ninkompoop right off the bat.
That may have been more persuasive if you could spell 'nincompoop.'
FYI
The Jews of Israel and the Jewish people are not synonymous. And the law of return citizens in Israel are not technically Jews.
A false claim. Many Arab nations have said they accept a two state arrangement.
I may not be a grandma, but I do know how to suck eggs thanks.
My apologies, that was meant to apply to leaders of the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, not Arab leaders in general. But even among those other leaders, you won't find one who'll say publicly in Arabic to his own people that he recognises permanent Jewish self-determination in the state of Israel and no "right of return" of people claiming to be refugees from "Palestine." Not even in the Abraham-accord Gulf states.
Careful, people might think there is some prejudice against a Palestinian state.
And is untrue – Abbas, the PLO leader has recognised Israel as did Arafat before him (since 1993).
I expect they have read reports in Arabic (al Jazeera) of many Arab nations doing so, with support for the right of return of refugees.
The UN requires right of return in its terms for Israeli membership in the UN (1949).
Hitchens summarized it best. Paraphrasing.. 'everyone agrees in a 2 state solution.. but Blair failed, Clinton failed, UN failed, EU failed, Oslo failed. There will NEVER be peace in Middle East as long as neighbors will kill their neighbors and theirs neighbors' children over sacred rocks, sacred caves' . It's all too religious and too fanatic.
No it is about who has the West Bank land. It's just rival nationalism.
Likud wants the Jewish state to conquer the West Bank. That part is Hasmonean (the Messianics want parts of Jordan Syria and Lebanon as well).
Valdimor wants to conquer Kiev and be crowned Eastern Tsar so the EU/NATO has to see his Russia as an equal.
And of course the US wants hegemony. They cannot abide the idea that Russia, or anyone else for that matter, might constitute an "equal". Hence this proxy war being waged in Ukraine.
The USA wants the rest of Nato, UK and EU, to manage the Russian hegemon and is moving out of this theatre.
that's like saying apartheid in South Africa would never end.
IMO you are carefully arguing a very pro-Israel position Psycho, where you are saying that you don't support the two-state solution because it is not possible that it can ever happen.
This kind of argument makes me suspicious.
Will you answer this question: assuming a two-state solution was found to be possible, and that such a solution was able to create a viable Palestinian state, as well as a viable Israeli state, would you support it?
All I want is a Yes or a No.
A two-state solution's always been possible, so the answer's "Yes."
However, the NZ govt should take into account that the main reason a two-state solution was rejected by Palestine's Arabs in 1947 was that no non-Muslim self-determination is permitted anywhere in lands conquered for Islam, and if any non-Muslims succeed in establishing self-determination, it's the Muslims' duty to destroy it. That's why Israel's neighbours invaded it multiple times and it's why "Palestinian refugee" is a hereditary position. The Israelis are well aware of this and they're also aware Muslims are allowed to lie if that will further the cause of Islam. I find it hard to believe any of these two-state solution negotiations are more than shows put on for powerful sponsors.
Thank you Psycho-much appreciated. I was worried you had a closed mind on the issue.
I myself was actually very skeptical that a two-state solution would ever eventuate until Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies hugely over-played their hand over the past two years.
Now I think many countries, including for instance Spain, the UK, France and Australia, see two states as the only solution. I think it is inevitable.
Possible but
The British rule in the Middle East?
The President of Lebanon being a Christian?
Baath Party rule in Iraq and Syria. Military government in Egypt (and for a time a form of it in Turkey).
Gulf state rule being autocracy.
Is there any government but Turkey run as a Moslem regime (and that is Erdogan's rule so far)?
Is it the practice of the Israeli government to place honesty, before security/national interest?
Clearly a lie.
Hamas is not a member of the PLO, which represents the Palestinian national cause.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/574386/israel-s-ambassador-to-nz-offers-winston-peters-praise-after-palestinian-state-announcement
The Arabs were not OK with British imperial domination. In any case, the British never colonised areas they controlled. Much smarter than the French, who set up a colony in Algeria and got the expected response.
When the President of Lebanon declares Lebanon a Christian country and survives the week, then we can talk. And Muslims started the Lebanese civil war over power-sharing, never mind self-determination.
All Muslims. In the west, we tend to think of soviet-style or military dictatorships as secular, but in the ME they're run by Muslims.
I don't think you understand this. Any country run by Muslims is a "Muslim country" from the Muslim perspective. A country run by Jews, secular or otherwise, is not a "Muslim country."
Western centric much.
If the Jewish state of Israel run by a Lapid, Jewish or secular?
An infant baptised Christian, a born Jew and born Moslem are known as such for life.
The assumption that Islam's just a religion and Muslims and Jews think similarly to we do about conflict is what's "western-centric" about this, and it's leading westerners to do ridiculous things like demand recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state.
Those not European …
Christianity was not just a religion, when being one was required to own land, or be employed, or receive welfare. Or to be in the government of the UK (Test Acts)
You seem oblivious to the fact that Israel's terms for membership of the UN is that there be a Palestine state (no real test while Jordan and Egypt occupied the area, then until the PLO recognised Israel in 1993).
The informed westerner is just sending a message to Likud and partners (and given the PLO offers a demilitarised state) that defeat of Hamas ends any excuse for any continuing obstructionism.
What's stupider than a johnny come lately Zionist telling me how impractical Arab nationalism is in lands where Arabs were the majority for a thousand years?
Brilliant Kate. +100
David Seymour says he is proud.
Atlas Network (centred around compliance with capitalist primacy in the order of society) has to be associated with winners, mammonesque creature that he is.
Despite this not being able to make much of a difference to the facts on the ground in Gaza, this decision is a COWARDS CALL. And it was predictable.
Otherwise they would surely have announced it before at home, rather than waiting in true indeterminable Winston style.
This call is not about Hamas, it is about demonstrating to Israel that its actions are immoral.
When a country is a supposed democracy and a militarily superior power, such judgements about their actions are legitimate and proper, and designed so that they do not step outside the bounds of what is acceptable conduct, and this boundary was crossed a long time ago.
The people most happy with the NZ decision appear to be ACT and the Jewish Council which says it all (paywalled):
Act leader David Seymour said he was proud the Government had reinforced New Zealand’s “independence” in its foreign policy….New Zealand Jewish Council spokeswoman Juliet Moses said the decision was the right one to push for peace."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/winston-peters-delivers-speech-on-palestinian-statehood-at-united-nations/2DHYZRRSNNHURB4AGBSGVZZ5CA/
How does one push for peace while the Israeli government says there will not be a Palestinian state.
The government coalition majority in the Knesset has declared sovereignty over the West Bank.
That means permanent apartheid there. Where areas of autonomy (not contiguous) are within another nations sovereignty (like Bantustans within South Africa).
Hamas may as well return the remaining hostages. Taking hostages and provoking a disproportionate response from Israel has achieved its objective: Israel is now an international "pariah". Returning the hostages would seem the only path to peace.
Zionists have had a century to win-over the opposition. The opposition couldn't care less how long E European ethnic nationalism sticks around & fights.
Does Palestine (Hamas) recognise Israels right to exist?
Hamas and Palestine are not one and the same.
For example, the official representative of the Palestinian nation is the PLO. Hamas is not a member.
There was a civil war between the PA (domestic administration of the PLO in the occupied territories) and Hamas.
You might as well ask if the ANC recognised the right of Apartheid Sth Africa to exist.
Or the VietCong to ask if they recognised the right of South Vietnam to exist.
Or Fidel Castro's movement to recognise the right of Batista's government to exist.
Or George Washington to recognise the right of King George III to govern the thirteen colonies.
Liberation movements do not exist to recognise the "rights" of their oppressors. They exist to liberate.
Does the PLO recognise Israels right to exist?
Since 1993.
If Hamas was out of the picture do you think Israel and palestine could come to an agreement?
Yes, but not while Netanyahu's Likud is in the government of Israel.
While he is PM he has ruled out there being a Palestinian state.
So to keep it simple, if Netanyahu leaves and Hamas gives up power peace could possibly be worked out?
They are the two main obstacles.
The present.
Netanyahu uses the existence of Hamas to discredit a Palestine state emergence. He has done this for decades. He now claims to want to defeat Hamas but fears the consequence of it.
Why?
No Hamas would make a two state peace possible, so the Israeli public might vote for a government that would return to diplomacy.
It's not a given outcome. Many Israelis now like the idea of controlling a river to sea state.
Well he is old and doesn't look to be in the best health
Do you think they'll stop at the river?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
https://theconversation.com/is-benjamin-netanyahu-on-a-mission-to-realise-a-greater-israel-265662
Please provide the provenance of that photo, evidence that it's not a propaganda fake, and evidence that it represents an official position rather than some individual extremist's view.
For the record, when Jordan captured Judea and Samaria in 1948, it immediately annexed them and set about expelling all the Jews and destroyed their neighbourhoods and Synagogues, quite a contrast from when Israel captured the territory back again.
If so, how come Israeli settlers occupy more land of the West Bank now than Jews did in 1947?
The fact that they haven't behaved anywhere near as badly as the other side isn't the same thing as saying they haven't behaved badly.
I was curious about the photo too. Plenty of copies in google reverse image search. Couldn't find anything definitive, but this /Israel subreddit thread had some interesting discussion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/1fz9zk3/can_anyone_explain_this_idf_patch/
and this youtuber on intelligence analysis and cybersecurity
https://youtu.be/R8HWJ2v0R6k
from the YT transcript 10 mins 32.
I find two things very suspicious about it:
1. Whenever people make these "greater Israel" claims they show this photo. The war's been going for two years now, IDF soldiers are photographed every day, and yet all we ever see is this one photo.
2. Israel's neighbours shown as Israeli imperial possessions in the photo (Jordan, Syria, Iraq, part of Egypt) all have a strong propaganda interest in presenting Israel as a threat. They're all authoritarian regimes in need of an external threat to distract attention from their own poor performance.
Soviet support for Israel was not limited to diplomatic means, either. Via Czechoslovakia, the Soviet block sent arms to the Zionist militia Haganah, which used them to begin the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. In other words, Stalin gave material support for the Nakba. The Soviet-aligned Communist Party, the MAKI, became an important conduit of support for establishing the Zionist state.
It used them to defend Israel against an invasion by four of its neighbours in 1948, you mean (people often call it five neighbours, but Lebanon's participation was almost non-existent). When the war between local Arabs and Jews started in 1947, the Haganah had only small arms and some home-made mortars.
I'm going to plead a bit of ignorance on the subject, despite doing my best to understand it.
How much of this is due to a megalomaniac, psychopathic and far right- wing president of Israel and his backers, and would a change of leadership/government to something a bit more moderate at least stop the genocide and give access to aid?
While Isaac Herzog has drifted right during his time as President, the far right megalomaniac psychopath is the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yes, a change of leadership/government would result in a more moderate polity (end of incitement and more aid).
No other party but Likud would work with the Smotrich/Ben-Gver ultra-nationalists (who have no problem with genocide/ethnic cleansing/collective punishment/war-crimes/population displacement).
Prime Minister, I stand corrected 🙂 The brains on a partial blink today.
The weirdest thing is that Peters said today (paywalled):
"Peters…reinforced New Zealand’s support of a two-state solution and accepted statehood recognition was inevitable."
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/winston-peters-delivers-speech-on-palestinian-statehood-at-united-nations/2DHYZRRSNNHURB4AGBSGVZZ5CA/
This statement makes today's decision nonsensical.
I wonder if Seymour has said that ACT would pull the plug on the COC if NZ recognised a Palestinian state?
Are there any members of the ACT caucus who have made strongly pro-Israel statements? Any concrete links with Israel?
ACT MP Simon Court.
Associating those pro Palestinian state with ethnic cleansing in Sep, 2025 a new low.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/act-mp-simon-courts-pro-palestine-terro-dress-up-quip-prime-minister-christopher-luxon-says-comment-unhelpful/HS2KEFJKUJGZLIIRYWCVEWOIIE/
Thanks SPC.
I think that is a strong possibility but it wouldn't have been done directly. Seymour would have expressed the threat by way of a thinly disguised observation knowing full well Luxon would wet his pants in fright.
No, no, no – it's a group decision. This is not on Seymour alone for certain
Relieved to hear Chris Hipkins stand up so strongly against the pitiful load of bullshit emanating form the CoC. Helen Clark too:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/labour-party-leader-chris-hipkins-talks-to-media-on-nz-not-recognising-palestine-as-a-lone-state/XCNSSOYUA26U36VC6M2HTY2SSA/
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/09/27/sad-charade-former-pm-slams-govt-decision-on-palestinian-statehood/
YES, agree Anne.
One thing I would never fault Clark or Ardern on is their international precision and principled positioning. Both made me very proud.
Luxon is just getting minced by his support parties. It's sickeningly weak.
Meanwhile on the Herald website Luxon's pathetic cave in to his pro genocide coalition partners has now disappeared ….replaced by rugby stories.
They know it is another nail in the COCs already miserable election prospects.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/574333/pm-christopher-luxon-defends-nz-decision-to-not-recognise-palestinian-state
In one part Luxon says we can't recognize Palestine because to do so would be to legitimise Hamas.
Further down, he says NZ is a friend of both Israel and Palestine. Under his logic, that's like saying Hamas are our friends.
Bunch of stoats and weasels I think the CoC is, but I don't think Luxon meant to say Hamas are our friends.
However, it just shows it's possible to recognize Palestine as a state, without recognizing Hamas as its rulers.
Every time a political poll is taken in NZ, a growing number of people (not to mention "Mood of the Boardroom") who accept NZ as a state don't accept the make up of its current government…
This "decision" is proof positive the lily livered CoC are buckling up into the same ideology as the bunch of morons currently occupying the White House. It shows a complete lack of spine and an insult to the intelligence of a majority of NZers. I see this as the beginning of the end for them and I will be rubbing it in big time when it happens – sooner rather than later.
As for the Hamas excuse: the UK, France, Canada and Australia, who collectively are a powerful international lobby group, have said time and time again that Hamas will NOT be part of any Palestinian governing body.
The mind boggles if our morons think they're going to get away with such a flimsy excuse.
There has never been a worst time to recognise a Palestinian state and there will never be a better one. Netanyahu makes sure if that.
Winston pretends New Zealand has a great dilemma. Tiny little New Zealand on the other side of the world. We dont, we dont matter. And another 10m of aid? Paltry, pointless. There is no shortage of aid lined up at the border.
What NZ could have done that has meaning was to take the moral stand which is all this ever was about.
Instead we have given legitimacy to genocide, we have isolated ourselves and we look cheap, for sale and bought.
I feel ashamed Winston…and I voted for you.
Well said Tobu…I think Winston has lost it a bit this term.
Jack Tame's interview today with NZ's former Permanent Representative to the UN Colin Keating was informative and is worth watching.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/09/28/nzs-reputation-to-take-hit-after-palestine-decision-former-top-diplomat/
"A former top Kiwi diplomat has warned New Zealand’s decision against recognising a Palestinian state may not be well received by allies and trading partners.
Colin Keating spoke to Q+A about the Government’s decision, announced by Foreign Minister Winston Peters yesterday at the UN General Assembly.
Keating, the former Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the United Nations, said countries in the Muslim world in particular would be disappointed with New Zealand’s decision.
“You probably need to start in the Middle East – New Zealand has got a lot of strong trading and political and economic relationships with the Gulf states, and right across the Middle East.”
“I think we will see a sense of disappointment, in fact, even feeling let down, because they’ve been very used to New Zealand being a country that was at the front end of … principled and courageous decisions on the Middle East, and I think that will inevitably have an impact on our relationships,” said Keating…"
Keating expressed concern about the likelihood of considerable damage to NZ's reputation, in not recognising a Palestinian state.
To be fair, Winston hasn't "ruled it out": just deferred the decision on recognition 'til after the present hostilities are over. I guess those who have just recognized Palestine are now patting themselves on the back for having "done something to help".