Christopher Luxon: We’ve shown meaningful leadership on Palestine
Christopher Luxon: We’ve shown meaningful leadership on Palestine
Written By:
- Date published:
4:56 pm, September 29th, 2025 - 53 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, david seymour, helen clark, International, israel, labour, national, national/act government, nz first, Palestine, winston peters -
Tags: gaza
Luxon admits NZ Government already made the decision on Palestinian recognition 3 weeks ago
As widely speculated, the government had already made the call on Palestine three weeks ago. The last few weeks have been a farcical song and dance, and likely Peters involved trying to curry favour with President Trump, by informing him before Saturday’s official announcement.
NZ corporate media starts to repeat Israeli propaganda spread by our Government:
Important: Our Commonwealth allies already recognise Palestine with conditions on Hamas. This NZ government are using it as an excuse not to.
The MFAT document also reveals NZ was informed of this option, but chose not to use that option, yet are now hiding behind it as an excuse –
15 of every 16 killed in Gaza are civilians. Over 200,000 already killed. Widespread starvation of children and babies.
Israeli Ambassador says Israel “are being heard” by New Zealand Government
Roth-Snir said he was very happy with the level of support and attention that New Zealand was paying them.
“We have good contacts with MFAT and alike, with the other relevant interlocutors within the Kiwi government, and I think that our point of view is being heard.”
He said he would work towards ramping up New Zealand-Israel relations, with the added hope that a Kiwi embassy in Israel may open in the near future, but his embassy’s presence in Wellington had been the subject of controversy since the war in Gaza broke out in October 2023.
NZ First continues to boast of leadership during its United Nations Palestine Announcement
“We need leadership that creates possibilities, not extinguishes them”, boasts Peters on his party page.
Except as our allies and experts have pointed out, not recognising Palestine as a state, forgoes the two-state solution this government claims it stands behind.
Israel won’t allow peanut butter through for starving children by claiming Hamas might take it
Hipkins on day of announcement: “We made the commitment at the last election we would have recognised Palestine.”
Hipkins also said refusing to recognise Palestine when the rest of the world is doing so isn’t a neutral stance”
“New Zealand had an opportunity to show leadership here. They failed to show that leadership.
“Instead, New Zealand’s government is turning its back on Palestine, when we see an unfolding genocide there.
“I think New Zealanders were hoping that our government would take a principled position and recognise Palestine, as our friends in Australia, the UK and Canada have all done. We are now an international outlier.”
On the other hand, Luxon claims that he and his government have provided “meaningful” leadership and he has brought his deep, personal values to bear on Palestine:
Republished from Luxon says we’ve shown meaningful leadership on Palestine
He is putting lipstick on it. Embarrassing failure all round. Not on the good side of History. Hubris will be their downfall.
For once, Luxon is correct. It takes some bollocks to make a principled stand when everyone else is just going with whatever The Current Thing is. By contrast, what a limp prick Hipkins looks with his version of "But all the other kids are doing it."
And, of course, if Peters had instead got up there and announced NZ was rewarding Hamas for Operation Al Aqsa Flood the way Starmer, Macron et al have, it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference to NZ's PLO headscarf brigade, they'd continue denouncing him and Luxon regardless.
I think I get where you’re coming from.
I’m also frustrated at how much energy on the left gets absorbed into the squalid overseas conflict du jour while urgent problems closer to home go unaddressed. The keffiyeh brigade has to be one of the biggest wastes of time in NZ political history.
But it’s worth separating that absolutely reasonable frustration from the actual policy question.
Refusing to recognise Palestine doesn’t achieve anything practical, and instead undermines NZ’s reputation for having an independent and ethical foreign policy. Even if that reputation is sometimes undeserved, it remains one of our most valuable assets internationally.
Recognition costs us nothing but withholding it makes us look timid and inconsistent. Or worse, a US puppet.
Sure, there’s an argument that refusing recognition is defensible given that half of the putative Palestinian state is controlled by an outright terrorist organisation. Or that it might curry favour with Trump.
But if we’re setting our foreign policy by the capricious whims of a septuagenarian strongman, then we’re in serious trouble.
And that’s the kicker: it’s not just that Luxon and Peters are doing this. It’s that, yet again, they’re doing it in such a gutless fashion. And then not even having the balls to be honest about why they are doing it.
Gaza is controlled by the IDF, apart from some areas under Gaza City
Near all of the WB territory is controlled by Israel (the exception parts of the WB run by the PA), whose current leadership says there will never be a Palestinian state.
The operative word was putative. Not existent, viable, or actual.
Which is exactly the point: NZ’s recognition isn’t about the present shambles of governance and war crimes in Gaza or the West Bank, but about the principle that there should be a Palestinian state.
If we wait until Israel permits one, we’ve effectively given Israel (or really, Washington) a standing veto over our foreign policy.
It's not exactly wrong to characterise most of Gaza as controlled by the IDF, but the maps are missleading. A lot of what Israel 'controls' are free fire zones where anyone who goes into them is likely to get shot. It's not really free movement for the IDF there either. Entering these areas has a high IDF casualty rate too.
I don't think the IDF is capable of driving resistance from these areas as they are not willing to accept the high casualty rate necessary to undertake the hand to hand fighting needed.
I see it the other way round. Recognising a state called 'Palestine' doesn't achieve anything practical and undermines NZ's reputation for having an independent and ethical foreign policy. The "doesn't achieve anything practical" part is self-evident, and doing something pointless just because allied countries are also doing it is the opposite of independent and ethical.
The argument for not recognising a state is that there is no state to recognise: no agreed borders, no credible contender to govern it, no culture, identity or history recognisably different from its neighbours. The facts that some of it's controlled by a terrorist organisation and that recognising statehood would grant that terrorist organisation a propaganda victory that cements its domination in the area is just the cherry on the top.
This did not stop the Balfour Declaration to enable a Jewish homeland with due regard for the local population of that same territory (established by defined Palestine mandate area in 1923).
(I suppose you realise that the states formed in the Middle East did not conform to the provincial governance system of the removed Ottoman empire but were determined by the British and French).
There was no existing Jewish governance, but that which developed in the 1923-1947 period.
That said the UN knows what the borders are. Israel's are confined to the state admitted to the UN in 1949. The rest of the 1923 Palestine mandate was for a Palestinian state (there being an Arab governed one was determined in 1947).
The UN also recognises the PLO as representative of the Palestinian people, it has observer status at the UN.
Are you arguing that they should have the right to cede Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank north (Samaria) to Syria and West Bank south (Judea) to Jordan?
"This did not stop the Balfour Declaration…"
The UK and France were granted a mandate over the region explicitly for the purpose of creating borders and states. The borders of mandate Palestine were drawn up specifically for a Jewish homeland and Israel was the only state declared within those borders. The Arabs living there outright rejected a state. They may have changed their minds since, but it's a bit late now. They should come to terms with the states that actually exist.
You wrote this rather recently.
https://thestandard.org.nz/winston-peters-declares-no-recognition-of-palestine/#comment-2045481
Good point: doing something just because allied countries are doing it isn’t automatically smart or right.
But at the same time, foreign policy isn't always about immediate practical outcomes. In international relations, perception often matters more than reality. Recognition can be symbolic, but symbols are powerful.
They shape narratives, alliances, and legitimacy on the world stage.
In the current climate, it’s difficult to credibly claim to support a rules-based international order, democracy, and self-determination, while simultaneously denying recognition to Palestinian statehood. Especially when over 130 countries already do.
Whether or not a Palestinian state currently meets all the classic criteria, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the aspiration undermines the values we claim to uphold.
I'd find this argument more persuasive if over 130 countries had acknowledged the legitimacy of Kurdish aspirations to their own state by recognising the existence of a Kurdistan. Somehow it's only the Israelis who must accommodate others' aspirations.
It is not a burden placed on Israel, it was a condition of its founding.
shrug If you’re looking at foreign policy for moral consistency, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
The Palestinians are popular; the Kurds (apart from a brief surge after the Iraq war) are not.
Maybe it’s that they don’t have the same PR, or just don’t feel like they need it. They don’t beg for aid or appeal to the West; they make the occasional Turkish patrol disappear and ignore Baghdad’s instructions. Having their own (sort of) territory probably helps, too.
I wouldn’t say Israel is uniquely oppressed, but it is uniquely shielded from consequences compared to most states. And while plenty of countries fall short of ideals, not committing war crimes isn’t some special standard Israel is unfairly held to. It’s the bare minimum for being taken seriously as part of the international community.
And that’s the fallacy at the heart of your argument: pretending that unless we act everywhere, we shouldn’t act anywhere. That’s not how foreign policy works. It runs on perceptions, priorities, and values.
To be consistent a Kurdish ethnic people state would have required portions off Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Then there is the norm of contiguity and the impact on others if that was applied.
Such was possible back in 1918 – but Turkey – Greece was in play (and Iran would have cast an opt out veto on their part).
The other option was/is self governing autonomy and free association.
My argument is that we should not do things because they're currently popular but because there are good foreign policy reasons for them.
I mentioned the Kurds because, unlike the 'Palestinians,' they have an excellent claim to their own state – they're a separate people from the ones in the various countries they're spread across. Palestinians are in no sense different from other Arabs of the region, which seriously doesn't need yet another corrupt, authoritarian, violent basket case to be created.
Those Arabs.
And all I'm arguing is that it being popular may well be a good enough foreign policy reason.
I think you might be straying a wee bit into racism there. Or at least, making a gross over-generalisation of a complex issue of identity.
I know it's currently popular in western societies to believe identity claims outweigh reality, but I don't share that belief. There's no difference in language, customs, culture, beliefs, religion, cuisine, whatever, between people calling themselves 'Palestinian' and the the people of Israel's neighbours. Only 60 years ago they were calling themselves Jordanians and Egyptians.
And I describe a theoretical Palestinian state as likely to be a corrupt, authoritarian, violent basket case because that's the Palestinian territories' current situation and the current situations of the non-monarchical Arab states. I don't claim it's somehow inherent to Arab ethnicity.
Until 1948 Jews in Palestine called themselves Palestinian Jews.
I'd add they call themselves Arabs in the same way Europeans are called Europeans, but with the exception they speak Arabic.
A few centuries back there was an era of Christian European empire akin to Moslem Arab one from Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad and then Moslem Sultans of Istanbul.
Fancy that, a white person coming in and telling everyone who they are and where they belong to suit their argument.
How novel.
Never heard the difference between Maghrebi, Egyptian, Gulf, and Iraqi Arabic, have you?
I wouldn't say it's a popular belief, I’d call it the established, thoroughly researched consensus of anthropology, sociology, and history.
But potayto, potahto, I guess.
Good thing language, culture, and identity are static and never change… oh wait.
I don’t actually know what Milt’s ethnicity is (and might have missed it if he’s talked about it). People are under no obligation to share that information about themselves here, which is one reason why it’s better not to personalise the comments.
Likewise, PM could hold off on the oblique identity politics digs.
Better all round to just make the political arguments instead. What is it about Milt’s comments that are white arguments? What is it about Res’ arguments that are identity politics? Are either of those relevant to the post or subthreads? How?
Speaking of "straying a wee bit into racism there…"
I lived in a Gulf state for three years and have heard different dialects of Arabic, yes. I never heard anyone claim there's a 'Palestinian' one.
I was referring to this bit: "Or at least, making a gross over-generalisation of a complex issue of identity."
The reality is that the only difference between the Arabs of Palestine and those of the areas surrounding it was that the British drew borders on maps. There's certainly an identity claim of 'Palestinian' but I don't accept there's anything complex about it. It furthers the aim of expelling the 'Zionist entity,' is all.
Only in the sense that I argued Palestinian Arabs don't have a good claim to statehood and others dispute that.
The somehow for Israel comes up because it's stated founding ambition is to be a politically Jewish state. That can only be consistent with international law (and UN membership in good standing) if your state don't seek to ethnically cleanse or disenfranchise or genocide the significant non-Jewish population to maintain your aspiration. It's not "somehow it's only the Israelis" that makes this relevant, it's, somehow only Israel is attempting to violate this aspect of international law.
You'll be wanting a word with those politically Arab states that ethnically cleansed themselves of Jews after the 1948 war then, I expect.
Why, is this ongoing?
I haven't noticed them being allowed to return, so yes. Some of those countries won't even allow Jews to visit them. If you're concerned about ethnic cleansing, that's a good place to start. The slow expulsion of the region's Christian populations as an Islamic revival takes place, and the persecution of other religious minorities, should be next on the list. The Arabs currently fighting a delusional war against Israel were being left alone until they started the war, and could have ended their problems at any point by surrendering, so they hardly need our concern.
They were not being left alone on the West Bank.
You see, this is why nobody takes you seriously. What you are describing is about as real as the well known, "White Genocide in South Africa". As far as countries Jews are banned from go you will need to provide serious evidence for your extraordinary claims.
Technically, it's Israeli passport-holders who are barred entry to various Muslim countries, but since the overwhelming majority of Jews expelled from those countries ended up in Israel, it's effectively a ban on their return even for a visit.
Good of you to explain that you were in fact lying about what you were claiming then. Also good on these countries for not discriminating against these minority groups of their own populations by conflating the Israeli state actions with Jewish religious belief.
It's amazing how quickly ethnic cleansing can go from a terrible crime to a cheap rhetorical point, for sure. Extra points for casually accusing others of lying.
I accused you of lying precisely because you claimed people were being cleansed from countries based on their ethnicity (of being Jewish). But it's you who explained this was a lie, rather than an unsubstantiated allegation, by explaining you were talking about the completely normal practice of excluding certain passport holders (over very understandable security concerns). And no I don't take your unsubstantiated allegations very seriously, feel free to provide some evidence there is more too it than that. As it stands it's only you who is trying to excuse any actual (and on going) ethnic cleansing.
I get the feeling you genuinely don't know that the Jews who fled or were expelled from Arab countries after the 1948 war were not Israelis but citizens of those countries. Either way, there's no point in further engagement with you on the subject.
On the contrary, I'm aware of that fact and I was fully expecting you to reference this kind of thing with reference to your claimed "ethnic cleansing of Jews" from Arab countries. It was a bit of a surprise when you instead explained that you lied about that (It's actually a travel block on Israeli passport holders, you were talking about) and would not be bothered to present any references to defend that statement anyway.
Now events in 1948 were of course consequential and unfortunate, but the actual issue here is with the on going demand for Israel to be a politically Jewish state. If it was to drop that it could then integrate all the Palestinian's into the one state without the need to ethnically cleanse, disenfranchise or genocide that population to maintain a politically Jewish majority. You could make a strong argument that since Israel was only formed in 1948 it really missed the age for colonialism, and maybe you find that historically unfair. But to go back to the point, it's not that Israel is being singled out by international law or the UN, it's that only Israel is still seeking to violate this aspect of international law with colonial practices that became morally unacceptable. You have still failed to present any pertinent counter to this point.
Your claim, that nations recognising Palestine are rewarding Hamas, is your believing what Netanyahu says on the matter.
The said recognition is premised on the exclusion of Hamas.
The PM of Israel says he is intent on both the end of Hamas and there never being a Palestinian state.
This position of Netanyahu is in breach of the terms for membership of Israel in the UN.
That our government could not, or would not, make any comment about that, is unprincipled.
If we're waiting on the coalition to do anything out of principle, you're going to be waiting a very long time.
Netanyahu my arse. I'm accepting what Hamas says on the matter and the obvious practical propaganda messaging within Muslim populations that it serves for them.
And "predicated on the exclusion of Hamas" is like the mice declaring they're predicating their future trips to get food on the cat being made to wear a bell. None of the clowns pretending to "recognise" a state called "Palestine" has any proposed mechanism for or ability to implement an "exclusion of Hamas." It's what makes their pompous virtue-signalling so laughable.
The "Hamas is who they are line". Have you heard of Irgun or Stern?
Your position on Hamas and there being no Palestinian state are those of Netanyahu and his propaganda fronts. There is no deviation.
Are you unaware that Netanyahu has known for years of the funding sources of Hamas and made no effort to cut them off?
Your attacks on virtue signalling are typical of those who buy into right wing narratives/catch-phrases/indoctrination. Such as on post modernism. Beliefs about the left, there's more hypocrisy on the left or no better a grasp of freedom of speech than the average leftist.
Which of their other "denigrations" will you share with us next?
"Have you heard of Irgun or Stern?"
I don't recall Irgun or Stern having a charter involving the extermination of all Arabs as a prerequisite for the Day of Judgement.
Believe me, I'd love it if we stopped providing them with such high calibre ammunition to fire at us, but I expect to be disappointed.
Irgun and Stern were involved in importing weapons into Israel for themselves (and it took a while to get one command of the gun in Israel – this is now being lost on the West Bank).
Background.
Well, yeah, I could spam the thread with a string of lengthy videos you could watch too, if I were into wasting my own time.
I was trying to remove your ignorance of the era before the 1947-49 outcome and the 1977 Likud government.
Ilan Pappe provides quotes about the ambition of the early Zionists
Ilan Pappe provides quotes about the ambition of the early Zionists and in the following decades.
Which if you do know, would make your charter reference sound like a cloak of invisibility.
Care to explain what you are saying about Hamas?
The mention of Mr Thumb's deep personal values is not surprising.
My fundamentalist christian father in law gets into raptures when the subject of Israel comes up
"This is not about politics; this is about the Word of God. This is what the Bible says about standing with Israel. But the political ramifications are extremely dramatic. Accordingly, it is critical that believers understand the specific reasons for why we should stand with Israel today."
Eg. "Scripture declares that, spiritually speaking, when you receive the Lord, you inherit the Jewish legacy (Rom. 2:28-29, Gal. 3:26-29). If you are a believer, you cannot be consistent with the whole of Scripture and take a passive position toward the Jews and Israel."
There's a lot more quotes and snippets from the bible in the link.
I would rather our leaders showed a more rational, humanist side to their decision making over '..it is ordained…'
https://firmisrael.org/learn/8-biblical-reasons-stand-with-israel-today/#:~:text=3)%20God's%20Promises%20Over%20the%20Land&text=This%20is%20God's%20people%2C%20and,Israel%5D%20in%20that%20day.%E2%80%9D
In Israel (Jerusalem) there is a tradition of spitting on Christian's. That's how much they respect other religions there.
As a practicing Catholic, I take offence at this kind of dispensationalist claptrap. My faith doesn’t require blind allegiance to any state. And I can follow my own moral conscience when it comes to Gaza.
That said, I don’t have a “passive” position toward Israel: of course, it has the right to exist and defend itself when attacked.
But that right does not extend to committing egregious war crimes against a civilian population. People who, with even a fraction more compassion and foresight, could have been integrated as productive, tax-paying Israeli citizens rather than perpetual enemies.
I think that according to the bible God promised Palestine to the descendants of Abraham. This would include Arabs, who descend through Ishmael.
Given our knowledge of genetics we do have to note it is more complicated. The separation of the J 1 and J2 Y chromosome male line was pre Abraham. And he was not the only man of his own male line at the time.
P.M. What exactly is "principled" about this decision?
What is" principled" about genocide?
I am reminded of the Rugby faction who childishly said "sport and politics should be kept separate"
So are we keeping politics and genocide separate? Or are we rationalising after the fact.
By keeping the decision quiet for three weeks, those three know they have to sell a bad decision.
What you said about Hipkins says more about your attitudes than this situation.
Labour recognised the two state situation well before the last election, so your argument is a false premise.
Ah yes those principles again.
The ones that also have him cancelling the lake onslow stored hydro project then cosplaying concern about our energy future 2 years later.