Helen Clark on Palestine
Written By:
- Date published:
3:39 pm, August 12th, 2025 - 31 comments
Categories: helen clark, israel, Palestine, winston peters -
Tags:
This morning I listened to Helen Clark on Morning Report talking about the Palestine issue.
The interview brought back memories of the fifth Labour Government and Helen’s supreme ability to analyse and describe complex situations simply.
About New Zealand’s delay in recognising Palestine as an independent state she said:
I think it’s unfortunate that we’re behind. In the end I think the right thing will probably be done, but it would have been nice to be among the earlier movers over the past few weeks, rather than be seen to be at the back of the crowd.
She justified the decision to recognise the state of Palestine in this comment:
[T]he recognition of a Palestinian state right now is a very strong statement of wanting [the] two state solution to proceed. The current Israeli government, the current Israeli Prime Minister has done everything in his power to undermine that for years. The catastrophe in Gaza, which the elders, of which I’m a member, is now calling an unfolding genocide, has totally changed world opinion about this. And the view is now that we have to make all efforts to stop the war, get a process going, get the two-state solution, and recognising now gives that momentum.
About the suggestion that this assists Hamas she said:
This is a catastrophic situation and here we are in New Zealand somehow arguing some fine point about whether we should recognise. We need to be adding our voice to the need for this catastrophe to stop. When you see an unfolding genocide you have a responsibility to act and there’s a number of actions which New Zealand and others could be taking.
About the apparent desire of the Government not to upset the United States she said:
I think it’s been a huge factor. And this is what is so disappointing, because there’s been a radical realignment of New Zealand foreign policy going on to have New Zealand cuddling right back up again to Washington, D.C. and [being] overly sensitive to everything it thinks and that governing New Zealand’s position. This is not the New Zealand I known for the last 40 years or so where we made up our own mind. We stood on principle. We now seem to really stand for nothing except somehow wanting to save our own skin in a tariff war. I think it’s really quite a humiliating position for New Zealand to be in.
About the prospect of a Hamas role in a future Palestinian state she said:
[I]f we can get a ceasefire and get agreement on moving forward, that there will be a technocratic administration of the Palestinian Authority. the Palestinian Authority would move to elections. There may be an international stabilisation force go in at the request of the Palestinian Authority. There’s elaborate plans which don’t include Hamas. So I think it’s all a bit of a red herring now to be talking about Hamas. There are credible plans for moving forward.
Her principled clarity on a complex subject was a delight to listen to.
It is a shame that the Government is clearly not capable of this quality of analysis or principled response. I get the strong impression that Act is busily holding up and frustrating the Government reaching a conclusion on the matter.
National’s previous position was a principled one and Winston Peters has in the past expressed sympathetic views.
How this plays out and how it affects the Coalition dynamics will be interesting to watch.
Not too late to come back Helen.
What leadership looks like.
She's been very good on X/Twitter lately on many issues, including the Gaza one.
I was against some of the things her govt did when she was PM, but she did try to tread an independent line with respect to joining US wars more or less.
She's been excellent lately writing & speaking against the horrendous, murderous, genocidal actions of the Israeli govt in Gaza.
To think Helen Clark was voted out in favour of John Key………Helen in my view was the best PM since Norm Kirk……..David Lange had his inspirational moments and Jacinda was a wonderful beacon of light…….. but Helen was the steady hand on the tiller……..we need her now more than ever……..and we are fortunate she is still active and a voice of reason……..
I tend to agree that Helen Clark was a cut above any PM we've had since she left office. Didn't agree with her on the Foreshore and Seabed, closing the gaps, and while she tread a fine-line re US war mongering, her govt did still do some more subtle things in support of it.
Now, tho, without having the responsibility to toe a fine diplomatic line that a PM must do, she's really shone with her public analysis of the Gaza-Israel situation.
Under the, not all women leaders agree, category
Right-leaning opposition leader Sussan Ley said the decision was "disrespectful" to the US, a key Australian ally.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79lvw4q9ylo
A nation young and free and some would kick Canada out of the way to be the 51st state of the USA.
For those interested I was recommended an App that shows you which products to boycott (companies that support Israel &/or IDF) called Halal Kiwi. I've found it quite useful.
Helen Clark is the clear voice of wisdom born of experience, both locally & globally. In contrast to the reactionary, regressive America First position of current NZ government, she stands head & shoulders above them all. If only we could see her leadership again in our government!
The international dynamic* is clear enough.
The only right of centre governments here was Ireland and now looms Germany.
France (centrist, support of their left) set a lead.
UK, Canada and now Oz (left only) since followed.
The major driver has been the cutting off of aid to Gaza civilians (collective punishment).
Presumably to treat civilians like their own hostages to force Hamas to surrender.
The world got it, when this failed it proved Hamas cared more about winning and its ambition to be in a future Palestinian government than the lives of Palestinians (the hostage families in Israel already knew this about their own government).
But at the cost of support to Israel and its war*.
Then to deny
*they were starving civilians (collective punishment) when they were
*blame the UN (who they blocked from providing aid and still do)
*plan to force another population displacement.
That discredited Israel in Gaza as much as Hamas.
Digging two graves.
The only concession, a declared intent to leave and hand over occupation to some post Hamas, non PA entity – presumably UN/Arab League.
A possible response
1.welcome the declared intent to leave and hand over occupation to the international community (UN/Arab League).
2.call for a unilateral cease-fire and the hundreds of trucks of aid per day scale of delivery of aid to provide relief to the civilians.
3.call for IDF withdrawal in return for Hamas agreeing to hand over hostages and accept a post Hamas administration of Gaza (where all locals handed over their arms or were declared in criminal violation).
Yeah nah.
New Zealand has supported a two state solution since 2012.
"New Zealand’s established approach to the Middle East Peace Process includes:
And yes, that vote was taken by a National coalition government. And they also voted to grant Palestine Observer Status at the United Nations.
Again in 2017 their Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully was super-clear:
" This two state solution has been the accepted basis for resolving the Palestinian question for many decades now, enshrined in various negotiated accords and UN Security Council resolutions, and the focus for several unsuccessful attempts to broker final agreement between the parties."
Opinion: Resolution 2334 – Preserving the two state solution | Beehive.govt.nz
Helen Clark is simply re-stating long established government policy. And so the "moral spine" point of MP Swarbrick is totally on point.
Really?
Clark called for New Zealand to recognise a Palestinian state. That has yet to be done.
The issue Swarbrick raised was what action would be taken against Israel over what she claimed was genocide.
The Elders group that Clark is part of made the same claim after observing UN aid being blocked.
The first priority is getting aid to those in Gaza.
The second resolve the impasse without more military action/forced population displacement.
Finally end the Hamas roadblock exploited by Likud to block a Palestinian state.
Nothing wrong with admitting that Clark and many major countries are using state recognition as a moral lever upon Israel.
But in terms of recognition, the State of Palestine was recognised into UNESCO in 2011.
It was granted Observer Status into the United Nations, and we voted for that, in 2012.
Resolution 67/19 puts the use of the name State of Palestine for all purposes.
More than three-quarters of the United Nations (UN) recognise the state of Palestine, including China, India, Spain, Ireland and Norway.
Notable exceptions include the United States, Israel's most influential ally, as well as other G7 powers, namely the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Germany, Japan and Italy.
And now most of those are rapidly peeling off. What Clark is calling for isn't a major at all.
It is not a moral lever.
It is premised on the observation that Israel has chosen the path of military victory over diplomacy.
This is typified by statements by members of their governing coalition.
And actions such as their Knesset passing a resolution claiming sovereignty over the West Bank.
It is demonstrating an intent not to recognise any annexation of the territory awarded for a Palestinian state.
For 15 years Likud has used Hamas rule in Gaza an excuse for the end of the peace process.
Recognising a Palestine state now is based on informing Israel that "after Gaza" there will be a focus on the West Bank and the resumption of peace talks.
In terms of the intent of the UN in 1947, no. In terms of the the peace process efforts since 1993, whether 2000 or 2009, no.
Chloe got to Christopher.
Has Winston advised him to say less than that as PM?
Other advice comes from the other Christopher, that one that does not listen to Winston.
Some point that, the first need is to prevent loss of life from denial of aid to civilians.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/569866/israel-pm-has-lost-the-plot-says-christopher-luxon
Well now, there is (even more) complicated history here, in which I am no expert.
As far as I can tell Hamas IS the legitimate government of Gaza, winning the most recent election in Gaza 2006. In spite of all the rhetoric- calling them terrorists /militants/ etc and Israels attempts to continually delegitimise them, they are the legitimate governing body.
They fought a brief war in 2007 with the Palestinian Authority (Fatah), who were going to oust Hamas with the backing of the USA and Israel.
I stand corrected on the history, but even going into it a little, one can tell -This isn't going to be easy, and Helen endorsing the Palestinian Authority and brushing aside Hamas is more of the same- the PA is buddies with the USA and Israel.
Background
The Gaza Strip and West Bank are both areas of the Palestinian Authority administration (limited in the West Bank by the Area A B and C arrangement).
There have never been elections in Gaza for the rule of Gaza, or in the West Bank for the rule of the West Bank.
There were elections for the Palestinian Authority parliament in 2006. Which Hamas did win a majority in.
(President Abbas allowed Hamas to run despite them not joining the PLO – which reached agreement for the PA to establish. Fatah the former ruling party was said to have lost because of their corruption).
However the official head of the Palestinian Authority is its President. Then and now.
A conflict between the President and Hamas resulted in the use of the gun to prevent Hamas governing the West Bank. In response Hamas gunmen drove the President's forces out of Gaza.
There have been no elections since 2006 – because of the inability to agree on holding elections in both West Bank and Gaza.
The PLO is the officially recognised government of the de jure State of Palestine, it has enjoyed United Nations observer status since 1974.
The PLO is the recognised representative of the Palestinian people. The PA is its administration in the occupied territories (Oslo Accords).
What Clark has said is covered here.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/569681/it-s-a-matter-of-when-not-if-new-zealand-recognises-a-palestinian-state-david-seymour-says
It seems to be support for a Palestinian state, rather than the continuance of the PA within occupied territory (Area A of the West Bank, excluded from all of Area C and partner in Area B).
Even Hamas has never said that. In fact I have never heard this said before, ever.
That isn't "principled clarity," it's a muddle of wishful thinking intended to prompt pointless virtue signaling by our government. Her arguments for recognising a Palestinian 'state' with no borders and no government are:
1. All the other kids are doing it.
2. If we don't, people will say we're friends with that gross Trump kid.
3. It would send a message of support for a two-state solution.
Only the third one has any value whatsoever as an argument, and it suffers from two problems:
1. The less-serious problem is that 'sending a message' isn't a genuine argument for taking any particular action. The action is either justified on its own merits, or it isn't. Any message it might send is peripheral at best.
2. The more-serious problem is that neither side actually wants a two-state solution and they've demonstrated this repeatedly. A/NZ alleging the existence of some unspecified 'state' called Palestine would do nothing to change that.
This paragraph is a complete fantasy:
Apart from "get a ceasefire," the rest is a wishlist of impossibilities. And a ceasefire is of little use in and of itself – they don't last long.
It is of use to those who are starving, lack safe drinking water, medical support and fuel.
1.The Hamas regime in Gaza and the PA in the West Bank division has prevented elections since 2006.
2.The PA has no objection to an international administration of the Gaza rebuild.
There would be questions about how long it would be before elections could occur in Gaza and any role for the PA in governance.
This paragraph is a complete fantasy
Are you sure? Helen was in Egypt with the group of Elders on the ground and talking to senior Government officials while she was there.
My thinking on it:
"agreement on moving forward": what are the various sides going to agree on? Most Palestinians support Hamas, which has as its bottom line that Israel ceases to exist. Israel's bottom line is that Hamas ceases to exist. What does 'moving forward' involve under those circumstances?
"there will be a technocratic administration of the Palestinian Authority": the PA is wildly unpopular even in its own autonomous zone. There won't be a PA administration unless the Arab countries force it on Gazans, and maintain it by force. And it's worth keeping in mind that the PA uses our aid money to fund a reward system in which the family of anyone 'martyred' while killing or trying to kill Israelis receives a hefty payout. That's the kind of "technocratic administration" we're talking about.
"the Palestinian Authority would move to elections": again, only if one is imposed by force. It's a joke among Israelis that Abbas is now in the 20th year of his four-year term in office. Also, the last time Palestinians had an election, they elected Hamas, so what would an election achieve?
"There may be an international stabilisation force go in": from which countries? Who'd be mad enough to volunteer their soldiers for it?
"There’s elaborate plans which don’t include Hamas." Of course there are. Problem is, Hamas isn't interested in permitting the implementation of elaborate plans that don't include Hamas. Calling them a "red herring" ignores the reality on the ground.
I haven't listened to the interview, but going off the post,
She's saying we could have taken our own, progressive stance, like we have on other issues. That we didn't and other countries were ahead of us, isn't a reason to not stand up now.
More like, this government is afraid of harming the relationship with the US, or doesn't care. Which seems a fair assessment.
But also, it's not that Trump is a gross kid, it's that he's a proto-fascist, and we most definitely should not be kowtowing to the US at this time.
Sending a message at this level is action that is justified on its own merits. When enough nation states say 'hey, stop fucking doing that', it's becomes harder for murderous states to keep going (that's both Israel and Hamas etc despite the latter not being a state).
yeah, well, too bad. When you become a permanent murderingand dehumanising machine (again, Israel and Hamas etc) then you give up some degree of protection from the rest of the world. Nation states don't always get what they want, neither do insurgents.
why is it impossible?
See my reply to Micky Savage above for why I think it's a wishlist of impossibilities.
Hamas should agree to dissolve only if Netanyahu agrees to leave office at exactly the same time.
Netanyahu's government and Hamas worked together just fine for years, on the critical issue of work permits over the border which generates far higher incomes than Palestinians could get in Gaza.
Since Netanyahu returned to power in January 2023, the number of work permits has soared to nearly 20,000.
Additionally, since 2014, Netanyahu-led governments have practically turned a blind eye to the incendiary balloons and rocket fire from Gaza.
Netanyahu used Hamas to shank the PLO, so Hamas grew in power and scale. They deserve each other, and should go at the same time.
The simplest example of this is "from the river to the sea". Whatever the other implications, it's obviously only describing one state.
Not really.
Look at the map.
West Bank is by the river, Gaza is by the sea.
Israel is by the sea and by the river also.
Exactly. Direct translation of the original Arabic of that chant is "From water to water, Falastin will be Arab." I can understand why Chloe Swarbrick et al prefer to chant the useful idiots' version.
I'm not naive to today's politics, but it irks me that Israel, largely populated by victims of "The" Holocaust (so decried there's no need to describe it further) should tolerate genocide.
I'm struggling to keep abreast of the rights and wrongs of this sorry situation, but there seems to me the potential for ordinary Israeli people, many of whom are children and grandchildren of Holocaust victims, to protest against the treatment of everyday Palestinians, most of whom, like all of us, just want their families to live happily and in peace.
Reply to thinker…
I did put a comment on same here…
Many Israeli's do NOT support fascist Netanyahu and his fellow neo nazi's war on Gaza.
Congratulations to the New Zealand parliament for its strong stand against the word spineless.
Did our government refuse to sign this statement?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyj0dd0qj9o
If so, it would be extraordinary given Helen Clark and Mary Robinson were the two representing The Elders in their visit to Rafah. There they observed the IDF blocking aid crossing the border.
A classic case of being left behind by Oz, in international matters from Paris Accord action to this.
Do we have to ask them to fund a new Methane Sat?
https://theelders.org/news/elders-call-decisive-measures-states-halt-unfolding-genocide-and-famine-gaza
Former Secretary of State Blinken
https://www.wsj.com
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/recognizing-a-palestinian-state-is-a-rebuke-to-hamas-middle-east-gaza-ee687a6c