EVEN BRITISH Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband accusing Israeli settlers of engaging in ethnic cleansing has failed to stir New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters into action. Nor has Britain and several other Western countries imposing economic sanctions on Israel been enough to provoke Peters into actually doing something.
None of this should come as a surprise. The Government’s silence is not accidental. It is a political choice — one that reflects Peters’ long-standing orientation towards Israel and the broader strategic interests of the United States.
Peters has cultivated an image of himself as a gruff, outspoken and independent statesman, prepared to stand up for New Zealand’s interests. Yet his foreign-policy instincts have consistently aligned with Washington’s strategic priorities. On Israel, those instincts appear to have hardened into something more ideological.
Over many years of public statements, diplomatic engagements and political positions, Peters has demonstrated a sympathy towards Israel that goes beyond conventional geopolitical calculation. It is therefore not unreasonable, based on his public record, to describe his outlook as Zionist — particularly given his repeated willingness to defend Israel’s conduct and resist meaningful measures designed to hold its government accountable. He enjoys a cordial relationship with the Zionist lobby in this country, in stark contrast to his hostile attitude toward the pro-Palestine movement.
But Winston Peters position, and that of the National-led government, has become increasingly difficult to reconcile with New Zealand’s professed commitment to international law and human rights. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's recent claim that New Zealand is a strong supporter of the international rules-based order rings hollow. The Government that he leads has turned a blind eye to Israel continually violating that very same international rules-based order.
Peters’ stance has been condemned by opposition parties. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has described the Government’s position as 'embarrassing'. More importantly, Hipkins recognises that New Zealand risks finding itself on the wrong side of international law and the growing international demand for accountability over Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories.
The issue though is not simply whether New Zealand agrees or disagrees with the actions of the Israeli government. The issue is whether New Zealand is prepared to apply the same principles to Israel that it claims to apply elsewhere.
For the past three years, the world has watched the genocidal destruction of Gaza. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, vast areas have been reduced to rubble and an untold number of people are believed to remain buried beneath destroyed buildings. Some commentaries suggest that the real death toll could be as many as 700,000 people. The humanitarian consequences have been immense.
Yet Western governments, including those that publicly profess concern for Palestinian civilians, have continued to provide Israel with diplomatic, economic and, in some cases, military support. And that includes Britain.
Britain’s new measures against Israeli settlers are therefore welcome, but they do not go far enough. Sanctioning a limited number of individuals and entities while maintaining broader political and military relationships with Israel does not amount to the kind of pressure necessary to change behaviour.
It is certainly not sufficient for political parties to issue carefully worded statements expressing concern about civilian suffering. New Zealand voters deserve to know what concrete measures each party would take against Israel if elected. Most importantly, would they be prepared to act independently of the preferences of Washington and other Western allies when international law requires it?
These are not abstract questions. New Zealand has repeatedly presented itself as a small country that punches above its weight diplomatically, a country committed to a rules-based international order. But a rules-based order means little if its rules are applied selectively.
The Government cannot credibly demand respect for international law from Russia, China, Iran or any other country while remaining conspicuously reluctant to confront violations when the perpetrator is a close Western ally. That double standard damages New Zealand’s international reputation and undermines the very principles its diplomats routinely invoke.
Peters and the National-led Government may believe that maintaining close relations with Israel and avoiding confrontation with Washington is in New Zealand’s strategic interests. But that is precisely why the issue deserves to be debated openly before the election.
Foreign policy is ultimately about choices. Governments choose which principles to defend, which relationships to prioritise and when to use their diplomatic and economic leverage. On Israel and Palestine, the Government has made its choice increasingly clear. The opposition parties now have an opportunity to make theirs clear too.
With an election looming, voters should ask every party seeking their support a simple question: if you form the next Government, what will you actually do to hold Israel accountable?
National and Winston Peters appear already to have already answered that question. After three years of mounting destruction, humanitarian catastrophe and international condemnation, their answer appears to be the same as it has been all along: they will do nothing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.