Neither argument is strictly relevant to New Zealand’s decision, which will be made by UN leaders’ week in six weeks.
The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to please Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or to infuriate Israel, although it will do all of those things. It is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza.
It is to preserve the viability of a two-state solution, a state of Israel co-existing with a state of Palestine in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.
Every country that has joined the latest international effort to recognise Palestinian statehood has cited that as the rationale.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
And the reason for that is that Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu is redoubling efforts to undermine and reject a two-state solution, including plans to take control of Gaza City, and a symbolic vote in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) last month calling for Israel to annex the West Bank.
“The Netanyahu government’s rejection of a two-state solution is wrong – it’s wrong morally and it’s wrong strategically,” said British Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
“The two-state solution is in mortal danger. It is about to give way to perpetual confrontation. That is something France simply cannot resign itself to,” said France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noel Barrot.
“Prospects for a two-state solution have been steadily and gravely eroded,” said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
“The Netanyahu Government is extinguishing the prospect of a two-state solution by rapidly expanding illegal settlements, threatening annexation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and explicitly opposing any Palestinian state,” said Albanese.
As in New Zealand, the two-state solution has long been endorsed by most countries, and the United Nations, as the only fair long-term answer to two peoples with claims to the same land.
Palestinians wait to receive hot meals with their pots and pans in Deir Al Balah, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images
The alternative, one state of Israel, is one in which the Palestinian quest for a homeland would never be satisfied, one in which Palestinian rights would be subjugated and one in which conflict would be permanent.
At times, Israel has supported a two-state solution. But Netanyahu, now in this third stint as Prime Minister, has actively undermined it by supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in breach of international law.
When New Zealand was preparing to co-sponsor UN Security Council resolution 2334 in 2016 – again in order to preserve a two-state solution – he described it as “a declaration of war”.
Netanyahu had already bullied Egypt out of co-sponsoring the resolution, but it passed, and Israel withdrew its ambassador from Wellington for five months.
The United States, whose Secretary of State John Kerry had done a huge amount of work in the Middle East, abstained, allowing it to pass without dissent.
The present has some echoes to back then. Today’s rallying of the international community, once again to preserve the two-state solution, also serves to reinforce the position that this protracted conflict needs a political solution, not a military one.
Since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing crisis, New Zealand’s position has remained non-committal about when it will recognise Palestine and to “focus on the needs of the moment”.
It is the classic bob-each-way position of a small state, trying to keep onside with Israel by not recognising Palestine, and keeping Palestinians onside by saying it’s just a matter of when, not if.
But given that Israel has thumbed its nose at the international community and its disproportionate, horrific actions in Gaza, the question New Zealand must ask is whether it is still valid to try to please everyone.
With movement on the issue from a large number of like-minded friends, Australia, Britain, France, and Canada give a small country the cover it might not normally have over such a major shift.
No shift is likely without conditions. They could be similar to those accepted by France and Canada, such as commitments by the Palestinian Authority to reform its governance, commit to elections in 2026, exclude any role for Hamas, and demilitarise any Palestinian state.
If a condition by New Zealand were to wait for recognition until an actual state was in place, that would be tantamount to the status quo.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters took an oral item to cabinet on Monday about recognition of a Palestinian state, as opposed to a cabinet paper.
That is not to say that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade won’t have plenty of advice on recognition, and that is being prepared. But it is also a reminder that no matter what the official advice is, it will be a political decision.
Peters himself, a former student of Hebrew, has been a hawk on Israel. He was critical of New Zealand sponsoring resolution 2334 in 2016. That meant his strong criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza last year and this year has carried more weight.
Planes drop aid packages by parachute over western Gaza City, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images
It is acknowledged by most countries that the United States and President Trump, Israel’s strongest ally, hold the key to ending the conflict and what happens afterwards.
And because Peters is sympathetic to the Trump Administration and its America First ethos, he is open to accusations of delaying recognition in order to please the United States.
That is why Peters, despite professing to loathe the common refrain that New Zealand has an independent foreign policy on the basis that it implies that others don’t, on Monday insisted that “New Zealand has an independent foreign policy”.
An important factor in how New Zealand is approaching the issue of recognition is the unique makeup of the Government.
It is the prerogative of the cabinet to make such a decision. However, given that the cabinet avoids votes (National with 14 out of 20 would win every time) and operates on party consensus, it effectively gives a veto to each of the three parties in Government, National, Act and NZ First.
That could lead to an outrageous outcome if, for example, every party in Parliament except Act favoured recognition of Palestinian statehood or if every party except Act and NZ First supported recognition.
The parties other than Act, led by Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, and NZ First, led by Peters, represent 85% of the Parliament.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the recognition of Palestine is a complex issue and will take time to work through.
Actually, it is not that hard. What will be hard is presenting the views of a disparate Government to a country that has largely lost sympathy with Israel because of its appalling treatment of Palestinians.
One of the reasons Peters might find it difficult to support recognition of Palestinian statehood is that he has spent the past year saying why New Zealand shouldn’t.
But when the circumstances change, as they have done, it is not unreasonable for the response to change.