On its information page concerning New Zealand’s response to the ‘Israel–Hamas conflict’, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade states that the country ‘has long advocated for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza leading to a lasting, sustainable peace’. Indeed, since permanent representative Carolyn Schwalger’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly on 21 November 2023, the government has issued some twenty-nine statements ostensibly supporting an end to the violence, albeit not always articulated as ‘an immediate ceasefire’.
On closer inspection, however, these statements turn out to be little more than hot air. Accompanying comments and context render almost meaningless officials’ professed desire for ‘a concerted effort to address the horrific humanitarian crisis in Gaza’—with ‘humanitarian crisis’ serving as a euphemism allowing the government to avoid identifying Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide enabled by the United States. A more accurate description of Wellington’s policy? In support of its most powerful like-minded partner, New Zealand has long hidden behind propaganda exercises feigning grave concern for Palestinians while Israel’s assault continues.
These exercises began soon after 7 October 2023. In its 18 November decision submission concerning New Zealand’s ‘position on calling for a ceasefire’, the ministry describes a ‘complexity of views’ on the meaning of the term. ‘At a diplomatic level’, states the document, ‘the term “ceasefire” is defined by the UN as a suspension of fighting agreed upon by the parties to a conflict, typically as part of a political process’ (emphasis in original); ‘at the public level, various civil society groups and political leaders are actively calling for a ceasefire to reflect that they simply want the fighting and killing to stop’. In fact, the two ‘levels’ are not mutually exclusive. However, by comparing apples with oranges—i.e. by illogically contrasting the outcome of the former quote with the motivations of those described in the latter—officials hide behind a layer of false complexity.
After producing this confusion, the ministry declines to advocate for a ceasefire because ‘the conditions for a formal ceasefire described in language developed by the UN do not currently exist’. For officials, an ‘immediate’ challenge to reaching such an agreement is that ‘the parties to the conflict do not want it’. Leaving aside the fact that Palestinians are under no legal obligation to renounce the use of armed struggle to end Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, reports dating from 27 October 2023 indicate Hamas’s intention to pursue a negotiated settlement. Disregarding this fact, the ministry’s position found bipartisan expression: outgoing prime minister Chris Hipkins stated on 31 October 2023 that a ceasefire was not ‘a realistic prospect’, and current prime minister Christopher Luxon told parliament on 7 December 2023 that ‘we would like to see a ceasefire, but in order to achieve a sustainable ceasefire […] both sides […] have to agree’.
In place of a ceasefire worthy of the name, officials support, as ‘the most urgent priority’, ‘practical humanitarian steps (such as humanitarian pauses)’. This term, then favoured by numerous Western countries including the United States, denotes only a temporary reprieve to enable the provision of aid. In keeping with this preference, New Zealand voted for the 26 October 2023 General Assembly resolution calling for an ‘immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities’. However, Schwalger subsequently undermined this vote by falsely affirming ‘Israel’s right to defend itself, in full compliance with international law, including in respect of actions taken in Gaza’.
This refusal to advocate for a meaningful ceasefire continued with New Zealand’s first joint statement with Australia and Canada on 13 December 2023. In the November decision submission, while the statement was being negotiated, officials described it as being ‘consistent with New Zealand’s current policy settings’ (a draft of the statement is redacted). Consequently, New Zealand’s resistance to a ceasefire appears in its purported call for one.
ABC News presented the statement as pushing for a ceasefire despite the position being ‘somewhat at odds with the US’. In reality, the prime ministers supported ‘urgent international efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire’ without explicitly backing a ceasefire itself. Immediately afterwards, they compromised this weaker statement by erroneously implying that Hamas is the primary obstacle to peace. Ceasefire efforts ‘cannot be one-sided’, they assert. ‘Hamas must release all hostages, stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields’—an allegation unsupported by evidence—and ‘lay down its arms’.
The prime ministers were not content with ignoring Israel’s thousands of Palestinian prisoners, documented use of Palestinian civilians as human shields long before 7 October, and decades-long use of violence. Rather, they exposed the joint statement’s pretence by advocating for the removal from power of a group that any serious ‘diplomatic efforts’ would include, imperiously stating that ‘there is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza’ without even questioning the future of the Israeli government. Of course, the extent to which this assertion contradicted their professed support for ‘Palestinians’ right to self-determination’ was not mentioned.
New Zealand’s aversion to advocating for a ceasefire continued with its second joint statement on 15 February 2024. As Israel prepared to invade Rafah, the same three states announced, ‘an immediate humanitarian ceasefire is urgently needed’ and ‘a sustainable ceasefire is necessary to finding a path towards securing lasting peace’. These calls came with familiar caveats: ‘any ceasefire cannot be one-sided. Hamas must lay down its arms and release all hostages immediately. We again unequivocally condemn Hamas for its terror attacks on Israel on October 7’. Meanwhile, the leaders urged Israel to provide ‘rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian relief’ and ensure ‘the protection of civilians’ while its snipers targeted them.
New Zealand’s ceasefire calls became more specific with its third joint statement on 26 July 2024. The Australian, Canadian and New Zealand prime ministers said that ‘parties to the conflict’ should agree to the ceasefire deal endorsed the previous month at the Security Council. Adopted on 10 June, Resolution 2735 calls for adherence to the 31 May proposal of ‘an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire’ leading to ‘a permanent end to hostilities’. Despite the joint statement’s suggestion to the contrary, Hamas supported the proposal on 31 May. The group also agreed to adhere to the resolution on 11 June, when senior official Sami Abu Zuhri reportedly told Reuters, ‘Hamas accepts the UN Security Council resolution in regard to the ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli troops and swap of hostages for detainees held by Israel’.
In contrast, despite initially accepting the proposal, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on 23 June that Israel intended to ‘continu[e] the war after a pause’—contravening the proposal’s stipulation for the ceasefire to continue beyond an initial six-week period for ‘as long as negotiations continue’. Consequently, the joint statement expressed support for the resolution only after it had started to become what international relations analyst Mouin Rabbani called ‘a laughable charade’.
Following New Zealand’s participation in this diversionary exercise, Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters asked at the United Nations General Assembly last September, ‘where is the sincerity and moral determination of today’s leaders at the vortex of this unacceptable violence?’ Yet during his trip to New York, Peters did not so much as ‘express disquiet’ to the United States for making this violence possible. In the context of Israel’s complete disregard for international law, any ‘concerted effort’ to achieve a ceasefire requires New Zealand to press the United States to end its crucial support for Israel. Otherwise, New Zealand’s actions will continue to exemplify the ‘political posturing’ it claims to reject.