September 27, 2025 • 26 mins
The Government has decided against recognising a Palestinian state at this stage.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters made the announcement in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, grouping New Zealand with a small handful of countries who have also decided not to make the move.
He said as long as Hamas is the Gaza Strip's de facto government, there is no legitimate State of Palestine for New Zealand to recognise.
Peters also laid out a list of conditions that would need to be met before New Zealand makes the move - like the release of all hostages, the renouncement of terrorism, and movement toward an actual democracy - among others.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
So Yes, As I mentioned, we're going to take this
hour a little differently with a panel discussion following the
government's announcement of its decision against recognizing a Palestinian state
at this stage, then we'll be doing talkback taking your calls.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
So yes.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Foreign Minister Winston Peter's made the long awaited announcement in
a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Yes, was
it yesterday? I can get my days muddle up with
the time zone, grouping New Zealand with a small handful
of countries who have also decided not to make the
move yet, He said, as long as Hamas is the
Gaza strips de facto government, there is no legitimate state
(00:49):
of Palestine for New Zealand to recognize. He also laid
out a list of conditions that would need to be
met before New Zealand makes a move, like the release
of all hostages, the renouncing of terrorism, and a movement
towards an actual democracy, among others. So is it a
careful act of diplomatic restraint or has New Zealand missed
(01:11):
a moral and strategic moment well joining me. Jeffrey Miller
is a political geopolitical analyst with the Democracy Project. He'll
be with us in a moment. We're just trying to
get him up there. But firstly we're joined by Robert Patman.
He's a professor of international relations at a Targer University
and he is Robert first, is with me. Now, Robert,
(01:32):
good afternoon, Good afternoon. So we'll start with you. We're
just having a bit of trouble connecting through to Jeffrey,
so it might be a panel with you and me,
but we'll see how we go. Let's see, because I
haven't made I'm sort of I mean, not that it's
massively relevant what Tim Beverage thinks, but I must well
tell you I'm sort of fifty five forty five, you know,
(01:53):
a little bit fifty to fifty, but not quite thinking
maybe what we've done is the right move, but what
do you think.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
I think we've made the wrong move actually, And the
reason I say that is because during the last two years,
the National lead Coalition government has emphasized its support for
a lasting cease fire in Gaza. It's reiterated it's backing
for a two state solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict,
and it's repeatedly said it's willing to recognize a Palin
(02:25):
Palestinian state. It's not a question if. It's not a
question if, but when. And so given the gravity of
the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, a situation
where let's be quite clear so that our listeners had
the full picture. The conflict between the Israelis and the
(02:47):
Palestinians has been going on for decades, and there was
an sharp escalation in that conflict on the seventh October
when terrorist group Hamas launched an attack on Israel, which
killed twelve hundred Israelis. But mister Nestnio who launched a
campaign a mighty vengine which killed sixty five thousand, which
(03:08):
has cumlatively killed sixty five thousand Palestinians, including seventy percent
of the Palestine deaths have been women and children. And
there is a widespread feeling that not only was the
Hamas terrorist attack a war crime, but the retaliation has
been disproportionate, has not distinguished between civilians and military targets sufficiently,
(03:35):
and in the process gals has been reduced to rubble.
Eighty percent of all buildings in Gals have been absolutely devastating.
Ninety percent of the population has been displaced, and in addition,
famine conditions are now taking hold, not because of some
(03:56):
natural phenomenon, but because of an engineered restriction of humanitarian aids.
So this is a desperate situation and it also has
a big message for New Zealand because we've always stood
very strongly to uphold international law and we believe in
a rules based international order. And what's quite clear is
(04:16):
that international law is being trashed in the Middle East.
And given that backdrop, and given the gravity of the situation,
I thought it was time that New Zealand indicated it's
disapproval for the for the direction the nest year Who
government is going. The reason I may I say this
(04:38):
is because New Zealand, as I said before, has always
stood for a two state solution. That is not the
position of the nest Yahu government. It has said it
will never accept the Palestinian right of self determination. So
that's actually in conflict with us, and I thought, what
we what the reason the other countries have like Britain, Canada,
(05:02):
Australia recently joined those countries which have just recognized the
postings is because it's a way of communicating with the
Israeli governments. We do not. We did approve of your
plans to annex the West Bank and also taken full
control of God.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Okay, now we've got we've managed to establish contact with
Jeffrey Miller, who joins me, joins us as well. Jeffy,
you're probably aware of before, even if you've missed Robert's
earlier statements of his position on it. But I guess
have we missed an opportunity to exercise some disapproval Jeffrey, Good.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
Afternoon, Tim. I think he's edited as sidelining itself on
this issue. It's quite perplexing, to be perfectly honest, because
New Zealand has tendered to side with countries like Australia
and Canada and France, United Kingdom. Since October the seventh,
He's editor signed up to numerous joint statements with these countries.
We signed up to one and just most recently in
(06:02):
July on the issue of the two states solution. So
it is very puzzling why New Zealand is going down
this route at this point. And you would be very
very interesting to be a fly on the wall and
Cabinet and work out what the arguments were that we're
presented and how that decision was made.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
So do you what do you disagree with us? I'm
guessing you do. I just sort do you disagree with
New Zealand not recognizing it right now?
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Well, I think there's so much in favor of going
for the recognition right now, and I think standing with
New Zealand's partners such as Australia, in the United Kingdom
and Canada is one argument. The fact that we had
that recent poll that showed that forty two percent of
New Zealanders are in favor. Okay, not a majority, but
it's plurality. Twenty two percent were against. And as a
(06:55):
measure of showing solidarity, I think here not just with
the Palestinians, but with the Arab world, the Muslim world,
bearing in mind that many many countries that Muslim world,
in the Arab world of recognized the Palestinian state since
nineteen eighty eight, and I think the point is why
recognize the Palestinian state now? I mean, mister Peters, But
it does make some arguments that have some merit with
(07:18):
regards to the fact that there are no recognized borders
is not a viable state, no effective governance. Where you
have to look at the reason why that is, and
that is because Israel is occupying large parts of Palestinian
territory and they're doing everything possible at the moment to
make a Palestinian state impossible and many Minettigno, who spoke
(07:38):
several hours before Winston Peters yesterday, said that it would
be national suicide to allow the creation of a Palestinian state,
and he very much said that that he was against it,
that the State of Israel was against the creation of
a Palestinian state ever in the future. So I think
it's a collective an expression of collective will of the
(07:59):
international community to go for the recognition recognition of a
Palestinian state right now.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So I think I'm going to have to play Devil's
advocate to get with both of you then, because just
can we drill into say what the UK and Canada,
France and UK Australia have all said that they recognize
the Palestinian state. And I'll go to you first with this, Robert,
is that it was with conditions. So they say we
(08:28):
recognize it, but it's on the condition that Hamas doesn't
play any form of in the rotten government, any role
in government. They renounced terrorism, they they return the hostages,
and you know the general comments around restoring democracy. I mean,
I could promise, I could undertake that. I recognize that
(08:49):
I owe you a million dollars when a cow jumps
over the moon, but I don't actually a million dollars
because it's not going to happen, or it hasn't happened.
So if something that hasn't happened, it's conditional. Have they
actually realistically acknowledged the Palestinian state when it's subject to conditions.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
That's a fair point. They have put a lot of
conditions in and it should be pointed out that both
Britain and Australia until recently we're providing military support for
the Neto Who campaign of massive vengeance in Gaza. Those
words are not mine, they're mister Neto Who's. So yes,
there are conditions attached, but it nevertheless represents it's I
(09:34):
think the crucial point here is that by symbolically recognizing
a Palestinian state, it opens up the possibility to taking
further practical measures. It also it communicates to the Neto
Whu government that Britain, Australian Canada actually disapproves of Netanio
(09:56):
Who's plans to take over Gaza and also annexed the
West Bank. It's already annex East Jerusalem. That this is
important because it's interesting to me. And in a few
hours since yesterday when New Zealan made this decision, the
Netuyahoo government has already praised the decision by the National
(10:21):
led coalition and suggested that has invited New Zealand to
place its embassy in Jerusalem. Now, many countries reject the
relocation of Israel's capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because
East Jerusalem was illegally annexed by Israel. So this is
(10:42):
already going to call some embarrassment for the government because
I think the government, in all sincerity it could take
a middle round ground position between the Hamas terrorist organization
and the intransigence of the Netaho government. The problem is,
I think this government, if you think about it, said
the time is not quite right. But if on that logic,
(11:08):
it implies there's plenty of time to make the decision
in the future, when we all know that time is
running out because the nest Who government is taking over
their it said his official position is to annex the
West Bank this year and to extend and we were
seeing its extending control in Gaza. So, you know, coming
(11:30):
back to Jeffrey's point is perplexing because if ever was
a need for urgency now to say to the nest
Who government, we stand for a two state solution. We
don't like your idea of a one state solution based
on the greater Israel. Jeffrey, Sorry, sorry.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Jeffrey, I what do you make of that? Who Israel
like what we've done? Does that mean we've scored an
own goal on that? Just on that fact itself.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
As well. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, as Sharon Hatfield,
has called it a net of moral courage what New
Zealand did yesterday and called it an act of common sense,
which tells you that Israel is very happy with New
Zealand's decision. And I think in the end, this is
how New Zealand's decision will largely be viewed by outside
of servers. They will view it as New Zealand backing
(12:20):
Israel and backing the United States and these countries that
are absolutely against the creation of a Palestinian state. Now
or in the future. Israel has made it clear they
do not want to accept the Palestinian state at all
in the future. And Winston Peters he's made a lot
of points. I mean, I watched his speech yesterday at
(12:41):
the United Nations. He has a lot of arguments in
favor of not doing it now, but doing it later
on and when there's a state that's a lot more viable.
He's not against a Palestinian state and principle, he's made
it very clear. He says it's a question of when,
not if. But I think the fine print and the
detail will just get lost because in the New Zealand
(13:02):
will just be a dot on the map upside of service.
We will look at that and we'll just say New
Zealand's missing and action here, and they will see that
as a voice of support for Israel. So it is
a kind of a with us or against us moment
in a sense from Israel's perspective, and they'll be very
very happy because New Zealand has a very good name
in the Middle East, it has very good reputation. Why
(13:25):
does the Deputy Foreign Minister feel the need to post
about that, because it's when in terms of reputation. New
Zealand might be small in terms of size, but its
reputation is outsize and that has been the case for
many years. When it comes to issues in the Middle
East and the Palestinian issue, New Zealand's reputation is worth
a lot worth its weight in gold. So Israel is
very happy about New Zealand's decision yesterday.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Right, we're going to dig into this a bit more.
I'll ask for a bit more time from both Jeffrom
Miller and Robert Patman. We're discussing New Zealand's decision not
to formally recognize the state of Palestine, despite saying that
that we might do it, we'd like to do it
in the future in its case of when not if,
and we'll be taking your calls after that. Firstly, we're
just going to take a quick moment. It's twenty three
(14:07):
past three News Talks. He'd be yes, welcome back, and
we're with Jeffrey Miller and Robert Patman talking about Winston
Peter's the announced a decision by the New Zealand government
not to recognize the state of Palestine. Right now, and
we're going to you first rob it on this. Can
I argue that I'm where their points and when firstly
(14:28):
questioned where their points in Winston Peter's speech, because he
Strokes spoke strongly against the unbalanced response that Netahu's made.
Did you agree with many of the things or any
of the things he said, apart from aside from the
actual conclusion and the decision, robit, I hand on a second,
I just need to put you online there anyway there,
so you have to start again there, robit I just
(14:49):
hadn't put you on here. There we go.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Yes, I thought that Winston Peter's made some valid points,
but he also said some things which I think were debaseball.
For example, he said, we can't make a decision to
recognize a Palacinian state now because a war is raging.
But if New Zealan is in principle willing to recognize
(15:12):
a Palestinian state, waiting doesn't make any sense because the
territory which the Palestinians would want to make their state
from is being overrun and occupied and degraded. If anything,
we you know on the basis that there's no infrastructure
or no state in place. If you use that criteria,
(15:35):
then perhaps we should have gone for recognition a year ago,
and it's certainly not going to improve in the future.
This is I come back to Jeffrey's point. I think
the reason the Israelis were pleased with the reluctance to
recognize a Palestinian state is that the Israeli government interpreted
(15:56):
the New Zealan's decision as an acceptance of their current policy.
And I don't think that's intended, but.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
It was that would that would be at odds with
some of Winston's comments where he's not again it.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Would be yeah. But there's another point here where I
don't think with respect and I understand that, you know,
being a foreign minister, you've got all the responsibility and
you've got to take the decision with all weighing things up.
But I do think come back to my original point,
the situation is a fork in the road moment for
international relations. What we're witnessing is the erosion of international
(16:33):
law and international rules, and New Zealand can't be seen
to be semi detached about things we depend on internationally.
So you know, you know, let's put this in let's
put this in strategic terms. New Zealand can't afford to
be seen as sitting on the fence when it's it's
(16:54):
wider interests are being eroded and seriously undermine by the
fact that Israel and the United States are acting with
impunity and breaking international rules, and that that is a
big concern.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
What Okay, I'll pass this one to Jeffrey and you
can come back on it as well, Robert. But Jeffrey
isn't aren't we just being more honest? Because cynically speaking,
if you talk about as Robert has talking about what
you know, what the decisions really means, and it's about
disapproval of certainly not not approving of what Israel's doing
(17:30):
and expressing disapproval. But the cynical part of me says
that all these other nations they're all just virtue signaling
because they're actually not they're not actually making any difference
to it, and they're not going to they're not going
to engage with any state of Palestine as long as
Hamasa running it. We've just been more honest about it. Well,
(17:50):
what would you say to those arguments?
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Well, listen to him. Yesterday, Christville Luckson said New Zealand's
recognition of a Palestinian state would not solved the conflict.
And I would agree with him on that. And in
some ways this issue is a side show what's happening
in New York, because what's happening on the grounds right
now in Gaza is just horrific. There is absolutely desperation.
(18:15):
Israels bulldozing its way through Gaza, and we're up to
sixty five thousand Palestine lives that have been lost, and
we're being told by Donald Trump that a ceasepy is
just around the corner. Well, how many times have we
heard that before? You're in ber Anthony Blincoln are telling
us a week for months that a ceasepire was just
(18:35):
around the corner. So, in a sense, no, the vote
wouldn't change anything. Whether we recognize the Palestinian state or not.
Whether New Zealand had voted in favor or against day
doesn't change anything. What will change things is what happens
on the ground. And both Christopher Luxe and Winston Peters
were saying that we need dialogue, diplomacy, leadership, and I
would ask, well, where is New Zealand's leadership on this issue,
(18:57):
and if we're going to be so principled in their
view that we can't recognize the Palestine state because there
isn't a Bible state. Well, then you even needs to
be doubling it, redoubling its efforts to support the creation
of a viable state. He's even needs to be working
in those areas for dialogue diplomacy as the escalation, and
I think you've even certainly given its credibility. Certainly it's
(19:20):
good ties overall with countries in the Middle East, particularly
at the Gulf States when you set at scientist trade
agreements recently, it needs to be working with the lights
of the United Arab Emirates, Katar, Saudi Arabia, I mean
Kuta for its trouble was bombed or posting the CEA
spy negotiations. I think he even needs to double down
in solidarity with some of these countries because who else
(19:43):
is going to do it.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I get the feeling from speaking to you both, and
probably even more so from your Robert, that that you
don't actually hold any hope. I don't mean this cynically
or anything, but there actually don't hold any hope that
there is going to be a state to recognize soon
and that this is the only moment we have to
at least express discipl of all about what seems to
(20:06):
be inevitable. Do you think that there is ever going
to be a two state solution or do you think
that we're really in a catastrophic situation right now?
Speaker 3 (20:15):
I think it's I think we are heading towards a
situation where a two state solution will become impossible because,
and that is the express determination of the Netnahu government.
They want to take over and confiscate Palestinian land and
tart property. I mean that, you know, we're focusing on
goals at the moment, but in the West Bank, more
(20:37):
than a thousand Palestinians have died since the events of
the seventh October twenty twenty three, and the settlement illegal
settlement program has been accelerated, so certainly that is the goal.
Now can we stop that? Well, I think the first
thing to do is the international community as a whole
to say to Israel you can't simply operationalize the principle
(21:00):
that might is right and you can't run. I mean,
let's be quite clear, in the long run, even if
Israel succeeds in taking over these the occupied territories and
calling it a greater Israel, whatever it will call it,
there will be something like six six million publicines displaced,
(21:20):
which will be a real that will be a security
nightmare for the region. So it's not going to solve
the problem. I haven't given up hope on a two
state solution. The crucial player in this is the United States.
United States up until the second Trump administration paid lip
service to a two state solution, but that didn't stop
(21:43):
arming a government which was dedicated to preventing that. If
you can work that out, but it will depend on
international will, and that's why I'm disappointed with New Zealan's position.
We took a strong position internationally over apartheid. We recognize
the right that we recognize the principal of political self
(22:06):
determination for black South Africans. You know what disappointed me
yesterday was the constant focus on Hamas and the nation
Yahoo government and the loss of focus on the Palestinians,
the great vast majority of them who don't particularly like
Hamas and are the people bearing the brunt of this crisis.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Well, let's look at everyone outside of Israel, the people
who have recognized the state and the ones who haven't. Jeffrey, really,
what more should happen? Because everyone's arguing about recognition and
whether we do or we don't, but it's making zero difference.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
We need to see fire, we need peace, and it
is as simple and as difficult as that. And in
the end, the international community as a whole needs to
absolutely work together to get a cease fire first of all,
and then that long term two state solution. It is
the only answer that the Palace is rarely Palestinian conflict
as a cancer that infects the Middle East and infects
the entire world really because it sucks up so much
(23:06):
oxygen and morally it's absolutely wrong what is happening at
the moment. Even if you are blind to what is
happening at a moral level, if you're only interested in trade,
it's a cancer in that respect as well, because it
destroys the hope of prosperity over so much of the
Middle East. It is the cancer of the world in
(23:26):
terms of international relations. Then we absolutely need to continue
to speak out for peace, for a two state solution,
and first of all, that's the lowest bar really is
the Seaspire, and that's what we need. So anything that
New Zealand can do to bring about a ceasefire, I
think we should be supporting, and so when Christopher Luxon
talks about leadership, I hope he shows it on this issue,
(23:47):
and I hope Winston Peters continues to show it on
this issue because I think the decision that was made
yesterday does not serve New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Well, okay, I'll stick with you, Jeffrey, and then go
back for Robert. What can we do if we do
need to resurrect our standing in your eyes?
Speaker 4 (24:03):
Well, I think Winston Peters and rist Re Luxe and
will need to do a lot of explaining about this decision,
and they're going to have to show that they really
mean what they say in terms of needing to go
back to dialogue, diplomacy, to support teeth and to go
for that those more practical steps. That's what they're saying,
(24:25):
that we can't recognize the Palestinian States because there isn't one,
because it's not viable yet and we need to work
on all the issues there to make a more viable state.
Then I think it puts an even greater obligation on
the New Zealand government to do more with this issue. No,
I think really that's what they need to be looking at.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Robert.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
I'd agree with Jeffrey I think it's incumbent on the
government to explain the delay, and particularly given the fact
that the prospect for a Palestinian state is diminishing with
every day that goes past. You know, the assumption behind
delay is there will be a better moment recognize a
(25:06):
Palestinian state sometime in the future, but we all know
that's not the case, so that needs to be explained.
And I really agree with Jeffrey. I mean, I think
New Zealand's policy throughout this two year crisis has been ambiguous,
and I would have liked to see mister Peters using
the good international reputation in this country to much better effect,
(25:28):
much earlier on visiting the Gulf States and seeing what
can be done. Let's be quite clear, this crisis is
a failure for the UN Security Council, that is to say,
the United States there's primary responsibility for using its VETO power.
Only five countries can veto use the VETO and that
(25:50):
has resulted in a continuing conflict in which many innocent
people have died. And I think not only does New
Zealand need to become more active in Middle East diplomacy,
it needs to join Finland in demanding a reformer UN
Security Council so that we can't have another Guys, that
reoccur in the future with one country blocks the rest
(26:13):
of the international community. The majority of countries want a
ceasefire now, but it's being stymied by the United States
and it's diplomatic cover for Israel in the United Nations.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Hey, look, we could talk for ages guys, but we'll
have to wrap it up there. But I really appreciate
your insights on that, Robert and Robert Petman and Jeffery
Miller really appreciate your time. Thanks, guys. That is Jeffrey
Miller and as I said, Robert Petman. Jeffrey Miller is
a geopolitical analyst, and Robert Petman is an international relations
expert at the Tag Universe.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talks It be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Collective podcast from News Talks EDB.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
So Yes, As I mentioned, we're going to take this
hour a little differently with a panel discussion following the
government's announcement of its decision against recognizing a Palestinian state
at this stage, then we'll be doing talkback taking your calls.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
So yes.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Foreign Minister Winston Peter's made the long awaited announcement in
a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Yes, was
it yesterday? I can get my days muddle up with
the time zone, grouping New Zealand with a small handful
of countries who have also decided not to make the
move yet, He said, as long as Hamas is the
Gaza strips de facto government, there is no legitimate state
(00:49):
of Palestine for New Zealand to recognize. He also laid
out a list of conditions that would need to be
met before New Zealand makes a move, like the release
of all hostages, the renouncing of terrorism, and a movement
towards an actual democracy, among others. So is it a
careful act of diplomatic restraint or has New Zealand missed
(01:11):
a moral and strategic moment well joining me. Jeffrey Miller
is a political geopolitical analyst with the Democracy Project. He'll
be with us in a moment. We're just trying to
get him up there. But firstly we're joined by Robert Patman.
He's a professor of international relations at a Targer University
and he is Robert first, is with me. Now, Robert,
(01:32):
good afternoon, Good afternoon. So we'll start with you. We're
just having a bit of trouble connecting through to Jeffrey,
so it might be a panel with you and me,
but we'll see how we go. Let's see, because I
haven't made I'm sort of I mean, not that it's
massively relevant what Tim Beverage thinks, but I must well
tell you I'm sort of fifty five forty five, you know,
(01:53):
a little bit fifty to fifty, but not quite thinking
maybe what we've done is the right move, but what
do you think.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
I think we've made the wrong move actually, And the
reason I say that is because during the last two years,
the National lead Coalition government has emphasized its support for
a lasting cease fire in Gaza. It's reiterated it's backing
for a two state solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict,
and it's repeatedly said it's willing to recognize a Palin
(02:25):
Palestinian state. It's not a question if. It's not a
question if, but when. And so given the gravity of
the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, a situation
where let's be quite clear so that our listeners had
the full picture. The conflict between the Israelis and the
(02:47):
Palestinians has been going on for decades, and there was
an sharp escalation in that conflict on the seventh October
when terrorist group Hamas launched an attack on Israel, which
killed twelve hundred Israelis. But mister Nestnio who launched a
campaign a mighty vengine which killed sixty five thousand, which
(03:08):
has cumlatively killed sixty five thousand Palestinians, including seventy percent
of the Palestine deaths have been women and children. And
there is a widespread feeling that not only was the
Hamas terrorist attack a war crime, but the retaliation has
been disproportionate, has not distinguished between civilians and military targets sufficiently,
(03:35):
and in the process gals has been reduced to rubble.
Eighty percent of all buildings in Gals have been absolutely devastating.
Ninety percent of the population has been displaced, and in addition,
famine conditions are now taking hold, not because of some
(03:56):
natural phenomenon, but because of an engineered restriction of humanitarian aids.
So this is a desperate situation and it also has
a big message for New Zealand because we've always stood
very strongly to uphold international law and we believe in
a rules based international order. And what's quite clear is
(04:16):
that international law is being trashed in the Middle East.
And given that backdrop, and given the gravity of the situation,
I thought it was time that New Zealand indicated it's
disapproval for the for the direction the nest year Who
government is going. The reason I may I say this
(04:38):
is because New Zealand, as I said before, has always
stood for a two state solution. That is not the
position of the nest Yahu government. It has said it
will never accept the Palestinian right of self determination. So
that's actually in conflict with us, and I thought, what
we what the reason the other countries have like Britain, Canada,
(05:02):
Australia recently joined those countries which have just recognized the
postings is because it's a way of communicating with the
Israeli governments. We do not. We did approve of your
plans to annex the West Bank and also taken full
control of God.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Okay, now we've got we've managed to establish contact with
Jeffrey Miller, who joins me, joins us as well. Jeffy,
you're probably aware of before, even if you've missed Robert's
earlier statements of his position on it. But I guess
have we missed an opportunity to exercise some disapproval Jeffrey, Good.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
Afternoon, Tim. I think he's edited as sidelining itself on
this issue. It's quite perplexing, to be perfectly honest, because
New Zealand has tendered to side with countries like Australia
and Canada and France, United Kingdom. Since October the seventh,
He's editor signed up to numerous joint statements with these countries.
We signed up to one and just most recently in
(06:02):
July on the issue of the two states solution. So
it is very puzzling why New Zealand is going down
this route at this point. And you would be very
very interesting to be a fly on the wall and
Cabinet and work out what the arguments were that we're
presented and how that decision was made.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
So do you what do you disagree with us? I'm
guessing you do. I just sort do you disagree with
New Zealand not recognizing it right now?
Speaker 4 (06:32):
Well, I think there's so much in favor of going
for the recognition right now, and I think standing with
New Zealand's partners such as Australia, in the United Kingdom
and Canada is one argument. The fact that we had
that recent poll that showed that forty two percent of
New Zealanders are in favor. Okay, not a majority, but
it's plurality. Twenty two percent were against. And as a
(06:55):
measure of showing solidarity, I think here not just with
the Palestinians, but with the Arab world, the Muslim world,
bearing in mind that many many countries that Muslim world,
in the Arab world of recognized the Palestinian state since
nineteen eighty eight, and I think the point is why
recognize the Palestinian state now? I mean, mister Peters, But
it does make some arguments that have some merit with
(07:18):
regards to the fact that there are no recognized borders
is not a viable state, no effective governance. Where you
have to look at the reason why that is, and
that is because Israel is occupying large parts of Palestinian
territory and they're doing everything possible at the moment to
make a Palestinian state impossible and many Minettigno, who spoke
(07:38):
several hours before Winston Peters yesterday, said that it would
be national suicide to allow the creation of a Palestinian state,
and he very much said that that he was against it,
that the State of Israel was against the creation of
a Palestinian state ever in the future. So I think
it's a collective an expression of collective will of the
(07:59):
international community to go for the recognition recognition of a
Palestinian state right now.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So I think I'm going to have to play Devil's
advocate to get with both of you then, because just
can we drill into say what the UK and Canada,
France and UK Australia have all said that they recognize
the Palestinian state. And I'll go to you first with this, Robert,
is that it was with conditions. So they say we
(08:28):
recognize it, but it's on the condition that Hamas doesn't
play any form of in the rotten government, any role
in government. They renounced terrorism, they they return the hostages,
and you know the general comments around restoring democracy. I mean,
I could promise, I could undertake that. I recognize that
(08:49):
I owe you a million dollars when a cow jumps
over the moon, but I don't actually a million dollars
because it's not going to happen, or it hasn't happened.
So if something that hasn't happened, it's conditional. Have they
actually realistically acknowledged the Palestinian state when it's subject to conditions.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
That's a fair point. They have put a lot of
conditions in and it should be pointed out that both
Britain and Australia until recently we're providing military support for
the Neto Who campaign of massive vengeance in Gaza. Those
words are not mine, they're mister Neto Who's. So yes,
there are conditions attached, but it nevertheless represents it's I
(09:34):
think the crucial point here is that by symbolically recognizing
a Palestinian state, it opens up the possibility to taking
further practical measures. It also it communicates to the Neto
Whu government that Britain, Australian Canada actually disapproves of Netanio
(09:56):
Who's plans to take over Gaza and also annexed the
West Bank. It's already annex East Jerusalem. That this is
important because it's interesting to me. And in a few
hours since yesterday when New Zealan made this decision, the
Netuyahoo government has already praised the decision by the National
(10:21):
led coalition and suggested that has invited New Zealand to
place its embassy in Jerusalem. Now, many countries reject the
relocation of Israel's capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because
East Jerusalem was illegally annexed by Israel. So this is
(10:42):
already going to call some embarrassment for the government because
I think the government, in all sincerity it could take
a middle round ground position between the Hamas terrorist organization
and the intransigence of the Netaho government. The problem is,
I think this government, if you think about it, said
the time is not quite right. But if on that logic,
(11:08):
it implies there's plenty of time to make the decision
in the future, when we all know that time is
running out because the nest Who government is taking over
their it said his official position is to annex the
West Bank this year and to extend and we were
seeing its extending control in Gaza. So, you know, coming
(11:30):
back to Jeffrey's point is perplexing because if ever was
a need for urgency now to say to the nest
Who government, we stand for a two state solution. We
don't like your idea of a one state solution based
on the greater Israel. Jeffrey, Sorry, sorry.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Jeffrey, I what do you make of that? Who Israel
like what we've done? Does that mean we've scored an
own goal on that? Just on that fact itself.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
As well. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, as Sharon Hatfield,
has called it a net of moral courage what New
Zealand did yesterday and called it an act of common sense,
which tells you that Israel is very happy with New
Zealand's decision. And I think in the end, this is
how New Zealand's decision will largely be viewed by outside
of servers. They will view it as New Zealand backing
(12:20):
Israel and backing the United States and these countries that
are absolutely against the creation of a Palestinian state. Now
or in the future. Israel has made it clear they
do not want to accept the Palestinian state at all
in the future. And Winston Peters he's made a lot
of points. I mean, I watched his speech yesterday at
(12:41):
the United Nations. He has a lot of arguments in
favor of not doing it now, but doing it later
on and when there's a state that's a lot more viable.
He's not against a Palestinian state and principle, he's made
it very clear. He says it's a question of when,
not if. But I think the fine print and the
detail will just get lost because in the New Zealand
(13:02):
will just be a dot on the map upside of service.
We will look at that and we'll just say New
Zealand's missing and action here, and they will see that
as a voice of support for Israel. So it is
a kind of a with us or against us moment
in a sense from Israel's perspective, and they'll be very
very happy because New Zealand has a very good name
in the Middle East, it has very good reputation. Why
(13:25):
does the Deputy Foreign Minister feel the need to post
about that, because it's when in terms of reputation. New
Zealand might be small in terms of size, but its
reputation is outsize and that has been the case for
many years. When it comes to issues in the Middle
East and the Palestinian issue, New Zealand's reputation is worth
a lot worth its weight in gold. So Israel is
very happy about New Zealand's decision yesterday.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Right, we're going to dig into this a bit more.
I'll ask for a bit more time from both Jeffrom
Miller and Robert Patman. We're discussing New Zealand's decision not
to formally recognize the state of Palestine, despite saying that
that we might do it, we'd like to do it
in the future in its case of when not if,
and we'll be taking your calls after that. Firstly, we're
just going to take a quick moment. It's twenty three
(14:07):
past three News Talks. He'd be yes, welcome back, and
we're with Jeffrey Miller and Robert Patman talking about Winston
Peter's the announced a decision by the New Zealand government
not to recognize the state of Palestine. Right now, and
we're going to you first rob it on this. Can
I argue that I'm where their points and when firstly
(14:28):
questioned where their points in Winston Peter's speech, because he
Strokes spoke strongly against the unbalanced response that Netahu's made.
Did you agree with many of the things or any
of the things he said, apart from aside from the
actual conclusion and the decision, robit, I hand on a second,
I just need to put you online there anyway there,
so you have to start again there, robit I just
(14:49):
hadn't put you on here. There we go.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Yes, I thought that Winston Peter's made some valid points,
but he also said some things which I think were debaseball.
For example, he said, we can't make a decision to
recognize a Palacinian state now because a war is raging.
But if New Zealan is in principle willing to recognize
(15:12):
a Palestinian state, waiting doesn't make any sense because the
territory which the Palestinians would want to make their state
from is being overrun and occupied and degraded. If anything,
we you know on the basis that there's no infrastructure
or no state in place. If you use that criteria,
(15:35):
then perhaps we should have gone for recognition a year ago,
and it's certainly not going to improve in the future.
This is I come back to Jeffrey's point. I think
the reason the Israelis were pleased with the reluctance to
recognize a Palestinian state is that the Israeli government interpreted
(15:56):
the New Zealan's decision as an acceptance of their current policy.
And I don't think that's intended, but.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
It was that would that would be at odds with
some of Winston's comments where he's not again it.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Would be yeah. But there's another point here where I
don't think with respect and I understand that, you know,
being a foreign minister, you've got all the responsibility and
you've got to take the decision with all weighing things up.
But I do think come back to my original point,
the situation is a fork in the road moment for
international relations. What we're witnessing is the erosion of international
(16:33):
law and international rules, and New Zealand can't be seen
to be semi detached about things we depend on internationally.
So you know, you know, let's put this in let's
put this in strategic terms. New Zealand can't afford to
be seen as sitting on the fence when it's it's
(16:54):
wider interests are being eroded and seriously undermine by the
fact that Israel and the United States are acting with
impunity and breaking international rules, and that that is a
big concern.
Speaker 2 (17:09):
What Okay, I'll pass this one to Jeffrey and you
can come back on it as well, Robert. But Jeffrey
isn't aren't we just being more honest? Because cynically speaking,
if you talk about as Robert has talking about what
you know, what the decisions really means, and it's about
disapproval of certainly not not approving of what Israel's doing
(17:30):
and expressing disapproval. But the cynical part of me says
that all these other nations they're all just virtue signaling
because they're actually not they're not actually making any difference
to it, and they're not going to they're not going
to engage with any state of Palestine as long as
Hamasa running it. We've just been more honest about it. Well,
(17:50):
what would you say to those arguments?
Speaker 4 (17:53):
Well, listen to him. Yesterday, Christville Luckson said New Zealand's
recognition of a Palestinian state would not solved the conflict.
And I would agree with him on that. And in
some ways this issue is a side show what's happening
in New York, because what's happening on the grounds right
now in Gaza is just horrific. There is absolutely desperation.
(18:15):
Israels bulldozing its way through Gaza, and we're up to
sixty five thousand Palestine lives that have been lost, and
we're being told by Donald Trump that a ceasepy is
just around the corner. Well, how many times have we
heard that before? You're in ber Anthony Blincoln are telling
us a week for months that a ceasepire was just
(18:35):
around the corner. So, in a sense, no, the vote
wouldn't change anything. Whether we recognize the Palestinian state or not.
Whether New Zealand had voted in favor or against day
doesn't change anything. What will change things is what happens
on the ground. And both Christopher Luxe and Winston Peters
were saying that we need dialogue, diplomacy, leadership, and I
would ask, well, where is New Zealand's leadership on this issue,
(18:57):
and if we're going to be so principled in their
view that we can't recognize the Palestine state because there
isn't a Bible state. Well, then you even needs to
be doubling it, redoubling its efforts to support the creation
of a viable state. He's even needs to be working
in those areas for dialogue diplomacy as the escalation, and
I think you've even certainly given its credibility. Certainly it's
(19:20):
good ties overall with countries in the Middle East, particularly
at the Gulf States when you set at scientist trade
agreements recently, it needs to be working with the lights
of the United Arab Emirates, Katar, Saudi Arabia, I mean
Kuta for its trouble was bombed or posting the CEA
spy negotiations. I think he even needs to double down
in solidarity with some of these countries because who else
(19:43):
is going to do it.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
I get the feeling from speaking to you both, and
probably even more so from your Robert, that that you
don't actually hold any hope. I don't mean this cynically
or anything, but there actually don't hold any hope that
there is going to be a state to recognize soon
and that this is the only moment we have to
at least express discipl of all about what seems to
(20:06):
be inevitable. Do you think that there is ever going
to be a two state solution or do you think
that we're really in a catastrophic situation right now?
Speaker 3 (20:15):
I think it's I think we are heading towards a
situation where a two state solution will become impossible because,
and that is the express determination of the Netnahu government.
They want to take over and confiscate Palestinian land and
tart property. I mean that, you know, we're focusing on
goals at the moment, but in the West Bank, more
(20:37):
than a thousand Palestinians have died since the events of
the seventh October twenty twenty three, and the settlement illegal
settlement program has been accelerated, so certainly that is the goal.
Now can we stop that? Well, I think the first
thing to do is the international community as a whole
to say to Israel you can't simply operationalize the principle
(21:00):
that might is right and you can't run. I mean,
let's be quite clear, in the long run, even if
Israel succeeds in taking over these the occupied territories and
calling it a greater Israel, whatever it will call it,
there will be something like six six million publicines displaced,
(21:20):
which will be a real that will be a security
nightmare for the region. So it's not going to solve
the problem. I haven't given up hope on a two
state solution. The crucial player in this is the United States.
United States up until the second Trump administration paid lip
service to a two state solution, but that didn't stop
(21:43):
arming a government which was dedicated to preventing that. If
you can work that out, but it will depend on
international will, and that's why I'm disappointed with New Zealan's position.
We took a strong position internationally over apartheid. We recognize
the right that we recognize the principal of political self
(22:06):
determination for black South Africans. You know what disappointed me
yesterday was the constant focus on Hamas and the nation
Yahoo government and the loss of focus on the Palestinians,
the great vast majority of them who don't particularly like
Hamas and are the people bearing the brunt of this crisis.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Well, let's look at everyone outside of Israel, the people
who have recognized the state and the ones who haven't. Jeffrey, really,
what more should happen? Because everyone's arguing about recognition and
whether we do or we don't, but it's making zero difference.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
We need to see fire, we need peace, and it
is as simple and as difficult as that. And in
the end, the international community as a whole needs to
absolutely work together to get a cease fire first of all,
and then that long term two state solution. It is
the only answer that the Palace is rarely Palestinian conflict
as a cancer that infects the Middle East and infects
the entire world really because it sucks up so much
(23:06):
oxygen and morally it's absolutely wrong what is happening at
the moment. Even if you are blind to what is
happening at a moral level, if you're only interested in trade,
it's a cancer in that respect as well, because it
destroys the hope of prosperity over so much of the
Middle East. It is the cancer of the world in
(23:26):
terms of international relations. Then we absolutely need to continue
to speak out for peace, for a two state solution,
and first of all, that's the lowest bar really is
the Seaspire, and that's what we need. So anything that
New Zealand can do to bring about a ceasefire, I
think we should be supporting, and so when Christopher Luxon
talks about leadership, I hope he shows it on this issue,
(23:47):
and I hope Winston Peters continues to show it on
this issue because I think the decision that was made
yesterday does not serve New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Well, okay, I'll stick with you, Jeffrey, and then go
back for Robert. What can we do if we do
need to resurrect our standing in your eyes?
Speaker 4 (24:03):
Well, I think Winston Peters and rist Re Luxe and
will need to do a lot of explaining about this decision,
and they're going to have to show that they really
mean what they say in terms of needing to go
back to dialogue, diplomacy, to support teeth and to go
for that those more practical steps. That's what they're saying,
(24:25):
that we can't recognize the Palestinian States because there isn't one,
because it's not viable yet and we need to work
on all the issues there to make a more viable state.
Then I think it puts an even greater obligation on
the New Zealand government to do more with this issue. No,
I think really that's what they need to be looking at.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Robert.
Speaker 3 (24:45):
I'd agree with Jeffrey I think it's incumbent on the
government to explain the delay, and particularly given the fact
that the prospect for a Palestinian state is diminishing with
every day that goes past. You know, the assumption behind
delay is there will be a better moment recognize a
(25:06):
Palestinian state sometime in the future, but we all know
that's not the case, so that needs to be explained.
And I really agree with Jeffrey. I mean, I think
New Zealand's policy throughout this two year crisis has been ambiguous,
and I would have liked to see mister Peters using
the good international reputation in this country to much better effect,
(25:28):
much earlier on visiting the Gulf States and seeing what
can be done. Let's be quite clear, this crisis is
a failure for the UN Security Council, that is to say,
the United States there's primary responsibility for using its VETO power.
Only five countries can veto use the VETO and that
(25:50):
has resulted in a continuing conflict in which many innocent
people have died. And I think not only does New
Zealand need to become more active in Middle East diplomacy,
it needs to join Finland in demanding a reformer UN
Security Council so that we can't have another Guys, that
reoccur in the future with one country blocks the rest
(26:13):
of the international community. The majority of countries want a
ceasefire now, but it's being stymied by the United States
and it's diplomatic cover for Israel in the United Nations.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Hey, look, we could talk for ages guys, but we'll
have to wrap it up there. But I really appreciate
your insights on that, Robert and Robert Petman and Jeffery
Miller really appreciate your time. Thanks, guys. That is Jeffrey
Miller and as I said, Robert Petman. Jeffrey Miller is
a geopolitical analyst, and Robert Petman is an international relations
expert at the Tag Universe.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
For more from the Weekend Collective, listen live to News
Talks It be weekends from three pm, or follow the
podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.