Government Faith Initiative Misaligned, Say Groups Who Declined To Join
On Tuesday July 22, a government-sponsored 'harmony initiative' will be signed by some Muslim and Jewish groups. The initiative originated with government recognition that the consequences of Israel's actions in Gaza are impacting Jewish and Muslim communities in Aotearoa, as well as the wider community.
While agreeing with that statement of purpose, other Muslim and Jewish groups have chosen to decline the invitation. They believe that the council, as formulated, is misaligned with its aims.
'Gaza is not a religious issue, and this has never been a conflict between our faiths,' Dr. Abdul Monem, a co-founder of ICONZ explains. 'In Gaza we see a massive violation of international law with horrifying humanitarian consequences. We place Israel's annihilating campaign against Gaza, the complicity of states and economies at the centre of our understanding—not religion. The first action to address the suffering in Gaza and ameliorate its effects here in Aotearoa must be government action. Our government needs to comply with international courts and act on this humanitarian calamity. That does not require a new council.'
The impetus for this initiative clearly linked international events with their local impacts, but the document does not mention Gaza among the council's priorities. Signatories are not required to acknowledge universal human rights, nor the courts which have ruled so decisively and created obligations for the New Zealand government. Social distress is disconnected from its immediate cause.
The council is therefore open to parties who do not recognise the role of international humanitarian law in Palestine, nor the full human and political rights of their fellow New Zealanders.
Marilyn Garson, co-founder of Alternative Jewish Voices elaborates, 'It has broad implications to overlook our rights and international humanitarian law. As currently formulated, the council includes no direct Palestinian representation. That's not good enough. How can there be credible discussion of Aotearoa's ethnic safety—let alone advocacy for international action— without Palestinians?
'Law, human rights and the dignity of every person's life are not opinions. They are human entitlements and global agreements to which Aotearoa has bound itself. No person in Aotearoa should have to enter a room—especially a council created under government auspices—knowing that their fundamental rights will not be upheld. No one should have to begin by asking for that which is theirs.'
The groups outside this new council wholeheartedly wish to live in a harmonious society, but for them it is unclear why a new council of Jews and Muslims should represent the path to harmony.
'Advocacy that comes from faith can be a powerful force. We already work with numerous interfaith community initiatives, some formed at government initiative and waiting to really find their purpose,' says Dr Muhammad Sajjad Naqvi, President of ICONZ. 'Those existing channels include more of the parties needed to address local threats, including Christian nationalism like that of Destiny Church. Perhaps government should resource those rather than starting something new.'
The groups who declined to join the council have warm and enduring relationships with FIANZ and Dayenu, who will take seats at this council table. All of the groups share common goals, but not this path.
More information about the organisations:
ICONZ is a National Umbrella Organization for Kiwi Shia Muslims for their unified voice. It is an organisation that unites all Muslims who are living in New Zealand and follow the school of the Ahlulbayt (PBUT) under ONE umbrella. ICONZ was established by Kiwi Muslims who have been born in New Zealand or born to migrants who chose New Zealand to be their home. For more, see www.iconz.org
Alternative Jewish Voices is a collective of Aotearoa Jews. It works for Jewish pluralism and anti-racism, and supports the work of Palestinians who seek liberation grounded in law and our equal human rights. For more, see www.ajv.org.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
41 minutes ago
- Scoop
Balancing Risk With Overreach In Our Terror Laws
The government wants to tighten our terror laws, but critics fear it will mean a corresponding trampling of advocacy groups and free speech. The government is eyeing an overhaul of the country's terrorism legislation, which is necessary, it says, to keep New Zealanders safe in a rapidly evolving world and keep pace with modern threats. However, critics are warning that the move could come at a steep price, specifically a loss of civil liberties. The proposed changes, still in the closed-door consultation phase with a handpicked selection of groups and experts, would give police and intelligence agencies broader powers to intervene earlier, redefine what constitutes a "terrorist act" and expand preventative detention powers, all in the name of public safety. Today, The Detail spoke with Newsroom national affairs editor Sam Sachdeva and University of Waikato terrorism and firearms expert Alexander Gillespie about the potential changes to the Terrorism Suppression Act and how the government will balance risk without resorting to overreach. "What this is really about is are our current terror laws fit for purpose, and where do we draw the line between dealing with the very real threat that is posed by terrorist groups and terrorists, while still preserving the fundamental political freedoms and rights and liberties that all New Zealanders hold dear," Sachdeva told The Detail. He said critics, worried that those freedoms and rights are now at risk, are fired up. "Look, they are. We have seen the Council for Civil Liberties, [and] the Free Speech Union has now come out as well, expressing some concern about this. "So, it's early stages, but it seems like it's something that could quite easily animate or light a fire under a lot of these rights groups who are concerned." The terror law, enacted in 2002 following the 11 September terror attacks, allows governments to formally designate people or groups as terrorist entities, freezing their assets and making it illegal to financially support, recruit for, or participate in a designated terrorist entity. Minor changes were made after the 15 March terror attack in 2019 and the New Lynn Countdown Supermarket attack in 2021. Sachdeva said among the new potential changes are making membership of a terrorist entity a criminal offence, creating new offences to capture public expressions of support for a terrorist act or designated entities - including showing insignia - and modernising definitions for terms like "material support" to capture new online forms of support. Extending the renewal period for terrorist designations to five years, from three at present, is also being considered. The government said there will be safeguards and judicial oversight. The proposed changes are expected to go before Parliament later this year. Gillespie, speaking to The Detail from Vienna, where he is working on gun reforms, said the threat of a terror attack has long lingered in New Zealand, and while the likelihood of another attack will never be zero, the risk can be lowered. "Part of reducing that risk is making sure the law is as good as it can be. That the balance between civil liberties and risk is correct. And that we have proportionate penalties for those who are willing to advocate the use of violence against civilians to change policy. "I support looking at it... I think it's foreseeable that the tensions in our society are going to be around for the foreseeable future. And to make sure they are fit for purpose, because when I look back at recent times, our laws weren't fit for purpose, and now we need to be thinking, 'what more can we do?'." While the debate on security versus liberty and protection versus principle will undoubtedly continue, one thing is certain -in the fight against terror, New Zealand is searching for a line, but it will not be easy to draw. here.
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Britain and France talk of recognising a Palestinian state. What would it mean?
That assault killed about 1200 people and led to the abduction of about 250 others to Gaza. The announcements raise questions about what the recognition of a Palestinian state would mean and what it can actually do. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the Trump Turnberry golf club in Turnberry, Scotland, on Tuesday. Photo / Tierney L. Cross, the New York Times What is a state? The criteria for statehood were laid out in an international treaty in 1933. They include four elements: a permanent population; defined territorial boundaries; a government; and an ability to conduct international affairs. Recognition is an official acknowledgement that a would-be state broadly meets those conditions. It can occur even if an element is in dispute, including territorial boundaries. Like all legal questions, 'interpretation matters', said Zinaida Miller, a professor of law and international affairs at Northeastern University in the United States. The criteria for recognising a Palestinian state have been met at a basic level, many experts on international law say. A permanent population and land exist. The borders, while disputed, are broadly understood to be in Israeli-occupied territories, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which was seized in 1967 in a war with a coalition of Arab states; as well as East Jerusalem, which Israel has effectively annexed. The Palestinian Authority is a government body that administers part of the West Bank and represents Palestinians. Its creation was authorised by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which represents Palestinians internationally. While there are limits to what the Palestinian Authority can do, given the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Hamas' control of Gaza, foreign recognition of a Palestinian state would mean the establishment of direct diplomatic contact between the authority and the recognising nation. Recognition would also send diplomatic and political messages. It would acknowledge the Palestinian right to self-determination and reject the positions and actions of the Israeli Government that undermine that right, Miller said. 'A basis for added pressure.' A major consequence of recognising Palestinian statehood is that it provides a basis for 'a complete revision of bilateral relations with Israel', said Ardi Imseis, an associate professor at Queen's University Faculty of Law in Ontario and a former United Nations official. A country that recognises Palestine has to review agreements with Israel to make sure they do not violate its obligations to the Palestinian state. This would include political and territorial integrity, as well as economic, cultural, social and civil relations, he said. For example, if an aspect of trade aids or assists Israel in violation of the rights of a Palestinian state, then the recognising nation would have to cease that exchange. 'Practically speaking, recognition would provide a basis for added pressure to be brought to bear by civil society and lawmakers in the recognising state' to change policies and align them with other requirements, Imseis said. A recognising nation would not have to stop all trade with Israel, said Paul Reichler, a lawyer who represents sovereign states and has argued for the state of Palestine at the International Court of Justice. But if, for example, a country that recognises a state of Palestine imports agricultural products from farms belonging to settlers in occupied territories, those agreements would be aiding and abetting the commission of a wrongful act, he said. International law experts note that an advisory ruling from the International Court of Justice last year concluded, among other things, that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories violated a prohibition on territorial conquest. A UN majority for recognition already exists. Most countries in the United Nations — 147 out of 193 — already recognise a Palestinian state. Britain and France would be joining them, and their position has extra heft because they are permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the power to veto any substantive council resolution, including on the admission of new member states. The two countries would be bolstering the stance taken by most other nations and sending a political message, but their shift would also have a practical effect. They would join China and Russia in recognising a Palestinian state and leave the US as the sole permanent member of the Security Council with veto power that is holding out. The state of Palestine currently has observer status at the UN, and that will not change if the US maintains its opposition to full membership. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo / Eric Lee, the New York Times What is the goal of recognition? It is part of a political, diplomatic, and legal push to reach a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict despite resistance from Israel's current government. 'There are two peoples living between the river and the sea, not one, and they are entitled to separate states in which each of these peoples enjoys the full panoply of civil and human rights,' Reichler said. 'The only solution is two states, and it so happens that is what international law requires and is reflected in UN resolutions and in determinations of the ICJ,' he said. Although the declarations of Palestinian statehood may appear symbolic, 'small steps' like recognition 'make a contribution' to the goal of establishing two states, he said. Some nations, like Norway, once held off recognising a Palestinian state in the belief that recognition would someday emerge from a negotiated peace process. With such a process seemingly currently out of reach and outrage over Israeli policies growing, some countries have put recognition first in the hope that it would lead to a peace process. Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that the establishment of a Palestinian state would endanger Israel's security, and he has rejected the notion, particularly since the war in Gaza began. His governing coalition includes far-right ministers who are settlers and staunchly opposed to a Palestinian state, and he risks their abandoning the bloc if he indicates a willingness to consider it. In a statement yesterday, Netanyahu said Britain's announcement 'rewards Hamas' monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims'. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Ephrat Livni Photographs by: Saher Alghorra, Tierney L. Cross, Eric Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Trump wants Netanyahu to 'make sure they get the food' in Gaza amid crisis
President Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed concern over the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza and urged Israel to get people food, seemingly recalibrating his stance on Gaza as images of emaciated children have sparked renewed worries about hunger in the war-torn territory. Trump, speaking in Scotland on Tuesday, said that the US and other nations are giving money and food to Gaza but that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has 'got to sort of like run it'. 'I want him to make sure they get the food,' Trump said. 'I want to make sure they get the food.' President Donald Trump and Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer, left, speak with the media during a meeting at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland. (Source: Associated Press) Trump's comments seemed to result from the images in recent days of the worsening hunger crisis in Gaza and were more urgent than the resigned message he had about the 21-month Israel-Hamas war last week, when ceasefire talks derailed. His remarks also marked a new divergence from Netanyahu after the two leaders had become closer following their nations' joint strikes in Iran. ADVERTISEMENT The US president was asked if he agreed with Netanyahu's comments on Monday in which the Israeli leader said, 'There is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is no starvation in Gaza'. 'I don't know," Trump replied. "I mean, based on television, I would say not particularly because those children look very hungry.' Trump says US will set up food centres in Gaza Palestinians carry sacks of flour unloaded from a humanitarian aid convoy that reached Gaza City from the northern Gaza Strip, Sunday, July 27, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) In the face of mounting international criticism, the Israeli military over the weekend began airdrops of aid, along with limited pauses in fighting in three populated areas of Gaza for 10 hours a day to help with the distribution. Trump on Saturday had expressed some resignation about the situation in Gaza after the US and Israel pulled their negotiating teams out of talks in Qatar to try to reach a ceasefire. Trump said last week that Hamas was likely 'going to be hunted down' and said of Israel, 'They're going to have to fight and they're going to have to clean it up'. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the atmospheric river arrives, Epstein's girlfriend pushes for appeal, and Jennifer Lopez's wardrobe malfunction. (Source: Breakfast) ADVERTISEMENT But Trump seemed more inclined to action on Tuesday after reports of starvation-related deaths and images of people, especially young children and infants, struggling to get food continued to emerge over the weekend, drew international outcry. The US President, speaking as he visited with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at his Trump's Turnberry golf course, said that the US was 'going to set up food centres,' but he didn't offer specifics. The White House did not immediately have more information about the food centres. International outcry grows louder Yazan Abu Ful, a 2-year-old malnourished child, sits at his family home in the Shati refugee camp in Gaza City on Wednesday, July 23, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) While Trump urged Netanyahu to do more to deliver aid, the US leader faced similar pleas. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi said in a televised address on Tuesday that Trump is 'the one who is able to stop the war, deliver the aid and end this suffering". ADVERTISEMENT 'Please, make every effort to stop this war and deliver the aid,' el-Sissi said, addressing Trump in his remarks 'I believe that it's time to end this war.' Trump said Hamas has stolen food and aid trying to reach people in Gaza, but when asked by a reporter about what responsibility Israel has for limiting aid to the area, he said, 'Israel has a lot of responsibility'. But he quickly said Israel was also hampered in its actions as it seeks to keep the remaining 20 hostages kept in Gaza alive. An aircraft airdrops humanitarian aid over northern Gaza Strip as seen from southern Israel, Monday, July 28, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) When asked by what more can Israel do, Trump said, 'I think Israel can do a lot'. But he didn't offer more details and changed the subject to Iran. 'We have to help on a humanitarian basis before we do anything. We have to get the kids fed.' Starmer was more adamant than Trump, calling it 'a desperate situation' in Gaza. ADVERTISEMENT 'I think people in Britain are revolted at seeing what they are seeing on their screens,' he said. Vice President JD Vance echoed Trump's comments as he spoke Tuesday in Canton, Ohio and said the US was worried about the humanitarian problem in Gaza and seeing 'a lot of starving children'. 'Israel's got to do more to let that aid in, and we've also got to wage war on Hamas so that those folks stop preventing food from coming into this territory,' he said. US and UK leaders discuss Gaza as UN discusses Israel-Palestinian two-state solution Palestinians carry sacks of flour unloaded from a humanitarian aid convoy that reached Gaza City from the northern Gaza Strip, Sunday, July 27, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Starmer, who faces pressure from his Labour Party to recognise a Palestinian state as France did last week, said the UK supports statehood for the Palestinians, but it must be part of a plan for a two-state solution. Trump said last week that France's recognition of a Palestinian state 'doesn't carry any weight'. ADVERTISEMENT 'I'm not going to take a position,' Trump said of recognising a Palestinian state. He added of Starmer, 'I don't mind him taking a position'. The comments came as the UN General Assembly brought together high-level officials to promote a two-state solution to the decades-old Israel-Palestinian conflict. Israel and the US are boycotting the two-day meeting.
