US criticises allies as NZ bans top Israeli ministers
New Zealand has banned two extremist Israeli politicians from travelling to the country because of comments about the war in Gaza that Foreign Minister Winston Peters says "actively undermine peace and security".
It joined Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Norway in imposing the sanctions on Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
Peters said they were targeted towards two individuals, rather than the Israeli government.
"Our action today is not against the Israeli people, who suffered immeasurably on October 7 [2023] and who have continued to suffer through Hamas' ongoing refusal to release all hostages. Nor is it designed to sanction the wider Israeli government."
The ministers were "using their leadership positions to actively undermine peace and security and remove prospects for a two-state solution", Peters said.
"Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have severely and deliberately undermined that by personally advocating for the annexation of Palestinian land and the expansion of illegal settlements, while inciting violence and forced displacement."
The sanctions were consistent with New Zealand's approach to other foreign policy issues, he said.
"New Zealand has also targeted travel bans on politicians and military leaders advocating violence or undermining democracy in other countries in the past, including Russia, Belarus and Myanmar."
New Zealand has been a long-standing supporter of a two-state solution, Peters said, which the international community was also overwhelmingly in favour of.
"New Zealand's consistent and historic position has been that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are a violation of international law. Settlements and associated violence undermine the prospects for a viable two-state solution.
"The crisis in Gaza has made returning to a meaningful political process all the more urgent. New Zealand will continue to advocate for an end to the current conflict and an urgent restart of the Middle East Peace Process."
Israel's foreign minister Gideon Saar said the move was "outrageous" and the government would hold a special meeting early next week to decide how to respond to the "unacceptable decision".
His comments were made while attending the inauguration of a new Israeli settlement on Palestinian land.
Peters is in Europe for the sixth Pacific-France Summit hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron in Nice. 'Extremely unhelpful'
Tammy Bruce, a spokeswoman for the US State Department, said it finds the sanctions "extremely unhelpful. It will do nothing to get us closer to a ceasefire in Gaza."
Britain, Canada, Norway, New Zealand and Australia "should focus on the real culprit, which is Hamas", she said of the sanctions.
"We remain concerned about any step that would further isolate Israel from the international community."
The two ministers faced repeated criticism but no formal sanctions under former US president Joe Biden. Since taking office, President Donald Trump has vowed unstinting support for Israel.
"If our allies want to help, they should focus on supporting Special Envoy [Steve] Witkoff's negotiations and backing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation when it comes to food and aid," Bruce said.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has distributed aid in coordination with the Israeli military - an effort criticised by the United Nations and longstanding aid groups which say it violates humanitarian principles. 'You have to take actions'
University of Otago international relations professor Robert Patman told RNZ's Morning Report programme today it was a "calibrated fulfilment of the promise to follow up actions if Israel did not desist" from expanding its military operations in Palestinian territory.
"In May, the UK and France and Canada had demanded that Israel stop expanding its military operations in Gaza and allow emergency aid, humanitarian aid into Gaza.
"It should be recalled that in early March, Israel, unilaterally cut off all humanitarian aid to Gaza and something like more than a million Palestinians now face starvation. And so this statement was made in May by those three countries, two of whom are members of the Five Eyes."
New Zealand is also a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, as are the United States and Australia.
Patman also noted that the International Court of Justice last year said Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory - not just in Gaza, but also the West Bank - was illegal. New Zealand supported that recommendation.
"New Zealand's position has been… that there must be a two-state solution to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Now the problem is that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his ministers adamantly opposed the two-state solution."
The growing condemnation around the world of Israel's response to the 7 October atrocities was a result of the United States' "lack of will to try to make Israel comply with international law", Patman suggested.
"I think the other liberal democracies are now beginning to react to that because they realise that Netanyahu, the Netanyahu government, has no intention of having a two-state solution.
"Iin fact, it seems to be in the process of weaponising food distribution in Gaza… They set up, with the United States, something called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which seems to be part of a strategy to gradually evict Palestinians from Gaza.
"Netanyahu's government doesn't make any bones about this. He wants to extend control over Gaza and… annex the West Bank [which] would completely rule out a two-state solution."
Rather than just symbolic, Patman said European nations' sanctioning of Israeli ministers could have a real impact.
"About 34 percent of Israel's trade is with members of the European Union, and if this stance taken by these five countries is replicated elsewhere and spreads, not just to these two ministers but to the Netanyahu government, then we could be looking at a different situation.
"Verbal appeals to Israel to comply with international law have not worked. So, you know, if you believe in a two-state solution, then you have to take actions to try to bring it about."
- Additional reporting by Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has again been kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise for a comment she made yesterday in the House. Yesterday, Swarbrick was kicked out of Parliament during an urgent debate on recognising Palestine as a state. The debate was called after Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Government was weighing up its position on the issue. In recent times, the UK, Canada, France and Australia have announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state. During the debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said MPs could "grow a spine" and support her bill which would impose sanctions on Israel. ADVERTISEMENT Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, left, and Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee. (Source: 1News/Getty) In response, Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee said: "That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise." When she refused, Brownlee said she would have to leave for the rest of the week and removed her from the House. However, Brownlee later signalled he would again give Swarbrick the opportunity to apologise in the House today, where she then could avoid being barred. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the legal fight to get a New Zealand woman and her child out of US immigration detention, sliding house prices, and Taylor Swift's big reveal. (Source: 1News) Returning to the House today, Swarbrick refused to withdraw and apologise, and at first, didn't leave when asked. Brownlee then called a vote to name her, which the majority of MPs supported. Swarbrick then removed herself from the House. ADVERTISEMENT Peters: 'Wasn't offensive enough to be booted' New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. (Source: 1News) Earlier, when heading into the House, NZ First leader Winston Peters spoke out against Swarbrick's removal. "I didn't agree with one thing she said, but it wasn't offensive enough to be booted out," he said. "If you can have John Key say 'get some guts', or accept the C-word — which was outrageous — then how can you be offensive in that context? "Parliament is a robust theatre for debate. People have serious emotional concerns about what they believe in, and to take away the essence... about the emotional concern you are talking about, is to neuter the place, and that's bad for New Zealand's democracy." Netanyahu 'lost the plot' – Luxon ADVERTISEMENT Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. (Source: 1News) On his way into the House, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued fresh criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his role in the war in Gaza. 'I think what's happening in Gaza is utterly appalling. I think Netanyahu has gone way too far, I think he has lost the plot." Luxon said overnight attacks on Gaza City were "utterly unacceptable". 'He is not listening to the international community, and that is unacceptable.' Labour leader Chris Hipkins was today asked whether he would agree with Luxon's comment on Netanyahu. "Probably, yes, actually, that's probably quite an astute observation." Hipkins said he took a moment to pause before answering, looking surprised, because of the "strength of the language". ADVERTISEMENT 'Uncharted territory' – Swarbrick Swarbrick speaking to reporters today. (Source: 1News) After leaving the House, Swarbrick said Brownlee had "been explicit about the fact he was the member who took personal offence" to her comment yesterday. "We are in uncharted territory. As far as I am aware, there is no situation where a Speaker has asked for somebody to withdraw and apologise, that person has refused to apologise, then been ordered to leave the House, i.e. being punished, the person has complied, and then the Speaker has sought to reopen the issue the very next day. "It would appear that now we are in a position where things are being completely made up." When asked about Luxon's comments on Netanyahu, Swarbrick said: "The Government has yet to put any meaningful substance behind their words." She said the very least the Government could do was "apply the exact same approach they did to Russia" – again referencing her bill to apply sanctions to Israel.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Netanyahu has 'lost the plot': Luxon
By Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira of RNZ The Prime Minister says the war in Gaza is "utterly appalling" and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "lost the plot". Christopher Luxon's comments came on a tense day in Parliament, where Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was 'named' for refusing to leave the House following a heated debate on the government's plan to consider recognising Palestinian statehood. Speaking to media, Luxon said Netanyahu had "gone too far". "I think he has lost the plot and I think that what we're seeing overnight - the attack on Gaza City - is utterly, utterly unacceptable" he said. Luxon said Israel had consistently ignored pleas from the international community for humanitarian aid to be delivered "unfettered", and the situation was driving more human catastrophe across Gaza. "We are a small country a long way away, with very limited trade with Israel. We have very little connection with the country, but we have stood up for values, and we keep articulating them very consistently, and what you have seen is Israel not listening to the global community at all. "We have said a forcible displacement of people and an annexation of Gaza would be a breach of international law. We have called these things out consistently time and time again. "You've seen New Zealand join many of our friends and partners around the world to make these statements, and he's just not listening," the prime minister said. The government is considering whether it will join other countries like France, Canada and Australia in recognising Palestinian statehood at a UN Leaders Meeting next month. Luxon said recent attacks could "extinguish a pathway" to a two-state solution. "I'm telling you what my personal view is, as a human being, looking at the situation, that's how I feel about." he said. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has called the war an "unfolding genocide", echoing the comments made by former prime minister Helen Clark, who visited the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Palestinian territory this week. "She's used the words 'unfolding genocide', and yes, I do agree with that. That's a good description of the situation at the moment." Hipkins said calling it an "unfolding genocide" meant that we were not "appointing ourselves judge and jury" because there was still a case to be heard before the International Court of Justice. "Recognising that there is an unfolding genocide in Gaza is an important part of the world community standing up and saying, we're not going to tolerate it. "We should recognise that there is now a growing acknowledgement around the world that there is an unfolding genocide in Gaza, and I think we should call that for what it is, and the world community needs to react to that to prevent it from happening," Hipkins said.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Decoding non-answers on Palestine
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in the House. File photo. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Analysis - Parliament held an urgent debate on Tuesday on whether to recognise Palestine as a state. Many of the speeches were fiery and the Hansard record is worth reading. Strong party positions were outlined by Simon Court (ACT), Vanushi Walters and others (Labour), Chlöe Swarbrick (Green) and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori). New Zealand First's only speaker, Winston Peters, spoke aggressively, though more as minister of foreign affairs than party leader. The only party that made no speeches at all was National. This was unusual for an urgent debate. The eight calls in an urgent debate are not proportionally allocated, but National MPs usually speak regardless of whether it is a National minister who initially responds. If nothing else, this uses up available Opposition speech time. It may be that the National Party has not managed an internal consensus on Palestine and was not prepared to reveal internal division or put forward a message some members wouldn't support. Other parties did not worry about laying out their opinions. ACT's speaker was the most fervently against statehood. Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs all made strong speeches. So, what does the National Party, or indeed the prime minister think about Palestine and Gaza? That is still uncertain, though an attempt to tease it out was made in Question Time, when Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick asked Christopher Luxon a series of questions on Gaza. Both answers and non-answers can both be instructive. Below are the questions and answers from that interchange and a later one, with brief commentary. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that "There are a broad range of strongly held views within our government", and, if so, who in the government is opposing recognising Palestinian Statehood? Christopher Luxon: There are a broad range and strongly held views across the whole of our society and across the whole of New Zealand and, as you would expect, across this Chamber there will be a variance of views as well. Note: You will notice that the prime minister didn't answer that question. That is not newsworthy - Luxon usually avoids directly answering Opposition questions in the House. He usually segues to prepared talking points, using phrases like "what I can say is", or "I'll just say to the member". The questions he receives are often very political (and have few good answers), so his avoidance is understandable. Some of Swarbrick's queries were more straightforward though, offering openings for statesmanlike or informed answers - like the next one. Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the harm, if any, of recognising Palestinian statehood? Christopher Luxon: Well, it's been a longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments since 1947 to recognise the creation of a State for Israel and a State of Palestine where two peoples can live together in peace and security. That has been a longstanding position of the New Zealand Governments of different political parties. The issue is that we need to, as we've said, as you've heard the foreign Minister say, and it's been a longstanding position-it's a matter of when, not if. But the immediate challenge for the situation in the Middle East is, of course, Hamas must release hostages. As a terrorist organisation, they must release those hostages. Secondly, Israel must allow unfettered humanitarian access into what is an absolute catastrophe, and there must be a ceasefire and diplomacy and dialogue. Note: The next question was politically couched, but still afforded options for a good answer. Chlöe Swarbrick. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware that Israeli hostages have been offered back multiple times and Israel currently holds approximately 10,000 Palestinian prisoners? Christopher Luxon: Sorry, I'm not going to respond to that question. That's not what I've been briefed on. Notes: Swarbrick appealed to the Speaker about that non-answer to a question she argued was seeking "to tease out the logic that [Luxon was] using with regard to government decision-making". Speaker Gerry Brownlee ruled in Luxon's favour, saying: "The prime minister said he wasn't prepared to answer it because it wasn't within the scope of the briefing that he's received." Parliament's rules do allow a few reasons why ministers might refuse to answer, including not giving a legal opinion, or an answer not being in the public interest. Not being briefed is not in the list, although some ministers do sometimes admit a lack of knowledge and offer to come back with a response. The next question felt like it was straight from a morning newspaper's five-minute quiz. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware, then, of our obligations under the genocide convention, and, if so, what are they? Christopher Luxon: Yes, and what I'd say to the member is I would be very careful throwing terms like "genocide" around. It's very important that the right bodies that we support under the international rules-based system - the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court - are those closest and are the appropriate bodies which we fully support to make those determinations. Notes: For extra quiz points - signatories to the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (including New Zealand) - undertake to prevent as well as punish genocide. It's there in the name. Strictly speaking that answer could have stopped at "yes", because ministers are only required to address any one leg of a two-legged question. However, saying yes, and then pivoting away does make one wonder whether the prime minister was worried about getting the second leg wrong. Admitting to an obligation to prevent genocide might have made for a difficult follow-up question. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister finally willing to say that Israel's slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza is a genocide, and, if not, what does he know that Holocaust and genocide scholars don't? Note: Like many questions in Question Time this one actually falls outside the very strict parameters for questions (which do not allow the inclusion of supposition or argument). On this occasion ACT leader David Seymour intervened with an objection to the Speaker. Swarbrick reworded the question. Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the prime minister know that Holocaust and genocide scholars apparently do not when they call what is currently occurring in Gaza a "genocide"? Christopher Luxon: Well, what I know is that there's a humanitarian catastrophe happening in the Middle East. What I know is that we want to see peace and stability and security reign in the Middle East, and, for that to happen, Hamas must release hostages immediately. What happened on 7 October from a terrorist organisation inflicting 1200 deaths on innocent civilians was unacceptable. We are also saying, clearly - and we've done it through a number of calls with other countries as well - that we want Israel to give unfettered humanitarian access. We do not want more military action. We need to make sure that we actually see diplomacy and dialogue reign in the Middle East. Note: Anyone managing to tease out a solid party or government position on Palestinian statehood from that interchange would need to be a talented haruspex. It is worth noting that during Question Time the prime minister does not speak as a party leader, but as leader of the Executive. Previous prime ministers have at times made observations as individuals or have outlined the varying perspectives that coalition partners bring to an issue. On this issue I expect there is significant diversion of thought, both within and between the coalition member parties. Possibly it is creditable that the prime minister is not seeking to impose a perspective on his own MPs as leader. Later in Question Time Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer also focused on Palestine. Most of her questions were not well phrased and were disallowed, but the first two added a little to the picture. Speaker Gerry Brownlee. Photo: RNZ Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the prime minister allowing the government to delay recognition of the State of Palestine until September? Christopher Luxon: Well, it's a government that wants to weigh up its position over the next month. We acknowledge that some of our close partners have changed their position; others have not. We will work our way through the process, as we outlined on Tuesday. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What criteria does the prime minister believe Palestinians have not met that is preventing his government from immediately recognising their humanity and statehood on Wednesday? Christopher Luxon: Well, as I explained earlier, it's been a longstanding, bipartisan position that New Zealand supports a two-state solution. It goes right back to 1947 and the partition. We want to see a State of Israel and a State of Palestine living peacefully, side by side. But we are going to review and weigh up our position, as we articulated, and it's an important issue, it's a complex issue, and we'll work through it sensibly and seriously. Note: Luxon avoided answering several out-of-order questions that followed on the Israeli Defence Force having killed Al Jazeera journalists, whether the IDF's actions undermined Israel's own statehood, and what would be left to protect once the government makes a decision about statehood. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
