Obituary: a determined voice for peace
The Reverend Professor Emeritus, Dr Peter Clarkson Matheson, lived a rich and talented life.
Peter was born in Scotland in 1938 to James and Janet (nee Clarkson) Matheson. They were both children of the manse, with strong ecclesiastical pedigrees.
James was ordained as a minister in the conservative Free Church of Scotland, later becoming a minister of the more liberal Church of Scotland.
The Matheson family came to Dunedin in 1951 when James became minister at Knox Church.
He made a powerful impact with his internationalist outlook and concerns about political and social issues.
As a pupil at Otago Boys' High School in the 1950s, Peter felt alienated from its rugby, cadet, caning culture, somewhat isolated by his Scottish accent and critical of the low standards of much of the teaching.
In contrast, he enjoyed the liberation which came as a student at the University of Otago.
He delighted in discovering the world of thought through English and German literature, engaging in political debate, haunting the library and buying daring books.
He reflected on his honours year in history, how lively companions stretched each other. In the Hocken Library, housed then in Tuhura Otago Museum, Peter discovered the richness of archival research which stimulated his work throughout his life.
Peter received a first class honours in history.
Initially, Peter wanted to work in the Department of External Affairs. He identified as an existentialist and was arrogantly contemptuous of his father's congregation's beliefs and their worship.
But while working as a student during a summer vacation in a Roxburgh orchard, he had a mystical experience that led to him applying to train for the ministry and switching to theology.
He became an active leader in the Knox Church youth group, which studied political issues, and helped organise Dunedin's first peace march against nuclear weapons. His father gave the march's opening speech.
Peter had one year in the Presbyterian Theological Hall, where on daily walks to Knox College, he rubbed shoulders with three other students whose conversations and liberal views reinforced his own.
He loved the lectures on Church History by Helmut Rex, a German refugee, who had been a student of the great German historian, Hanz Leitzmann.
But Peter's activist character came to the fore as he edited Critic , the student newspaper, ran the university's political club and the Knox Youth Group.
The Matheson family, including Peter, returned to Edinburgh in 1961. On board the ship, he developed a friendship with Ian Breward, another Knox student, who was about to undertake postgraduate study in Manchester under the Reformation scholar, Prof Gordon Rupp.
At first, Peter struggled at New College with its formal, stuffy, traditional atmosphere, but he made good friends and found his study of ecclesiastical history refreshing. The liberal approach of Alex Cheyne, professor of church history, captured his imagination and encouraged him to begin doctoral studies.
His practical experience with Duncan Forrester, later a noted public theologian, working in the slums of St James Mission exposed him to distressing poverty.
A summer on Iona and engagement with worship and the Iona community, together with the charismatic leadership of George MacLeod, reinforced Peter's commitments to pacifism, socialism and activism.
Peter spent two years at the University of Tubingen studying Cardinal Contarini and his unsuccessful attempts to forge dialogue and reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants, bitterly divided by the Reformation.
Peter was stirred by the radical biblical scholarship of Ernst Kasemann, enriched by student friendships and exposed to the challenges of Germany's post-war recovery and division.
His student friend, Hartmut Sommer, introduced Peter to his sister, Heinke. Peter and Heinke married in 1965.
Peter was appointed to a new lectureship at New College in 1965, covering the Renaissance/Reformation period. It was an intense time, finishing his doctorate and facing new family demands, with the birth of Catriona, the grief of the premature birth and death of Gesine and the joy of Donald's birth.
Together with close colleagues Andrew Ross, David Wright and Alec Cheyne, Peter developed innovative approaches to church history, challenging Eurocentrism and introducing themal and team-teaching. In the university's history school, his course on the German churches and national socialism was very popular, leading to his publication, The Third Reich and the Christian Churches (1981).
Peter's discomfort with the Church of Scotland was expressed in the "Dissembly" he organised as a satirical counterpart to its General Assembly. When challenged by the New College principal, John McIntyre, "what is it you want to change?", Peter replied "everything".
For some, his actions were an affront, but for Peter, the Dissembly's purpose was "to question, to protest, to act as a catalyst" for change. His anger and frustration at institutional inertia was eased by his unique reverse humour, where his negative joking needed to be appreciated as positive.
The threat of nuclear war and The Troubles in Northern Ireland saw Peter and Heinke becoming members of Parents for Survival and supporting protests against nuclear weapons. Peter travelled to Belfast frequently and behind the Iron Curtain, visiting peace groups and encouraging reconciliation.
His extensive work with the Fellowship of Reconciliation led the publication of Profile of Love: Towards a theology of the just peace (1979).
In 1979-80, Peter and Ian Breward, then professor of church history in Dunedin, exchanged teaching positions.
One year later, Breward moved to Melbourne and Peter was appointed in his place.
Peter was ordained and began to preach and lead worship. His great rhetorical skills and passion, already seen in his social and political concerns, now found expression from the pulpit.
Peter's innovative themal teaching developed further, role plays and re-enactments encouraging students to experience the past.
He took seriously the New Zealand-Pacific context, writing a chapter on "The Settler Church" in the Presbyterian sesquicentennial history (1990), recognising both the Scottish legacy and the adaptations brought by colonial pluralism, voluntarism and pragmatism.
Peter identified with Clive Pearson on how the study of New Zealand religious thought was largely overlooked and began some exploratory teaching and publications.
The ecumenical partnership with the Catholic seminary, Holy Cross, and its staff in the faculty of theology enriched Peter's life.
Community, relationships and friendship were important. He encouraged the community life at the Theological Hall with a special concern to incorporate Māori, Pacific Islanders and international students.
Peter and Heinke's home became a place of hospitality. The St Martin's Island Community, in which Peter provided significant leadership, brought together for him an activist community, concerned about peace and the environment, as well as an inclusive spirituality, expressed in his poem, Aramoana Christ.
The 1990s were troubling for Peter. Tensions between colleagues and a church commission left the Theological Hall divided and weak, while the national church was almost consumed with its debates over homosexuality.
A university review led to the faculty of theology's replacement with a university-based theology department.
Peter lost his position, despite his distinguished academic scholarship.
The new Presbyterian School of Ministry, with its emphasis on ministry training, did not give Peter a rich academic environment in which to flourish.
Peter had already made his mark as a Reformation scholar. His lively pioneering English translation of the radical reformer, Thomas Muntzer's collected works, introductions and notes (1992) enhanced his reputation. Peter's discovery and translation of the writings of Argula von Grumbach (1995), the first published Protestant woman reformer, was ground-breaking.
He opened up new vistas of the Reformation in subsequent books, examining The Rhetoric of the Reformation (1998) and what he described in his Edinburgh Gunning Lectures as The Imaginative World of the Reformation (2001).
Drawing on sermons, pamphlets, letters and woodcuts, Peter grounded the popular radical appeal of the Reformation among ordinary people. The esteem in which he was held is evident in him being asked to write the volume Reformation Christianity , in the Fortress Press series, A People's History of Christianity (2006).
The bleak period in Peter's life was relieved by this "efflorescence of writing" and his guest professorship at Edinburgh, 1997-98.
His appointment as principal of the Uniting Church Theological Hall at Ormond College Melbourne in 1998 was "liberating".
Encouraging collegial relations and a culture for research and writing, supporting and stimulating students, working with parishes and presbyteries, building community and honing his preaching skills and poetic gifts was enriching and positive. While administration was not Peter's forte, his other gifts were greatly valued. It was for Peter a wonderful six years.
Peter retired to Waitati, where he and Heinke spent many happy years enjoying the rural environment, closeness to the sea and proximity to Te Whare Runanga Marae.
After health issues became pressing, they moved to Dunedin.
They jointly authored a remarkable publication, Love and Terror in the Third Reich (2019) from the letters between Heinke's parents when her father was serving with the German army at the Russian front.
In retirement, Peter continued to be active in research and writing. He became an honorary fellow of the Otago University theology programme, contributing to First Church and then Knox Church, and continued his links with the St Martin Island's Community.
His contributions to the Otago Daily Times and Tui Motu were often incisive commentaries on local and international issues.
His uncomfortable prophetic witness to peace and justice and to a renewed environment reflected his "belief in the power of words — to reimagine, to create new possibilities", and, as he expressed it in his Easter 2024 ODT editorial, to make "a defiant response to radical evil".
Peter Matheson died on April 14, aged 86. — Allan Davidson
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza
Article – Gordon Campbell The word Gaza is taking on similar connotations to what the word Auschwitz meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity. The word 'Gaza' is taking on similar connotations to what the word ' Auschwitz' meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity. As a result, Israel is isolating itself as a pariah state on the world stage. This week alone has seen Israel target and kill four Al Jazeera journalists, just as it had executed eight Red Crescent medical staff and seven other first responders back in March, and then dumped their bodies in a mass grave. Overall 186 journalists have died at the hands of the IDF since October 7, 2023, and at least 1,400 medical staff as of May Monday night a five year old disabled child starved to death. Reportedly, he weighed only three kilograms when he died. Muhammad Zakaria Khudr was the 101st child among the 227 Palestinians now reported to have died from starvation. Meanwhile, PM Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters keep on saying that with regard to New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state, it is a matter of 'Not if, but when.' Yet why is ' but not now' still their default position? At this rate, a country that used to pride itself on its human rights record – New Zealand has never stopped bragging that this is where women won the right to vote, before they did anywhere else – will be among the last countries on earth to recognise Palestine's right to exist. What can we do ? Some options: (a) Boycott all Israeli goods and services (b) Engage with the local Palestinian community, and support their businesses, and cultural events (c) Donate financial support to Gaza. Here's a reliable link to directy support pregnant Gaza women and their babies (d) Lobby your local MP, and Immigration Minister Erika Stanford – to prioritise the inclusion of hundreds of Gazans in our refugee programme, just as we did in the wake of the civil war in Syria, and earlier, in Sudan (e) Write and phone your local MP, and urge them to support economic sanctions against Israel. These sanctions should include a sporting and cultural boycott along the lines we pursued so successfully against apartheid South Africa (f) Contact your KiwiSaver provider and let it be known that you will change providers if they invest in Israeli firms, or in the US, German and UK firms that supply the IDF with weapons and targeting systems. Contact the NZ Super Fund and urge them to divest along similar lines (g) Identify and picket any NZ firms that supply the US/Israeli war machines directly, or indirectly (h) Contact your local MP and urge him or her to support Chloe Swarbrick's private member's bill that would impose economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its unlawful occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Swarbrick's Bill is modelled on the existing Russian sanctions framework. If 61 MPs pledged support for Swarbrick's Bill, it would not have to win a private members ballot before being debated in Parliament. Currently 21 MPs (the Greens and TPM) formally support it. If and when Labour's 34 MPs come on board, this will still require another six MPs (from across the three coalition parties) to do the right thing. Goading MPs into doing the right thing got Swarbrick into a world of trouble this week. (Those wacky Greens. They're such idealists.) We should all be lobbying our local MPs for a firm commitment that they will back the Swarbrick Bill. Portray it to them as being in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and as them supporting the several UN resolutions on the status of the occupied territories. And if they still baulk ask them flatly- if not, why not? (i) Email/phone/write to the PM's office, and ask him to call in the Israeli ambassador and personally express New Zealand's repugnance at Israel's inhumane actions in Gaza and on the West Bank. The PM should also be communicating in person New Zealand's opposition to the recently announced Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza City, and expansion of the war in Gaza. (h) Write to your MP, to the PM, and to Foreign Minister Winston Peters urging them to recognise Palestinian statehood right now. Inquire as to what further information they may need before making that decision, and offer to supply it. We need to learn how to share our outrage. (i) Learn about the history of this issue, so that you convince friends and family to take similar actions. Here's a bare bones timeline of the main historical events. This map showing (in white) the countries that are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood speaks volumes. Those holdout nations in white tend to have been the chief enablers of Israel's founding in 1948, a gesture of atonement driven by European guilt over the Holocaust. This 'homeland' for the Jews already had residents known to have had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Yet since 1948 the people of Palestine have been made to bear all of the bad consequences of the West's purging of its collective guilt. Conditional justice The same indifference to the lives of Palestinians is evident in the belated steps towards supporting the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Even the recognition promised by the UK,Canada, France and Australia next month is decked out with further conditions that the Palestinians are being told they need to meet. No equivalent demands are being made of Israel, despite the atrocities it is committing in Gaza. There's nothing new about this. Historically, all of the concessions have been made by the Palestinians, starting with their original displacement. Some 30 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation formally recognised Israel's right to exist. In response, Israel immediately expanded its settlements on Palestinian land, a flagrant breach of the commitments it made in the Oslo Accords, and in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement. The West did nothing, said little. As the New York Times recently pointed out: In a 1993 exchange of letters, the Palestine Liberation Organization's chairman, Yasir Arafat, recognized the 'right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security' and committed the P.L.O. to peaceful negotiations, renouncing terrorism and amending the Palestinian charter to reflect these commitments. In return, Israel would merely recognize the P.L.O. as the representative of the Palestinian people — and only 'in light of' Mr. Arafat's commitments. Palestinian sovereignty remained remote; Israeli occupation continued apace. This double standard persists: This fundamental unfairness has informed every diplomatic effort since. The rump Palestinian government built the limited institutions it was permitted under the Oslo Accords, co-operated with Israeli security forces and voiced support for a peace process that had long been undermined by Israel. Led by then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority's statehood campaign in the 2000s was entirely based on playing the game according to rules set by Israel and the Western-dominated international community. Yet recognition remained stalled, the United States blocked Palestine's full membership in the United Nations — and still, no conditions were placed on the occupying power. That's where we're still at. Luxon, Peters and David Seymour are demanding more concessions from the Palestinians. They keep strongly denouncing the Hamas October 7 atrocities – which is valid – while weakly urging Israel to abide by the international laws and conventions that Israel repeatedly breaches. When a state deploys famine as a strategic weapon, doesn't it deserve to be condemned, up front and personal? Instead, the language that New Zealand uses to address Israel's crimes is almost invariably, and selectively, passive. Terrible things are 'happening' in Gaza and they must 'stop.' Children, mysteriously, are 'starving.' This is 'intolerable.' It is as if there is no human agent, and no state power responsible for these outcomes. Things are just somehow 'happening' and they must somehow 'cease.' Enough is enough, cries Peters, while carefully choosing not to name names, beyond Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel has announced its plans to expand the war, even though 600 Israeli ex-officials (some of them from Shin Bet, Israel's equivalent to the SIS) have publicly said that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. As mentioned, Israel is publicly discussing its plans for Gaza's ' voluntary emigration ' and for the permanent annexation of the West Bank. Even when urged to do so by Christopher Luxon, it seems that Israel is not actually complying with international law, and is not fulfilling its legal obligations as an occupying power. Has anyone told Luxon about this yet? Two state fantasy, one state reality At one level, continuing to call for a 'two state' solution is absurd, given that the Knesset formally rejected the proposal a year ago. More than once, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced it while also laying Israel's claim to all of the land west of Jordan, which would include the West Bank and Gaza. Evidently, the slogan ' from the river to sea' is only a terrorist slogan when Hamas uses it. Yet the phrase originated as a Likud the West evidently thinks it is quite OK for Netanyahu to publicly call for Israeli hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Basic rule of diplomacy: bad is what they do, good is what we do, and we have always been on Team Israel. Over the course of the three decades since the Oslo Accords were signed, the West has kept on advocating for a two state solution, while acting as if only one of those states has a right to exist. On what land do Luxon and Peters think that a viable Palestinian state can be built? One pre-condition for Palestinian statehood that Luxon cited to RNZ last week required Israel to be 'not undermining the territorial integrity that would then undermine the two state solution.' Really? Does Luxon not realise that this is exactly what Israel has been doing for the past 30 years? Talking of which.. are Luxon and Peters genuinely expecting Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders? That land was agreed at Oslo and mandated by the UN as the territory needed for a viable Palestinian state. Yet on the relatively small area of the West Bank alone, 3.4 million Palestinians currently subsist on disconnected patches of land under occupation amid extreme settler violence, while contending with 614 Israeli checkpoints and other administrative obstacles impeding their free movement. Here's what the land left to the Palestinians looks like today: A brief backgrounder on Areas A, B and C and how they operate can be found here. Obviously, this situation cannot be the template for a viable Palestinian state. What Is The Point? You might well ask…in the light of the above, what is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? Given the realities on the ground, it can only be a symbolic gesture. The reversion to the 1967 borders (a necessary step towards a Palestinian state) can happen only if the US agreed to push Israel in that direction by withholding funds and weaponry. That's very hard to imagine. The hypocrisy of the Western nations on this issue is breath-taking. The US and Germany continue to be Israel's main foreign suppliers of weapons and targeting systems. Under Keir Starmer's leadership as well, the UK sales of military equipment to Israel have sharply increased. New export licensing figures show that the UK approved licenses for £127.6 million worth of military equipment to Israel in single issue licenses between October to December 2024. This is a massive increase, with the figure in this three-month period totaling more than 2020-2023 combined. Thanks to an explicitly enacted legal exemption, the UK also continues to supply parts for Israel's F-35 jets. UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts [ estimated ] to be worth at least £500 million since 2016, and [this] is the most significant part of the UK arms industry [relationship]with Israel…at least 79 companies [are] involved in manufacturing components. These are the same F-35 war planes that the IDF has used to drop 2,000 pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods in Gaza. Starmer cannot credibly pose has as a man of peace. So again…what exactly is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? No doubt, it would boost Palestinian morale if some major Western powers finally conceded that Palestine has a right to exist. In that narrow sense, recognition would correct a historical injustice. There is also optimistic talk that formal Palestinian statehood would isolate the US on the Security Council (Trump would probably wear that as a badge of honour) and would make Israel more accountable under humanitarian law. As if. Theoretically, a recognition of statehood would also enable people in New Zealand and elsewhere to apply pressure to their governments to forthrightly condemn and sanction Israel for its crimes against a fellow UN member state. None of this, however, is likely to change the reality on the ground, or prevent the calls for Israel's 'accountability' and for its 'compliance with international law' from ringing hollow. As the NYT also says: After almost two years of severe access restrictions and the dismantling of the U.N.-led aid system in favour of a militarized food distribution that has left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead, [now 1,838 dead at these 'aid centres' since late May, as of yesterday ]… The 15 nations [at a UN meeting in late July that signed a declaration on Gaza] still would not collectively say 'Israel is responsible for starvation in Gaza.' If they cannot name the problem, they can hardly hope to resolve it. In sum…the world may talk the talk of Palestinian statehood being a matter of 'not if, but when' and witter on about the 'irreversible steps' being taken toward statehood, and finally – somewhere over the rainbow – towards a two state solution. Faint chance: 'For those who are starving today, the only irreversible step is death. Until statehood recognition brings action — arms embargoes, sanctions, enforcement of international law — it will remain a largely empty promise that serves primarily to distract from Western complicity in Gaza's destruction. Exactly. Behind the words of concern are the actions of complicity. The people of Gaza do not have time to wait for symbolic actions, or for sanctions to weaken Israel's appetite for genocide. Consider this option: would New Zealand support an intervention in Gaza by a UN-led international force to save Gaza's dwindling population, and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected, however belatedly? Would we be willing to commit troops to such a force if asked to do so by the UN Secretary-General? That is what is now needed. Footnote One: On Gaza, the Luxon government has a high tolerance for double standards and Catch 22 conditions. We are insisting that the Palestinians must release the remaining hostages unconditionally, lay down their arms and de-militarise the occupied territories. Yet we are applying no similar pre-conditions on Israel to withdraw, de-militarise the same space, release all their Palestinian prisoners, allow the unrestricted distribution of food and medical supplies, and negotiate a sustainable peace. Understandably, Hamas has tied the release of the remaining hostages to the Israeli cessation of their onslaught, to unfettered aid distribution, and to a long-term commitment to Palestinian self-rule. Otherwise, once the Israeli hostages are home, there would be nothing to stop Israel from renewing the genocide. We are also demanding that Hamas be excluded from any future governing arrangement in Gaza, but – simultaneously – Peters told the House recently that this governing arrangement must also be 'representative.' Catch 22. 'Representative' democracy it seems, means voting for the people pre-selected by the West. Again, no matching demands have been made of Israel with respect to its role in the future governance of Gaza, or about its obligation to rebuild what it has criminally destroyed. Footnote Two: There is only one rational explanation for why New Zealand is currently holding back from joining the UK, Canada, France and Australia in voting next month to recognise Palestine as a full UN member state. It seems we are cravenly hoping that Australia's stance will be viewed with such disfavour by Donald Trump that he will punish Canberra by lifting its tariff rate from 10%, thereby erasing the 5% advantage that Australia currently enjoys oven us in the US market. At least this tells us what the selling price is for our 'independent' foreign policy. We're prepared to sell it out to the Americans – and sell out the Palestinians in the process – if, by sitting on the fence for now, we can engineer parity for our exports with Australia in US markets. ANZAC mates, forever.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza
The word 'Gaza' is taking on similar connotations to what the word ' Auschwitz' meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity. As a result, Israel is isolating itself as a pariah state on the world stage. This week alone has seen Israel target and kill four Al Jazeera journalists, just as it had executed eight Red Crescent medical staff and seven other first responders back in March, and then dumped their bodies in a mass grave. Overall 186 journalists have died at the hands of the IDF since October 7, 2023, and at least 1,400 medical staff as of May Monday night a five year old disabled child starved to death. Reportedly, he weighed only three kilograms when he died. Muhammad Zakaria Khudr was the 101st child among the 227 Palestinians now reported to have died from starvation. Meanwhile, PM Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters keep on saying that with regard to New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state, it is a matter of 'Not if, but when.' Yet why is ' but not now' still their default position? At this rate, a country that used to pride itself on its human rights record – New Zealand has never stopped bragging that this is where women won the right to vote, before they did anywhere else – will be among the last countries on earth to recognise Palestine's right to exist. What can we do ? Some options: (a) Boycott all Israeli goods and services (b) Engage with the local Palestinian community, and support their businesses, and cultural events (c) Donate financial support to Gaza. Here's a reliable link to directy support pregnant Gaza women and their babies (d) Lobby your local MP, and Immigration Minister Erika Stanford – to prioritise the inclusion of hundreds of Gazans in our refugee programme, just as we did in the wake of the civil war in Syria, and earlier, in Sudan (e) Write and phone your local MP, and urge them to support economic sanctions against Israel. These sanctions should include a sporting and cultural boycott along the lines we pursued so successfully against apartheid South Africa (f) Contact your KiwiSaver provider and let it be known that you will change providers if they invest in Israeli firms, or in the US, German and UK firms that supply the IDF with weapons and targeting systems. Contact the NZ Super Fund and urge them to divest along similar lines (g) Identify and picket any NZ firms that supply the US/Israeli war machines directly, or indirectly (h) Contact your local MP and urge him or her to support Chloe Swarbrick's private member's bill that would impose economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its unlawful occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Swarbrick's Bill is modelled on the existing Russian sanctions framework. If 61 MPs pledged support for Swarbrick's Bill, it would not have to win a private members ballot before being debated in Parliament. Currently 21 MPs (the Greens and TPM) formally support it. If and when Labour's 34 MPs come on board, this will still require another six MPs (from across the three coalition parties) to do the right thing. Goading MPs into doing the right thing got Swarbrick into a world of trouble this week. (Those wacky Greens. They're such idealists.) We should all be lobbying our local MPs for a firm commitment that they will back the Swarbrick Bill. Portray it to them as being in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and as them supporting the several UN resolutions on the status of the occupied territories. And if they still baulk ask them flatly- if not, why not? (i) Email/phone/write to the PM's office, and ask him to call in the Israeli ambassador and personally express New Zealand's repugnance at Israel's inhumane actions in Gaza and on the West Bank. The PM should also be communicating in person New Zealand's opposition to the recently announced Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza City, and expansion of the war in Gaza. (h) Write to your MP, to the PM, and to Foreign Minister Winston Peters urging them to recognise Palestinian statehood right now. Inquire as to what further information they may need before making that decision, and offer to supply it. We need to learn how to share our outrage. (i) Learn about the history of this issue, so that you convince friends and family to take similar actions. Here's a bare bones timeline of the main historical events. This map showing (in white) the countries that are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood speaks volumes. Those holdout nations in white tend to have been the chief enablers of Israel's founding in 1948, a gesture of atonement driven by European guilt over the Holocaust. This 'homeland' for the Jews already had residents known to have had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Yet since 1948 the people of Palestine have been made to bear all of the bad consequences of the West's purging of its collective guilt. Conditional justice The same indifference to the lives of Palestinians is evident in the belated steps towards supporting the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Even the recognition promised by the UK,Canada, France and Australia next month is decked out with further conditions that the Palestinians are being told they need to meet. No equivalent demands are being made of Israel, despite the atrocities it is committing in Gaza. There's nothing new about this. Historically, all of the concessions have been made by the Palestinians, starting with their original displacement. Some 30 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation formally recognised Israel's right to exist. In response, Israel immediately expanded its settlements on Palestinian land, a flagrant breach of the commitments it made in the Oslo Accords, and in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement. The West did nothing, said little. As the New York Times recently pointed out: In a 1993 exchange of letters, the Palestine Liberation Organization's chairman, Yasir Arafat, recognized the 'right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security' and committed the P.L.O. to peaceful negotiations, renouncing terrorism and amending the Palestinian charter to reflect these commitments. In return, Israel would merely recognize the P.L.O. as the representative of the Palestinian people — and only 'in light of' Mr. Arafat's commitments. Palestinian sovereignty remained remote; Israeli occupation continued apace. This double standard persists: This fundamental unfairness has informed every diplomatic effort since. The rump Palestinian government built the limited institutions it was permitted under the Oslo Accords, co-operated with Israeli security forces and voiced support for a peace process that had long been undermined by Israel. Led by then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority's statehood campaign in the 2000s was entirely based on playing the game according to rules set by Israel and the Western-dominated international community. Yet recognition remained stalled, the United States blocked Palestine's full membership in the United Nations — and still, no conditions were placed on the occupying power. That's where we're still at. Luxon, Peters and David Seymour are demanding more concessions from the Palestinians. They keep strongly denouncing the Hamas October 7 atrocities – which is valid - while weakly urging Israel to abide by the international laws and conventions that Israel repeatedly breaches. When a state deploys famine as a strategic weapon, doesn't it deserve to be condemned, up front and personal? Instead, the language that New Zealand uses to address Israel's crimes is almost invariably, and selectively, passive. Terrible things are 'happening' in Gaza and they must 'stop.' Children, mysteriously, are 'starving.' This is 'intolerable.' It is as if there is no human agent, and no state power responsible for these outcomes. Things are just somehow 'happening' and they must somehow 'cease.' Enough is enough, cries Peters, while carefully choosing not to name names, beyond Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel has announced its plans to expand the war, even though 600 Israeli ex-officials (some of them from Shin Bet, Israel's equivalent to the SIS) have publicly said that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. As mentioned, Israel is publicly discussing its plans for Gaza's ' voluntary emigration ' and for the permanent annexation of the West Bank. Even when urged to do so by Christopher Luxon, it seems that Israel is not actually complying with international law, and is not fulfilling its legal obligations as an occupying power. Has anyone told Luxon about this yet? Two state fantasy, one state reality At one level, continuing to call for a 'two state' solution is absurd, given that the Knesset formally rejected the proposal a year ago. More than once, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced it while also laying Israel's claim to all of the land west of Jordan, which would include the West Bank and Gaza. Evidently, the slogan ' from the river to sea' is only a terrorist slogan when Hamas uses it. Yet the phrase originated as a Likud the West evidently thinks it is quite OK for Netanyahu to publicly call for Israeli hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Basic rule of diplomacy: bad is what they do, good is what we do, and we have always been on Team Israel. Over the course of the three decades since the Oslo Accords were signed, the West has kept on advocating for a two state solution, while acting as if only one of those states has a right to exist. On what land do Luxon and Peters think that a viable Palestinian state can be built? One pre-condition for Palestinian statehood that Luxon cited to RNZ last week required Israel to be 'not undermining the territorial integrity that would then undermine the two state solution.' Really? Does Luxon not realise that this is exactly what Israel has been doing for the past 30 years? Talking of which.. are Luxon and Peters genuinely expecting Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders? That land was agreed at Oslo and mandated by the UN as the territory needed for a viable Palestinian state. Yet on the relatively small area of the West Bank alone, 3.4 million Palestinians currently subsist on disconnected patches of land under occupation amid extreme settler violence, while contending with 614 Israeli checkpoints and other administrative obstacles impeding their free movement. Here's what the land left to the Palestinians looks like today: A brief backgrounder on Areas A, B and C and how they operate can be found here. Obviously, this situation cannot be the template for a viable Palestinian state. What Is The Point? You might well the light of the above, what is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? Given the realities on the ground, it can only be a symbolic gesture. The reversion to the 1967 borders (a necessary step towards a Palestinian state) can happen only if the US agreed to push Israel in that direction by withholding funds and weaponry. That's very hard to imagine. The hypocrisy of the Western nations on this issue is breath-taking. The US and Germany continue to be Israel's main foreign suppliers of weapons and targeting systems. Under Keir Starmer's leadership as well, the UK sales of military equipment to Israel have sharply increased. New export licensing figures show that the UK approved licenses for £127.6 million worth of military equipment to Israel in single issue licenses between October to December 2024. This is a massive increase, with the figure in this three-month period totaling more than 2020-2023 combined. Thanks to an explicitly enacted legal exemption, the UK also continues to supply parts for Israel's F-35 jets. UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts [ estimated ] to be worth at least £500 million since 2016, and [this] is the most significant part of the UK arms industry [relationship]with least 79 companies [are] involved in manufacturing components. These are the same F-35 war planes that the IDF has used to drop 2,000 pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods in Gaza. Starmer cannot credibly pose has as a man of peace. So exactly is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? No doubt, it would boost Palestinian morale if some major Western powers finally conceded that Palestine has a right to exist. In that narrow sense, recognition would correct a historical injustice. There is also optimistic talk that formal Palestinian statehood would isolate the US on the Security Council (Trump would probably wear that as a badge of honour) and would make Israel more accountable under humanitarian law. As if. Theoretically, a recognition of statehood would also enable people in New Zealand and elsewhere to apply pressure to their governments to forthrightly condemn and sanction Israel for its crimes against a fellow UN member state. None of this, however, is likely to change the reality on the ground, or prevent the calls for Israel's 'accountability' and for its 'compliance with international law' from ringing hollow. As the NYT also says: After almost two years of severe access restrictions and the dismantling of the U.N.-led aid system in favour of a militarized food distribution that has left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead, [now 1,838 dead at these 'aid centres' since late May, as of yesterday ]... The 15 nations [at a UN meeting in late July that signed a declaration on Gaza] still would not collectively say 'Israel is responsible for starvation in Gaza.' If they cannot name the problem, they can hardly hope to resolve it. In world may talk the talk of Palestinian statehood being a matter of 'not if, but when' and witter on about the 'irreversible steps' being taken toward statehood, and finally - somewhere over the rainbow – towards a two state solution. Faint chance: 'For those who are starving today, the only irreversible step is death. Until statehood recognition brings action — arms embargoes, sanctions, enforcement of international law — it will remain a largely empty promise that serves primarily to distract from Western complicity in Gaza's destruction. Exactly. Behind the words of concern are the actions of complicity. The people of Gaza do not have time to wait for symbolic actions, or for sanctions to weaken Israel's appetite for genocide. Consider this option: would New Zealand support an intervention in Gaza by a UN-led international force to save Gaza's dwindling population, and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected, however belatedly? Would we be willing to commit troops to such a force if asked to do so by the UN Secretary-General? That is what is now needed. Footnote One: On Gaza, the Luxon government has a high tolerance for double standards and Catch 22 conditions. We are insisting that the Palestinians must release the remaining hostages unconditionally, lay down their arms and de-militarise the occupied territories. Yet we are applying no similar pre-conditions on Israel to withdraw, de-militarise the same space, release all their Palestinian prisoners, allow the unrestricted distribution of food and medical supplies, and negotiate a sustainable peace. Understandably, Hamas has tied the release of the remaining hostages to the Israeli cessation of their onslaught, to unfettered aid distribution, and to a long-term commitment to Palestinian self-rule. Otherwise, once the Israeli hostages are home, there would be nothing to stop Israel from renewing the genocide. We are also demanding that Hamas be excluded from any future governing arrangement in Gaza, but – simultaneously - Peters told the House recently that this governing arrangement must also be 'representative.' Catch 22. 'Representative' democracy it seems, means voting for the people pre-selected by the West. Again, no matching demands have been made of Israel with respect to its role in the future governance of Gaza, or about its obligation to rebuild what it has criminally destroyed. Footnote Two: There is only one rational explanation for why New Zealand is currently holding back from joining the UK, Canada, France and Australia in voting next month to recognise Palestine as a full UN member state. It seems we are cravenly hoping that Australia's stance will be viewed with such disfavour by Donald Trump that he will punish Canberra by lifting its tariff rate from 10%, thereby erasing the 5% advantage that Australia currently enjoys oven us in the US market. At least this tells us what the selling price is for our 'independent' foreign policy. We're prepared to sell it out to the Americans – and sell out the Palestinians in the process – if, by sitting on the fence for now, we can engineer parity for our exports with Australia in US markets. ANZAC mates, forever.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump threat if Putin blocks Ukraine peace
US President Donald Trump has threatened "severe consequences" if Russia's Vladimir Putin does not agree to peace in Ukraine. However, he also said a meeting between them could swiftly be followed by a second that would include the leader of Ukraine. Trump did not specify on Wednesday what the consequences could be, but he has warned of economic sanctions if his meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday proves fruitless. The comments by Trump and the outcome of a virtual conference with Trump, European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held on Wednesday could provide encouragement for Kyiv after fears the Alaska summit could end up selling out Ukraine by carving up its territory. However, Russia is likely to resist Ukraine and Europe's demands strongly and previously has said its stance had not changed since it was first detailed by Putin in June 2024. When asked if Russia would face any consequences if Putin does not agree to stop the war after Friday's meeting, Trump responded: 'Yes, they will.' Asked if those consequences would be sanctions or tariffs, Trump told reporters: 'I don't have to say. There will be very severe consequences." But the president also described the aim of the meeting between the two leaders in Alaska as "setting the table" for a quick follow-up that would include Zelenskyy. "If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one," Trump said. "I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelenskyy and myself, if they'd like to have me there." Trump did not provide a time frame for a second meeting. RED LINES European leaders and Zelenskyy had earlier spoken with Trump in a last-ditch call hosted by Germany to lay out red lines ahead of the Alaska meeting. "We had a very good call. He was on the call. President Zelenskyy was on the call. I would rate it a 10, very friendly," Trump said. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump agreed Ukraine must be involved in any discussions about ceding land, while Zelenskyy said Trump had supported the idea of security guarantees in a post-war settlement. "President Trump was very clear that the United States wanted to achieve a ceasefire at this meeting in Alaska," Macron said. "The second point on which things were very clear, as expressed by President Trump, is that territories belonging to Ukraine cannot be negotiated and will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who hosted the virtual meeting, said the principle that borders could not be changed by force must continue to apply. "If there is no movement on the Russian side in Alaska, then the United States and we Europeans should ... increase the pressure," he said. "President Trump knows this position. He shares it very extensively and therefore I can say: We have had a really exceptionally constructive and good conversation with each other." Trump and Putin are due to discuss how to end the three-and-a-half-year-old conflict, the largest in Europe since World War 2. Trump has previously said both sides will have to swap land to end fighting that has cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions. RUSSIA MAKES SHARP ADVANCE INTO UKRAINE On a day of intense diplomacy, Zelenskyy flew to Berlin for the virtual conferences with European leaders and then with Trump. He and the Europeans worry that a land swap could leave Russia with almost a fifth of Ukraine, rewarding it for nearly 11 years of efforts to seize Ukrainian land, the last three in all-out war, and embolden Putin to expand further west. Russian forces have made a sharp thrust into eastern Ukraine in recent days in what may be an attempt to increase the pressure on Kyiv to give up territory. "I told the US president and all our European colleagues that Putin is bluffing (about his stated wish to end the war)," Zelenskyy said. "He is trying to apply pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine." A source familiar with the matter said the call with Trump discussed possible cities that could host a three-way meeting, depending on the outcome of the talks in Alaska. Wary of angering Trump, European leaders have repeatedly said they welcome his efforts, while stressing that there should be no deal without Ukraine's participation. Trump's agreement last week to the summit was an abrupt shift after weeks of voicing frustration with Putin for resisting the US peace initiative. Trump said his envoy, Steve Witkoff, had made "great progress" at talks in Moscow. A Gallup poll released last week found that 69% of Ukrainians favour a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. But polls also indicate Ukrainians do not want peace at any cost if that means significant concessions. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexei Fadeev earlier said Moscow's stance had not changed since last year. As conditions for a ceasefire and the start of talks, Putin had demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from four regions that Russia has claimed as its own but does not fully control, and formally renounce plans to join NATO. Kyiv swiftly rejected the conditions as tantamount to surrender.
