Greg Bouwer
IINZ
Former Foreign Minister Phil Goff’s recent opinion piece in the Post, calling on New Zealand to immediately recognise the State of Palestine, is a well-worn litany of false equivalences, historical distortions, and uncritical amplification of Hamas propaganda. His case is driven more by ideological fervour than by international law, moral clarity, or practical diplomacy.
New Zealanders deserve a sober, principled foreign policy – one that resists pressure from fringe activists and legacy politicians, and which upholds our values, our commitment to peace, and the truth. Goff’s call would do the opposite.
Rewarding Terror, Undermining Peace
Goff insists that New Zealand must recognise Palestine “now”, despite acknowledging that its claim to statehood does not meet legal criteria. That alone should disqualify the suggestion.
The 1933 Montevideo Convention outlines four essential criteria for statehood: a permanent population, defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Goff concedes that Palestine does not meet these standards but blames Israel for the deficiency. This is a profound misrepresentation.
The Palestinian Authority has not held elections since 2006. It governs parts of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) while Gaza has been under the control of Hamas since 2007 – a group that seized power in a violent coup, suppresses dissent, executes political opponents, and is designated a terrorist organisation by New Zealand and much of the democratic world.
This is not a government that can uphold the rule of law or enter into peace agreements. It is not a government at all – it is two rival fiefdoms, one of which openly seeks the destruction of the Jewish state and is responsible for the most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
Recognising “Palestine” in its current form would not reward responsible self-governance. It would reward rejectionism, corruption, and terrorism. It would not bring peace closer. It would embolden those who profit from endless war and suffering.
A One-Sided and Misleading History
Goff offers a heavily sanitised view of Palestinian history. He asserts that Israel’s founding “displaced” Palestinians, as if they were passive victims of an unprovoked catastrophe. In fact, the 1947 UN Partition Plan offered both Jews and Arabs a state of their own. The Jews accepted. The Arab leadership rejected it and launched a war of annihilation against the nascent Jewish state, vowing to “push the Jews into the sea”.
Yes, many Palestinians fled during the 1948 war. Some were expelled in the chaos of conflict; others left at the urging of Arab leaders who promised a swift return after victory. It was a tragedy of war – one instigated by those who refused any Jewish presence in the land.
Today, that same rejectionism endures. Hamas and many other Palestinian factions do not seek a state alongside Israel – they seek one instead of it. This core fact goes unmentioned in Goff’s article, just as it is omitted in many public declarations calling for recognition. There is no two-state solution possible until Palestinian leadership accepts the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own. They do not.
Inflated Numbers and Disinformation
Goff repeats the Hamas-provided claim that over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including 18,000 children. These numbers are presented without question or context, even as their credibility collapses under scrutiny.
The Gaza Ministry of Health is run by Hamas and has repeatedly published unverifiable, inflated, and manipulated fatality figures. In March 2024, the Wall Street Journal revealed that much of the humanitarian aid into Gaza was being looted by armed gangs and Hamas itself. A senior WFP coordinator stated: “We deliver to Gaza. But where it goes from there… that’s beyond our reach.”
And yet Goff parrots the claim of famine and starvation as if it is solely Israel’s doing – ignoring the central role of Hamas in hoarding aid, attacking convoys, embedding itself in civilian areas, and weaponising suffering for international sympathy.
Worse, Goff accuses Israel of genocide, echoing the International Criminal Court’s politicised and deeply flawed decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. He makes no mention of the fact that Hamas started this war on October 7, 2023, by launching a genocidal rampage that murdered, raped, tortured, and abducted over 1,200 civilians – men, women, children, and infants. Nor does he mention Hamas’s continued holding of hostages or its use of schools, mosques, and hospitals as shields.
To equate Israel’s military efforts (however tragic and painful) to Hamas’s deliberate mass murder is not merely wrong. It is a betrayal of moral reason.
Unilateral Recognition is Not Neutral
Goff tries to frame recognition of Palestine as a “principled” stand in favour of peace. In fact, it would have the opposite effect. It would undermine the possibility of a negotiated solution by granting Palestinian leadership the rewards of statehood without requiring the responsibilities of one: no end to terrorism, no meaningful reform, no mutual recognition.
This is not a hypothetical concern. When the Palestinian Authority gained “non-member state” observer status at the UN in 2012, it used its upgraded status not to promote peace, but to launch legal and diplomatic warfare against Israel, including baseless accusations in international courts. Recognition in the absence of a peace agreement fuels that strategy and removes incentives for compromise.
There is a reason why countries like the United States, Germany, Australia, and others have resisted unilateral recognition. They understand that peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated – something the Palestinian leadership has consistently refused to do.
Where Is Goff’s Condemnation of Hamas?
It is telling that Goff makes no mention of Hamas’s ideology, methods, or culpability for the current war. He speaks of Palestinian suffering as if it were inflicted in a vacuum – rather than as the tragic but foreseeable outcome of Hamas’s choice to drag Gaza into yet another war.
He calls for sanctions on Israel but says nothing about sanctions on Hamas. He condemns the humanitarian toll of the conflict but offers no plan to remove Hamas from power, disarm its militias, or stop its use of civilians as shields. He claims to support peace, yet ignores the single greatest obstacle to it: the armed, genocidal rejectionism at the heart of the Palestinian national movement.
Goff’s silence on these realities speaks volumes.
A Dangerous Moral Equivalence
New Zealand rightly condemned Hamas’s atrocities on October 7. That moral clarity must not be abandoned now under the false guise of “balance”. There is no equivalence between a democratic state defending its citizens and a death cult hiding behind them. There is no symmetry between an army that warns civilians to evacuate and a militia that forces them to stay. And there is no justice in pretending otherwise.
To demand symmetrical condemnation is to engage in moral obfuscation. To recognise a non-existent state run by terrorists is to side with those who oppose peace. To parrot Hamas’s war propaganda while ignoring its role in prolonging Palestinian suffering is not diplomacy. It is complicity.
Conclusion: Don’t Recognise a Fantasy – Demand Accountability
New Zealand can and should support Palestinian aspirations – but only in a way that fosters accountability, reform, and coexistence. That means:
- Pressuring Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to hold elections.
- Demanding that all factions accept Israel’s right to exist.
- Conditioning any recognition on disarmament and democratic reform.
- Supporting regional peace initiatives that promote mutual recognition – not one-sided political theatre.
The path to peace is not paved with empty gestures and dangerous illusions. It lies in rejecting extremism, upholding truth, and refusing to reward those who incite war while rejecting every opportunity for peace.
New Zealand must not recognise a Palestinian state born of terror, ruled by factions committed to Israel’s destruction, and defined by dysfunction. Instead, we must stand firm – for truth, for peace, and for a future in which both peoples can live in security, dignity, and freedom.
This article was originally published by the Israel Institute of New Zealand.
