Greg Bouwer
IINZ
Prime Ministers Christopher Luxon and Anthony Albanese stood together in Queenstown last week and called on Israel to “reconsider” its plan to take control of Gaza City. They warned that doing so would “risk violating international law” and worsen the humanitarian situation.
It’s a nice soundbite. It plays well on the international stage. But it’s a position that is not only legally flawed –it’s dangerously detached from the realities Israel faces. It risks distorting the legal reality, undermining New Zealand’s credibility, and emboldening the very group responsible for triggering this war – Hamas.
The United States made that point plainly at the UN Security Council this weekend. Acting US Ambassador Dorothy Shea accused too many governments of “encouraging and rewarding” Hamas’s intransigence, prolonging the war, and handing “propaganda victories to terrorists”. She was clear: This war could end today if Hamas let the hostages, and all of Gaza, go free.
The Context They Omitted
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust – murdering over 1,200 people, wounding thousands, and kidnapping more than 250 hostages. Hamas is not simply a governing authority: it is a proscribed terrorist organisation under New Zealand, Australian, and international law.
From day one, Israel’s stated war aim has been the destruction of Hamas’ military and governing capabilities so that Gaza can never again be used as a launching pad for terrorism. That goal is rooted not in vengeance but in the legal right of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Gaza City is not just a symbolic centre: it is Hamas’s operational nerve hub, housing command facilities, weapons stockpiles, and tunnel networks. Any ‘ceasefire’ that leaves Hamas in control there would guarantee the war’s continuation – exactly as Hamas itself has declared. As the US reminded the council, Israel has accepted three ceasefire proposals – Hamas rejected every one.
International Law Does Not Require Israel to Commit Suicide
Luxon and Albanese’s warning about “violating international law” ignores fundamental principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL):
- Military necessity permits attacks on legitimate military objectives, such as enemy command centres.
- Distinction requires combatants to separate themselves from civilians – something Hamas systematically violates by embedding fighters and weapons in residential areas, schools and hospitals.
- Proportionality prohibits attacks where civilian harm would be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage – a calculus that Israel undertakes and Hamas deliberately sabotages.
Occupation is not unlawful if it arises from lawful self-defence. This is recognised under the Hague Regulations (1907) and reflected in the Fourth Geneva Convention’s commentaries. What is unlawful is the intentional targeting of civilians – which Hamas commits as policy.
To tell Israel it cannot control Gaza City is to demand it fight with one hand tied behind its back, leaving its enemy’s core military infrastructure untouched.
The Humanitarian Narrative Is One-Sided
No serious observer denies the suffering in Gaza. But that suffering is not solely – or even primarily – the result of Israeli military action. Hamas:
- Steals aid, including food, fuel, and medicine.
- Blocks civilians from moving to safer areas.
- Uses civilians as human shields to maximise casualties for propaganda purposes.
These tactics link humanitarian harm directly to Hamas’s military advantage. As Ambassador Shea noted, the US is working to deliver aid securely precisely because the international community has failed to prevent Hamas from diverting it. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (which has distributed over 110 million meals while preventing Hamas looting) is proof that aid can be delivered without empowering terrorists.
If Luxon and Albanese genuinely want to ease suffering, they should be pressuring Hamas to surrender and release hostages, not hamstringing Israel’s ability to defeat it.
Recognition Without Responsibility
Both leaders reiterated that recognition of a Palestinian state is ‘a matter of when, not if’. But what state are they envisioning?
In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, removing all settlers and military forces. In 2007, Hamas violently seized control from the Palestinian Authority and transformed Gaza into a fortified terror enclave.
Recognition, without insisting on responsible governance, demilitarisation, and rule of law, rewards terrorism and entrenches conflict. The US pointed out that recent unilateral recognition announcements have been publicly celebrated by Hamas as a reward for October 7. That is the opposite of a peace initiative – it is an incentive for more atrocities.
Moral Clarity Matters
It’s easy to stand in snowy Queenstown, trade jokes about the cold, and issue moralistic pronouncements. It’s harder to grapple with the fact that Israel’s war is not a war of choice but a war of survival – one thrust upon it by a genocidal enemy.
Diplomacy and dialogue are noble goals. But they are meaningless when one party – Hamas – exists to destroy the other. As the US has made clear, there will not be peace as long as Hamas remains in power.
Luxon and Albanese should rethink their position. Not because it’s politically convenient, but because the precedent they set will determine whether democracies can defend themselves against terrorist armies.
This article was originally published by the Israel Institute of New Zealand.
