New Zealand’s new Foreign Minister, Hon. MP Nanaia Mahuta has barely had time to place her feet under her desk, and yet she’s already been lectured by anti-Israel activists and told what she should be doing. She has also beenquestioned by the media as to her position on a Palestinian State. Unlike certain local pundits who prefer to view the Israel/Palestinian conflict in simplistic terms, Mahuta has wisely stated that these are “significant and complex issues” and she will take time to “get her head around the portfolio”.
Mahuta is right. The Middle East is a complicated region and pushing simplistic non-solutions from afar helps no-one, least of all the Arab Palestinians.
The good news is that there are some seismic shifts taking place. In the first visit of its kind, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reported to have travelled to Saudi Arabia where he met with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
As Raphael Aren, reporting in theTimes of Israel noted
It doesn’t happen every day that the future king and current de facto ruler of what is arguably the Arab world’s most important country sits down for a chat with the leader of the Jewish state. Or, to be more precise: It doesn’t happen every day that the press gets to write about such meetings.
Over the weekend the Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince Faisal bin Farhan said, ‘We have supported normalization with #Israel for a long time, but one very important thing must happen first: a permanent and full peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.
And there-in lies the key point: “…a permanent and full peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians.” Israel has on several occasions offered to give land in exchange for peace, even up to 97% of the land with land swaps for areas of high Jewish density. Palestinians have thus far refused every offer.
Unfortunately, local activists would rather see the Palestinians achieve a state through international pressure, rather than by negotiation with their neighbours. The activists’ approach has no chance of success. What kind of peace would there be if a state is granted by fiat of outsiders, rather than by negotiation between the parties?
As fellow director, Dr David Cumin has pointed out,
Simply recognising “the State of Palestine” without negotiations for a solution to the conflict would encourage the Palestinian Authority to continue to refuse negotiations,incite violence, and campaign to destroy Israel.
The One State Solution has been bandied about by anti-Israel activists – a chimera of a democratic state where Jews would be vastly outnumbered by Palestinians, who have been taught from babyhood to hate “the Zionist enemy”. The so-called reclaiming of the land from the “river to the sea” is a euphemism for simply ridding the land of Jews.
A nation forged in the shadow of the world’s refusal to shelter persecuted Jews is not going to let go of the tiny slither of land (half the size of Canterbury, NZ) where her people were birthed 4,000 years ago and where they are now free to live as Jews. Surely there’s room enough for one tiny Jewish state amidst the vast lands that make up the Middle East.