Phil Goff’s Dangerous Distortions: A Rebuttal to the Libel of Genocide – And to the Media that Amplifies It

0
46

Former New Zealand politician Phil Goff’s recent op-ed accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing is not merely inflammatory — it is legally baseless, morally bankrupt, and factually incorrect. That Stuff, one of New Zealand’s largest media outlets, chose to publish such a screed without scrutiny or context raises serious concerns about the collapse of editorial standards in the country’s mainstream media.

  1. The Genocide Libel: A Legal and Moral Travesty

Mr Goff’s accusation that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza shows an alarming disregard for both the definition and gravity of the term. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide requires specific intent to destroy a protected group. Israel’s war in Gaza — initiated in response to the single worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust — is aimed at destroying Hamas, a designated terrorist group, not the Palestinian people.

To allege genocide while ignoring the intent and actions of Hamas — an organisation that explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews — is not only wrong, it is morally obscene.

Genocide is a unique and heinous crime. To exploit it for political grandstanding diminishes its meaning and dishonours actual victims of genocide — from the Holocaust to Rwanda to Yazidi victims of ISIS.

  1. “Ethnic Cleansing”? A Reversal of History

Goff’s claim of “ethnic cleansing” is equally indefensible. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, removing every last Israeli civilian and military installation. Since then, Gaza has been ruled — brutally — by Hamas. There are no Jews in Gaza. If there has been ethnic cleansing, it is of Jews — from Gaza, from the PA-controlled Judea & Samaria (West Bank), and from most of the Arab world over the last 75 years.

What Goff ignores is Hamas’s own charter, which does not merely oppose Israeli policy — it opposes Israel’s existence. It calls for jihad and genocide, not a two-state solution. Goff’s silence on these inconvenient facts speaks volumes.

  1. Civilian Deaths: Tragic, Yes — Intentional, No

Civilian casualties in Gaza are tragic. But to claim they are the result of Israeli indifference, rather than Hamas’s deliberate strategy of embedding fighters among civilians, is to invert reality.

Israel makes extensive efforts to limit civilian harm: warnings, leaflets, phone calls, and targeted strikes. No military on Earth facing an enemy as lawless and entrenched as Hamas does more to avoid civilian deaths. Meanwhile, Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately at Israeli population centres and uses its own people as human shields.

Where is Goff’s condemnation of that? Where is Stuff’s editorial scrutiny?

Moreover, Mr Goff misrepresents the International Criminal Court by saying that “… the International Criminal Court who dared to find Netanyahu guilty of war crimes….”. The court has found no such thing. There was an arrest warrant issued (along with one for a dead Hamas member in some apparent attempt to not be seen as politicised). However, there has been no trial or guilty verdict. Once again, Mr Goff abuses the meaning of words and distorts truth.

  1. The Real Complicity: New Zealand’s Media

Let us now turn to Stuff, whose decision to publish Goff’s piece without correction or counterpoint is a journalistic failure of the highest order.

This is not simply an opinion — it is a series of demonstrable falsehoods and legal distortions:

  • Genocide is a specific legal crime. Goff offers no legal argument, no evidence, and no reference to intent.
  • Ethnic cleansing implies forced population removal. Gaza is Judenrein — not because of Israel, but because of Hamas.
  • The portrayal of Israel as the sole aggressor ignores the barbarism of October 7 and the existential threat posed by Hamas.

In giving Goff a platform to air these libels without editorial challenge, Stuff has abdicated its responsibility to inform the public truthfully. It has become not a watchdog of power, but a megaphone for propaganda.

This is not journalism. It is activism masquerading as reporting.

  1. What Moral Clarity Looks Like

Goff accuses New Zealand of “complicity through silence.” On this point, we agree — though not in the way he means. The true complicity lies in the moral cowardice of those who refuse to condemn Hamas, who minimise or excuse the rape and butchery of October 7, and who cannot muster a word of support for the only democracy in the Middle East.

To speak out against terrorism is not taking sides — it is taking a stand. Goff failed that test. So did Stuff.

Conclusion: Shame and Accountability

The Israel Institute of New Zealand calls on responsible voices in politics, media, and civil society to reject the distortions peddled by Phil Goff and amplified by Stuff. We urge Stuff to retract or contextualise the piece, publish counterpoints, and re-examine its editorial policies to prevent the spread of unchallenged falsehoods in future.

New Zealanders deserve journalism that informs, not inflames. Democracy requires debate, not distortion. And moral clarity begins with naming evil where it lies: not in the nation fighting to protect its citizens from genocide—but in the group that commits it and those who excuse it.