This week, the Dunedin City Council will consider a motion so wildly beyond its remit that it borders on the absurd. Cr Christine Garey is asking her fellow councillors to formally endorse the Green Party’s Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill — a radical piece of legislation aimed at imposing sanctions against Israel — and to urge the New Zealand Government to do the same.
Let’s be clear: this is not the role of a city council. Cracked footpaths in St Clair. Traffic congestion on Andersons Bay Road. Rising rates. These are the real concerns facing Dunedin residents — not how to resolve a 75-year-old geopolitical conflict half a world away.
Rates, roads, rubbish — not rockets in the Middle East — are Council’s core business. For Dunedin’s elected officials to debate and potentially adopt a position on one of the world’s most complex and contested international conflicts is not only irresponsible — it is deeply inappropriate.
A Dangerous and Divisive Distraction
Cr Garey justifies her motion by saying that the Council should “advocate for the Dunedin community.” But whose community?
The proposal erases the voices of Dunedin’s Jewish and Israeli residents — a community already facing heightened antisemitism and social hostility since October 7. Council endorsement of a sanctions regime against the world’s only Jewish state risks validating that hostility under the guise of justice.
She’s not advocating for Dunedin — she’s exploiting its platform to wage a political campaign far outside the remit of local government.
Not Just Inappropriate — Inaccurate
Even if foreign policy were within the Council’s domain (which it emphatically is not), the motion rests on a dangerously simplistic and one-sided interpretation of international law. It parrots UN talking points that refer to Israel’s presence in Judea & Samaria (the “West Bank”) as “unlawful,” while ignoring key facts:
- Judea & Samaria is disputed territory — not sovereign Palestinian land. Israel took control in 1967 during a defensive war after Jordan — which had illegally occupied the territory since 1948 — launched an attack.
- The Oslo Accords — signed by both Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation — established that the final status of the territories would be determined by negotiation, not unilateral action. The Green Party bill, like Cr Garey’s motion, discards that framework.
- UN resolutions are not binding unless passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and Resolution 2334 — often cited in these motions — carries no legal weight. It is a political statement, not an international court ruling.
- The principle of uti possidetis juris affirms that new states emerging from conflict or colonial dissolution inherit the administrative borders of the preceding sovereign — in this case, the British Mandate, which recognised Jewish national rights in all of Mandatory Palestine, including Judea & Samaria.
- Since 2005, Gaza has been under the rule of Hamas — a terrorist organisation whose founding charter calls for Israel’s destruction and whose October 7 massacre triggered the current war.
If this is about law and human rights, why is there no motion condemning Hamas’s use of human shields, its sabotage of aid convoys, or its thousands of indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians?
Council Should Learn from Its Past Overreach
This isn’t the first time a New Zealand council has overstepped. Christchurch, Nelson, and Environment Canterbury have all passed boycott measures targeting Israel, setting a dangerous precedent of selective moral outrage.
In each case, these stunts have served only to polarise communities and drag local government into political fights they are neither equipped nor mandated to resolve. Dunedin must not follow this path. It risks alienating ratepayers, undermining social cohesion, and opening the door to accusations of institutional bias — all while doing absolutely nothing to improve the lives of Palestinians.
The Optics of Hypocrisy
The New Zealand Government recently sanctioned two Israeli ministers for inflammatory rhetoric — yet it has shown no appetite for sanctioning Hamas leaders or Palestinian Authority officials for inciting violence and funding terrorism. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon welcomed the Emir of Qatar — a known funder and host of Hamas leadership — with warm diplomatic fanfare in 2024. Yet now, Dunedin councillors are being asked to punish Israel, the region’s only democracy.
Where is the consistency? Where is the moral clarity?
And more to the point: where is the Council’s sense of perspective?
Stay in Your Lane
Dunedin has no diplomatic corps. It has no national security mandate. It does not liaise with foreign governments on matters of war, peace, or international law. It fixes potholes, manages local infrastructure, and oversees public amenities. That is its job — and it is an important one.
Ratepayers have every right to expect that councillors will spend their time and energy on the issues that actually affect their lives. By entertaining this motion, the Council is making a mockery of its responsibilities and turning a serious international issue into a stage for political theatre.
The councillors should vote the motion down — not just because it is legally and morally flawed, but because it is so far outside their mandate as to be ridiculous.
Let Dunedin lead on infrastructure, sustainability, and local wellbeing — not on foreign policy manifestos disguised as moral virtue.
