Winston Peters has taken a strong stand against 2334. He has said “Mr McCully should never have been allowed to act unilaterally on such an important issue” and
“Mr McCully’s actions and the government’s condonation of them have seriously prejudiced this country’s international relations”
During Question and Answer time in the House he asked “Is it not a fact, Foreign Minister, that the resolution was not in line with longstanding NZ policy; second, that it did not go to cabinet as required by the manual because of the denunciation aspects; and third, that’s why he’s trying to backtrack on it now?” and in a supplementary question, he asked “is it not a fact … that the resolution was not in line with longstanding NZ policy; … that it did not go to Cabinet as required by the Manual because of the denunciation aspects.”

Darroch Ball is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Ian McKelvie is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Jacqui Dean is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Julie Anne Genter is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Mark Mitchell is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Paul Foster-Bell has said “…I am a keen member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group, and a long-term supporter of Israel’s right to security, self-defence and statehood… I am personally strongly in favour of enhanced trade and investment relations – and people-to-people, cultural and social engagement with Israel, and undertook a visit to Israel in 2012, while I was with MFAT as Deputy Director in their Middle East and Africa Division. On that visit, I had an opportunity to see how important Jerusalem is as a sacred place for Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is a complicated issue, to which I freely admit I do not have the answers.”

Ron Mark is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements in the issues.

In a video filmed prior to her participation in the flotilla, Davidson described the IDF as ‘Israeli Oppression Forces’; her expected detention as ‘kidnapping’ and ‘oppression’.
At an Auckland Public Library event: She spoke highly of her shipmates, without acknowledging any of the controversies. “I had 9 days on the Mediterranean, basically, of global education on the state of the world… Israel needs to stop occupying Palestinian land and Israel needs to lift the blockade. I’m very clear about that. I want enduring peace for both Israel and Palestine and that will not come from oppressing Palestine and that will not come with the blockade in place.”
Marama has also hosted a screening of ‘5 Broken Cameras’ in parliament. The invitation stated that “New Zealand policy-makers have identified that most of our news from the [Occupied Palestinian Territories] is sourced from Israel and reports only Israelis as victims while failing to mention Palestinian grievances or a huge groundswell of non-violent rallies”
Ms Davidson also participated in University of Auckland discussion entitled “Gaza: Settler Colonialism, Apartheid and Resistance”, saying “…apartheid is not just about separate laws and different laws for different groups of people but those laws proactively seek to subjugate and undermine particular groups. We can have, as we know here in Aotearoa, we can have differences that apply to different groups of people – as we do have, for example, Maori representation in government. But those seats do not subjugate or deny the rights of other people to have a vote, to participate in democracy, to participate in government. So we need to be quite distinct that apartheid separation laws are clearly about denying another group of people basic and civil human liberties….We should be taking the absolute strongest stand we possibly can as a country against Israel’s assault on civilians. It is the word ‘civilians’ which is particularly important. We should absolutely be exhausting whatever avenues are available to us as a global state to totally condemn all violence against civilians but be the reverse of what Obama has said – stand against all violent acts toward civilians but highlight the disproportionate military use by the Israeli government toward the Palestinian people. That should absolutely be our lowest position possible. We should start from that point. We should absolutely be investigating economic sanctions as a country. We should absolutely be calling on the Israeli ambassador here to call for a halt to a cease-fire [sic]. We should absolutely be doing everything we can as a state but we will not because we are in the back pockets of the USA – exactly as Jane [Kelsey] has pointed out…”

Gareth Morgan spoke against Israel after he was given a tour by Palestinian representatives. Similarly, he praised North Korea after being given a tour by North Korean representatives.

Alfred Ngaro chairs the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Simon O’Connor has said “I very much appreciate you writing your thoughts around this as, I too, am disappointed at the actions taken. I will be talking to the PM and colleagues when parliament resumes and expressing my, your, and many others’ view as well.”

Te Ururoa Flavell has said “This is a 2000-year-old struggle that the Māori Party is not about to wade into it. Both sides claim tangata whenua status. However, we note that the current sanctions imposed against Pallestine (sic) are inhumane and cause great suffering of innocent women and children.”

Chris Finlayson is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

David Seymour has said he is “pro Israel because I believe that democracy and individual freedom are more important than the will of the mob. As goes Israel, so goes freedom for us all. On the current topic you have to look at the resolution itself and the U.S. Ambassador’s speech to the Security Council. It is possible to be pro Israel and yet question the settlements. What is dumbfounding is why New Zealand chose to take a leading role.”
He has also said “Israel has always been a friend of New Zealand, and for good reason. We share basic but vital values of democracy and individual freedom, … As Israel knows all too well, these values must be defended, and part of that means strengthening alliances with strong diplomatic ties. The recent damage done to these ties was (a) misstep from our Government. The reinstatement of our respective ambassadors will be especially welcomed by the New Zealand Israeli community and Kiwi expats in Israel, two groups that should never have been punished for our Government’s diplomatic indiscretion.”

David Parker has said ‘I am opposed to the Israeli responses to Palestinian grievances. The continued occupation of large parts of the West Bank by illegal Israeli settlements is not justified; nor are their provocative and destructive incursions into the Gaza Strip. That, in turn, does not justify the suicide bombing by Palestinians…’
Parker has also said Brownlee’s comments were ‘ill-considered…That is not a good start for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to effectively resile from one of the most important steps New Zealand took after many years of efforts to get on the Security Council.’

James Shaw has said ‘I find it rather unusual that the new Minister of Foreign Affairs would be essentially undermining the position of the immediate past minister … a bit extraordinary actually.”

Jacinda Ardern has not said anything publicly on Israel.

Bill English has stood by resolution 2334 and said very little else publicly on the matter other than he hoped for closer relations.

Brett Hudson is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

Chris bishop is a member of the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship group but has not made any public statements on the issues.

The Green Party has said they are “committed to a peaceful and enduring solution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. We have called on both sides to refrain from the illegal use of force, and to re-engage in conflict resolution.
Above all, we call upon both sides to respect the rule of international law including acceptance of the judgements and opinions of the International Court of Justice, and membership of the International Criminal Court. The naval blockade of Gaza continues to erode the prospects for peace in the region, and we have called on the Government of Israel to allow crucial humanitarian supplies through to Gaza. The Green Party also stands against the expansion of further Israeli settlements into Palestine and have called on Israel to respond positively to UN Security Council resolution 2234(sic). We recognise Israel’s right to exist within the territorial status recognised in Security Council resolutions. We remain always ready to meet with Israeli official representatives to discuss the situation in the Middle East.”

The Green Party reinforces the bias in 2334 by requiring Israel to “respond positively” to specific requirements, with no equivalent obligation imposed on the Palestinians.

While the Green Party has technically condemned Palestinian terror, the statement “both sides [need to] refrain from the illegal use of force”, demonstrates a misguided moral equivalence. To focus on the “naval blockade” of Gaza rather than Hamas terrorism, whitewashes Palestinian terrorism and the incitement of Palestinian leaders, including their “pay for slay” policy (the PA financially rewards Palestinians and/or their families for the murder of Israeli civilians. The PA also glorifies terrorists by practices such as naming streets or institutions in their honour)..

The Green Party wants both sides to engage in conflict resolution but seeks to internationalise the issue by recommending the involvement of the International Court of Justice. This stands in contrast to a longstanding New Zealand position recognising that trust can only be built and a sustainable solution achieved through direct negotiations between the parties.

The Green Party is apparently willing to meet with Israeli representatives but they have not said they are in favour of economic, educational or cultural ties with Israel. Some Green MPs signed a pledge to divest money from Israeli companies.

Most of the technical terms used by the Greens are correct – Dr Graham is well versed in this area.
However, The Green Party’ s comments on Gaza show their lack of knowledge about the situation. In one day (16 Aug, 2017) 2,050 tons of goods entered Gaza in 628 trucks. A daily tally is kept of supplies entering Gaza, crossings and permits issued. It is not the naval blockade that erodes the prospects for peace, but the unwillingness of Hamas to recognise Israel, and cease from rocket attacks on Israel’s civilian population.

“The Māori Party believes the issues related to Israel ought to be worked through by the mana whenua of the rohe. This struggle has persisted for thousands of years and the Māori Party is not willing to take sides on the issue, as both claim tangata whenua status. However, we note that the current sanctions imposed against Palestine are inhumane and cause great suffering of innocent women and children.”

The Māori party does not take a position.

The Māori party does not take a position on Palestinian terrorism, but does take a position against Israeli “sanctions”. This shows imbalance and/or a poor understanding of the conflict.

The Māori Party has not stated a view on a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The Maori Party has not made any comment on ties with Israel.

The terminology used by the Māori Party is problematic in the context of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The concept of *Mana whenua does not transfer readily. Control of the land passed from the Ottoman Empire, (a 500 year period – where most land was owned by absentee landlords, and locals were tenants or nomadic bedouins), to the British Mandate (who had trusteeship from 1922 – 1947), and then by a recommendation of the United Nations was to be divided between the Jews and the Arabs (as they were then called). The Arabs rejected partition and the Jews accepted. The surrounding Arab nations declared war on Israel, and since that time Israel has been forced to defend itself. The struggle has not gone on for thousands of years. The first Arab revolts began in the Mandate period (1920s), and Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state has meant that the conflict has continued in various forms.The Māori Party’s comment about sanctions against Palestinians being inhumane needs verification. IINZ is unaware of any sanctions imposed by Israel that are as described by the Māori Party.

*Mana whenua refers to the authority held by local people over land.

“The Rt Hon Winston Peters has been abundantly clear in Parliament [twice] and in a media release that New Zealand First is the only political party opposed to UNSC resolution 2334.”

NZ First was clearly opposed to the resolution, with Winston Peters condemning both the text and the lack of due process.

NZ First has not mentioned Palestinian terror or the incitement to terror from Palestinian leaders, including the “pay to slay” policy of the Palestinian Authority (the PA financially rewards Palestinians and/or their families for the murder of Israeli civilians. The PA also glorifies terrorists by practices such as naming streets or institutions in their honour)..

NZ First has not stated a view on a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

NZ First has not made any comment on building ties with Israel.

NZ First has not made sufficient statements on the conflict by which to judge the adequacy of their understanding of key terms.

Labour explicitly supports resolution 2334.

Labour has said that the Palestinian Authority should “take steps to control violence against Israel”.

Labour suggests both Israel and the Palestinians need to work toward a solution but Labour wants to internationalise the conflict and rely on the UN to impose a solution.

Labour has not made any comment on building ties with Israel.

Labour uses the term “settlements on Palestinian land” which ignores the fact that the “West Bank” is disputed territory. Under the Oslo agreement the West Bank is divided into 3 administrative areas: A, B & C. Area A is exclusively administered by the Palestinian Authority; Area B is administered by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel; and Area C, which contains the Israeli settlements, is administered by Israel.
Further, suggesting that the two-state solution was agreed by the Palestinians is not correct. if the two state solution had been agreed to by both the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority, there would be no conflict. Any ‘occupation’ by Israel, is not considered illegal under international law, but rather a temporary state until final status issues are resolved.

National has said “New Zealand has been a long-standing friend of Israel. We were one of the first countries to recognise the State of Israel, and remain fundamentally committed to the right of Israeli people to live peacefully within secure borders.” Minister Brownlee added “I am pleased that Israel has decided to restore full diplomatic ties with New Zealand. The Ambassador’s return will enable us to further strengthen the friendly links which exist between our two countries.”

National was in government when Resolution 2334 was passed and has continued to support it. National has expressed regret only for the impact the resolution had on the relationship with Israel.

National chose to become fully engaged in the Israel-Palestinian conflict through its co-sponsorship of 2334 and yet has not made a statement against Palestinian terror or the incitement to terror from Palestinian leaders, including the “pay to slay” policy of the Palestinian Authority (the PA financially rewards Palestinians and/or their families for the murder of Israeli civilians. The PA also glorifies terrorists by practices such as naming streets or institutions in their honour).

The National government’s co-sponsorship of 2334 has rewarded Palestinian rejectionism and has removed any incentive for the Palestinians to negotiate. It has also cooperated with the Palestinian strategy strategy of internationalizing the conflict.

National has said they want to repair the relationship with Israel in the wake of 2334 and build ties.

The previous Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, worked closely on the issue of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict during New Zealand’s term on the UN Security Council which ended in December 2016. While he may have a deep level of understanding of the terminology, his position was strongly biassed against Israel. The current National Foreign Minister, Gerry Brownlee, has not made sufficient statements on the conflict by which to judge the adequacy of his understanding of key terms.

Act has said “An unavoidable topic at these events is UN Resolution 2334, a New Zealand sponsored Security Council resolution that, if taken seriously, would make Israel practically indefensible. ACT appreciates the complexity of the region but that is more reason for New Zealand to not take sides, or side with the only free and democratic country in the region if at all. Many National supporters see the resolution as a betrayal.” Act leader, David Seymour, has also said “Israel has always been a friend of New Zealand, and for good reason. We share basic but vital values of democracy and individual freedom… As Israel knows all too well, these values must be defended, and part of that means strengthening alliances with strong diplomatic ties.”

Act has spoken strongly against 2334 for its bias and because it, “if taken seriously, would make Israel practically indefensible.” Act leader, David Seymour, called the resolution a “diplomatic indiscretion”.

Act has said that is condemns terror of any kind but has not specifically condemned Palesitnian terror or the incitement to terror from Palestinian leaders, including the “pay to slay” policy of the Palestinian Authority (the PA financially rewards Palestinians and/or their families for the murder of Israeli civilians. The PA also glorifies terrorists by practices such as naming streets or institutions in their honour).

Act has not stated their position on how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict may be resolved.

Act has not made any comment on building ties with Israel but leader, David Seymour, met with the Israeli ambassador and wrote that “Israel has always been a friend of New Zealand, and for good reason. We share basic but vital values of democracy and individual freedom…The reinstatement of our respective ambassadors will be especially welcomed by the New Zealand Israeli community and Kiwi expats in Israel, two groups that should never have been punished for our Government’s diplomatic indiscretion.”

Act has not made sufficient statements on the conflict by which to judge the adequacy of their understanding of key terms.