New Zealand’s record of supporting anti-Israel resolutions show the claims about balance, evenhandedness, and being an “honest broker” to be false.
The Israel Institute of New Zealand obtained, under the Official Information Act, advice given by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials on UNGA voting for 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The Israel Institute of New Zealand has summarised the advice given and commented on each of the 19 reoccurring resolutions, below.
1. Right of the Palestinian People to Self-determination
2. Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories
3. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan
4. The occupied Syrian Golan
5. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
6. Oil slick on Lebanese shores
7. Assistance to Palestinian refugees
8. Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities
9. Operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
10. Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues
11. Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem
12. Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories
13. Jerusalem
14. The Syrian Golan
15. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
16. Assistance to the Palestinian people
17. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
18. Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat
19. Special information program on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat
1. Right of the Palestinian People to Self-determination
Summary of the resolution: This resolution “urges all States…to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.” Since it was first proposed in 2003, it has expanded to include references to other UN resolutions against Israel. New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution. In 2017, MFAT noted that “New Zealand co-sponsored this resolution in 2015 and 2016”. The 2016 advice was “New Zealand strongly supports the intent of the resolution.” And the same advice was given in 2017 along with a section that was redacted under S6(a) of the Official Information Act (information that would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand).
IINZ Comment: Israel has repeatedly stated that it believes in a resolution to the conflict in terms where a Palestinian state is created for the Arab Palestinians alongside a Jewish state of Israel. The perpetuation of a resolution that singles out Arab Palestinians as the only group of people having a right to self-determination can only be because it is designed to undermine Israel. Palestinian self-determination is best realised by Arab Palestinians working toward building a functioning state, rather than seeking to destroy Israel – including through ‘internationalising’ the conflict at the United Nations. It is notable that Australia voted for this resolution in 2017 but abstained in 2018. If New Zealand wishes to continue to vote for this resolution the least that could be done would be to introduce resolutions that realise the “right of self-determination” for Jews, for Kurds, for Armenians, and other minority groups around the world.It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand in 2015 – the first year New Zealand sat on the Security Council.
2. Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories
Summary of the resolution: This resolution “Demands that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the [Geneva] Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of the Convention.”New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution, because “New Zealand is a strong supporter of international human rights law and of the Geneva Convention being honoured by all parties (not only Israel) in the occupied Palestinian territories and Jerusalem”.
IINZ Comment: MFAT acknowledges, albeit implicitly, that the resolution only singles out Israel by stating “not only Israel”, and yet seem quite comfortable recommending a vote for the imbalance without as much as proposing a resolution to hold any other party to account. Furthermore, the “demand” for Israel to accept the “de jure” applicability of the Geneva Convention is highly contentious because the territory in question was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in 1967 – the West Bank was occupied by Jordan since 1948 in an unrecognised annexation that took place during the war of Israel’s independence. It is worth noting that before Jordan occupied the area, it was under British control (the British Mandate for Palestine), having been given the mandate to govern the area by the League of Nations following the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.
3. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan
Summary of the resolution: This resolution “Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development”, “Reiterates its demand for the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory…”, and “Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention…” Recent version of the resolution also includes references to UNSC resolution 2334.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution. In 2015 and 2016, MFAT officials advised that “Israeli settlement construction continues to be one of the most significant obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians…”. In 2017, the advice was “Israeli settlement activity continues to be a highly controversial issue. New Zealand has previously accepted the position that the settlements are illegal under international law”.
IINZ Comment: It is commendable that MFAT advice has shifted from the fallacy that settlements are “one of the most significant obstacles to peace” – as Elliot Abrams explained, this is plainly false. However, the advice is still to vote for the text, which also stands in strong contrast to the meaning of UNSC resolution 242, which deliberately and specifically did not require “all the” territory acquired by Israel in the 1967 war to be given up. The legality of settlements remains a matter of debate among international law experts. Furthermore, the Oslo process, agreed to in 1993, gave Israel complete control over some of the territory and left the settlement blocks to be negotiated along with final borders, Jerusalem, and refugee issues. Thus, “demanding… cessation of all Israeli settlement activities” [emphasis added] does not seem in keeping with foundational UNSC resolutions or mutually agreed treaties. If New Zealand was fair minded, it would abstain from this resolution, at least.Furthermore, if MFAT officials were fair minded they might also reconsider support for this resolution on the basis that it focuses solely on Israel. The signal sent by supporting it is that Arab Palestinian leaders are faultless and need not negotiate because Israel will be censured by the UN.
4. The occupied Syrian Golan
Summary of the resolution: The resolution refers specifically to UNSC resolution 497 which states that “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect”. The resolution “calls upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the occupied Syrian Golan…”New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution. MFAT refer to the resolution as “a technical rollover” that “has been viewed as important for improving peace and security in the region”.
IINZ Comment: Leaving aside the strong case for Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, in the context of the ongoing Syrian war, what the resolution effectively calls for is people within a territory to be given Syrian citizenship and not Israeli and for the land to be handed over, presumably, to Bashar al-Assad, a leader who has used chemical warfare on his own people. This would not only give enemies of Israel – Syria, Iran, Islamic State, or whoever will control the area – a strategically important stronghold, but it would also remove Israeli protections for the people living there. Essentially, a vote for the resolution is a vote for increased suffering and reduced stability in the region. Whether “technical” or not, New Zealand’s stance on this resolution must be reconsidered, especially while there is still civil unrest within Syria.A vote for this resolution is also somewhat inconsistent with advice to abstain on the text of resolution numbered 14 in this document.
5. Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
Summary of the resolution: The resolution “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to remove all obstacles to the implementation of critical environmental projects, including sewage treatment plants in the Gaza Strip” and “calls upon Israel not to impede Palestinian development and export of discovered oil and natural gas reserves”. Recent version of the resolution also includes references to UNSC resolution 2334.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution. In 2017, MFAT advice was to continue support because “New Zealand has previously supported the resolution based on the position that an eventual viable and sustainable Palestinian state would need the Palestinian Authority (recognised as the legitimate Palestinian government by the international community) to be given the ability to govern and manage its own resources”.
IINZ Comment: The resolution focuses on Gaza but does not mention Hamas as the terror group in charge of the land there or the Palestinian Authority withholding of funds that would support “critical environmental projects”, for example withholding payments for electricity. As well as blaming Israel alone for any ills, the “discovered oil and gas reserves” presumably refer to Gaza Marine – an area over which the Palestinian Authority has sole control and development of which is supported by Israel. Thus, there is no reason to continue to unfairly condemn only Israel for this.
6. Oil slick on Lebanese shores
Summary of the resolution: This year, the resolution “Reiterates, for the thirteenth consecutive year, its deep concern about the adverse implications of the destruction by the Israeli Air Force of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the Lebanese Jiyah electric power plant for the achievement of sustainable development in Lebanon”New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “The text notes the impact of Israel’s actions in its war with Lebanon in 2006, but does not focus solely on Israel, rather on how the international community can support Lebanon to address the environmental impacts of the oil spill.”
IINZ Comment: While the text of the resolution does suggest ways the international community can continue to support Lebanon following the 2006 oil slick, it also singles out Israel as the only country to be censured under Sustainable Development agenda item. It completely ignores Hezbollah’s role in launching hostilities leading up to the 2006 war, firing 4,000 rockets, and ignores security council resolutions calling on Lebanon to dismantle Hezbollah. The resolution also does focus solely on Israel to “assume responsibility for prompt and adequate compensation…”.
7. Assistance to Palestinian refugees
Summary of the resolution: “Expressing grave concern at the especially difficult situation of the Palestine refugees under occupation, including with regard to their safety, well-being and socio-economic living conditions,” and “Calls upon all donors to continue to strengthen their efforts to meet the anticipated needs of the Agency [UNRWA].”New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “UNRWA is a critical provider of assistance to the Palestinian population. Without this assistance, levels of poverty would increase in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and possibly increased [sic] radicalisation.” In 2015 and 2016, MFAT advice also suggested that “If UNRWA’s activities are not supported this could undermine the peace process…”
IINZ Comment: It is good that the suggestion UNRWA is vital to the ‘peace process’ was dropped from official advice. However, the justification for supporting UNRWA is deeply flawed for three main reasons.First, there is no evidence that poverty among Arab Palestinians leads to terror. A 2007 study by Claude Berrebi found that “both higher education and standard of living are positively associated with participation in Hamas or PIJ and with becoming a suicide bomber”.Second, UNRWA contributes to radicalisation through a curriculum that includes textbooks found to display extreme anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments. UNRWA staff have been found to have posted antisemitic material and supported terrorism on social media. Furthermore, a 2011 film exposed corruption and antisemitism within UNRWA and a 2016 film showed the continuance of the same practices. More than this, UNRWA treats Palestinian “refugees” different to any other refugee group in the world. Not only via increased and inflated budgets – UNRWA budgets at least $260 per person per year, whereas UNHCR has a budget of $85 per person per year – but also by actively opposing resettlement of their registered “refugees”.Finally, there is no reason to suggest that poverty levels will increase without UNRWA, especially if there were an alternative mechanism put in place which was less corrupt, did not promote violence, and did not treat Arab Palestinians differently to other peoples of the world.Furthermore, there are three other resolutions that are passed each year that deal with this matter (numbered here as 8, 9, and 16). In response to The Israel Institute of New Zealand questions, an MFAT official wrote that their position was “that procedural motions should not be used to prevent robust debate”. Though it is not clear why this is the case, taking time in the chamber is one plausible suggestion. If New Zealand is concerned with maximising time, perhaps these resolutions could be consolidated.Even if New Zealand wanted to continue to support UNRWA because they truly believed there was no possible alternative and did not want to work toward any alternative, taxpayers deserve to have questions raised about where aid money is going and UNRWA should be held to account like any other organisation. To date, no New Zealand Minister or MP has publicly raised any concerns about UNRWA and MFAT advice seems to ignore evidence.
8. Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities
Summary of the resolution: This resolution “Reaffirms the right of all persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities to return to their homes or former places of residence in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967” and “Strongly appeals to all Governments and to organizations and individuals to contribute generously to the Agency [UNRWA] and to the other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations concerned for the above-mentioned purposes”.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “The practicalities are such that it is unlikely that many [Arabs] will be able to return but the principle of return must be recognised. Recognition of the critical role that UNRWA plays in assisting displaced Palestinians.”
IINZ Comment: The admission that UNRWA is concerned with ensuring that Arab Palestinians have a “right to return” is one of the factors that perpetuates the conflict. Switzerland’s foreign minister, Ignazio Cassis, admitted this recently, UNRWA fuels “unrealistic” hopes of return after 70 years and, therefore, keeps the Israeli-Palestinian conflict alive. New Zealand, by supporting this resolution is thus also contributing to keeping the conflict alive.
9. Operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
Summary of the resolution: This resolution commends UNRWA and encourages contributions from member states. It also calls on Israel to take a number of steps, including “to fully lift the restrictions impeding or delaying the import of necessary construction materials and supplies … in the Gaza Strip”.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “UNRWA plays a critical role in assisting Palestinians by providing essential humanitarian support. Without this support the level of poverty and health concerns among the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory would be far greater.”. In 2015, there was an additional section in the advice that read “The absence of UNRWA [redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act] adversely affects the Palestinian population and undermines the peace process”.
IINZ Comment: This resolution is totally one-sided against Israel and makes no mention of the terror activities which have resulted in a necessity for preventing some goods entering Gaza, nor does it mention the use of construction materials in building terror tunnels or other illicit activities. Further, there is no mention of the much stricter border protection measures that Egypt imposes on the Gaza strip.The change in language, as with resolution numbered 7 in this document, to remove a suggestion that “if UNRWA’s activities are not supported this could undermine the peace process” is welcomed and prudent. However, continuing to support UNRWA without question and with great praise is reckless.It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand in 2015.
10. Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues
Summary of the resolution: This resolution “Reaffirms that the Palestine refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of equity and justice” and calls on Israel to “render all facilities and assistance to the Secretary-General in the implementation of the present resolution”.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “The annexation of Palestinian land has been regarded as a breach of property rights, as well as undermining the rule of law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the peace process.” In 2015, the advice also went so far as to suggest that “The annexation of Palestinian land, in most instances without legal redress…”.
IINZ Comment: This resolution once again singles out the Arab Palestinians, of all people in the world. There is no mention, for example, of any entitlement to property claimed by more than 850,000 Jewish refugees displaced from Arab lands.It is unclear exactly what “annexation of Palestinian land” MFAT advisors are referring to in their advice, but there is legal redress through Israeli courts to such an extent that bills have been proposed to limit Arab Palestinian access to the High Court for cases.Furthermore, in-depth analysis of more than 100 petitions filed in Israel’s Supreme Court against illegal construction in Judea and Samaria revealed preferential treatment given to the plaintiffs. Thus it is pleasing that the 2015 advice was updated to better reflect reality.
11. Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem
Summary of the resolution: This resolution expresses “grave concern about the continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel, the occupying Power, including that arising from the excessive use of force and military operations causing death and injury to Palestinian civilians…” and deplores “the continuing and negative consequences of the conflicts in and around the Gaza Strip and the high number of casualties among Palestinian civilians in the recent period…”. The resolution “Calls for urgent measures to ensure the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilian population…” and “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease its imposition of prolonged closures and economic and movement restrictions, including those amounting to a blockade on the Gaza Strip” among other measures. Recent version of the resolution also includes references to UNSC resolution 2334.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “The considerable impact on the Palestinian economy of the access/movement restrictions has been well documented by UN Special Rapporteurs, NGOs, and independent researchers. This is seen as undermining the Palestinian population’s ability to build sustainable livelihoods, thus increasing poverty and instability. The Palestinian economy is further undermined by corruption as those who do have access to goods and services not available to the general community on-sell those goods at inflated prices [redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act].”
IINZ Comment: This resolution disregards terror attacks against Israelis – including the recent rocket attacks from Gaza – and the ongoing attempts of Hamas militants to breach the border and murder Israeli civilians, and fails to recognise Israel’s right to self defence. The blockade imposed on Gaza was found to be legal in a UN report by Sir Geoffrey Palmer as a measure of self defence. Voting for this resolution for the reasons given by MFAT advisors essentially states that the New Zealand government believes that completely free movement of Arabs is more important than the lives of Israelis.The suggestion that the Israeli measures contribute to poverty may be substantiated and this is a tragic reality for those Palestinians who are peaceful but there is no evidence that poverty increases radicalisation or terror. In fact, a 2007 study by Claude Berrebi found that “both higher education and standard of living are positively associated with participation in Hamas or PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] and with becoming a suicide bomber”. Furthermore, interviews with failed suicide bombers and associates of suicide murders reveal their stated motives are primarily religious and nationalistic in nature.If poverty was a factor contributing to radicalisation and terror, then one might expect the New Zealand government to be concerned about the payments offered to families of terrorists by the Palestinian Authority under their “Pay for Slay” policy, yet no condemnation of this has been made by MFAT or the government. Similarly, there has been no public condemnation of the glorification of terror by UNRWA workers and in UNRWA textbooks, by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or other Arab Palestinian groups. As Matthew Levitt has written, “…While poverty, humiliation, personal suffering, shame, or loss of a loved one can all be powerful radicalizing factors, they traditionally require an established terrorist organization to channel that anger and frustration into a desire to kill and maim random civilians…”It is commendable that MFAT acknowledge the corrupt practices of Arab Palestinian leaders. However, this is not referred to in the resolution because the focus is on alleged Israeli wrongs rather than human rights.It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand.
12. Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories
Summary of the resolution: This resolution “Deplores those policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people” and requests the Special Committee to continue investigations and reports. Recent version of the resolution also includes references to UNSC resolution 2334.New Zealand’s voting history: Always abstained on the resolution.
MFAT advice: To abstain because “New Zealand has previously abstained on this resolution due to concerns that it has lacked balance in that it focuses exclusively on Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territory. However, given the priority we have accorded to protecting the human rights of civilian populations in conflict zones, New Zealand’s position has been to abstain on this resolution rather than vote against it.”
IINZ Comment: It is commendable that MFAT officials acknowledge bias against Israel in this resolution and principled that this is a basis for abstention. It is regrettable that similar bias in other resolutions is overlooked or justified. However, more than just the text of this resolution being biased, the entire mandate of the ‘Special Committee’ – whose reports MFAT partly rely on for advice given in resolution numbered 11 in this document – is biased, as it solely focuses on investigating Israel.
13. Jerusalem
Summary of the resolution: This reiterates “its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal…” and “Calls for respect for the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif, in word and in practice..”. Recent version of the resolution also includes references to UNSC resolution 2334.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “The resolution reflects the understanding reached in the 1947 United Nations partition resolution, which has guided much of New Zealand’s approach to the question of Palestine.” In the advice given in 2015, the sentence ended with MFAT suggesting the 1947 resolution “forms the foundation of New Zealand’s even-handed approach to the question of Palestine. [section redacted under s6(b)(i) of the Official Information Act – information that would be likely to prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on the basis of confidence by the Government of any other country or any agency of such a Government – and another section redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act]”
IINZ Comment: The resolution implies that Israel hinders freedom of religion in Jerusalem when in fact the opposite is true – Jordan controlled Jerusalem before 1967 and destroyed Jewish holy sites and denied access to Jews. Under Israeli administration, all faiths have access to the city and enjoy full freedoms (except on the Temple Mount, where there are significant restrictions placed upon Jewish visitors to Judaism’s most Holiest site, and which is under Jordanian control). Furthermore, the resolution uses only the Islamic term “Haram al-Sharif” to describe Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, ignoring Jewish and Christian religion and history. The Temple Mount is the holiest site for Jews and yet it is controlled by the Jordanian waqf and Jews are forbidden from praying there.The 1947 partition resolution (resolution 181), while it passed was rejected by Arab nations and succeeded almost immediately by violence. The resolution that MFAT suggests forms the basis for New Zealand’s approach to “the question of Palestine” stated that “The City of Jerusalem [including parts of what is today ‘West Jerusalem’] shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations”. On a resolution about Jerusalem, it is therefore surprising that MFAT would refer back to the partition plan essentially calling for Jerusalem to be administered by the United Nations.It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand and what information might have been given to New Zealand in confidence by another country in the 2015 advice.
14. The Syrian Golan
Summary of the resolution: This resolution “Determines once more that the continued occupation of the Syrian Golan and its de facto annexation constitute a stumbling block in the way of achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region” and “Demands once more that Israel withdraw from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967 in implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions”.New Zealand’s voting history: Always abstained.
MFAT advice: To abstain because “Although very unlikely in the present context of the Syrian civil war, a resolution to the Israeli-Syrian track within the peace process would assist in increasing peace and security in the region.” In 2015, the advice also contained “However, the current text is imbalanced. [section redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act]”.
IINZ Comment: It is commendable that MFAT officials acknowledged bias against Israel in this resolution in 2015 and concerning that the advice changes in 2017. It is also regrettable that similar bias in other resolutions is overlooked or justified – especially resolution numbered 4 in this document.It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand in the 2015 advice.
15. Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine
Summary of the resolution: This resolution expresses “grave concern about tensions, provocations and incitement regarding the holy places of Jerusalem, including the Haram al-Sharif, and urging restraint and respect for the sanctity of the holy sites by all sides” and emphasizes ” the importance of the safety, protection and well-being of all
civilians in the whole Middle East region, stressing that Israel must respect the right to peaceful protest”. The resolution also “Calls for the full implementation of Security Council resolution 2334” and “Stresses the need for the removal of checkpoints and other obstructions to the movement of persons and goods throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “This resolution is arguably the most important of all the Middle East resolutions. The text stresses the need for a complete cessation of all acts of violence, including military attacks, destruction, and acts of terror, and calls on Israel to halt all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory.’ In the 2015 advice, there was also a section redacted under s6(b)(i) of the Official Information Act.
IINZ Comment: MFAT officials are correct that the text does call for a cessation of all violence but only Israel is named and condemned – as is true for all the resolutions. This is clearly not balanced or fair. The text also only uses the Islamic term “Haram al-Sharif” when referring to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount – the holiest site in Judaism – ignoring Jewish and Christian religious and historical connections.It is interesting to note that Australia abstained on the resolution in 2017 and changed to voting against this “most important of all” resolutions in 2018, along with Canada, the United States, and 9 other nations. It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted due to being given to New Zealand in confidence by another country in the 2015 advice.
16. Assistance to the Palestinian people
Summary of the resolution: This resolution expresses grave concern “at the difficult living conditions and humanitarian situation affecting the Palestinian people, in particular women and children, throughout the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the Gaza Strip…” and “Expresses its appreciation for the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] for Palestine Refugees in the Near East…”, while being “Aware that development is difficult under occupation and is best promoted in circumstances of peace and stability,”New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution and to co-sponsor it because “New Zealand has supported efforts to improve the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people, including by providing assistance to key agencies such as UNRWA….” In 2015, the advice included a section redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act and was concerned that not co-sponsoring the resolution “would be remarked on by other states”.
IINZ Comment: The endorsement of UNRWA without question is concerning, given the points raised in commentary on resolution numbered 7 in this document – namely the destructive and counterproductive role UNRWA plays in security- and peace-building and its corruption. The text of the resolution is more balanced than others in that it does not explicitly mention Israel but the reference to difficulties of development in Gaza “under occupation” without reference to the actions of Hamas shows a distinct bias. Israel also unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and forcibly removed Jews from the area. There has been no Israeli presence there ever since. Furthermore, no other occupied or disputed territory has an annual resolution of this nature. Notably, the resolution was passed without a vote in 2018.It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand in the 2015 advice nor why remarks from other states should be a consideration in any independent foreign policy decision.
17. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People
Summary of the resolution: This resolution notes “with deep regret the passage of 51 years since the onset of the Israeli occupation and over 70 years since the adoption of resolution 181 (II) on 29 November 1947 and the Nakba without tangible progress towards a peaceful solution”, and “Requests the Committee, bearing in mind the regrettable absence of tangible progress towards a peaceful solution, to continue to focus its activities throughout 2019 on efforts and initiatives to end the Israeli occupation that began in 1967”. Recent version of the resolution also includes references to UNSC resolution 2334.New Zealand’s voting history: Always abstained.
MFAT advice: To abstain because “It remains questionable whether the resolution adds anything to international efforts underway to bring about peace, or provides any tangible humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian community in the occupied Palestinian territory. [section redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act]”
IINZ Comment: The resolution effectively gives a mandate to the committee to continue turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism and human rights abuses while focusing on alleged Israeli actions. It is unclear why MFAT officials do not consider many of the other resolutions to similarly provide little tangible assistance to Palestinian people or aid efforts toward peace.It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand.
18. Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat
Summary of the resolution: This resolution considers that by providing support to the Committee mandated in resolution numbered 17 in this document, the Division “continues to make a constructive and positive contribution to raising international awareness of the question of Palestine and of the urgency of a peaceful settlement…” and thus “Requests the Division, in particular, to continue to monitor developments relevant to the question of Palestine, to organize international meetings and activities in support of the Committee’s mandate”New Zealand’s voting history: Usually abstained, sometimes voted against.
MFAT advice: To abstain because “In 2013 New Zealand returned to our previous position of abstaining on the resolution (from 2009-2012 we voted against the resolution). While not opposed to the work of the Division in the UN Secretariat, neither did we see a stand alone Division as necessary [section redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act] and to retain our overall balance”. Advice from 2015 and 2016 is slightly different as it states that “In 2012 [not 2013] we moved to abstaining…”. The 2015 advice rationalised the move “in order to align New Zealand’s position on Middle East resolutions [section redacted under s6(a) of the Official Information Act] and to retain our overall balance.
IINZ Comment: It is pleasing that New Zealand recognises some of the issues with the Division. According to UNWatch, “The DPR [Division for Palestinian Rights] serves the biased special committee and is dedicated to spreading anti-Israel propaganda the world over. Its 16-member staff is grossly disproportionate to the UN’s other four divisions which cover enormous geographical regions. The DPR’s work is counter-productive to the peace process and seeks to coordinate international boycotts against Israel instead of seeking bridges for peace. Excludes from its events any NGO that declines to swear fealty to its hardline politics.”It is unclear what information in the advice might have been redacted as it is likely to prejudice the security or international relations of New Zealand.
19. Special information program on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat
Summary of the resolution: This resolution seeks to continue the Special information programme which curates resources, “organize[s] and promote[s] fact-finding news missions for journalists to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel”, and organises “international, regional and national seminars or encounters for journalists aimed, in particular, at sensitizing public opinion to the question of Palestine…”.New Zealand’s voting history: Always voted for the resolution.
MFAT advice: To support the resolution because “The cost of the programme in 2016 (about $850,000 per annum) is relatively small, and the initiative is seen as encouraging dialogue between Palestine and Israel.
IINZ Comment: It is concerning that MFAT officials rely on third-party impressions of the programme, rather than investigating the material more fully. According to UNWatch, “The program is one more example of how the neutral UN secretariat is forcibly co-opted by the anti-Israeli forces at the UN. The program eschews a balanced approach by overtly choosing the Palestinian over Israeli narrative, ignoring terrorism against Israeli men, women and children, and other daily realities of Israeli life. Resources devoted to anti-Israel propaganda are taken away from other worthy causes.”
