I’m sure when Hamas applauded Keir Starmer’s recognition of a Palestinian state, Labour and the Greens applauded with them. If they want to align themselves with a terrorist organisation that is their choice but they are nothing more than vassals in the greater scheme of things. They have made themselves subservient to others who aggressively seek to destroy the nationhood of another sovereign country.
Peters is correct taking the position he did. If you back the Palestinians at this point you are backing the supporters of Hamas. You are therefore, by association, supporting Hamas. This is simply not a credible position to take. Hamas is not interested in looking after its people but prefer using them as human shields at every opportunity and stealing the food sent by the United Nations.
Peters first called for greater political leadership to restore global peace. “The international order that has sustained peace for the last 80 years stands on the precipice of breaking down.” He saw the Security Council as virtually paralysed on many of the acute geopolitical challenges it faces. “The inability to act, largely a product of the veto power by the permanent five, impacts deeply on perceptions of the United Nations’ broader legitimacy.”
“For a small state like New Zealand, whose security and prosperity for the last 80 years has relied on a functional multilateral system, the erosion of that system is both troubling and costly.” He said the UN’s effectiveness has not kept up with its expansion and that its reform effort needs to rise to the scale of its structural, fiscal and geopolitical challenges.
Peters told the UN New Zealand will not formally recognise Palestinian statehood. New Zealand was “shocked to our core by the harrowing images of famine in Gaza” he told the assembly (he should stop watching One and Three News). “We are also revolted by what can only be described as the grossly disproportionate response from the Israeli Government.” In saying that, he’s arguing against himself because eliminating Hamas is the only way he’ll get to recognise a Palestinian state.
He said countries that hoped their early recognition of a Palestinian state would promote and protect the two-state solution have instead seen Israel continue its widely condemned military actions in Gaza. He also criticised Israel for continuing to develop illegal settlements on the West Bank in defiance of international law. Should New Zealand recognise Palestinian statehood, Hamas would claim it as a victory and Israel would claim that it rewards Hamas. He’s right on both counts.
The speech overall was measured and fair, calling out both sides involved in the conflict. However he’s fallen into the trap that other leaders have by continuing to want a ceasefire. That would be a victory for Hamas. They would simply use that time to strengthen and re-arm. You cannot have a ceasefire and then expect a Palestinian state to automatically follow. Hamas must be, as far as possible, gotten rid of. It is the height of naivety to think otherwise.
To call for an end to violence, as Peters did in his speech, will not bring about the outcome he wants. Unless he recognises that Israel must be allowed to complete the total destruction of Hamas, and other terror groups, New Zealand will never be in a position to agree to a Palestinian state. That is the stark reality of the situation. That is why, as he said, Hamas will view any continuation of their ability to wage war as a victory. That is exactly what a ceasefire would do. Hamas cannot be allowed to have this ability. The crisis will never be solved.
This is precisely why it has gone for so long and it will continue to do so unless the terrorist organisations are eliminated. That should be obvious to everyone. You cannot have continuing violence on the one hand and a Palestinian state on the other. Neither can you have a ceasefire and a Palestinian state, as Peters wants, because Hamas will still be in the game. Here he is arguing against himself.
At least Peters has come to the right decision for now. How this plays out from here is anybody’s guess but as long as Hamas is around the war will carry on. Once they are removed from the battlefield, something only Israel can do, then talk about a Palestinian state can commence. Until then, it’s a case of déjà vu.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
Peters is correct taking the position he did. If you back the Palestinians at this point you are backing the supporters of Hamas. You are therefore, by association, supporting Hamas. This is simply not a credible position to take. Hamas is not interested in looking after its people but prefer using them as human shields at every opportunity and stealing the food sent by the United Nations.
Peters first called for greater political leadership to restore global peace. “The international order that has sustained peace for the last 80 years stands on the precipice of breaking down.” He saw the Security Council as virtually paralysed on many of the acute geopolitical challenges it faces. “The inability to act, largely a product of the veto power by the permanent five, impacts deeply on perceptions of the United Nations’ broader legitimacy.”
“For a small state like New Zealand, whose security and prosperity for the last 80 years has relied on a functional multilateral system, the erosion of that system is both troubling and costly.” He said the UN’s effectiveness has not kept up with its expansion and that its reform effort needs to rise to the scale of its structural, fiscal and geopolitical challenges.
Peters told the UN New Zealand will not formally recognise Palestinian statehood. New Zealand was “shocked to our core by the harrowing images of famine in Gaza” he told the assembly (he should stop watching One and Three News). “We are also revolted by what can only be described as the grossly disproportionate response from the Israeli Government.” In saying that, he’s arguing against himself because eliminating Hamas is the only way he’ll get to recognise a Palestinian state.
He said countries that hoped their early recognition of a Palestinian state would promote and protect the two-state solution have instead seen Israel continue its widely condemned military actions in Gaza. He also criticised Israel for continuing to develop illegal settlements on the West Bank in defiance of international law. Should New Zealand recognise Palestinian statehood, Hamas would claim it as a victory and Israel would claim that it rewards Hamas. He’s right on both counts.
The speech overall was measured and fair, calling out both sides involved in the conflict. However he’s fallen into the trap that other leaders have by continuing to want a ceasefire. That would be a victory for Hamas. They would simply use that time to strengthen and re-arm. You cannot have a ceasefire and then expect a Palestinian state to automatically follow. Hamas must be, as far as possible, gotten rid of. It is the height of naivety to think otherwise.
To call for an end to violence, as Peters did in his speech, will not bring about the outcome he wants. Unless he recognises that Israel must be allowed to complete the total destruction of Hamas, and other terror groups, New Zealand will never be in a position to agree to a Palestinian state. That is the stark reality of the situation. That is why, as he said, Hamas will view any continuation of their ability to wage war as a victory. That is exactly what a ceasefire would do. Hamas cannot be allowed to have this ability. The crisis will never be solved.
This is precisely why it has gone for so long and it will continue to do so unless the terrorist organisations are eliminated. That should be obvious to everyone. You cannot have continuing violence on the one hand and a Palestinian state on the other. Neither can you have a ceasefire and a Palestinian state, as Peters wants, because Hamas will still be in the game. Here he is arguing against himself.
At least Peters has come to the right decision for now. How this plays out from here is anybody’s guess but as long as Hamas is around the war will carry on. Once they are removed from the battlefield, something only Israel can do, then talk about a Palestinian state can commence. Until then, it’s a case of déjà vu.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
Jc you are of course correct. Which is why 80% of people will probably disagree with you. The decision is the correct one for freedom. I will buy any far left terrorist supporting labour, greens or tpm nutcase a free ticket to Gaza to fight for the terrorists they support. Oddly enough, not one, not one of these far left hypocrites has taken me up on my generous offer. They seem to want to impose their hate and violent ways here in nz.
I bet they wish Oct 7 didn't happen now. Isreal could have unleashed this force anytime they chose, but they have tried to live peacefully until hamas and supporters attacked on Oct 7.
The writer is overstating his case and presenting us with a false choice by arguing that there should be no ceasefire and Hamas must be liquidated before there can be any talk about a Palestinian state.
A ceasefire would enable Hamas to regroup, but that applies to both sides. Given that international law and custom require the belligerents to restrict themselves to territory under their control at the time of the ceasefire, I do not see why Hamas would regard a truce as a 'victory'.
Whatever one's feelings about Hamas, they are an integral part of the Palestinian equation and cannot be bypassed in any deliberations about the region's future. Indeed it would be much better if Hamas had an active role in bringing about the end of hostilities and moves towards a permanent solution as this would give them a major stake in those developments.
I am no Hamas supporter - on the contrary, I am unequivocally critical of the group and consider them to have brought the current travesty on their own people. But just as we eventually sat at the peace and reconstruction table with the people responsible for Pearl Harbour and the Burma Railway and River Kwai Bridge, we need to don our realists' caps and invite Hamas to the party we are now discussing.
Absolutely spot on.
the first Palestinian state was in 1922.
when GB gave away 70% of the Jewish Palestine Mandate to make Trans-Jordan, which became Jordan.
The Muslims can be absorbed there.
or they could be absorbed in any of the Muslim states in the Middle east or the World.
Never reward Terrorism, ever.
Post a Comment