Opinion: When Foreign Minister Winston Peters announced last weekend New Zealand would delay its recognition of a Palestinian state it was just possible that the National-led coalition Government already had an inkling a Trump peace plan for Gaza was in the offing.
Among other things, Donald Trump's recent 20-point peace plan calls for a ceasefire, the return of all Israeli hostages in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, the disarmament of Hamas, the lifting of all restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza, a phased withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza, and the establishment of a transitional technocratic Palestinian governing structure in Gaza.
All of the above depends on Hamas accepting this plan within four days. If Hamas rejects this proposal, it faces the threat of complete destruction by Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel fully backed by the US.
While Hamas has faced a similar threat since its dreadful terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, it now finds itself facing additional pressure from many Arab and Muslim states as well as liberal democracies, including New Zealand, which have firmly endorsed Trump's proposal.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon emphasised New Zealand's decision not to recognise a Palestinian state at this time was a purely independent one made without any external diplomatic pressure from states like Israel or the US.
While it remains to be seen whether Trump's plan can bring much-needed peace to Gaza, it is clear that New Zealand's approach to Palestinian statehood has had some distinctly puzzling aspects.
According to Foreign Minister Winston Peters, recognition hinges on "a Palestinian state's legitimacy and viability, including representative governance, commitments to non-violence, regional support and security guarantees for Israel".
However, the decision on whether to recognise Palestinian statehood is ultimately a political one.
For decades, New Zealand largely followed a bipartisan foreign policy and cultivated an image as a progressive, empathetic and principled nation. In particular, it has long supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the right of the Palestinian people to political self-determination.
Nevertheless, these principles have not been enough to convince the National-led coalition Government to follow other liberal democracies such as Australia, Canada, the UK, France and Portugal in recognising Palestinian statehood.
The Government said the time was not right for such a move. Peters cited the presence of Hamas as the de-facto government of Gaza and the absence of a ceasefire as specific obstacles. But if Hamas was really calling the shots, why was it unable to prevent the IDF reducing Gaza to rubble in the two years since its attack, which killed 1200 Israelis?
It is also clear Hamas does not have a monopoly on terrorist violence. If terrorism is understood in the words of terrorism expert professor Martha Crenshaw as "the deliberate and systematic use of the threat of violence to coerce changes in political behaviour", many Palestinians in Gaza believe they are the victims of state-sponsored terrorism. More than 65,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza during the past two years and almost 70 percent of these deaths have been women or children with little or no link to Hamas.
While the taking of 251 hostages by Hamas on October 7 was unconscionable, it is important to note that Netanyahu unilaterally withdrew from the Trump ceasefire deal in early March 2025. The deal included an agreement with Hamas for the release of all remaining hostages in return for a permanent end to the conflict in Gaza.
Moreover, the coalition Government remained strangely silent on what has been perhaps the biggest impediment to the two-state solution, which New Zealand has consistently championed.
Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has shown little sustained interest in ending what the International Court of Justice has described as "unlawful" occupations of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, territories populated by Palestinians.
To be sure, Israel ended its physical occupation of Gaza in 2005, but imposed a land, sea and air blockade immediately following Hamas' military takeover of Gaza in June 2007, more than a year after the group had won the election there.
Netanyahu, a dominant figure in Israeli politics over decades, opposed the Oslo peace process in the early 1990s and has consistently rejected the idea of a Palestinian state. His far-right coalition government has pledged to take full control of Gaza, while the Knesset recently voted to complete the annexation of the West Bank this year.
With Israel imposing tight restrictions on the distribution of humanitarian assistance and food to Gaza, famine is now haunting Gaza to compound the effects of the IDF's relentless military onslaught, which a recent UN inquiry described as genocidal.
It is the belated realisation by a number of democracies that Netanyahu is adamantly opposed to a Palestinian state that has prompted the latest flurry of recognitions, before Israel's attempt to absorb the occupied territories is completed.
Of course, if Trump's peace plan succeeds in removing Hamas as a political and military actor in Gaza and achieves a ceasefire there, the NZ Government may feel it would be timely to recognise Palestinian statehood.
However, there are reasons to be sceptical about Trump's peace initiative. It does not explicitly acknowledge that the Palestinians have a right to political self-determination, a right enshrined in the UN Charter; provides no legal accountability for the multiple crimes committed against Palestinians in Gaza; and is vague on the future of the West Bank where there are 700,000 Israeli settlers.
Indeed, following the tabling of Trump's peace plan, Netanyahu confirmed he still opposed a Palestinian state.
While the decision to delay recognition of Palestine may have won some applause in Israel and America, there appears little justification - given the catastrophic situation in Gaza and the problematic Trump peace plan - to sustain a 'wait-and-see' approach when the international rules-based order New Zealand purportedly upholds is so clearly under attack.