New Zealand and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The following is based on discussions between Hannah Spierer and Harmeet Sooden and is a slightly modified version of the original that appeared on 3 August 2009 in Craccum, the weekly magazine produced by the Auckland University Students’ Association of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Hannah Spierer is a former Politics student at the University of Auckland.

Harmeet Sooden is one of the four Christian Peacemaker Teams delegates, kidnapped in Iraq on 26 November 2005. One member of the group, Tom Fox, was murdered on 9 March 2006. The remaining hostages were freed two weeks later. He attempted to enter Israel on 14 June 2008 to work as a human rights defender with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) but was denied entry.

HANNAH: Can you start by outlining the Palestine-Israel conflict?

HARMEET: There are two groups that have a legitimate claim to national rights in what was historic Palestine. One is predominantly descended from settlers from Europe and elsewhere, the other is mostly indigenous. The former has already been accorded national rights and if we’re not racist we ought to confer national rights to the latter as well.

This is essentially the version of a two-state solution advocated by virtually the entire world including NZ, the Arab League, the PLO, Iran, Hezbollah and, yes, Hamas. Contrary to the rhetoric, it has consistently been rejected by the US and Israel since the late 70s.

Basically, Israel has proven itself to be a reliable enforcer, helping to maintain US dominance in the major energy-producing region of the world. This relationship affords Israel (which favours expansion over security) certain latitude to pursue its own interests. So, in Gaza, one part of Palestine, people are caged and harshly punished, even more so since Hamas won a free election. In the other part, the West Bank, Israel under US auspices is illegally taking over the land and resources, and designing a system of control that’s arguably worse than Apartheid, now supported by a Jordanian-trained collaborationist army.

HANNAH: Why did you go to Israel?

HARMEET: To volunteer for ISM [see: http://palsolidarity.org]. ISM is a Palestinian-led human rights group composed of Palestinians, Israelis and internationals who monitor and protect human rights in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory]. It came into being mainly as a result of the Israel’s military response to the Second Intifada. It’s a small but integral part of a regional Palestinian-Israeli non-violent movement and is actively contributing to Israel’s security through its efforts to protect human rights in Palestine.

HANNAH: So then, why were you deported? What happened?

HARMEET: I was assaulted and injured, threatened, held in solitary confinement, denied the right to legal counsel and consular representation as well as the right to appeal my deportation order in a court of law, and finally deported—all in contravention of Israeli and international law
[see: http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0907/Sooden_Complaint.pdf].

Israeli authorities told me that I was being denied entry because I constitute “a threat to the security of the State of Israel.” Israel seems to be pursuing a policy of refusing entry to foreign human rights defenders, particularly ISM volunteers. Israel as a sovereign nation has the right to determine who enters its territory. But, unless Israel has credible reasons for deporting human rights defenders, one can only conclude that the actual reason is concern that they’ll defend human rights and publicise Israel’s human rights violations. In fact, Israeli courts have repeatedly ruled that association with ISM is not in itself a valid reason for denying an individual entry into Israel.

According to Ms Hina Jilani, the UN Special Representative on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, “Israel’s defiance of international norms has caused serious harm, including killings, to human rights defenders.” She noted in 2006 that ISM “has been specifically targeted, with over 93 volunteers deported in the last four years.” In 2003, Israeli forces were responsible for the deaths of ISM volunteers Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall, and for seriously injuring Brian Avery. In the last 12 months alone, several Palestinians affiliated with ISM have been killed or severely injured by the IDF—a fact largely unreported in the West; this March Tristan Anderson was shot in the head by a tear-gas canister—he may never recover.

Israel’s transgressions are actually harming the security of its own people. The Supreme Court of Israel has determined that sustainable security can only be achieved through compliance with the law, including international law. I agree with several of Israel’s former intelligence chiefs who say that there are two steps that need to be taken to increase Israel’s security: better police work and, fundamentally, addressing the genuine concerns of the Palestinian people. It’s the latter that ISM promotes.

HANNAH: Following your deportation, you laid a complaint with the NZ Government. Any response?

HARMEET: I asked MFAT to act as my representative to protest my mistreatment and press for a full explanation for my deportation, and to seek assurance from Israel that human rights defenders will no longer be mistreated and denied access to the OPT.

MFAT appears to have absolved itself of all responsibility by failing to address any substantive aspect of my complaint, including the de facto denial of my right to request consular assistance from NZ officials. When I was kidnapped in Iraq, supposedly by an ‘official enemy’, MFAT’s support was considerable. Having now fallen foul of an ‘official ally’, I find MFAT has not taken the complaint seriously.

The Israeli embassy in Canberra says “as Israel is a democratic country, all people that have contact with the Ministry of Interior have the right to comment on this contact, through the requisite authorities in Israel.” While I’m grateful for the Ministry’s offer, I am bemused: the Ministry was complicit in violating my rights in the first place.

The complaint drew no response from NZ’s opposition party. Auckland University’s executive has once again affirmed that they do not regard promoting human rights as a University concern. Conversely, AUSA has passed a resolution supporting the complaint.

HANNAH: Can you elaborate upon NZ’s relationship to Israel?

HARMEET: According to Foreign Minister Hon. McCully, NZ withdrew its candidature for election to the UN Human Rights Council in 2009 because “membership of the council by the US is more likely to create positive changes more quickly than we could have hoped to achieve them” which is “a signal to the Obama Administration that New Zealand is there in a pragmatic and uncomplicated way to work with them.” The US, which has an atrocious human rights record, has stated it wishes to reform the HRC because of “anti-Israel” bias.

Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres publicly criticised the NZ Government’s decision to boycott the 2009 UN World Conference Against Racism, implying the Government was trying to appease the US. Hon. McCully hinted that NZ went along with the US and pulled out of the conference because of “fears that it may be too critical of Israel.”

Regarding Israel’s recent attack on Gaza, Hon. McCully said: “New Zealand has taken a determinedly balanced position in the middle, we want to be in a position where we can say to both sides that they need to pull back from the brink.” MP Keith Locke was compelled to write, “NZ Govt fiddles while Gaza burns.” Amnesty International was “disappointed by [Hon.] McCully’s recent comments,” instead expecting “a stronger call to end the latest bloodshed in Gaza.” Anti-war groups criticised the “deafening silence of the New Zealand government on the massacre in Gaza” which didn’t “unreservedly condemn Israel’s slaughter in Gaza.” NZ donated $1 million to the Red Cross for Gaza—helpful but also the price for silence. Ironically, the Red Cross’s work in Gaza is being seriously hampered by Israel.

MFAT’s response to my complaint is consistent with these Government decisions, which are not informed by a concern for human rights, but rather accommodation to US foreign policy, including US policy towards Israel.

NZ media takes on the role of mediating the Government’s “balanced position” to us. Media commentary on Israel’s attack on Gaza generally reflects the kind of propaganda that surely would have impressed Goebbels and Stalin. Here I mean major publications in NZ such as the Dominion Post, NZ Herald, The Listener, etc. and the opinions of their editors, which usually reflect the views of the owners, Fairfax and APN. So, for example, the Dom. Post calls “Hamas, an organisation that is committed to the destruction of Israel, provoked the Israeli attacks and it has it within its power to stop them...If Hamas’ leaders really want to end the suffering caused by the Israeli attacks they can do so. All they have to do is stop firing rockets into Israeli territory...and start negotiating.” More accurately: Hamas, an organisation that has formally accepted the international consensus on a two-state settlement (unlike Israel, which rejects it) did not fire a single rocket during the 2008 truce (as Israel acknowledges) until Israel broke the truce by an unprovoked infiltration into Gaza on Nov. 4, killing 6 Palestinians. That predictably led to retaliatory attacks by both sides, overwhelmingly by Israel, which also rejected or ignored Hamas’ offers of a cease-fire, then invaded Gaza. Israel has absolutely no legitimate claim of self-defence when it invaded Gaza. For these statements to pass without eliciting much protest—well that’s something that would have impressed Goebbels.

Returning to the Dom. Post: “Hopelessly outgunned militarily, Hamas cannot hope to defeat Israel in a conventional war, but it can compete in a public relations battle for hearts and minds. The Israeli attacks are producing images of dead and wounded Palestinians that damage Israel’s international reputation. They also serve as rallying posters for future Hamas foot soldiers...What is happening now is what Hamas’ leaders wanted.” In Soviet propaganda you could, no doubt, read that after the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, provoked by ‘Islamic terrorists’, the terrorists were winning the PR battle by producing images of dead and wounded Afghans that damage the USSR’s international reputation, and thus are achieving exactly what they wanted to by provoking a Soviet attack. The only difference is that Soviet propaganda was less grotesque and cowardly.

HANNAH: What’s your opinion on boycotts of Israel?

HARMEET: I don’t agree with an academic boycott. Many campaigners would disagree with this position. I also don’t support a boycott of US universities, though the US role in the world is far worse, including Israel’s crimes which can only continue with strong US support.

Moral considerations aside, a boycott is a tactic, not a principle and we have to assess it in terms of its likely consequences. On tactical grounds, I think boycotts play into the hands of jingoists who can then get away with cries of antisemitism because the groundwork hasn’t been laid in public understanding. One can have fairly good judgment about whether it’s an effective tactic. Take the boycott of South Africa, for example. That took off in the West in the 80s, after decades of activism and organising. By then there was virtually no public support for Apartheid; governments were legislating sanctions; corporations were calling for an end to Apartheid. The circumstances regarding Israel are very different, virtually the opposite. Accordingly, boycott efforts are likely to have the effect of strengthening extremist ‘pro-Israel’ tendencies, as has happened so far in NZ.

Take, for example, a placard I once had the misfortune of holding that says “ISRAEL AP✡RTHEID” (sporting a blue Star of David representing the State of Israel). Again, I doubt it’s particularly effective because sufficient educational work hasn’t been done for people to understand and see through the propaganda. And even among those who do, they’ll probably argue that the situation in Israel is different from that in the OPT, which is true.

HANNAH: What do you say to people who will read this and label you as antisemitic?

HARMEET: Yes, I’ve been called an “anti-Semite” or “anti-Israel,” a “terrorist sympathiser,” “Nazi,” etc., but that’s no reason to stop speaking out. One has to expect misrepresentation and deceit. Antisemitism is not synonymous with the disapproval of Israel’s crimes.

My goal is simply to point out what isn’t being presented so we can make up our own minds. I’m not here to talk about Israel’s virtues or the crimes of Palestinian groups, which are widely discussed in the media. Nation-states are always full of self-praise. I’m trying to highlight the crimes of my own country.

It’s true that peace movements can attract individuals harbouring antisemitic sentiment—as can those organisations supporting Israel’s crimes. Drawing erroneous comparisons of Israel’s policy to that of the Nazi regime can be a manifestation of antisemitism; and it’s certainly antisemitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel, or for US foreign policy via some sort of lobby.

Antisemitism must be eliminated. So too must Islamophobia and anti-Arabism. A recent, egregious example is that of Mr Ahmed Zaoui’s mistreatment. We must oppose all forms of oppression and bigotry, wherever they may be found.

HANNAH: So what will you do now?

HARMEET: I think the question is misdirected. It’s a question of what we choose to do.

HANNAH: Ok, so why should NZers care about this conflict?

HARMEET: That’s something only NZers can decide for themselves. I became directly involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict the day my company, Cubic Defence NZ, a US-owned ‘defence’ contractor, assigned me to the Israel project. MFAT had refused Cubic an export permit on the grounds that such an export would likely exacerbate regional tensions and human rights violations. Cubic then tried to use a loophole in NZ customs law to export technology electronically to Cubic USA for manufacture and export to Israel. That’s my motivation.

Under international law, NZ has an obligation to pursue all legal means to curb not aid and abet US-Israel policies that result in human rights violations and the denial of Palestinian self-determination. We have some influence over Government policy. That confers upon us the responsibility to persuade the Government to act morally, to reflect our values over corporate interests. I’m not saying that NZ shouldn’t support Israel—it should. But NZ should also support the victims of Israel’s crimes and not the crimes themselves.

When Archbishop Tutu told John Minto recently that the protests against the Springbok tour made a difference to his country—when Archbishop Tutu thanked him, it was very moving. Well-thought out tactics now can lead to the same.

Acknowledgements: a friend who has asked to remain anonymous!

© Scoop Media