A response to The New Zealand Herald
An editorial published on Wednesday 5 September by The New Zealand Herald entitled “New Zealand must resist Israel’s push to control our foreign policy”, encapsulates everything that is wrong with much of the media today.
Michael Kuttner
It distorts, misinforms and implies that once again Jews, this time represented by the Jewish State of Israel are manipulating and somehow seeking to control. These accusations have a sinister ring to them as they are taken straight out of the rantings of past and present Judeophobes.
This editorial is riddled with tendentious accusations which have no basis in actual fact.
The claim that Israel has decided to pick a quarrel with NZ for no good reason is false. There are many good reasons why the current dispute has arisen which I will detail as succinctly as possible.
All embassies or consulates accredited to Israel deal with Israel only.
All consulates or other diplomatic missions to the Palestinian Authority are accredited to that entity alone. There are no dual purpose (I.e. officially accredited) missions to both. If indeed NZ thinks it was the only country to have the same person accredited since 2008 it has been either hoodwinking the Israeli Foreign Ministry or under some mistaken illusion. The plain fact is that no other diplomat is accredited to both Israel and the PA. In most cases countries represented in the PA are either consuls or lower ranked individuals which is why Israel suggested NZ do the same. Those countries which have full blown ambassadors to the PA most often represent regimes which recognize an Arab country called Palestine which does not officially exist at this point in time.
The editorial claim that Israel seems to have taken umbrage at New Zealand’s condemnation and criticism of its actions against Islamic terror is ludicrous and entirely a figment of the editor’s imagination. If indeed there was any validity to this assertion then one would have expected similar action as far as other diplomatic personnel are concerned because the rest of the world except Canada and Australia issued far stronger statements. The plain truth of course is that no other country in the world is flouting diplomatic protocol as New Zealand is.
The editor seems to believe that Israel is obsessing over New Zealand’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. Nothing could be further from the truth but this did not stop him from dragging in the passport affair and implying yet again that Israel was trying to influence New Zealand’s foreign policy.
Israel has never prevented New Zealand or any other country from having contacts with any Arab country or entity. To imply otherwise is deliberate distortion of reality. If every country accredited to Israel can abide by the rules and have separate representation to the PA then why cannot New Zealand? Why is NZ the odd man out? The editor asserts that it will cause financial hardship and be an abdication of moral leadership plus surrendering to pressure. Given the known facts this is an overblown claim totally without a shred of truth. Moreover if third world countries can afford to have separate representation than surely NZ is not in such a parlous financial state that it cannot do the same.
In conclusion I wish to highlight a very important point which seems to have escaped the attention of the editor.
The current Palestinian Authority is composed of an equal partnership between Fatah and Hamas. The latter is an internationally recognized terrorist organization and if the editor took the time to peruse its charter he would find that it calls for the elimination of Israel and the murder of Jews and their ethnic cleansing. Incidentally once the Jews have been dealt with, Christians and other non believers are also to be purged.
Given these realities and given the fact that the PA has as a partner a group dedicated to the elimination of the Jewish State is it surprising that Israel insists on accredited representatives to not be also official diplomats to those whose agenda calls for murder, mayhem and hate?
The fact that the editorial glosses over this inconvenient fact of life speaks volumes as to its skewed opinions and erroneous conclusions.
Misrepresenting the real situation and postulating half baked theories do not contribute one iota to an honest understanding of reality in this part of the world.
Read the editorial here
Harry: The NZ Herald and the Sydney Morning Herald are both owned by Fairfax.
Kevin: Claiming that only the military arm of Hamas is a terrorist group is no different than asserting that only the Gestapo & SS were criminal terrorist groups and that the Nazi political leadership were squeaky clean.
Kevin: Read their charter. Claiming that the Hamas political leadership are not terrorists is the same as asserting that only the Gestapo and SS were terrorist criminals and not the political leadership of the Nazi Party!!
Harry: The NZ Herald and the Sydney Morning Herald are both owned by Fairfax. No surprises there.
Things must be pretty boring over there in the Dept of Foreign Affairs if they can find nothing better to do but make mischief…. maybe they need a woman running the show.
Israel had misused New Zealand passports and had received protests. This is obviously payback for the objections. Two previous ambassadors were based in Turkey and held additional charge for Israel and dealt with Palestine.
Having read Mr.Kuttner’s article makes me wonder if there is an editorial connection between the NZ Herald and the Sydney Morning Herald.
Michael Kuttner is wrong about Hamas being an internationally recognised terrorist organisation.
The military arm – the Quasim Brigades – is categorised by some international agencies as a terrorist organisation, but not the Hamas political leadership.
@Kevin Herbert: The Quasim Brigades and the Hamas political leadership are united by the same goals and governed by the same Charter.