The campaign calling for members of the public to ‘report’ suspected Israeli soldiers holidaying in New Zealand
The campaign calling for members of the public to ‘report’ suspected Israeli soldiers holidaying in New Zealand

OPINIONPoliticsFebruary 12, 2025

Not in our name: A call for principled advocacy for Palestinian rights

Guest writer
The campaign calling for members of the public to ‘report’ suspected Israeli soldiers holidaying in New Zealand
The campaign calling for members of the public to ‘report’ suspected Israeli soldiers holidaying in New Zealand

Human rights advocates must uphold human dignity, rights and justice, while rejecting the discriminatory tactics we oppose, writes Taimor Hazou.

Two weeks ago the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) launched a campaign inviting New Zealanders to call a hotline if they suspected an Israel Defence Force (IDF) soldier that had served in Gaza was holidaying in New Zealand. The hotline was immediately criticised across the board, from  Jewish community groups to cabinet ministers to the chief human rights commissioner.

As a Palestinian New Zealander, I have spoken out against the hotline as well. While it arises from legitimate concerns, it is ultimately flawed, potentially discriminatory and counterproductive.

The goal of barring potential war criminals from entry to New Zealand is laudable and supported by many; the campaign’s execution and messaging, inexcusable. Despite warnings from community leaders and advocates advising against the hotline, PSNA leaders ignored concerns well before the public backlash.

This is not the first time PSNA leadership has dismissed the counsel of its allies. It has since refused to apologise, retract, or take accountability for the disastrous campaign. PSNA president John Minto insists “the hotline will save Palestinians lives” but has failed to explain how? Yes, some Palestinians support Minto, not for the hotline, but for his past advocacy for our cause. Which makes this latest ill-advised campaign and Minto’s stubbornness around it so disappointing.

John Minto after being pepper sprayed at a Palestinian rally. Image: Instagram

As early as February 2024, Palestinians in Aotearoa have raised legitimate concerns of encountering potential war criminals here in New Zealand. These concerns were not imaginary, as was explained to senior public servants – those in the February meeting spoke of hearing Israeli soldiers on our whenua openly boasting about committing atrocities, attempting to intimidate Arab New Zealanders. It was not the only example presented.

This unconscionable behaviour and the hurt caused has been ignored. Yet, numerous cabinet ministers have been quick and eager to denounce the potential harm to “innocent” conscripted soldiers by the hotline.

In meetings with public servants and in correspondence with the minister of immigration, we have asked: 

  • How are Israeli soldiers assessed for war crimes? 
  • Are units like the Golani Brigade – sanctioned by the UN for human rights abuses – barred from entry? 
  • If not, why not? In the absence of tangible measures to protect citizens, transparency on these issues is a reasonable demand.

The government failure to show equitable concern for the safety of its citizens, has left Muslim and Palestinian New Zealanders feeling demeaned and unheard.

Adding insult to injury, Palestinians are continually held to higher standards. A local Jewish leadership forum boasted guest speaker Colonel Yaron Simsolo, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) head of infantry doctrine. Why aren’t New Zealand Jewish leaders expected to uphold New Zealand human rights values or condemn the “settlement expansion”; the domicide of Gaza; and the attempts at ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Gaza?

Palestinian and Muslim New Zealanders feel frustrated and undervalued as human beings. Communities with lived experiences of war crimes deserve protection from the trauma of potential perpetrators roaming the whenua.

The Spinoff is your meeting place in turbulent times, and with your help, we’ll see it through.

Australia requires military personnel to complete an extra visa questionnaire on their service and specifically involvement in war crimes. Canada has rejected 2,800 suspected war criminals from 2003-14, with a review finding: “domestic efforts to address war crimes and genocide are of increasing importance” and it has “obligation to end impunity”.

The Israeli visa waiver (meaning Israelis do not need to apply for a visa for visits to New Zealand shorter than three months), under these circumstances is an example of inconsistent government policy with the norms, expectations and principles of a democratic state or political parties committed to law and order.

Unfortunately, rather than focussing public attention on these systemic policy failures, the PSNA hotline resorts to targeting individuals, undermining fairness and equity.

Palestinians have been subject to the discriminatory practices of collective punishment and guilt by association. It is morally inconsistent, unreflective of our oppressed experience, and damages the credibility of the qadiyieh (cause) to employ the methods of our oppressors to achieve liberation.

We have an obligation to the past injustices of our people and to other causes to ensure our consistency.

While public sentiment is in opposition to the Gaza genocide, in Aotearoa, the public was instead moved to debate antisemitism and the ethics of targeting individuals. This is an unforgivable miscalculation by the PSNA.

Advocacy efforts should always focus on systemic policy failures and not individuals. Seasoned human rights activists, like Minto, should not be making these types of errors. 

a flyer for an activist campaign, with "genocide hotline" written in white on black background at the top and underneath "israeli soldiers are holidaying in New Zealand!" written in red and a sepia toned cropped image of a soldier in a helmet and sunglasses
The “hotline” campaign imagery (Photo: PSNA)

Effective advocacy could have demanded: 

  • equal protection for migrants from war criminals; 
  • banning military units like Netzah Yehuda, Givati and Golani Brigades; 
  • visa restrictions on military personnel of nations violating international law; 
  • transparent Canada-type policy barring war criminals.

These are meaningful actions that elevate international law, which New Zealand could emulate. This would align New Zealand with our allies, reaffirm our commitment to global order, and the international conventions our nation committed to after the sacrifices of WWII.

The goal of Palestinian advocacy is to shed light on occupation, apartheid and genocide, demanding meaningful action from the international community. Campaigns must stay focused on systemic issues, not unnecessary controversies that alienate allies.

Public advocacy requires governance, strategy, consultation, and alignment with the principles we fight for. This campaign has failed all these benchmarked standards. Public moments like these call for recalibration and reflection through ownership and leadership.

As Palestinians in Aotearoa, we must reject racism and amplify justice. As Palestinians we must demand accountability, the capacity to err and the ability to learn, of everyone but particularly of leadership purporting to advocate on our behalf.

We know you know it’s tough out there. We are writing regularly about the economy, the price of butter, local business closures, and the cost of being a person in Aotearoa in 2025. We’ve seen the price of everything go up, cinemas are using off-brand Jaffas, and Hayden Donnell says everything is “rooted”. Sometimes it feels like things are hopeless, but there is still a meeting place for like-minded New Zealanders and a home for local stories, well-researched journalism, humour and hot takes. That place is The Spinoff.

If you’ve read this far, then you appreciate what we’re trying to achieve. Maybe you come back for our clear-sighted commentary on politics, or maybe it’s for our cultural offering of books, TV, film, theatre and live event reviews and recommendations. Whatever the reason, we appreciate your company. But it comes at a cost. For every 100 Spinoff readers, only 3.2 support us financially.

We need this to be higher to confidently plan for the future, continue to take the government to task, back the cultural sector in Aotearoa, and bring the unique perspectives you love to the biggest stories of the week. If you haven’t already, please consider making a regular donation today. Thank you.

Our future depends on

funding from readers

Keep going!
Three men in suits engaged in conversation stand in front of a green background featuring graphic badges labeled "ECHO CHAMBER.".
David Seymour, Gerry Brownlee and Christopher Luxon during question time (Image: The Spinoff)

PoliticsFebruary 12, 2025

Echo Chamber: David Seymour is a very naughty boy

Wellington editor
Three men in suits engaged in conversation stand in front of a green background featuring graphic badges labeled "ECHO CHAMBER.".
David Seymour, Gerry Brownlee and Christopher Luxon during question time (Image: The Spinoff)

The Act leader gets a telling-off from the principal and prime minister Christopher Luxon loses his cool in a heated question time.

Echo Chamber is The Spinoff’s dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus.

As New Zealand’s most senior elected officials gathered in the hallowed halls of the debating chamber, speaker Gerry Brownlee reminded them of an important parliamentary rule: don’t drive vehicles into the building.

His warning was directed at Act leader David Seymour, who on Monday had attempted to drive a Land Rover up parliament’s steps as part of a charitable fundraiser. Brownlee read out a half-hearted mea culpa his office had received from Seymour: “Please accept my apologies for any offence this may have caused.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins wasn’t ready to move on. He pushed the speaker about Seymour’s claim to media that the organisers had received permission for the stunt. Brownlee confirmed they “most definitely” had not. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer suggested Seymour’s actions had breached tikanga relating to the two pou flanking the steps of parliament.

A man in a blue suit and tie speaks at a wooden lectern in a government chamber. Seated behind him are three people, two men and a woman, listening attentively. Microphones are visible at their desks.
Chris Hipkins on the attack

Labour recently called for Seymour to be sacked as a minister over the stunt, in combination with two other scandals: his writing a letter to police in support of Philip Polkinghorne during the investigation of the death of the Auckland eye surgeon’s wife in 2022, and his inaction that same year after being warned that his party’s president, now convicted sex offender Tim Jago, was a sexual predator. Seymour was without his usual question time smirk but didn’t look worried either. He sat there silently and expressionless.

Hipkins aimed his questions at the man opposite him, prime minister Christopher Luxon, but his focus was still very much on Seymour. Does the prime minister take responsibility for his ministers? (Yes.) Is he confident Seymour didn’t breach the cabinet manual? (Yes.) Were his actions lawful? (That’s a question for the speaker.) “Show some leadership,” Labour’s Megan Woods yelled.

He finally struck pay dirt by questioning whether the prime minister had ever asked Seymour if he had received political donations from Polkinghorne. Luxon revealed he had not asked. The opposition benches roared, and things kicked into gear. Luxon danced a fine line, arguing that any donations would be irrelevant to the cabinet manual because Seymour was not a minister at the time he wrote the letter, merely an MP. National’s Judith Collins sat next to David Seymour and argued on his behalf like a personal lawyer. She first said that there was a difference between party and candidate donations. Hipkins counterpunched by pointing out that other ministers had exempted themselves from decisions based on party donations. Luxon winced and shook his head as if to say, “Aww, come on man.” Parliament’s two nerdiest boys, Hipkins and Chris Bishop, had a long back-and-forth about the speaker’s rulings while Brownlee occasionally mixed up their names.

A man in a suit and pink tie speaks at a podium in a formal setting, possibly a government or legislative chamber. People in suits are seated nearby, listening attentively. Wooden desks and glass water bottles are visible.
David Seymour, sans smirk

Finally, the man everyone else was yelling about stood up… and immediately knocked his glass of water onto the floor in front of him. “Ooooooooh!” went the opposition. “It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to just stand up and say there has been no such donation, but I won’t do that,” Seymour said. He urged every MP to think about the implications of declaring every possible donation whenever they made a decision. “If you really want to go there, we can,” he warned.

“Let’s go there! Let’s do it!” yelled Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.

Strategically, Hipkins’ focus was not to get Seymour fired or to hurt Act’s party vote – it was to expose Luxon as a weak leader with no control over his coalition partners. Luxon grumbled to himself and shook his head. Hipkins thinks he has found an opening, and the reaction in parliament on Tuesday suggested he may be onto something.

More Reading

Luxon has a tell when he gets frustrated – he repeats lines he has used before. It’s a defence mechanism. He goes back to the greatest hits and avoids the question at hand. When asked about job losses in the construction sector, Luxon called Hipkins “the arsonist returning to the scene of the fire” (the fifth time he has used that line in parliament this term). Luxon’s face got redder and his speech got louder and he yelled about “kumbaya and mush”, “economic mismanagement” and “the muppets on the other side”.

The noise from the opposition reached a crescendo too. Labour and Green MPs got excited, recognising the prime minister’s show of strength as the exact opposite – an admission that he’d lost his cool and couldn’t give a substantive answer. To conclude, Hipkins asked one final question: “What’s Nicola Willis more likely to replace this year – the Interislander ferries or him as prime minister?”

Chlöe Swarbrick and the lunches she may or may not have taken from a child

One fun moment

Chlöe Swarbrick, during a question about the government’s new school lunches ending up in landfills “as a result of them being inedible”, produced three of the prepackaged school meals.

As she placed them on her desk, Winston Peters made a point of order:

“Mr Speaker, since when in standing orders is a member allowed to bring their lunch to parliament, let alone having taken it from a schoolchild?”

We know you know it’s tough out there. We are writing regularly about the economy, the price of butter, local business closures, and the cost of being a person in Aotearoa in 2025. We’ve seen the price of everything go up, cinemas are using off-brand Jaffas, and Hayden Donnell says everything is “rooted”. Sometimes it feels like things are hopeless, but there is still a meeting place for like-minded New Zealanders and a home for local stories, well-researched journalism, humour and hot takes. That place is The Spinoff.

If you’ve read this far, then you appreciate what we’re trying to achieve. Maybe you come back for our clear-sighted commentary on politics, or maybe it’s for our cultural offering of books, TV, film, theatre and live event reviews and recommendations. Whatever the reason, we appreciate your company. But it comes at a cost. For every 100 Spinoff readers, only 3.2 support us financially.

We need this to be higher to confidently plan for the future, continue to take the government to task, back the cultural sector in Aotearoa, and bring the unique perspectives you love to the biggest stories of the week. If you haven’t already, please consider making a regular donation today. Thank you.

Our future depends on

funding from readers

Politics