Israel bans New Zealand ambassador

December 28, 2016 by Keren Cook
Read on for article

New Zealand’s ambassador to Israel has been banned from entering the country as Israel continues to retaliate against a UN decision to condemn settlements.

President Rivlin receives Ambassador Jonathan Curr’s credentials Photo: Mark Neyman/GPO

Jonathan Curr, has been banned from Israel as a result of the nine United Nations Security Council members that voted for a resolution against Israel.

Work ties have been reduced for New Zealand and other countries who condemned Israel’s continued settlements in the occupied territories.

New Zealand co-sponsored the resolution, which said the settlements violate international law and undermine a two-state solution in Israel’s conflict with Palestine.

The resolution demanded that “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem,”

It has been confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that Mr Curr is “not able to visit Israel for the time being”, MFAT said in a statement.

“We have been very open about our view that the UNSC should be doing more to support the Middle East Process and we look forward to continuing to engage constructively with all parties on this issue.”

Kiwi diplomat Mr Curr is also ambassador to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Jordan.

Israel has already instructed its ambassador in New Zealand to return home for consultation in response to the vote.

Spokesperson Patricia Deen, for Cultural and Public Affairs at The Embassy of Israel in Wellington confirms the Ambassador has arrived in Israel and “it is unclear until when the Ambassador will stay in Israel.”

In the meantime, the Embassy of Israel will remain open and will continue its work and initiatives for the New Year.

Comments

7 Responses to “Israel bans New Zealand ambassador”
  1. Liat Kirby-Nagar says:

    Samuel Terry,
    The last line of your latest posting is confusing due to syntax: ‘What is driving your PM to PANIC is the global realisation that Israel is seen to be alone.’
    I think you mean to say ‘the PM’s realisation’, not ‘the world’s realisation’?

    Please note:
    i. Netanyahu is not panicking, he is justifiably angry.
    ii. In real terms, Israel has always been alone.

  2. Samuel Terry says:

    @ Mr.Poddebsky: SC 2334 will not, in itself, change anything about the settlements nor Israel. Everybody, except yourself, is aware of this. The significance is the US abstention, and the 14 countries, including Russia and China, voting against Israel. What is driving your PM to PANIC is the global realiastion that Israel is seen to be ALONE.
    Regards.

  3. Liat Kirby-Nagar says:

    With the behaviour and attitudes of New Zealand over the past few years, culminating in this UN-backed Resolution, why have anything to do with them? To what purpose?
    Good move to say goodbye to their Ambassador and send him home. What a shameful and biassed performance by NZ. How profoundly disappointing that our close neighbours are of such a mindset.

  4. Jan Poddebsky says:

    Irony – the Nobel peace prize is awarded to those who make peace impossible. e.g. Arafat, Obama.

  5. Marta Mikey Frid says:

    One thing is to call for an interruption of the settlements. Another is to say that East Jerusalem is an “Occupied Territory” by Israel. How much money are Kerry and Obama and all the European countries getting from these bullies who are using the tax payers money to murder their Christian populations? That the Obama administration refused to put this resolution on hold until their time is over says it all.

  6. Leon Poddebsky says:

    Keren Cook, the author of this article, refers to “occupied territories” as if that description is factual.
    Well, Keren, the Acts of international law known as The San Remo Declaration, The Mandate for ‘Palestine’, and Security Council Resolution 242, indicate that those territories are not occupied, and that Israel has the strongest case for sovereignty there.

    Whether or not it would be a good idea for Israel to maintain sovereignty in all of the territory is debatable, but one does not have to misrepresent the facts in order to conduct that debate.

    That the Security Council said that they are occupied is merely a political assertion. That is evidenced by the fact that between 1948-1967, when Jordan illegally occupied the territories, the UN acquiesced in that illegality. Incidentally, any one who brings up the International Court’s statement of some years ago about their status, should note that it was an opinion, not a judgement, since the court had not heard Israel’s evidence. Opinion and judgement are two very different things.

  7. Samuel Terry says:

    Oh dear! Someone is stamping their little foot and taking their ball back home?
    Regards.

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments