New Zealand at the UN Security Council: “a return to the pre-1967 borders”

January 16, 2015 by J-Wire Staff
Read on for article

New Zealand’s Ambassador to the United Nations Jim McLay has delivered his first address at the UN Security Council open debate on the Middle East.

Ambassador Jim McLay

Ambassador Jim McLay

Ambassador McLay said that the conflict had endured “for too long, and its resolution is overdue”. He declared that New Zealand believed that a basis for enduring peace would depend on returning to the pre-1967 borders “with agreed and swaps”.

The full statement:







10 Responses to “New Zealand at the UN Security Council: “a return to the pre-1967 borders””
  1. Robert Kohn says:

    There’s an old saying. If at first you don’t succeed and it looks like a lost cause, only a fool will persist and hope for a different result.
    C’mon NZ you can do better than that. Reeling out the same old tripe in 2015 is a furphy.

    This is a very long drawn out conflict. It has so many potholes and emotions that one needs a fresh approach. Or maybe Jim it does’nt need any Resolution till violence and conflict in the wider Middle East tapers off.

    Please Jim come up with something more original and constructive.

    And by the way drop that expression “1967 borders”. They never existed.

    I’ll let you work that one out.

    • Leon Poddebsky says:

      Bob, the NZ man’s hollow posturing would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that his government’s position is one that encourages the kind of Arab conduct that leads to loss of life on both sides.

  2. Liat Nagar says:

    Such arrogance from McLay. So, he believes a resolution is long overdue – I wonder if he would brook such interference in his own country’s affairs! Methinks not. The old, old story of pretending statements are facts and ignoring past and present realities. Pushing your own agenda. Back off New Zealand.

  3. Andrew Blitz says:

    The statement directly condemns Israeli settlement but does not directly condemn Palestinian terrorism. Last time I looked, Hamas was still a coalition partner of the Fatah (entering the 10th year of its 4 year term of democratic government). The statement talks of “provocations that lead to Israelis facing threats to lives and communities from missile and rocket attacks”. How about directly condemning the missile and rocket attacks themselves. From there, it would be intellectually honest of the NZ Government to note that until such time as the Palestinians accept the notion of coexistence, there is nothing (other than the destruction of Israel) that can be achieved by forcing a peace process.

  4. Raymond Phillips says:

    Watch out New Zealand, Australia may reclaim sovereignty. With all seriousness the Palestinian State just doesn’t exist. Most of the people there today are not from the original inhabitants.They have come from all parts of the islamic world to needle Israel hence hamas has thrived.

  5. david singer says:

    Ambassador McClay apparently doesn’t read J Wire when making his ridiculous claim about “the pre-1967 borders” – which do not and never have existed.

    If this opening shot in the UN Security Council is a preview of what is to come from New Zealand’s spokesman – well might Jews exclaim and continue to exclaim – “Oy Vay McLay”

  6. Leon Poddebsky says:

    The New Zealand government has joined the raucous chorus of disingenuousness.
    Its public servants must know the difference in legal status between “borders” and “armistice lines,” but consciously promote the myth of “pre-1967 borders.”
    Its government must be aware of the PA/Fatah/PLO/Hamas position that allows no room for a Jewish nation-state, but NZ pretends otherwise.
    NZ must know that the conflict would not have lasted so long were it not for the Arab rejectionist ideology, but NZ pretends otherwise. The very podium on which NZ’s man at the UN stood is the one from which the then Secretary-General of the UN proclaimed that the 1948 onslaught of Araby upon Israel was the first act of aggression since the end of World War 2.
    NZ must know that the PLO charter has never been definitively abrogated and that the Hamas charter likewise demands Israel’s demise, accompanied by genocide.
    The NZ government’s pretence that there is equivalence between aggressor and target is a stain on NZ’s reputation.

    NZ is merely posturing on the rickety world stage. Its histrionics will not help the cause of peace.

    NZ needs to be told to lecture Araby, not us.

  7. Michael Kuttner says:

    As I previously predicted, New Zealand’s tenure on the Security Council is off to a flying start of appeasement of Arab terror and hate. I suppose we should be “comforted” that NZ believes Israel has a right to exist! The only trouble is that the steps outlined by McClay will lead to Israel’s elimination by the forces of Islamic terror. A pity that NZ cannot bring itself to show some moral clarity which its predecessor on the Council (Australia) demonstrated.

    My next op-ed. will elucidate further.

  8. Udi Tal says:

    Jim McLay,
    Main issues that concern me is that the palestenian authority is now tightly married to Hamas, a terrorist organisation whose ideals and motivations are the complete distruction and inihilation of the state of Israel. At every opertunity, and there has been plenty, tha PA. Has rejected every opertunity for an agreement, the absurdity of vouching for the 1967 borders will leave Israel in a very dangerous position. The only advanced, western minded, democracy in the reagion, which like New Zealand, stands for equal rights, and humanistic values.

    I am appauled that a nation like NZ can so easily request and vouch for such a dangerous and careless move at the UN. I feel that in doing so, you demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the historical nature of this conflict.

    I strongly recomend that you observe more closely the ideological bases of both sides and insist on a negotiated outcome, rather than inforce a truth, that simply does not help, rather worsen the situation as in gives the PA and Hamas power that prevent them from truly negotiate, while not eccepting Israel’s right to exist.

    Udi Tal.

    • Leon Poddebsky says:

      I’m not so sure that he “misunderstands.” He might be pretending to misunderstand.
      His motivation is certainly NOT to advance true peace; nor is it to see justice done.
      He is not interested in the rights or security of the Israeli people.
      He has his own New Zealand agenda, and his government believes that NZ’s interests are best served by supporting the idea of the creation of yet another Arab terrorist state.
      Maybe he thinks that this would be “the final solution ” of the “Jewish problem.”

      Otherwise why would a small, insignificant country that is situated at the other end of the world from Israel take the side of the latter’s genocidal foes?
      NZ’s relations with Araby have always been excellent despite NZ’s diplomatic relations with Israel, so this NZ move is a gratuitous poke in Israel’s eye.

      And the fact that the NZ prime minister’s father was a Jew is totally irrelevant.
      It can in no way legitimise NZ’s action.

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

Got something to say about this?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.