Opinion: Why Luxon and Albanese’s Gaza comments miss the mark

Prime Ministers Christopher Luxon and Anthony Albanese emerged from their snowy Queenstown meeting this week with a joint statement urging Israel to “reconsider” its plan to take control of Gaza City.

The leaders warned it would be “wrong”, risk breaching international law, and worsen the humanitarian crisis.

While humanitarian concerns are legitimate, the position outlined in Queenstown ignores the realities of how we got here and the legal obligations Israel has to protect its people.

1. October 7 Changed Everything

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust — murdering some 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, injuring thousands, and abducting over 250 hostages. Both New Zealand and Australia list Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Any discussion about Gaza must begin here, because this was the catalyst for Israel’s current military campaign.

2. Gaza Was Already Under Palestinian Rule

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, dismantling all settlements and removing its forces. The territory has since been governed by the Palestinian Authority and, after 2007, by Hamas following its violent takeover. Calls for Israel to “end the occupation” of Gaza are historically inaccurate — Israel has not administered the territory for nearly two decades.

3. The Legal Right of Self-Defence

A ceasefire that leaves Hamas intact would almost certainly invite further atrocities. Hamas’s charter still calls for Israel’s destruction. Demands for an “immediate permanent ceasefire” without disarmament risk condemning both Israelis and Gazans to another cycle of bloodshed.

4. Ceasefire Without Consequences Equals Repetition

A ceasefire that leaves Hamas intact would almost certainly invite further atrocities. Hamas’s charter still calls for Israel’s destruction. Demands for an “immediate permanent ceasefire” without disarmament risk condemning both Israelis and Gazans to another cycle of bloodshed.

5. Recognition and Statehood

Luxon and Albanese reiterated that recognising Palestine is a matter of “when, not if.” But statehood is not a consolation prize — it requires a government that can ensure security, uphold agreements, and renounce terror. Recognising a Hamas-led or Hamas-influenced state today would be premature and dangerous.

6. Humanitarian Crisis — And Responsibility

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and Israel bears a moral duty to minimise civilian suffering. But Hamas’s diversion of resources, theft of aid, and use of civilians as shields must also be confronted. Ignoring that responsibility lets the true perpetrators of Gaza’s misery off the hook.

Conclusion

Luxon and Albanese’s Queenstown statement reflects compassion for Palestinians but fails to grapple with the threat Hamas poses or the context of Israel’s actions. True peace will require both an end to terror and a viable, accountable Palestinian leadership — not just pressure on Israel to stand down.

 

Get J-WIRE on WhatsApp

Join the channel