FIANZ On The Harmony Initiative
By participating in the Harmony initiative, FIANZ recognises the need to address the rapidly growing Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in our country. The initiative reflects our commitment to achieving social cohesion in New Zealand.
No Accord can sanitise the impact of the on-going genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza. No nation should remain silent when there is a humanitarian tragedy of mass starvation and indiscriminate killing of Palestinians who seek food from aid-depots. We acknowledge that the NZ government has spoken out and condemned this inhumane approach. FIANZ will continue to raise awareness that such gross violations of basic humanitarian principles have been exacerbated by the over seventy-five years of illegal occupation and the imposition of an apartheid system on the Palestinian people.
The systematic displacement of Palestinians (both Muslims and Christians) in the West Bank by Israeli settler violence is part of the ongoing, total and deliberate disregard of international rule of law. This needs to be directly addressed by the NZ government. Sanctions against two Ministers and terrorism lables against In this context, we are also aware that there is a campaign to conflate anti-semitism with criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel. This is unacceptable.
We acknowledge that the Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon has clearly advocated for a rules-based international order and support for the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling that there is a plausible case that Israel's conduct in Gaza may breach its obligations under the genocide convention. The government's position is that Israel must listen to the concerns of the international community, and the protection of civilians is paramount and a requirement under international humanitarian law. The Prime Minister has also affirmed that New Zealand supports the international rules-based system and International Criminal Court (ICC) and the arrest warrant for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity over their war in Gaza. The government has also clearly stated that it is intolerable that Israel has blocked aid reaching the starving population in Gaza .
We have signed the Accord as a recognition that there is a rapid rise of Islamophobia in Aotearoa New Zealand. This has to be addressed. We consider that sitting at a table with many stakeholders and raising our concerns through respectful dialogue is a peaceful pathway to achieve a socially cohesive nation. We look forward to seeing how the government rises to the challenges that we and other vulnerable minorities face. We have taken a step forward for peace.
Our request is for the government to now implement the following:
Extend the harmony initiative to other faiths and ethnic communities. We all need to collectively share in the social cohesion pathway for Aotearoa New Zealand.
Implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission with respect to hate speech. We note that the current legislation on hate speech has existed since 1993, and covers gender, race and colour, but does not include faith as a protected characteristic. The Royal Commission wanted this anomaly to be rectified.
On the international front, we seek the government:
To remove the visa waiver scheme for Israeli citizens and they should apply for visa like all other nationalities in the Middle East. Alternatively, also extend visa waiver for all Palestinians.
To immediately recognise the State of Palestine and establish formal diplomatic relations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Joint Statement In Response To Government Declaration On Gaza
We, the undersigned organisations, express grave concern over the recent joint declaration by New Zealand and 24 other nations condemning Israel's actions in Gaza and accusing it of obstructing humanitarian aid. This statement is not only misguided, it represents a dangerous inversion of reality, in which: Terrorists are excused, and defenders are condemned Hamas's propaganda is cited as fact, and verified Israeli efforts are ignored The thief is pitied, and those delivering food under fire are vilified Blaming the Rescuers, Not the Arsonists The joint statement accuses Israel of 'inhumane' killing and 'drip-feeding' aid. Yet it is Hamas (the very group that started this war with a massacre on October 7 2023) that: Steals aid, sells it, and redistributes it to fighters; Creates disturbances and fires on civilians at aid stations to induce panic and lay blame on Israel; Places bounties on aid workers not under its control. To accuse Israel of causing the humanitarian crisis while ignoring Hamas's central role is to blame the firefighter for the fire. Israel has worked hard to coordinate necessary aid to the extent that there are currently hundreds of truckloads of food on the Gaza side of the border in need of distribution. Thus, there is no "drip-feeding" by Israel. Treating Terrorist Casualty Reports as Gospel The casualty numbers cited (tens of thousands of 'civilians' killed) come directly from Hamas's so-called 'Gaza Health Ministry.' This is not a neutral medical authority. It is: A Hamas-run information weapon, whose sole aim is to inflate civilian casualties; A notoriously unreliable source. Due to inconsistencies the UN has quietly revised its own reporting; Completely opaque and unverifiable, with no distinction between combatants and civilians. When governments like New Zealand cite these figures without context or scrutiny, they lend credibility to terrorists and undermine genuine humanitarian reporting. Condemning What Works, Ignoring What Fails While condemning Israel, the joint statement says nothing about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) — the one aid mechanism that actually works: GHF delivers aid using vetted drivers, uses GPS tracking and bypass routes around Hamas. It ensures direct civilian access to food and medicine. It has faced threats and sabotage from Hamas, and—most shockingly—refusal to cooperate from UN agencies and NGOs. According to a Times of Israel report (22 July 2025), these agencies have declined GHF's repeated offers to collaborate, even as they lament 'lack of access' and blame Israel. This is not humanitarianism — it is institutional dysfunction. Calling for Ceasefire While Hostages Rot in Tunnels The joint statement demands an 'immediate, unconditional ceasefire.' But what kind of ceasefire: Leaves 50 hostages in captivity? Enables Hamas to rearm, reorganise, and repeat the horrors of October 7? Forbids Israel from dismantling a terror regime that uses civilians as shields and hospitals as bases? A ceasefire without the above conditions does not end the war. It guarantees the next one. When Hamas Applauds You, Something Is Wrong That Hamas has celebrated the joint statement should alarm every signatory. If your position is being used by a terrorist group as vindication, it is time to re-examine whose reality you are serving. Why does NZ side with terrorists, when a tiny western style democratic state the size of Northland fights an existential defensive war? Israel did not start this war. She has an obligation to defend her citizens, to do everything possible to free the hostages and to protect her people from future 7 October style massacres. What Must Happen Now We urge the New Zealand Government and its partners to: Withdraw or amend the joint statement, explicitly naming Hamas as the source of Gaza's suffering; Publicly support the GHF and demand cooperation from UN and NGO agencies obstructing its work; Reject the inversion of truth, where democracies are condemned and terror groups are given a free pass; Recognise that Israel is fighting an existential war, and that peace is not possible if a genocidal terror regime is left in place; Demand the immediate release of all hostages and urge Hamas to accept the ceasefire. A Final Word: Reality Must Be Respected This is not a war between equals. It is a fight between a democracy that warns civilians and a death cult that hides behind them. Between those who seek peace and those who glorify death. Reversing that truth is not diplomacy. It is betrayal. We call on New Zealand to return to moral clarity — and stop legitimising the lies of Hamas. Dr David Cumin, Greg Bouwer - Israel Institute NZ Dr Sheree Trotter - Indigenous Embassy Jerusalem Rob Berg - Kol Israel Yifat Goddard, Ashley Church - Israel NZ Network Dennis Mcleod - Christian Friends of Israel
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
World Court poised to mark future course of climate litigation
The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the UN General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. PARIS AGREEMENT AND AN UPSURGE IN LITIGATION In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UNsaid that current climate policies would result in global warming of more than 3C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that UN member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students who lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
New Zealand Condemning Israel Is Wrong
The Coalition of Ministers Supporting Israel in New Zealand rejects the condemnation delivered by New Zealand and 27 other nations on Tuesday 22 July. We agree with the Israeli response that they are 'disconnected from reality '. We also agree that Hamas is 'busy running a campaign to spread lies about Israel'. Israel has agreed to a fair ceasefire deal, but Hamas again is refusing to sign up to it. Hamas started the war, continues to prolong the war, and is encouraged to do so by naïve statements like that released today by the UK and its international partners joint statement on the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Coalition of 120 Church ministers and pastors condemns the call from members of the opposition in New Zealand's Parliament to expel the Israeli ambassador and to support South Africa's appeal to the ICJ to charge Israel with committing genocide in Gaza. We also condemn the calls in our Parliament to sanction Israel and want to mention that many New Zealanders believe in the God of Israel mentioned many times in the Holy Bible, which states that He will defend His people Israel. In that holy book He declares to Israel, 'I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse'. In closing we ask: Where is the factual evidence behind this condemnation of Israel without relying on the untrustworthy figures and information put out by the Hamas run Health Ministry in Gaza? The tragedy in Gaza reaches the hearts of compassionate people everywhere, as should the ongoing tragedy inflicted upon the people of Israel. But we should not lose sight of who started this war and who refuses to agree to the latest terms for a ceasefire - Hamas!
