Differing reactions on Palestinian state stance
In addition to possible repercussions on Middle Eastern trade and questions of morality, now New Zealand, internationally, is counted among the friends of Israel, aligned with Israel’s extremist Zionist government, the Maga USA, and the countries treading lightly because of their historic guilt vis-a-vis Jews.
I thought the intention was, following overwhelming sentiments of New Zealanders and the decision of our closest allies, to send to Israel a message of New Zealand’s disapproval of its brutal prosecution of the Gaza war, its intention to annex the West Bank, and its wilfully ignoring international law.
Instead, now we are perceived as tacitly approving Israel’s actions.
It would have been better for Winston Peters to keep his mouth shut.
No wonder he kept his views under his hat until the last moment.
Erich Kolig
Portobello
On Saturday last, Winston Peters surprised and pleased me with his statement about Palestine; he is quite correct and his moral compass is functioning very well on this issue.
Professor Patman on the other hand, displayed his dysfunctional moral compass when commenting in this morning’s ODT (29.9.25). He claims that the vastly Hamas-inflated figures of the number of people (especially children) killed and/or injured in Gaza are believable, that Hamas numbers only 20,000 or so and that Hamas does not, “run” Gaza... if not Hamas, then who?
How can countries who purport to foster the rule of law consider for a moment recognising statehood that does not and never has existed?
Prof Patman also claims to know the minds of the Israeli government, stating as though it were fact, that Israel has plans for the West Bank - true omniscience at the University of Otago, it seems! The pure fact that there is indeed no Palestinian state for New Zealand (or any other country) to recognise is reason enough to decline such recognition. Unless and until all remaining hostages are released, Hamas lays down its arms and is prevented from playing any part in the governance of the region, there can be no peace and therefore no statehood recognising the rule of law.
Gordon Munn
Waikouaiti
Abridged — Ed.
Winston Peters’ recent speech to the United Nations revealed his and the National government’s misunderstanding of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and of the nature of democracy. Putting conditions on Palestinian statehood is anti-democratic.
The recognition of a Palestinian state is largely symbolic at this point as Gaza is destroyed and the West Bank mostly annexed. However, symbolism is still something even if it is the least a state like New Zealand can do.
To be remorselessly logical, the breakdown of international law and the weak response of the UN and other state actors' complicity foreshadow a dark future for humanity. Today it is the Palestinians but who will be next? Who will stop the brooding darkness of the genocide unleashed by the Israelis? New Zealand will do nothing or very little evidently.
Winston Peters’ speech shows how far New Zealand is from discerning the reality unfolding in the Middle East. To pretend that New Zealand has a superior view of what is good for Palestinians is ignorant.
Israel’s terrorism is accepted as the behaviour of a legitimate state, but an oppressed people who have had their land stolen from them and who want to be free have no rights.
Ann Mackay
Oamaru
Audience member not receptive to Trump cartoon
I am appalled that you allowed such an offensive cartoon of a United States president to defile the pages of your newspaper (ODT, 25.9.25).
The standard of editorial journalism has often dismayed me but this is a new low, much lower than previously.
Whether you agree or not with what he said at the United Nations he is the president of one of our closest allies and that alone should be enough for you to show a modicum of decency and respect for a man who was voted by his constituents to represent them overseas.
Bruce Barnett
Taieri Beach
Cheers for the advice
Thank you Bernice Armstrong for your regular letters, especially the recent one about the Albany St decision (ODT, 25.9.25).
I now have a summary of which sitting councillors to support and which to reject when I cast my votes for the DCC elections.
I will simple apply her matrix - in reverse. If Bernice supports someone, then I know for sure I won't, and vice-versa.
Gio Angelo
Belleknowes
Charlie Kirk letter writer answers critics
In reply to James Parsons and Fliss Butcher (Letters 22.9.25) disputing my opinion of Charlie Kirk (ODT 19.9.25), I wasn’t seeking to qualify that the assassination of Kirk was obviously wrong.
The assassination was wrong, but it’s also wrong to try and make Kirk into a martyred saint - that was my point. The description of Kirk would only be slanderous if it were false.
Kirk saw advocates for racial and social justice as threats to the kind of America he wanted. Since Kirk combined evangelical Christianity with Maga politics, I think his Christian nationalism was beyond dispute.
The desired homogenisation of contemporary America into a Christian theocracy would secure power for privileged white male Americans and necessitate the silencing of critics, the suppression of opposition, and the forced conversion or removal of undesirables. Isn’t this just another form of fascism?
Hayden Williams
Opoho
At a glance
I hope your correspondents James Parsons and Fliss Butcher glanced across to the adjacent page to read Jean Balchin’s excellent opinion page summary of Kirk’s views.
She reports that Kirk ‘‘dehumanised black people’’, that he proclaimed there are ‘‘... prowling blacks targeting white people ... ’’ and worse, much worse with almost everything he stood for falling in the category of racism, misogyny, ignorance and fascism.
Are Parsons and Butcher happy with that kind of viciousness? If not, they should write to your paper again and apologise.
Susan Grimsdell
Auckland Central
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: letters@odt.co.nz
