Recognising a supposed state which is split in two, with one bit run by the corrupt Fatah movement and the other by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hamas, surely meets those tests.
Yet Peters going so public on the matter on Monday was still extraordinary.
In a formal media statement, the Foreign Minister publicly acknowledged the Cabinet is divided over whether to recognise Palestine, with “a broad range of strongly held views within our Government, Parliament and indeed New Zealand society”.
“This is not a straightforward, clear-cut issue,” Peters said, in what risks reading as a subtle dig at Luxon.
Peters promised to approach the matter “calmly, cautiously and judiciously” and to “canvass this broad range of views before taking a proposal to Cabinet” which he would then present in New York late next month, when representing New Zealand at the UN’s annual leaders’ week.
While Peters would be right to worry about US President Donald Trump’s reaction to New Zealand recognising Palestine in an age of arbitrary tariffs, it is almost unthinkable that Cabinet would decide against it.
Recognition of a Palestinian state is common ground between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, representing over two-thirds of MPs in Parliament, and of at least two of the smaller parties.
It is also now the position of our only military ally and biggest economic partner, Australia, and the conditional stance of two other close Five Eyes friends, the UK and Canada.
Strong objections can be made that the divided Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the usual tests of statehood, including control of territory and effective government.
Moreover, recognising Palestine as a state risks being seen not just as endorsing the corrupt West Bank regime of Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas – now into the 20th year of his first four-year term – but the evil Hamas organisation which has run Gaza for nearly as long.
On the other hand, that may be too purist. Recognising Palestinian statehood is not about supporting Abbas or Hamas but a way of expressing opposition, not to Israel itself, but to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
It isn’t clear if Luxon meant his attack on Netanyahu this week – that he has “gone way too far” and “lost the plot” – to be so unequivocal that it attracted global media attention and was flattered by a tough response from Israel.
“When you don’t really need an army because your most deadly enemy is a possum or a cat,” its deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel said tartly but not inaccurately, “you wouldn’t comprehend the challenges that come with facing Hamas – a jihadist death cult – only a few kilometres away from your country, that rape, execute, burn alive and starve your people.”
Nevertheless, Luxon almost certainly spoke for a majority of the Cabinet, Parliament and New Zealanders.
The only inaccurate part about his critique of Netanyahu is that he described his going too far and losing the plot as a recent development.
In fact, Netanyahu – who has been on trial for corruption and fraud in the Jerusalem District Court since 2020 – has tragically been coming to mirror his enemies for much longer.
Israel and the world would be better off had he retired from politics after he implemented his extraordinarily successful economic reforms 20 years ago.
He has managed even to alienate Germany, whose leaders have described one of the purposes of the very existence of their country since 1949 as being to assure the security of Israel.
Even it has felt forced to suspend all military exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza.
With Luxon having made his attitude so clear – not just to New Zealanders but to the international community – Cabinet cannot choose other than to endorse his support for New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood.
No matter how frustrating it can sometimes be for foreign ministers, foreign policy is ultimately the prerogative of the head of government.
If, somehow, Luxon’s views were not to prevail on such a matter, he would be rendered a complete lame duck around his own Cabinet table.
Moreover, rightly or wrongly, actively deciding not to recognise Palestine in the current international environment would no longer be interpreted as a refusal to do anything that would legitimise Hamas but as an active endorsement of Netanyahu and some of the extremist parties that keep him in office and so potentially out of jail.
New Zealand foreign and trade policy is strongest and most successful when it reflects a consensus between National and Labour.
For all their faults, they are ultimately the grown-ups in the room. The antics of Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick or the more reflexively pro-Israel views of some within the Act Party should not influence the forthcoming decision.
The Cabinet Manual demands that matters such as this be considered at that level, and not just resolved in a meeting between the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Foreign Minister. So be it. Cabinet government is a better system than taking decisions on a Prime Minister’s couch.
Still, with New Zealand’s unfolding economic crisis needing to be tackled without distraction, it would be better if the decision could be taken more quickly than late September.
And it should be the Prime Minister who makes the announcement in New Zealand and explains why the decision was made, not the Foreign Minister at the UN in New York.
As leader of the country, not just a mere first among equals around the Cabinet table, Luxon needs to assert himself.
