In a world where international relations are increasingly defined by both strategic interests and moral values, United States Senator Ted Cruz’s recent condemnation of New Zealand’s position on Israel raises important questions about the nature of alliances and the moral compass of nations.
Cruz accused New Zealand of “denigrating and punishing Israeli citizens for defending themselves” against Hamas terrorists and of not aligning with US interests by failing to back Israel. According to Cruz, this posture was incompatible with New Zealand’s status as an American ally.
New Zealand’s response, which came from its foreign minister, labeled Cruz’s claims as “fake news,” pointing to the fact that the issues raised by the senator – particularly concerning military service and visa applicants – were not new policies but standard procedures.
However, Cruz’s critique cuts deeper than bureaucratic details. It taps into a broader geopolitical narrative: the increasingly complex and sometimes contentious relationship between the US and its allies, especially when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.
While Cruz’s claims about New Zealand’s stance on Israel are factually debatable, they resonate because they reflect the growing rift between the US and some of its traditional allies. The new American administration has a clear emphasis on confronting international corruption and reassessing alliances.
New Zealand’s role in international forums such as the United Nations offers a revealing window into this divide.
In 2016, New Zealand co-sponsored a UNSC resolution alongside Venezuela, Malaysia, and Senegal that denied Jewish indigeneity in Israel, and more recently, it abstained from voting on a resolution allowing condemnation of Hamas, for the first time ever. These actions, viewed by many as hostile to Israel, highlight a growing divergence between New Zealand’s foreign policy and that of its traditional Western allies.
In fact, New Zealand’s record on Israel at the UN mirrors the positions of more authoritarian regimes, like Iran, rather than Western democracies. It was only after October 7, 2023 – when Israel faced an unprecedented attack by Hamas – that New Zealand belatedly designated Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, joining other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.
New Zealand’s refusal to establish an embassy in Israel, while maintaining one in Iran, speaks volumes about its foreign policy priorities.
Additionally, the country’s recent lobbying for a premature ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict raises questions about its commitment to Israel’s right to self-defense. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s recent statement that he would arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over an International Criminal Court warrant further signals a growing divergence between New Zealand and the US
New Zealand’s voting record on the disproportionate number of resolutions at the UN is more aligned with Iran than with the US, according to UN Watch.
Yet, this isn’t just about Israel. It’s about the larger geopolitical game. New Zealand’s position is at odds with Washington’s interests, especially as the US faces increasing challenges from China and other global players vying for influence in the South Pacific. The region is becoming a critical geostrategic domain, and New Zealand’s stance on Israel could be seen as a subtle undermining of US policy in this regard.
It is also notable that former New Zealand prime minister and UN veteran, Helen Clark, was executive head of the UN Development Group (now the UN Sustainable Development Group) and chair of the UN Development Program, overseeing UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] activities while Krahenbuhl was commissioner-general – at a time when there were numerous reports about the curriculum of hatred being taught in UNRWA schools, as well as its links to terror and deficient oversight.
Ms. Clark has most recently been vocally advocating for New Zealand to continue its unconditional support of the agency, despite evidence that staff partook in the massacre on October 7, 2023. She has also openly suggested that there be no military action against the Houthi Ansar Allah rebels, which she calls the ‘“facto regime” in Yemen.
How wrong was Ted Cruz?
Ted Cruz’s comments were not merely a reaction to a specific policy but also pointed criticism of New Zealand’s broader foreign policy orientation. His comments on X might have drawn attention to New Zealand’s relationship with Israel.Whether Cruz’s claims are “fake news” or not, the larger issue remains: New Zealand’s position on Israel is incompatible with the strategic objectives of the United States.
In this context, Cruz’s remarks can be seen as a warning to his political base and to New Zealand alike: The days of unquestioned support for traditional allies are over. As the geopolitical landscape shifts, nations, such as New Zealand, will have to decide whether they align with the values and interests of the US, or prefer to risk isolation in an increasingly complex world order.
New Zealand’s foreign policy, particularly its stance on Israel, is not just a matter of local politics or a passing disagreement – it is a reflection of the growing divide between nations that stand with Israel and those that do not.
And as the US administration redefines its relationships, New Zealand and others will need to make their positions clear.
Ted Cruz’s words may have sparked a diplomatic firestorm, but they also highlighted a crucial and ongoing debate about the future of global alliances and the role of moral values in international politics.
The writer is director of the Israel Institute of New Zealand.