On September 27, 2025, New Zealand’s government made a decision that sent ripples through diplomatic circles: it announced it would not recognize a Palestinian state at this time, breaking from the growing list of Western nations that have taken that step in recent weeks. The move, which comes amid mounting international pressure for countries to take a stand on Palestinian statehood, has put New Zealand at odds with allies including Australia, the UK, Canada, and France, all of whom have recognized Palestine in the lead-up to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in New York.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters delivered New Zealand’s position on September 26 in a speech at the UNGA. Addressing the assembly, Peters explained, “With a war raging, Hamas remaining the de facto government of Gaza, and no clarity on next steps, too many questions remain about the future State of Palestine for it to be prudent for New Zealand to announce recognition at this time.” According to Bloomberg, Peters emphasized that the government’s stance is not a permanent rejection but a matter of timing: “It is a matter of when, not if we recognize the State of Palestine.”
This careful wording reflects a nuanced diplomatic calculation. On one hand, New Zealand continues to support a two-state solution and Palestinian self-determination. Peters made this clear, stating, “We will recognize a Palestinian state when the time is right.” He underscored the need for “real actions towards the full viability and legitimacy of the State of Palestine, rather than rhetoric in that direction.” The government’s message, then, is not one of opposition to Palestinian aspirations, but rather a call for concrete progress on the ground before formal recognition is extended.
New Zealand’s decision stands in marked contrast to the actions of several of its traditional partners. France became the latest major nation to recognize the State of Palestine on Monday, September 22, 2025, joining the UK, Canada, Australia, and Portugal. These recognitions have been hailed by many as a turning point in the international campaign for Palestinian statehood, and they have emboldened Palestinian leaders to seek a larger role in global affairs.
Indeed, in a significant diplomatic move, Palestine formally applied to join BRICS—a bloc of major emerging economies—just days after receiving recognition from several Western countries. As reported by multiple outlets, Palestinian ambassador to Russia Abdel Hafiz Nofal confirmed on September 26, 2025, “We have submitted an application, but, as you know, Palestine has certain conditions. I believe Palestine will participate in the association as a guest until the conditions allow it to become a full member. We haven't received a response yet.”
BRICS, originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has grown rapidly in recent years. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates joined in 2024, while Indonesia became a member in 2025. The group has positioned itself as a vital platform for emerging economies and developing nations to assert a stronger voice in global affairs. China, for its part, has welcomed the prospect of further enlargement. Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun stated that Beijing is ready to embrace “like-minded partners” and that BRICS “drives multi-polarity and gives a stronger voice to democracy in global affairs.” Guo added, “The platform is widely recognised by Global South countries. We welcome more like-minded partners to join BRICS cooperation and jointly work for a more just and equitable international order.”
Back in New Zealand, the government’s announcement has not gone unchallenged at home. The main opposition Labour Party swiftly criticized the decision, calling it “an embarrassment” and arguing that it “puts our country on the wrong side of history.” The party’s response taps into a broader debate within New Zealand society, where many citizens and advocacy groups have pushed for a more assertive stance in support of Palestinian rights. On September 13, 2025, pro-Palestine protesters marched in Auckland, signaling the intensity of public feeling on the issue and adding to the pressure on policymakers.
For New Zealand, the calculus is complicated. The government’s hesitancy is rooted in the current instability in Gaza, where Hamas remains the de facto authority and the region is still embroiled in conflict. Peters’ remarks at the UNGA reflect concerns about the lack of a clear path forward and the risk of making a symbolic gesture that could be overtaken by events on the ground. As he put it, “What we are looking for now are real actions towards the full viability and legitimacy of the State of Palestine, rather than rhetoric in that direction.”
This caution is not shared by all of New Zealand’s partners. The recent wave of recognitions by Western nations has been described as a “growing chorus” by Bloomberg, and it has drawn sharp criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu, speaking just hours before Peters’ address, condemned the recognitions, arguing that they send the wrong message to Hamas and could reward violence. He stated that the message was that “murdering Jews pays off.”
The international context is shifting rapidly. Palestine’s drive for recognition and greater participation in global forums like BRICS comes as the balance of power in international relations continues to evolve. BRICS itself has become a symbol of the rising influence of the Global South, and China’s enthusiastic support for enlargement underscores the bloc’s ambitions to become a counterweight to Western-led institutions.
For Palestine, the recent recognitions from Canada, Australia, Portugal, and the UK have provided fresh momentum. The application to join BRICS is seen as a strategic effort to build alliances beyond traditional Western partners and to assert Palestinian interests on the world stage. While the outcome of the application remains uncertain, the move signals a new phase in Palestinian diplomacy—one that seeks to leverage shifting global dynamics to advance the cause of statehood.
Meanwhile, New Zealand finds itself navigating a delicate path. Its decision to delay recognition is framed as a matter of prudence, not principle. The government insists that recognition will come—eventually—but only when conditions on the ground are right and genuine progress towards peace and stability has been achieved. As Peters put it, “It is a matter of when, not if we recognize the State of Palestine.”
As the debate continues both at home and abroad, New Zealand’s stance is likely to remain under scrutiny. The government’s emphasis on concrete actions and viable pathways to peace reflects a cautious approach, but it also highlights the complexities of international diplomacy in a rapidly changing world. Whether this approach will stand the test of time—or be overtaken by events—remains to be seen.
