By Miriam Bell for the Australia Israel Review…

New Zealand has an election looming, set for November 7, and it looks set to be the closest in many years. But for many in the Jewish community, the spectre of extremist pro-Palestinian activism is already hanging over it.

Campaigning is now ramping up, and politicians are out selling their parties and policies to the public.

That’s par for the course. But what is unusual – particularly for New Zealand where foreign policy issues are rarely a feature of elections – is the emergence of a party devoted to the “Free Palestine” cause.

The Palestine Free from the River to the Sea Party is running on a platform focused on “Palestinian liberation” and dismantling Israel. It has no policies at all relating to New Zealand’s domestic concerns.

There has been concerted opposition to the party. More than 200 submissions opposing it were submitted during the public consultation period. Solicitor Ian Dunwoodie has made an urgent complaint to the Ombudsman about it.

The Electoral Commission acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue but has registered the party to run. That means it will feature on the ballot paper and has been allocated nearly NZ$79,000 in taxpayer-funded election broadcasting money.

There’s little chance of the party making it over the 5% threshold needed to enter Parliament, but that’s not its aim. Organisers simply want to use the registration controversy, election advertising and political debates to advance the Palestinian cause.

Israel Institute of New Zealand spokesperson Greg Bouwer said his concerns relate to what its existence tells us about the direction of political activism.

“If ‘from the river to the sea’ becomes the formal identity of a registered political movement, we should expect the meaning of Zionism, Israel’s continued existence and Jewish national self-determination, to become election issues. That makes it especially important that other parties do not respond by competing for the same constituency through increasingly inflammatory rhetoric.”

There are already other groups trying to force the issue of “Palestine” onto the election agenda. Over one recent week, pro-Palestinian protestors staged disruptions at both a public meeting featuring Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and an ACT Party campaign policy launch.

The suspicion is that this is set to be a running theme throughout the election.

Much like last election, the cost of living remains the issue of most concern to the public, according to the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor. It is followed by healthcare, the economy, housing and unemployment.

It is these concerns – and others in the top ten such as education, crime and climate change – that are most likely to influence how New Zealanders, including Jewish New Zealanders, cast their vote.

But many Jewish voters may have additional concerns, including the track record and stated positions of parties and politicians on issues such as antisemitism, community security and Israel.

New Zealand Jewish Council President Juliet Moses said it was possible to assess the parties that made up the currently governing coalition – National, ACT and New Zealand First – by their statements and actions over the last three years.

Moses said they have collectively been supportive of the Jewish community, both in terms of security and efforts to promote social cohesion via the Harmony Accord – a landmark interfaith agreement signed at Government House in July 2025 by leaders from New Zealand’s Jewish and Muslim communities – and also in terms of the response to the Bondi massacre.

“Their reaction after Bondi was very good, and I think they understood how the community was feeling in that moment, the vulnerability.

“We thought that it was the right decision to not recognise Palestine at this time, and adding Holocaust education to the curriculum is something we view very favourably,” Moses said.

It is a different story with the opposition parties, particularly the Green Party, whose co-leader, Chloe Swarbrick, was actively hostile to Israel and unwilling to engage with members of the Jewish community who were not antizionists, she added.

“Te Pati Maori is in a similar camp, but Labour is trickier to work out. [Party leader] Chris Hipkins seems reasonable, and we’ve had some good meetings with him over the years. But its foreign affairs spokesperson, Vanushi Walters, has said a genocide is unfolding in Gaza, and that if Labour was in power it would have recognised Palestine, sanctioned Israel, and looked to join South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ.”

For Bouwer, ACT was the clearest of the parliamentary parties in its support for Israel and recognition of the connection between anti-Israel extremism and antisemitism.

National’s position was cautious and less defined, while New Zealand First had generally taken a cautious, traditional diplomatic approach, he said.

“On the left, Labour has shifted substantially further towards an anti-Israel position, but the Greens go further again.”

The danger was not robust debate about Israeli policy as democracies should have that, he said. “The danger is the collapse of the distinction between Israel, Zionism and Jewish people. New Zealand is not immune to that.”

Both Moses and Bouwer had firm ideas on what they would like to see from the next government, regardless of the parties that end up comprising it.

Moses said she would like to see ongoing support for the needs of the Jewish community, with security at the forefront at this point in time.

There needed to be commitment to the principle that people could have views on geopolitical issues overseas, but the Jewish community had the right to live safely and openly and not be discriminated against or treated as responsible for Israel’s actions.

“As regards Israel, there should be fair-mindedness and balance, rather than disproportionate hyper-focus and misinformation.”

It would be good to have a New Zealand embassy established in Israel, but that was probably unlikely, she added.

In Bouwer’s view, parties could provide much greater clarity in several areas, starting with antisemitism.

Antisemitism needs to be treated as a New Zealand problem in its own right, not merely as an unfortunate by-product of events in the Middle East, he said.

“I’d like parties to distinguish clearly between legitimate criticism of Israel and conduct that targets Jews or denies Jews rights that are accepted for other peoples.

“The government needs to recognise the reality of the Jewish community’s security requirements, and ensure there are workable arrangements for protecting vulnerable institutions,” he concluded.

This article was originally written for, and published in the Australia Israel Review.

The full magazine is HERE.