ANALYSIS: By Raewyn Kapa
The recent trip by a group of Māori individuals to Israel — publicly framed as a “Māori delegation” — has raised significant contention across Aotearoa and rightfully so.
At a time when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found Israel’s actions in Gaza plausibly constitute genocide, and the United Nations has determined Israel’s
occupation of Palestinian territory to be unlawful, the optics and implications of this visit is fundamentally flawed.
This was not a Māori delegation. It was a political act dressed in cultural clothing — and ALL New Zealanders deserve an explanation of why that matters.
- READ/VIEW MORE: Te Ao with Moana programme on the delegation to Israel
- Māori delegates defend controversial ‘Indigenous’ trips to Israel
- Other Gaza genocide reports
- The pdf copy of Raewyn’s article
The individuals who travelled to Israel did so without any formal Māori mandate. They were not appointed by iwi, hapū, or national Māori organisations. They did not carry the
authority of Māori governance structures, nor were they empowered to speak on behalf of Māori people.
They were Māori individuals, not representatives of Māori.
Yet their hosts presented them as if they carried the collective voice of Māori. This misrepresentation is politically dangerous. It allows foreign governments to claim Māori
endorsement where none exists, and it undermines the integrity of Māori political autonomy.
It is a responsibility. When individuals allow themselves to be framed as representatives of an entire Indigenous people, without consent or mandate, they participate in a distortion of
democratic and cultural legitimacy.
Turning a blind eye to genocide
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) findings regarding Israel are unequivocal:
1. 26 January 2024: Order on Provisional Measures:
The ICJ found that South Africa’s genocide allegations against Israel were plausible, and ordered Israel to comply with the Genocide Convention, prevent genocidal acts, and allow humanitarian aid.
2. 28 March 2024: Second Order on Provisional Measures:
The Court reaffirmed its January orders and added further measures, including requiring Israel to ensure humanitarian access and prevent destruction of evidence.
3. 24 May 2024: Order Modifying Provisional Measures (Rafah Offensive):
The ICJ ordered Israel to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah, maintain open humanitarian corridors, and allow UN investigative bodies access to Gaza.
4. 19 July 2024: Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian Territory:
The Court ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory — including East Jerusalem — is unlawful, that Israel must end its presence “as rapidly as possible,” and that all states must refrain from recognising or supporting the occupation.
Recent International Findings (2025–2026): What the delegation also ignored, ICJ Compliance Reviews (2025)
Throughout 2025, the International Court of Justice issued several compliance reviews confirming that Israel had not complied with the provisional measures ordered in January, March, and May 2024. These reviews found:
- Humanitarian access was still blocked.
- Civilian displacement and death rates continued to rise.
- Israel failed to demonstrate any meaningful adherence to the Genocide Convention.
These findings strengthened the Court’s earlier conclusion that Israel’s conduct remained in breach of international law.
ICJ Clarification on State Responsibility (Late 2025)
In late 2025, the ICJ clarified that:
- States providing military, financial, or political support to Israel may themselves breach the Genocide Convention.
- States must actively prevent genocide, not simply avoid participation.
- All states must distinguish between Israel’s sovereign territory and the occupied Palestinian territory.
This clarification directly addresses the risks of political legitimisation, including diplomatic visits framed as Indigenous endorsement.
UN Human Rights Council Findings (2025–2026)
The UN Human Rights Council issued two major reports:
- 2025 Report: Concluded Israel’s actions meet the legal thresholds for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and domicide.
- 2026 Report: Found Israel’s occupation policies constitute apartheid, persecution, and systematic demographic engineering.
These findings align with and reinforce the ICJ’s conclusions.
UN General Assembly Resolution (December 2025)
The UNGA reaffirmed the ICJ’s July 2024 advisory opinion and called on all states to:
- Cease military, economic, and political support enabling Israel’s occupation.
- Sanction entities involved in settlement expansion.
- Uphold obligations under the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.
This resolution passed with a significant majority, demonstrating global consensus.
UN Security Council Statements (2025–2026)
Despite ongoing vetoes blocking binding resolutions, the UNSC issued Presidential
Statements acknowledging:
- Israel’s non‐compliance with ICJ orders.
- The catastrophic humanitarian collapse in Gaza.
- The threat Israel’s occupation poses to international peace and security.
Presidential Statements reflect broad Council agreement, excluding the vetoing state.
CERD Findings (2026)
In 2026, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found:
- Israel’s treatment of Palestinians constitutes racial segregation, apartheid, and systematic discrimination.
- Israel is in breach of Articles 2, 3, and 5 of CERD.
- States must avoid legitimising discriminatory practices — including through diplomatic visits that imply endorsement.
This highlights political risks of the Māori delegation’s visit.
UN Special Committee on Israeli Practices (2026)
The Committee reported:
- Israel’s occupation is now the longest ongoing military occupation in modern history.
- Settlement expansion accelerated in 2025–2026 that forced displacement in the West Bank increased by over 40 percent.
These findings further confirm the unlawfulness of Israel’s occupation.
What does this mean?
1. Israel must comply with the Genocide Convention.
2. Israel must allow humanitarian aid and prevent genocidal acts.
3. Israel must halt its military offensive in Rafah.
4. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory — including East Jerusalem — is unlawful.
5. Israel remains in longstanding breach of international law compliance of genocide to Palestinian state.
These are not fringe opinions. They are the highest judicial determinations in international law. Yet the Māori individuals who travelled to Israel chose to ignore this.They attended with pre‐existing biases, accepted a curated narrative, and returned with statements that contradict the findings of the ICJ, the UN, and global human rights bodies.
To turn a blind eye to genocide is not neutrality — it is complicity.
Why Tangata Whenua/Zealanders should be concerned
1. It undermines New Zealand’s international credibility
- New Zealand has historically upheld international law and human rights.
- When individuals present themselves as Māori representatives abroad — without mandate — they risk creating the false impression that Māori communities support positions that contradict New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Charter and the Genocide Convention.
2. It misuses Māori identity for political propaganda
- Indigenous identity carries moral weight.
- When Māori identity is used to legitimise a state currently under ICJ scrutiny for genocide, it becomes a political tool — not a cultural expression.
3. It risks silencing Māori who oppose genocide
- Many Māori have expressed solidarity with Palestinians, drawing parallels between Indigenous dispossession in Aotearoa and the occupation of Palestinian land.
- The unauthorised delegation’s visit risks drowning out these voices by presenting a false narrative of Māori consensus.
4. It erodes trust in Māori governance
- If anyone can claim to represent Māori internationally without mandate, then the authority of iwi, hapū, and national Māori organisations becomes vulnerable to political hijacking.
What those who attended must now reconcile
- For the Māori individuals who travelled to Israel, they must now confront the reality that presenting themselves — even implicitly — as representatives of Māori, while acting in a private capacity, carries consequences.
- They must now explain better how their personal impressions align with the overwhelming international consensus that genocide is occurring in Gaza.
- If they reject that consensus, they must articulate why — and on what authority — they believe their curated tour outweighs the findings of the ICJ, the UN, and global human rights monitors.
- Collectively they need to redeem themselves better or hand in their iwitanga. Perhaps extreme; but you get what I mean. They shouldn’t have gone and this is why. Because if they didn’t go to offer peace‐change agency committed to alleviating suffering only to be a PR propagandist team of incognisant kumara from the māra (which is seemingly possible!).
- The reality is they were simply tourists of torture, tragedy, and torment, walking through the other side of Gaza Strip devastation without regard for humanity, covered with a temporary state of convenient dismissal of the responsibility that comes with claiming Indigenous representation.
- That surely is not the tikanga on any account.
Raewyn L. Kapa writes from the standpoint of legal research in public international law, international Indigenous law, Treaty of Waitangi, Ngā Tikanga Māori / Māori Customary Law. Her research includes analysis of the International Court of Justice’s genocide findings, the legal status of occupation under international humanitarian law, and the obligations of states under the UN Charter. This article is republished with the author’s permission.
