New Zealand is geographically fortunate. Surrounded by the ocean, it has no hostile neighbors, no rockets threatening its cities and no terrorist armies gathering on its borders.
Israel lives in a starkly different geopolitical reality. It faces enemies who have repeatedly sought its destruction, recurring missile attacks and the trauma of Oct. 7, 2023.
Yet in peaceful New Zealand, thousands of kilometers from the Middle East, Jewish citizens and Israeli visitors are confronting intimidation and violence. How has a country without Israel’s immediate security threats allowed a distant conflict to become a source of fear for its Jewish community?
On Nov. 1, 2026, a coalition of Jewish and non-Jewish organizations issued a statement warning about hostility towards Jews, Israelis and Israel supporters. Signatories included Jewish, Christian, Māori and Iranian community representatives.
New Zealand’s reputation for tolerance is increasingly at odds with the experiences of people who openly identify as Jewish or support Israel.
The coalition cited threatening online behavior, concerns acknowledged by New Zealand Police, and harassment of Israeli travelers. In one reported incident, an Israeli was hospitalized after an unprovoked assault by someone shouting “dirty Jew.”
If reports are accurate, then, ironically, an Israeli traveled halfway around the world, away from military and terrorist threats, only to encounter antisemitic violence in a country celebrated for peace and hospitality.
New Zealand’s closest major neighbor, Australia, is a friend and ally. Its children do not grow up expecting rocket sirens to interrupt school.
On Oct. 7, Hamas-led terrorists invaded southern Israel, killed approximately 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages. Families were murdered in their homes, young people massacred at a music festival, and civilians subjected to horrific brutality and sexual violence.
Yet some activists dismiss Israel’s security concerns while offering simplistic judgments about its response to terrorism. It is easy to demand that another country risk its citizens’ lives when your population faces no comparable danger.
Israel deserves the same scrutiny as any other nation, not a double standard. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism makes clear that criticism of Israel comparable to criticism of other countries is not antisemitic. It identifies denying Jewish self-determination, applying double standards and holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions as examples that may constitute antisemitism, depending on context.
If human rights are the guiding principle, where is comparable outrage over atrocities in Sudan, killings and persecution of civilians in Nigeria or horrific violence and displacement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Why is public attention so uneven?
Selective outrage is not a principled defense of human rights. It is a double standard demanding explanation. Condemning Israel while ignoring the threats it faces is moral judgment divorced from reality.
Would those targeting Israelis accept being harassed or attacked because of their nationality or their government’s decisions? Would they hold innocent people responsible for policies beyond their control?
That is the standard they impose on Israelis.
Selective outrage is not a principled defense of human rights. It is a double standard demanding explanation.
Jewish values teach human dignity, individual responsibility and rejection of collective guilt. We do not teach our children to attack innocent people because of nationality or ethnicity. We teach them to remember history, confront hatred and recognize others’ humanity.
Why should Israelis traveling peacefully in New Zealand face harassment because they are Israeli? Why should Jewish New Zealanders feel unsafe over events thousands of kilometers away?
Political disagreement never justifies intimidation or violence. When innocent people are targeted because they are Jewish or Israeli, that is not legitimate protest. It is antisemitism, and it must be condemned without qualification.
New Zealanders have every right to criticize Israel, advocate Palestinian self-determination and protest peacefully. They are free to criticize any country. Those rights do not extend to threats or nationality-based harassment.
The coalition mentioned above criticized slogans such as “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada,” which many understand as threatening Israel’s existence or encouraging violence.
It highlighted the Free Palestine Party, which it says received $82,000 in public election broadcasting funding, and alleged that its leader, Paul Hopkinson, celebrated Oct. 7 as a victory for Palestinian resistance. It also criticized activist John Minto for reportedly publishing photographs of Israeli visitors and encouraging hostile attention toward them.
These allegations raise questions about enforcement. New Zealand designated Hamas in its entirety as a terrorist entity in 2024 and has laws addressing material support for terrorism, harmful digital communications and harassment. Offensive political speech is not automatically criminal. But have authorities examined the reported incidents, and what conclusions have they reached?
Freedom of speech is fundamental. It does not confer a right to threaten people or facilitate violence. The law must protect Jewish citizens and Israeli visitors as firmly as everyone else.
The coalition also challenged New Zealand’s media, arguing that coverage has too often relied uncritically on Hamas-controlled sources without sufficient balance or context. Journalists must scrutinize claims from all sides, report civilian suffering honestly and distinguish verified facts from propaganda.
Māori, Christian, Jewish and Iranian representatives have united around a principle beyond politics: Jews and Israelis deserve the same safety and dignity as everyone else.
The coalition calls on politicians to act responsibly, journalists to uphold professional standards and police to respond decisively to threats and violence.
New Zealand must reflect urgently on where this hostility could lead. The antisemitic terrorist attack at Australia’s Bondi Beach last December is a stark warning of the devastating consequences of hatred. Geographical isolation offers no immunity. New Zealand must act to prevent a similar tragedy on its own soil.
New Zealand cannot control the Middle East’s geopolitical realities. But it can control how it treats Jews and Israelis within its borders.
Jewish citizens and Israeli visitors must be able to live without fear. If New Zealand cannot meet that basic standard, the problem is not in the Middle East. It is in New Zealand.
