Written By:
- Date published:
11:44 am, January 1st, 2026 - 67 comments
Categories: chris bishop, Christopher Luxon, david seymour, Donald Trump, gaza, israel, Palestine, winston peters -
Tags: Doctors without Borders, Médecins Sans Frontière
This is an excerpt from the Mountain Tui Substack post: Happy 2026 – Let’s spare a thought. Post publication, it’s been confirmed banned agencies also include Save The Children, World Vision, CARE, and Oxfam.
It’s officially a New Year, and it’s wonderful to be here, and exchange greetings with friends.
Happy 2026!
Everyone wants their loved ones and themselves to have a great year and that includes peace, safety and stability.
Isn’t that human nature too?
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark writes:
So in that vein, it’d be appropriate to also nod to Israel, which has been flying under the radar since Trump brokered an apparent “peace” deal in Gaza.
Since then, world media has pulled back. Substantive, continual coverage can only be found in media organisations such as Reuters, Al-Jazeera and Guardian.
But it’s hard to forget completely.
Now, the Guardian reports that Israel has chosen to suspend thirty seven (37) aid organisations from Gaza.
Those include world renowned Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) which provide “medical assistance to people affected by conflict, epidemics, disasters, or exclusion from healthcare.”
MSF was established in 1971, operates in 70 countries and this is the first time any country has banned them from their borders.
Israel is the only country in history to ban MSF
CNN was busy downplaying the news today, with a partially misleading headline: “Israel to suspend operations of several aid groups in Gaza as countries warn of renewed ‘catastrophic’ humanitarian crisis”
Except 37 isn’t “several”
In New Zealand, two of our political leaders, Chris Bishop and David Seymour form part of the Israel Institute friendship circle in NZ.
In 2020, the Institute wrote:
“National has worked hard to build bridges since UNSC resolution 2334 passed under its auspices, and [National MP] Alfred Ngaro who chairs the NZ-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Group, deserves special mention in that respect.
ACT Party [a libertarian minor party] leader David Seymour is a friend of the community.”
Chris Bishop formerly spread lies about former Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau in his quest to please Israel, claiming Whanau didn’t care about anti-Semitic graffiti in Wellington, when she specifically condemned it and the grafitti was already being removed.
(Bishop eventually deleted his comment after a public outcry but as Whanau pointed out, he knew from the start as she had told him personally)
And this week, Aotearoa New Zealand’s government chose not to sign an international statement about Gaza’s deteriorating humanitarian condition.
The letter, signed by Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, states that winter is approaching and the situation is near catastrophic.
“1.3 million people still require urgent shelter support. More than half of health facilities are only partially functional and face shortages of essential medical equipment and supplies. The total collapse of sanitation infrastructure has left 740,000 people vulnerable to toxic flooding…
The majority of the population (1.6 million people) in the Gaza Strip face high levels of acute food insecurity. Whilst the amount of aid going into Gaza has increased since the ceasefire, the response remains severely constrained by persistent impediments on humanitarian access.”
A 6 year old Palestinian girl waits to receive medical treatment at a clinic run by medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), amid shortages of medical supplies, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, December 31, 2025.
We all want a happy New Year, but it’s not only us that deserve it – it’s every child, every citizen, everyone who lives by a philosophy of no harm, and is living a life of decency while caring for themselves and their family. Everyone who learns over time that taking care of each other is taking care of ourselves too.
Reuters captures the image of a 6 year old girl awaiting medical treatment in a Gaza strip facility above.
That child could be ours too.
Happy New Year, and let’s spare a thought for what Israel is doing with America’s support – and the New Zealand’s government tacit support.
Spare a thought for all who deserve peace and recognition amidst a messy and turbulent world.
Thanks MT for this post. When I read that in the Guardian the other day I just could not believe how inhumane the govt of Israel could sink. And there was Trump and
Netanyahu cuddling up in Washington. Just unbelievable evil.
I'm reminded of a christmas carol written by NZ's Shirley Murray and set to the tune for "Away in a Manger"
1 Away and in danger, no hope of a bed,
the refugee children, no tears left to shed
look up at the night sky for someone to know
that refugee children have no place to go.
2 The babies are crying, their hunger awakes,
the boat is too loaded, it shudders and breaks;
humanity's wreckage is thrown out to die,
the refugee children will never know why.
3 Come close, little children, we hold out our hand
in rescue and welcome to shores of our land –
in aroha, touching your fear and your pain,
<
p style=”text-align:start”>with dreams for your future when peace comes again.
This is callous beyond belief. "Man's inhumanity to man."
One can note Australia did not sign either.
Worth mentioning Australia recently suffered a domestic terrorist incident and tensions are high. They had always nearly signed in recent cases, including the other times this NZ government has chosen not to join humanitarian corrrespondence.
Maybe.
But it seems Albanese is unwilling to stand up to Netanyahu's line that any public position not supportive of that of the Israeli government is incitement to antisemititism.
According to Al Jazeera, Israel has asked for the names of Palestinian employees of these aid agencies – ostensibly to determine if any are 'terrorists'. In the Israeli mind, any Palestinian working for an aid agency in Gaza would probably be considered a terrorist as a matter of course, because suggesting that Israel has caused a humanitarian crisis and therefore aid is urgently needed, would be seen (insanely) as an antisemitic attempt to delegitimise the state of Israel. Handing over the names would most likely be a death sentence.
This is why it's important for aid organisations to maintain their impartiality and safeguard against institutional capture by activists. As with Amnesty International finding Ukraine to be to blame for its oppression by Russia, or the ACLU becoming an anti-free-speech organisation, MSF has been captured by activists, in this case"anti-Zionists," and has spent the last two years peddling Hamas propaganda.
Quillette's done a pretty good piece on it, but a Google search alone will demonstrate how MSF is promoting the Arab "Gaza genocide" blood libel. Having become a partisan activist group backing one side in a conflict over the other, it shouldn't complain when that other side treats it as a hostile participant in the conflict.
MSF is as impartial as they come but when they see genocide – as every expert and independent organisation has – they call it out.
These doctors risk their lives and have worked all over the world and in war torn countries.
No other govt has done what Israel has done to aid groups which are only trying to save lives – babies and children included.
MSF was impartial, sure. That's what its reputation was built on. Now, it isn't, and it's reputation for impartiality is toast. The fact that you agree with their partisan assessment of this conflict is irrelevant – they've taken a side, and you can't be both an impartial aid agency and a supporter of one side in the conflict. That's why aid agencies need to guard against institutional capture by activists. Once you've taken a side in a conflict, the opposing side has good reason to stop regarding you as impartial.
That's the problem: once you stop "only trying to save lives" and become a propaganda outlet for one side in a conflict, your good works trying to save babies and children become a lot more difficult. Safeguard neutrality against institutional capture, or you're wasting your efforts.
Thanks for demonstrating your role here today.
A funny thing happened on social media today – en masse, right wing accounts started pushing out a message that MSF, Doctors Without Borders, is a left wing, partisan organisation after Israel terminated them from Gaza (along with 35 other aid organisations including War Child, CARE, World Vision etc)
It's a game you folks play, but an ugly game.
You can choose to frame it however you wish.
When people defended and tried to call out the dangers/horrors the Jewish were under during Nazi Germany, those people weren't considered left wing or partisan – they were considered heroes.
Most people will see through the games of the depraved.
One final note: if it is true what you say – that MSF has suddenly become “political” – and it’s the first time in history they’ve become this way and therefore Israel is the only country and in the world to get rid of them from saving lives/children/babies – then can you imagine what that says about the depravity of the situation.
History will remember those who tried to speak up for the Jewish in WW2 as heroes. And history will remember those who try to speak up for Palestinians in the same way, let alone these doctors who risk life and limb to do so.
Until Israel, which has already eliminated most hospitals and doctors locally, chose to expel those that tried to help
"When people defended and tried to call out the dangers/horrors the Jewish were under during Nazi Germany, those people weren't considered left wing or partisan – they were considered heroes."
Leaving aside the gratuitously offensive comparison, such groups were not welcome to operate in Nazi Germany as impartial aid organisations, were they? You're effectively arguing that yes MSF has taken a side in this war, but they've taken your preferred side so the opposing side should allow them to continue operations in their country. Why should they allow that?
You mean: Choosing a side like how people chose a side during Nazi Germany?
You’re effectively like the person who said back then that anyone criticising Hitler is a “political, partisan hack”
But make no mistake – there were many turncoats like that during Nazi Germany and many who persecuted those who tried to help the Jews as “untrustworthy”
Such despicable personhood has no real time limits either IMV
It’s just my take of course
YMMV
I mean choosing a side like how people choose sides in any conflict you care to name. It's their absolute right to choose a side. However, it's absolutely not their right to choose a side and then claim that the opposing side must continue to treat them as an impartial aid organisation.
I see – so anyone who pointed out that Hitler was committing war atrocities at the time would have been "partial" and not worth keeping around.
You know, in the old days, genocide was considered a very bad thing to do – same with murder, and targetting infants and babies in the head.
These days, some call those that disagree it as being “partial”
The appropriate analogy is actually the reverse. Any group at the time that claimed the Allies were war criminals carrying out atrocities but remaining silent about Nazi crimes would have found the Allies lacked interest in accrediting them as a neutral aid organisation welcome to operate in Allied territory, and rightly so.
However, the analogy is equally true if we use your gratuitously offensive version of it: an org at the time that denounced the Nazis as genocidal war criminals wouldn't have found the Nazis willing to accredit them as a neutral aid organisation welcome to operate in Nazi territory. This stuff is not rocket science.
So where has MSF / Doctors Without Borders denounced Israel as genocidal war criminals to justify this then?
You appear to be claiming that Israel after all lied about why it has thrown out 37 charities including CARE for Children, World Vision, Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, War Child and Caritus –
And are you suggesting all these charities have denounced Israel as genocidal war criminals?
After all this isn't rocket science for you.
In many statements: https://www.google.com/search?q=medecins+sans+frontieres+gaza+genocide.
My claim is that this demonstrates why it's important for NGOs to safeguard their impartiality and prevent institutional capture by activists. I haven't claimed anything about the Israeli government.
I don't know whether they have or not. I assume they're on the list because they've refused to comply with Israel's new transparency rules.
You've now changed the argument to the administrative point after World Vision, CARE, War Child, Oxfam were all also banned.
And the link for MSF doesn't show they're not impartial – it shows doctors know genocide when they see it and it is their duty to say so.
Israel wants complete silence and abdication of moral duty in not speaking out on the mass killings.
To say that that it is MSF's fault in any way for calling on world leaders to stop genocide is not something I agree with.
This BBC world video shows that Israel had been systematically murdering infants and children under 12 with shots to the head and chest –
And anyone who has borne witness has either been killed or banished.
Complicity is what enables these events to continue and given the other 36 charities, I dispute it is MSF's "fault" in any way to have called the world to stop the genocide.
I'm making a very simple point: an NGO can't claim one party in a conflict is carrying out a genocide and claim that that party must treat it as an impartial, non-aligned aid organisation, because it's not one. Whether we agree with their "genocide" claim or not is irrelevant.
The Bibi regime wants no witnesses – it's not rocket science.
The Bibi regime is a foul stain on humanity – it's not rocket science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu
Yes, I'm familiar with their claims. Obviously I disagree with them, but my point is that whether we agree with them or not is irrelevant to my argument in comment 4.
Bibi's regime needs to control the "”firsthand information" coming out of Gaza – it's not rocket science. 15 dead MSF workers or hundreds of dead journalists, the aim is the same – no witnesses!
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/our-response-israel-gaza-war
"This ain/t rock'n'roll, this is genocide!"
No amount of poetic licence, no power of rhetoric and no fervency of belief can turn losing a war you started and got a lot of your own people killed in the process, into a "genocide."
And the truth or falsity of the claim remains in any case irrelevant to my point.
Re genocide, obviously we disagree.
The Palestinian genocide will continue until the threat is 'erased'.
The Bibi regime wants no witnesses – it's not rocket science.
Effectively, they're arguing that if someone disputes a highly contentious claim they make, it just goes to show how evil that someone is. No, it just goes to show that someone disputes their highly contentious claim.
No, I don't think Genocide Watch is arguing that – 'evil' is your word.
The Bibi regime wants no witnesses – it's not rocket science.
Probably a mistake to argue the legitimacy of taking a preferred side with respect to Nazism, but that's just me, and hundreds of millions of others.
You've missed the point. Take a side against the Nazis, obviously. Milt's point is that if you do that, you can't claim to be impartial and that may affect aid access. It's not a hard argument to follow. Although I think he's just flat out wrong on the genocide in Palestine issue, his argument about aid at this level makes sense.
While doing so he's equating Israel with Nazi Germany which is a bit odd given his politics.
It was MT that bought up the comparison with Nazi Germany
https://thestandard.nz/israel-only-country-in-history-to-ban-doctors-without-borders-medecins-sans-frontiere/#comment-2053601
It's not odd when you understand that Milt is making a coherent argument that some people apparently can't follow (presumably due to ideology)
Not sure what who brought up Nazis has to do with it.
Psycho's defence to that comment was that, under some cooked up world order, Nazis had and Israel do have the right to ban aid organisations who are critical of their dreadful policy and actions.
The siloing of position by some as just a point of argument rather than an acceptance of fundamental morality is really concerning.
I follow the argument, I just don't accept it, partly because it's too narrow but mostly because it's revolting. If ideology prevents me from minimising genocide and gross injustice then I'm happy to have that be my guide.
There's nothing coherent about ignoring morality or we'd all be robots.
The function of human rights observers, and doctors is to save lives. If and as they observed systematic genocide, they were merely joining other experts in calling it out.
By honouring a premise that somehow speaking up loses the aid organisation it's legitimacy then that means you've adopted the framework of the aggressor.
yes. Do you accept that this means they are no longer impartial? Calling out one side by definition means calling out one side (ie not impartial).
I don’t agree with Milt much on Palestine, but I don’t see the problem in accepting the parts of the argument that make sense. Accepting as in, yes, that’s a point that needs to be considered. Milt may well being using that push a broader argument that you (and I) disagree with, but that doesn’t make that particular point wrong.
The reason this interests me is that I see no pathway out of eternal conflict until someone blows up the world, or the world collapsed in the climate crisis if all the left can do is point fingers and say bad people over there. This is why I value Milt’s input. Despite disagreeing with him on a lot, the necessity of presenting why Israelis might have a point is obvious.
If I am wrong, I’d like to see the argument made for how it might end. Not pie in the sky ‘this is what should happen’, but the mechanics of peace.
I don’t have a problem with your posts or arguments (again, I may disagree with some of it), in fact I think it’s essential that you put up your perspective and other people argue against it. It’s how we learn and find solutions.
"There's nothing coherent about ignoring morality or we'd all be robots."
Indeed, and I think it was wildly immoral of you to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, which is why I didn't ignore it.
You seem to be confusing me with Mountain Tui, who made that analogy, and also to have not noticed I called the anology "gratuitously offensive" and argued a better analogy would be Israel and the western Allies. Disappointed but not surprised, as usual.
"…I think he's just flat out wrong on the genocide in Palestine issue…"
I argue the people with genocidal intent are the ones happy to go house to house casually executing the Jews hiding in them, or to throw hand grenades into bomb shelters crowded with terrified people, or who whoop it up as they hunt down and kill party-goers at a music festival. It's pretty clear those people want the Jews dead.
I don't see a valid argument for a similar genocidal intent from Israel, given the relatively low number of civilian deaths despite Hamas' attempts to maximise them. The arguments I have seen have amounted to "Respected authority So-and-So calls this a genocide," which isn't so much an argument as a logical fallacy.
The CBS approach under the Ellison's and Weiss is to ignore expertise (respected authority) and facts and better connect with the silo of the peoples reckons.
The hollowing of the legacy of Mr Ed of the tomorrow show and Walter Gronk, the great tight book end of sports news – bring on the Super Bowl and the control of the Town Hall narrative in 2026.
So what? Argument from authority fallacy doesn't suddenly stop being a fallacy if we mock the rejection of expertise. What matters is what the expert can argue and whether the evidence supports their argument.
The expert can speak to accepted definitions of genocide as used in either academia, or in international law. And refer to distinction from war crimes, extra judicial killing, collective punishment and ethnic cleansing.
You claimed people citing such experts, as their reason for concluding that genocide had occurred, was a logical fallacy, when it is in fact evidence supported opinion.
Dismissing it as a logical fallacy would require evidence and expertise.
Not at all. If I were to argue that evolution via natural selection is true because respected authority Richard Dawkins says so, that's absolutely a logical fallacy. And that's an example that isn't highly contested among experts. If I were to argue string theory is true because respected authority Edward Witten says so, that would be an egregious logical fallacy because there are other experts who dispute it.
That's abhorrent, and I don't think it fits a definition of genocide.
It's not a logical fallacy if the authorities are experts on genocide.
relatively. The fact that Israel has no plans to stop and is intent on destroying so much of what is required to live must be taken into account.
I think that if wanting to kill any members of a particular ethnic group you can get your hands on and devoting the entire resources of your country to getting your hands on them and killing them doesn't fit a definition of genocidal intent, current definitions of genocide are worthless.
It really is, if the authorities referred to are just giving us their reckons and expecting us to ignore the fact the evidence doesn't support their reckons.
Hamas leadership has said it will repeat operations like Al Aqsa Flood until Israel is destroyed. Why would Israel stop and leave them to progress that goal?
Calling something a logical fallacy loses credibility when
1.the authority is a legitimate recognised expert in the relevant field
2.their opinion is explained by supporting evidence, facts and such.
Of course dismissing this as insufficient because it is a sole (experts) persons conclusion, or if supported by the many, then dismissing it as mere common opinion amongst experts. Or, if the public agree, mere popular opinion in an age where expertise is valued (or acceptance is required).
It is of course entirely possible for the experts and the majority to be wrong.
Catholic Europe order in academia and doctrine. Latter the Test Acts (C of E order in academia and a version of the same doctrine) era. Blasphemy law etc to suppress public "disorder". Darwin feared publishing etc.
The UN determined on there being two states west of the Jordan. Most nations have recognised the PLO claim to a nation state for Palestinians. This is of the international diplomatic (and law) expectation and is popular with most nations.
Yet today we have Israel and USA posing those supporting Palestinian Arabs of a Semitic culture having a state within the 67 territories, as of some IHRA form of antisemitism.
Thus the current Israeli government PM (temporary and not in accord with their 1949 membership in the UN) states there will never be a Palestinian state – thus the Palestinians will lose because antisemitism cannot win.
So what would preventing antisemtiism from winning result in for Palestinians?
And how would the world come to accept that?
Only reason you think it's not acceptable to accuse Israel of genocide is the prior norm that Israel is immunized from prosecution internationally. Far from a "blood libel" everybody paying attention knew what Israel was likely to commit due to having seen it before as operations cast lead, pillar of defense and protective edge. Had any other country carried out these kinds of operations, genocide charges would already have been brought against the perpetrators there.
Only reason I think it's counter-productive for supposedly impartial NGOs to promote Hamas propaganda is, uh, duh-uh, exactly what we're seeing play out here.
Until Israel has allowed international media scrutiny into Gaza, Israeli claims about NGOs need to be treated as the non-credible lies they are.
The activities and statements of MSF speak for themselves, no reliance on Israeli claims is needed.
You'd prefer if MSF had applied a nice Israeli euphemism? Maybe if they just accused Israel of "mowing the lawn" you believe them?
I'd prefer it if NGO's didn't literally support one side in a war and then try to still act like they're impartial aid organisations that both sides should allow to operate in their territories.
Which aid has been withheld from Israel by aid organizations?
The NGO's were hostage to a situation, one where they were providing aid where there was collective punishment of the civilian population.
And any criticism of this was seen by the perpetrator as partisanship.
It's taking away both a witness and provider of aid to the victim.
This is the same cynicism as the mass murder of a doctors family (in their home while she was not there) and also the head of the Indonesian hospital (in the room he was in, while his family in other rooms survived).
The intent is to intimidate into silence. The action is the message.
Imho, the dehumanisation of Palestinians by an aparthied regime is a foul stain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screams_Without_Words
I don't for a second doubt that what heroic Palestinian Journalists have been reporting and exposing is what is happening. The only reason Israel bans international media is so suckers like Psycho can continue lying to themselves.
I'd posit that people like Psycho aren't lying to themselves, rather it's perhaps an intentional strategy to influence the gullible.
Also I've seen Psycho's same arguments proliferated yesterday on multiple right wing accounts – these people always use the same arguments to push back and do some en masse to protect Israel/right wing influences.
I don't really believe that, a lot of these people actually think what they are saying justifies Israels ongoing Nakba. Sarah Hurwitz actually believes what she was planning to explain to people can justify the "Wall of dead babies" and she finds herself perplexed that this justification would not be self-evident.
As far as I have seen Psycho here is about two weeks behind the propaganda line, so I don't think he's more involved than being self-delusional.
As I once wrote, it becomes harder and harder to differentiate original cells with those that become true believers to it.
Likewise, I saw your arguments on multiple left-wing accounts, which is what happens when something is in the news. Unlike you, I had the courtesy to assume that this multiplicity is because similar arguments occur to multiple people, not because the people publishing them share some malign purpose.
I will merely note with Trump came
1.the blocking of food aid, starvation as a collective punishment policy*.
2.the blocking of an adequate supply of material for secure housing free of sanitation risk for the winter*.
3.removal of NGO aid groups (incl vital medical)*.
Thus is consistent with a plan to end the existence of refugee camps in Gaza and WB and ultimately UNRWA entirely. Also effectively ban foreign journalists and critical NGO's.
Beyond Israel there is the campaign to associate criticism of Israel (or support for a Palestine state) with either an IHRA breach, or risk of inciting antisemitism.
In Trump's USA comes policy to exclude those pro Palestinian on social media from being visitors or foreign students and require that the US campus be a safe place for Jews (but not the woke).
Then there is the coming of Larry Ellison and son to CBS, Tik Tok and now maybe CNN.
Quite a long list of changes in the past year.
Within Israel the basic law development and BN the PM openly stating there would not be a Palestinian state – normalising this during the era of POTUS 47.
(In 1949 UN membership terms for Israel were that it work for there being a Palestinian state – this was delayed 1948-1993 by Arab intransigence. Netanyahu has always opposed the Oslo Accords – maybe that was the "Likud party position" before they to power in 1977).
Impartiality.….Amichai Chikli another of the Israeli far right, showing their true fascist colour. And linked to actual neo nazi's ? FFS !
Impartiality. For those who maybe havent seen/dont know…the Israeli fascist far right were never looking for peace. This was all part of the Plan…
Israeli's on their side…(as would anyone not wilfully deaf and blind to the genocide : (
Back in the day the German regime took control of the local branch of the Red Cross and they largely banned the ICRC from access to much of Europe.
Apart from what was discovered at the end of the war, there was this (less well known).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/25/nazis-escaped-on-red-cross-documents
As I have said, I read History….a lot. So, well aware of the Vatican/Ratlines (for nazi rats) and the fake nazi holiday camp at Theresienstadt (which i have linked before)..et al.
Not quite sure of the connection here?
I was noting the history of the de-internationalising of NGO activity to cover up crimes.
The link itself was to a not well known matter – the Red Cross/ICRC NGO later being exploited by the same people.
Allgood, thanks for reply/link.
Good to see mayor Mamdani reversing the ban on BDS. It's important for critics of Israeli policy, even city employees, to be able to exercise opinion and practice activism in the form of economic boycott.
One thing RWNJs hate is economic boycott.
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/02/politics/zohran-mamdani-housing-israel-executive-orders
This pertains to the wider issue of conservatives shutting down opposition by claiming publicly funded entities must be impartial. Why should publicly funded entities be impartial when privately funded entity are not held to the same standard?
Even on this thread Zionists want a private NGO eliminated because they speak up against genocide.
Israeli fascists cant stand kids playing…anywhere. Signing this will, I hope,help the Aida camp kids play….