Speaker 1: Kilda.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. The clock
Speaker 2: is ticking for New Zealand to join a throng of
Speaker 2: other countries recognizing the state of Palestine. Britain, Canada and
Speaker 2: Australia have all formally recognized it, with the likes of Portugal,
Speaker 2: France and several others to follow at the United Nations
Speaker 2: General Assembly this week. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has
Speaker 2: condemned their moves, saying a Palestinian state would be a
Speaker 2: huge reward to terrorism and will not happen. So what's
Speaker 2: holding up our government and how might the war in
Speaker 2: Gaza unfold?
Speaker 3: Today?
Speaker 2: On the front Page, University of Waikato International law professor
Speaker 2: Alexander Gillespie is with us to explain what recognition means
Speaker 2: and how it's not as black and white as we
Speaker 2: might think. So our Prime Minister Christopher Laxon has said
Speaker 2: a decision will be made before Winston Peters addresses the
Speaker 2: UN in New York. Cabinet will finalize its decision later
Speaker 2: this week. Why do you think it's taking us so long?
Speaker 1: Well, from what I understand mister Peters is waiting untill
Speaker 1: he's had all the latest and most up to date information.
Speaker 1: The challenge is that well two things. One that the
Speaker 1: information is already out there. We know who supports the
Speaker 1: idea and we know who doesn't support the idea. And
Speaker 1: then the second problem is that those who support the
Speaker 1: idea are our close friends like Australia, Canada and Britain,
Speaker 1: and so not walking forward at exactly the same time
Speaker 1: and sync with them does raise an eyebrow.
Speaker 2: What are the legal complexities around recognizing the state of Palestine.
Speaker 1: You've got to make sure that you've got a population,
Speaker 1: which clearly is there. There is a Palestinian population. You've
Speaker 1: got to make sure that there's a territory, and you
Speaker 1: can see the territory in the West Bank and in Gaza.
Speaker 1: You have to make sure that they have a capacity
Speaker 1: to enter into international agreements, which they've already done. Where
Speaker 1: it gets difficult is the fourth consideration, which is their
Speaker 1: ability to have a government. And the problem you've got
Speaker 1: there is that Hamas is a type of government, but
Speaker 1: it is completely unpalatable because of its terrorism and its
Speaker 1: associated atrocities. So it legally there is a challenge, and
Speaker 1: so it means that this will be a political decision,
Speaker 1: not just a legal one, because we have to make
Speaker 1: sure that Hamas in no way is part of the
Speaker 1: next government of Palestine.
Speaker 2: Well what other options are there?
Speaker 1: Well, you can have the Palestinian Authority, which holds some
Speaker 1: kind of power in the West Bank, but the dispute
Speaker 1: between the West Bank and Gaza is long standing. And
Speaker 1: so ideally what you would do is you would put
Speaker 1: the issue to the population, the Palestinian population, and let
Speaker 1: them vote for a new government in a democratic process,
Speaker 1: but critically one that recognizes the state of Israel and
Speaker 1: also promises to protect its security. And so even though
Speaker 1: we can legally recognize Palestine, there are still some very
Speaker 1: difficult questions ahead in.
Speaker 2: Terms of imagine if every other country in the world
Speaker 2: recognizes the Palestinian state, can nettnya who just flat out
Speaker 2: refuse to do everything.
Speaker 1: Yes, legally he shouldn't, and politically it will be difficult
Speaker 1: because you are The way I see what's going on
Speaker 1: right now is we're at a turning point, and it's
Speaker 1: taken us nearly eight decades to get to this point.
Speaker 1: We've always wanted to have a large peace conference, whereby
Speaker 1: you would peacefully and sustainably settle the future and everyone
Speaker 1: would agree to the pathway going forward. But this will
Speaker 1: be a contested pathway, and so Israel in its current
Speaker 1: regime is likely to reject this recognition. And it's not
Speaker 1: just with regards to the principle. It's also with regards
Speaker 1: to the occupation of the legal occupation of Palestinian territory,
Speaker 1: the question of what to do with all the refugees
Speaker 1: it would now have the right to return to Palestine,
Speaker 1: of which is over five million people, and the question
Speaker 1: of Jerusalem, and so Israel is liking to object on
Speaker 1: all of these grounds, irrespective of the legal technicalities. This
Speaker 1: means though that as each country deals with bilaterally with Palestine,
Speaker 1: how they respond will be different when the past, and
Speaker 1: so some countries will find it easier if they recognize
Speaker 1: Palestine to move towards considerations like sanctions or other international
Speaker 1: condemnations like boycotts.
Speaker 2: Of the country towards Israel.
Speaker 1: Towards Israel, that's right, and so there's a risk here
Speaker 1: for Israel that it could become a pariah state in
Speaker 1: the way that South Africa became a pariah state with
Speaker 1: its apartheid regime.
Speaker 2: A United Nations Commission of Inquiry has recently said that
Speaker 2: Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. A report
Speaker 2: said there are reasonable grounds to conclude that four of
Speaker 2: the five genocide or acts defined under international law have
Speaker 2: been carried out since the start of the war with
Speaker 2: her mass in twenty twenty three. Will this designation actually
Speaker 2: lead to anything though?
Speaker 1: This is important work and it's all pointing in the
Speaker 1: same direction. But it's likely that the genocide is occurring.
Speaker 1: But the body that will make that determination as the
Speaker 1: International Court of Justice that will overset the Genocide Convention.
Speaker 1: But whether a genocide is or is not occurring right now,
Speaker 1: and it looks like it is occurring and it is unfolding,
Speaker 1: You've still got the problem of starvation, potentially ethnic cleansing,
Speaker 1: and extreme humanitarian concerns that go right through and so
Speaker 1: we need to be pushing for a peaceful solution. But
Speaker 1: whether this will change Israel's perspective is very questionable in
Speaker 1: its current form. But it will make it easier for
Speaker 1: other countries to respond because that means that Palestine as
Speaker 1: a state actually exists. It's something which is real and
Speaker 1: it's tangible and we can then have diplomatic relations with
Speaker 1: that country.
Speaker 2: Why is the term genocide? I mean, some countries decide
Speaker 2: not to use the term on purpose, don't they.
Speaker 1: It is a difficult term because genocide is the worst
Speaker 1: of all crimes that humans can do to other humans.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't actually ethically rank different crimes, but one involves
Speaker 1: a scale and an intention, which is unlike all other crimes,
Speaker 1: where you intend to destroy and whole or in part
Speaker 1: a different ethnic group. It's as bad as humanity can get.
Speaker 2: At the international court level, just three cases have been
Speaker 2: deemed to be a genocide technically. So that's the Cambodian
Speaker 2: Khmer Rouge regime, and that's the slaughterer of Carmen and
Speaker 2: Vietnamese during the nineteen seventies, the nineteen ninety four mass
Speaker 2: killing of two season Rwanda and nineteen ninety five Srey
Speaker 2: brenitza massacre of some eight thousand Muslim men and boys
Speaker 2: in Bosnia. How do you prove a genocide and does
Speaker 2: the International Court of Justice actually have any ability to
Speaker 2: prosecute The.
Speaker 1: Proof is an intention. It's not something that you should
Speaker 1: be able to do with recklessness or negligence, and so
Speaker 1: you will need documentation or a clear goal to commit
Speaker 1: genocidal acts. The biggest penalty of it will be in
Speaker 1: the public concern and outrage when this is found. But
Speaker 1: countries should be concerned and outraged whether a legal definition
Speaker 1: of genocide is crossed or not, because the people are
Speaker 1: clearly suffering in a humanitarian catastrophe. The genocide label changes
Speaker 1: the way we understand the conflict and they understand the crimes.
Speaker 1: But at base it's still innocent civilian to a pain,
Speaker 1: a disproportionate, in humane price.
Speaker 3: When some peters will reveal the government decision at the
Speaker 3: end of the week, we've had preliminary discussions. As I've said,
Speaker 3: we've got ongoing monitoring of what's happening in the Middle
Speaker 3: East over the course of this week.
Speaker 2: And it's a blow for your liking, though, Prime Minister.
Speaker 3: No, not at all. It's not a race at all.
Speaker 3: Some of our friends have decided to recognize now others
Speaker 3: have decided not to do that.
Speaker 2: In terms of war crimes. I'm aware that it isn't
Speaker 2: Natna who there's a warrant out for his arrest through.
Speaker 1: The International Criminal Court, and so the International Criminal Court
Speaker 1: will hear the finding of the International Court of Justice
Speaker 1: and it will influence the charges that they bring against him.
Speaker 1: But it also means that if netna Who is then
Speaker 1: land in a country which is a party to the
Speaker 1: International Criminal Court, they should detain them and take them
Speaker 1: to justice and behague. But like many people who are
Speaker 1: accused of international crimes, like mister Putin as well of Russia,
Speaker 1: he just had to be very careful what countries he
Speaker 1: will visit.
Speaker 2: Right, So there's a low likelihood of us seeing Benjamin
Speaker 2: Natnya Who or Vladimir Putin in front of a judge
Speaker 2: in a courtroom answering for war crimes.
Speaker 1: Yes, there's a very low likelihood, and it's made even
Speaker 1: lower because at the moment, mister Trump is trying to
Speaker 1: undermine the International Criminal Court for doing such steps. But
Speaker 1: the International Criminal Court is just trying to say, these
Speaker 1: are existing standards and they apply to all people in
Speaker 1: all places.
Speaker 2: In terms of what we do next, what are the
Speaker 2: legal and diplomatic implications for a country like New Zealand
Speaker 2: if it does choose to recognize Palestine, And what do
Speaker 2: you reckon the likelihood is of us not recognizing the
Speaker 2: statehood of Palestine.
Speaker 1: I would be exceptionally surprised if we do not follow
Speaker 1: suit with Canada, Britain and Australia. That would be a
Speaker 1: very unusual step. Even the timing so far and the
Speaker 1: fact that we're not going forward in the same motion
Speaker 1: of the scrum is unusual. But I'm sure mister Peters
Speaker 1: has his reasons for this. In terms of recognition, these
Speaker 1: will be done by laterally. In an ideal world, it
Speaker 1: would be done multilaterally, where a country would go forward
Speaker 1: and be accepted by the United Nations in full. But
Speaker 1: for that to occur, they have to get the nod
Speaker 1: of the Security Council, and the United States on the
Speaker 1: Security Council will not accept Palestine into the United Nations
Speaker 1: proper as a body, which means that each country like
Speaker 1: New Zealand would then have to have diplomatic relations with
Speaker 1: Palestine and make treaties with it on a one on
Speaker 1: one basis rather than go through the multilateral UN basis.
Speaker 2: What could be the reasons why we're lagging behind.
Speaker 1: You'll have to ask mister Peters that that it's all conjecture.
Speaker 1: I mean, officially, it's about trying to understand the situation
Speaker 1: to see if any more up to date information comes
Speaker 1: to hand. But we're very clear right now that America
Speaker 1: will oppose the motion. But we know our friends who
Speaker 1: are going and we can our support should be based
Speaker 1: either on the ethics and the law and the politics,
Speaker 1: all of which are justifiable, or simply by watching what
Speaker 1: our friends in close allies doing and staying close to them.
Speaker 1: And both arguments are pushing into the same direction, which
Speaker 1: is we should recognize Palestine. This is not an answer
Speaker 1: that will be the end of the conflict. This has
Speaker 1: been going on for nearly eight decades, and the only
Speaker 1: certainty we've got is that by waiting for an international
Speaker 1: peace conference where we recognize Palestine is not working and
Speaker 1: the situation is actually getting worse. There's no guarantee that
Speaker 1: recognizing Palestine will bring peace. The only certainty we have
Speaker 1: right now is that the last eight decades have failed
Speaker 1: and the situation is worsening.
Speaker 2: Could we be talking about this in another eight decades time.
Speaker 1: I think these this is not going to be the
Speaker 1: end of the conversations, and I think it could take
Speaker 1: many many years from here. But this is a historic
Speaker 1: turning point because countries which are previously waited for the
Speaker 1: international peace to occur. Are now saying we can wait
Speaker 1: no longer. We've got to try something different because the
Speaker 1: existing pathway has clearly failed.
Speaker 2: What responsibility to smallest like New Zealand have in setting
Speaker 2: precedents on issues like genocide recognition or Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 1: Our voice is important. People value New Zealand as independent
Speaker 1: and fair minded, and people will be looking to what
Speaker 1: we have to say. I imagine that mister Peters is
Speaker 1: going to attract even more international media attention by the
Speaker 1: fact that we're not part of the group speaking at
Speaker 1: the same time, and it does raise an eyebrow, But
Speaker 1: I expect that we will follow the trend and the
Speaker 1: decisions and recommendations of our close minded friends. It's a
Speaker 1: very difficult issue and it's a question of law, it's
Speaker 1: a question of politics, ethics and history, and just by
Speaker 1: getting this next step won't solve the problem, but it's
Speaker 1: showing that we're to fork in the road and we're
Speaker 1: now going to take a different approach, and hopefully this
Speaker 1: approach will bring better results than what's happened for the last
Speaker 1: few decades.
Speaker 2: Does any of this matter though, if Natanya who will
Speaker 2: is refusing to believe it.
Speaker 1: The risk for Israel is that the more states that
Speaker 1: recognize Palestine will be linked to their recognition to take
Speaker 1: stronger actions in terms of sanctions or coercion, and so
Speaker 1: it could end up that Israel could end up like
Speaker 1: a pariah state like South Africa and it's apartheid lead error.
Speaker 1: And so you may start to see boycotts which are
Speaker 1: run through the international level, like at the International Olympic Committee,
Speaker 1: where people start to see Israel should not be allowed
Speaker 1: to compete at the Olympics, and these kind of actions
Speaker 1: all put pressure on Israel to try to change its pathway.
Speaker 1: I'm hopeful in time that Israel will and that we
Speaker 1: can actually have a peaceful resolution of this dispute, but
Speaker 1: before then you may see additional pressure placed upon them,
Speaker 1: and that will be easier to do if Palestine is
Speaker 1: recognized as a state with individual standing.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us out.
Speaker 1: You're welcome, Chelsea.
Speaker 2: That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
Speaker 2: can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzidherld dot co dot enz. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 2: our editor. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the front page
Speaker 2: on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune
Speaker 2: in on Monday for another look behind the headlines.