Speaker 1: Kiota.
Speaker 2: I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
Speaker 2: daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. More than
Speaker 2: six hundred days of war and an eleven week blockade
Speaker 2: of all aid has pushed those living in Gaza into
Speaker 2: a deeper crisis. Israel imposed a full humanitarian blockade of
Speaker 2: Gaza in March, cutting off food, medical supplies and other
Speaker 2: aid to more than two million Palestinians, and while some
Speaker 2: aid has been allowed in in recent weeks, many countries
Speaker 2: are calling for more to be done. New Zealand has
Speaker 2: joined the condemnation, placing travel restrictions against two Israeli ministers,
Speaker 2: but is that going to be enough to send a
Speaker 2: strong message? Today on the Front Page where joined by
Speaker 2: University of Waikato professor Alexander Gillesbie to get into the
Speaker 2: latest on the old im going Israel Hamas conflict.
Speaker 1: Ol looking at the war a little broader.
Speaker 2: Are we only closer to ceasefires or an end to
Speaker 2: the war at all?
Speaker 3: We don't seem to have any end in sight and
Speaker 3: this is just an absolute tragedy because the scale of
Speaker 3: human suffering is terrible and we need to find a
Speaker 3: pathway to end it. But even the simple step of
Speaker 3: getting to a ceasefire right now, where by all sides
Speaker 3: abide and have faith in each other that the rules
Speaker 3: will be adhered to is very remote.
Speaker 2: Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced that New Zealand has
Speaker 2: joined the likes of Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway
Speaker 2: in placing travel bands on Two extremist Israeli politicians are
Speaker 2: the country's Finance Minister, Bazileel Smotrek and National Secretary Minister
Speaker 2: It's amar Ben Gevert.
Speaker 1: Who are they?
Speaker 3: There are two outspoken ministers in support of increasing settlement
Speaker 3: in the occupied territories. It's not the first time that
Speaker 3: New Zealand has sanctioned people for their extremist views. But
Speaker 3: what's unique about this is that it's moving from particular
Speaker 3: settlers who have got extreme views through to government ministers.
Speaker 3: And once you start sanctioning government ministers, it's quite possible
Speaker 3: that there will be some diplomatic fallout of this, not
Speaker 3: the least the fact that we see to have all
Speaker 3: cited America at the same time.
Speaker 1: In the same breath.
Speaker 2: I saw that Peters said the action is not against
Speaker 2: the Israeli people who suffered immeasurably on October seven, and
Speaker 2: who have continued to suffer through her mass's ongoing a
Speaker 2: refusal to release all hostages. This really highlights that tight
Speaker 2: rope that countries are having to walk here. Hey, any
Speaker 2: criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza, and Israel
Speaker 2: points out that they were struck first.
Speaker 3: Israel is correct that the crimes that were committed against
Speaker 3: them were egregious. They were terrible, the murder, that the rape,
Speaker 3: the extra brutality. There's no forgiving for what happened there.
Speaker 3: But on the other hand, whenever a country respond, it
Speaker 3: must be done in a way which is focused and
Speaker 3: not disproportionate to the actual incident it happened. And what
Speaker 3: you've got now is a disproportionate response where the population
Speaker 3: is suffering for the crimes of the mass. And that's
Speaker 3: just wrong. It's not just wrong ethically, it's wrong legally.
Speaker 3: And where it becomes an issue is for a country
Speaker 3: like New Zealand, it's not about being pro Israel or
Speaker 3: anti Israel. It's about being pro a rules based order
Speaker 3: where there are rules around warfare, where there are rules
Speaker 3: around annexation, and there are rules around how countries are
Speaker 3: meant to behave and so it's a mistake to see
Speaker 3: this isn't us verse the m thing. It's opposed to
Speaker 3: us being in support of internationally agrees rules that allow
Speaker 3: us to have a basis of civilization.
Speaker 2: I saw that the US has been quick to denounce
Speaker 2: the sanctions by Britain and its allies, including US, saying
Speaker 2: we should focus instead on her mass solely.
Speaker 4: We find that extremely unhelpful, will do nothing to get
Speaker 4: us closer to a ceasefire in Gaza. This again is
Speaker 4: about allied sanctions against Israeli ministers. They should focus on
Speaker 4: this being UK, Canada, Norway and New Zealand should focus
Speaker 4: on the real culprit, which is harmas.
Speaker 1: Are they right?
Speaker 3: It's important to be focused on her maas. But there
Speaker 3: are two sides to this equation, and this is about
Speaker 3: the rights of the Palestinian people to have their own
Speaker 3: state and the rights of well the rules around warfare,
Speaker 3: such as making sure that there's no starvation against the
Speaker 3: collective population being adhered to. And there is terrible things
Speaker 3: we're done to Israel, without doubt, but terrible things have
Speaker 3: been done to the Palestinian people, often who were not
Speaker 3: caught up in the conflict at the same time, and
Speaker 3: what we need to be during is trying to focus
Speaker 3: on where the rules are that we all adhere to.
Speaker 3: The problem is is that some countries see the rules
Speaker 3: and other countries don't see the rules. And what you're
Speaker 3: seeing now with America and Europe is vision. But this
Speaker 3: division is bigger than Gaza. This division is also about
Speaker 3: Ukraine and wher geopolitical circumstances. In a country like New
Speaker 3: Zealand is either going to follow the American approach or
Speaker 3: the European approach, and that is going to get increasingly difficult.
Speaker 2: It's not the first time New Zealand has enforced targeted
Speaker 2: travel bands on politicians and military leaders. I'm thinking Russia, Belarus,
Speaker 2: Miaan Mark. What is the significance of this, because what's
Speaker 2: the likelihood of Smotrek or Ben Gevert actually hopping on
Speaker 2: a plane and going to New Zealand for refuge?
Speaker 3: Pretty remote And a lot of these sanctions were against
Speaker 3: these countries, against named individuals. They're important symbolically, they're not
Speaker 3: really important in terms of actually deterring them from their
Speaker 3: summertime holiday. What this does, though, is it shows that
Speaker 3: New Zealand takes the issue seriously, and we are having
Speaker 3: a targeted approach to express our disapproval. The bigger question,
Speaker 3: and what you see with the Europeans doing this at
Speaker 3: the moment, is whether you go further than targeting individuals
Speaker 3: do also potentially economic or diplomatic or cultural sanctions. And
Speaker 3: so this is the range of sanctions that you can
Speaker 3: have against the country are wide, and they're either unilateral
Speaker 3: done by one country or the multilateral done by a
Speaker 3: group of countries. The multilateral approach through the UN has
Speaker 3: broken down, and so we can't get agreement that everyone
Speaker 3: should sanction one particular country. So it forced on individual
Speaker 3: countries to do that and then work out what's best
Speaker 3: for them of how far they're willing to push. Some
Speaker 3: countries in Europe are willing to push harder on Israel
Speaker 3: than others. New Zealand at the moment is in the
Speaker 3: European camp, but at the shallow end of what other
Speaker 3: countries are willing to do.
Speaker 2: What can be done to end the blockade on AID?
Speaker 2: I read a harrowing quote on CNN. A woman who
Speaker 2: was trying to get food for a family at one
Speaker 2: of the aid distribution science told a reporter, we're so
Speaker 2: hungry that we're willing to rest getting shot for just
Speaker 2: a kilo of flower.
Speaker 1: So when and how does this end it?
Speaker 3: Starvation or forcing extreme hunger is one of the most
Speaker 3: inhumane things you can do on an individual or a population.
Speaker 3: It is completely wrong. This is barbarism that belongs in
Speaker 3: the Middle Ages. It does not belong in the twenty
Speaker 3: first century. The international law is clear on this. What
Speaker 3: we need to do is completely reiterate the rule that
Speaker 3: starvation is a method of warfare against the civilian population
Speaker 3: is wrong. It's wrong ethically and it's wrong legally. What
Speaker 3: we need to be pushing for is not only for
Speaker 3: a lifting of the blockade to make sure that non
Speaker 3: contraband of which foods can get through the civilian population,
Speaker 3: but also that it's distributed through reputable international organizations like
Speaker 3: the Red Cross or through the World Food Program. You
Speaker 3: can't let aid and humanitarian assistant to become politicized in
Speaker 3: terms of who gives it out or what's given to
Speaker 3: particular populations.
Speaker 2: According to ABC News, at least one hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: three people have been killed while trying to get aid
Speaker 2: from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation just this week. The Hamas
Speaker 2: run Gaza Ministry of Health claimed at least thirty six
Speaker 2: people were killed attempting to get aid. That's the highest
Speaker 2: death toll from a shooting near a distribution center in Gaza.
Speaker 2: There's rail Defense forces said though that it fired warning
Speaker 2: shots to distance suspects who were advancing in the area
Speaker 2: and posed a threat to troops.
Speaker 1: Who do we believe.
Speaker 3: Here be skeptical of everyone. Everyone's got a reason not
Speaker 3: to be direct and transparent about this. What you need
Speaker 3: in these situations are international neutral observers whereby they've got
Speaker 3: a blue helmet on or they're the Red Cross, or
Speaker 3: they're the World Food Program, and the people without a
Speaker 3: vest of interest. Hamas has a vest of interest. The
Speaker 3: Israeli military has a vest of interest. You need independent
Speaker 3: people in there to make sure that the rules are
Speaker 3: adhered to in the aid is distributed on mass. But
Speaker 3: what you've created, what's being created right now, is a
Speaker 3: pressure cockotype situation where hungry people are tending upon the
Speaker 3: minimal aid distribution which exists. It's an extremely bad situation.
Speaker 2: Swedish activist Greater Tunberg left Israel on a flight to
Speaker 2: France after being detained by Israeli forces alongside other activists.
Speaker 1: They were on board an AID ship bound for Gaza.
Speaker 2: It was intercepted earlier this week, with Israel describing it
Speaker 2: as a selfie yacht carrying celebrities.
Speaker 1: My name is Gebe Timber and i am from Sweden.
Speaker 2: If you see this video, we have been intercepted and
Speaker 2: kidnapped in international waters by the Israeli occupational forces or
Speaker 2: forces that support Israel. The capture of Greta made international headlines.
Speaker 2: So while they didn't succeed in carrying aid to Gaza,
Speaker 2: have they succeeded in other ways?
Speaker 3: Perhaps the both succeeded in putting a spotlight on the
Speaker 3: continuing problem, and that is useful. But it's important to
Speaker 3: note that the rule to blockade which Israel has applied
Speaker 3: if it's done within Israeli waters, are lawful. They are
Speaker 3: able to blockade areas of conflict, and no person has
Speaker 3: the right to sail to another country, no matter how
Speaker 3: well intentioned, with a small amount of assistant that you
Speaker 3: don't have that right in times of conflict. The good
Speaker 3: part about this situation is that there's been previous attempts
Speaker 3: to breach Israeli blockades around the occupied territories, and they
Speaker 3: ended in violence. In twenty ten, this attempt seems to
Speaker 3: have been dealt with much better. Where the people have
Speaker 3: been detained, that appears to be no injury, and I've
Speaker 3: exited the people, which is an improvement on a shocking
Speaker 3: situation to begin with.
Speaker 1: Mister President Man, do you have a message for Greta
Speaker 1: Tunberg and did she come up on your call with
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister today?
Speaker 5: Well, she's a strange person. She's a young, angry person.
Speaker 5: I don't know if it's real anger, so I had
Speaker 5: to believe actually, but I saw what happened. She's certainly
Speaker 5: different anger management. I think she has to go to
Speaker 5: an anger management last, that's my primary recommendation for her.
Speaker 1: Why Israel, as she says, she I can I find it?
Speaker 5: I think Israel has enough problems without kidnapping Gratathunburg.
Speaker 2: When it comes to the blockade out, is it illegal
Speaker 2: or legal?
Speaker 1: In international law terms.
Speaker 3: That blockades are legal, and that these are one of
Speaker 3: the earliest rules of war, dating back to the Middle Ages,
Speaker 3: whereby you can isolate an enemy to prevent them getting contraband.
Speaker 3: And for a long time the debate was what is
Speaker 3: contraband like? Obviously that's things like weapons, but originally it
Speaker 3: used to cover food. But in the in betweentieth century
Speaker 3: and in between the first century, we agree that food
Speaker 3: is not contraband so all wouldings you should allow into
Speaker 3: a country, you should not stop food and assistance. But
Speaker 3: the rules are is that the occupying power, which in
Speaker 3: this case is Israel, has the right to control that access.
Speaker 3: And so even though in theory food should be allowed
Speaker 3: in freely, the ability of Israel to control that lever
Speaker 3: is strong. So what we need to be doing is
Speaker 3: trying to make sure that Israel accepts neutral parties like
Speaker 3: the Red Cross, like the World Food Program to freely
Speaker 3: distribute food and food should not be weaponized or assistants
Speaker 3: should not be weaponized as a way to force the
Speaker 3: har mass which did terrible crimes, to make them change
Speaker 3: their minds.
Speaker 2: Right, So the blockade seems like kind of an archaic
Speaker 2: tool of warfare. Should the rules be, like, how do
Speaker 2: the rules change to allow food in? Because technically, I
Speaker 2: suppose quotes, they're not doing anything technically illegal.
Speaker 3: So blockade and the stopping of food was a weapon
Speaker 3: that was used to huge impact in the First World
Speaker 3: War and in the Second World War. In the First
Speaker 3: World War around occupying Europe by the Germans, and the
Speaker 3: Second World War, Japan had a very effective blockade put
Speaker 3: around it where they tried to use starvation as a
Speaker 3: method as well. Post the war from the nineteen seventies
Speaker 3: they said that you can still have blockade, but you
Speaker 3: can only stop the weapons and the direct support to
Speaker 3: the enemy fighting force. You can't just try to make
Speaker 3: a civilian population pay the price for what their military did. So.
Speaker 3: But the second rule is that even though food should
Speaker 3: not be contraband, is that an occupying force still has
Speaker 3: the right to control the access of that humanitarian aid.
Speaker 3: The only way you could change that is if you
Speaker 3: had the Security Council say, open up the gates, let
Speaker 3: these groups come in and distribute the food. But that's
Speaker 3: not happening right now because America has now got a
Speaker 3: best of interest in a particular provider who's not an
Speaker 3: international source that doesn't necessarily abide by the same rules
Speaker 3: as say the World Food Program or UNICET or the
Speaker 3: Red Cross.
Speaker 2: Now do you think the tide is turning a little
Speaker 2: bit against Israel. You're seeing more countries be bolder in
Speaker 2: what they're saying about the country's war efforts and about
Speaker 2: its leader. Is that pressure for them going to end
Speaker 2: the war growing?
Speaker 3: I don't know all conflicts eventually end, but if you
Speaker 3: look at the history of the conflict around Israel and
Speaker 3: the Middle East, that they go back until the late
Speaker 3: nineteen forties, and to the minds of many people, this
Speaker 3: isn't an intergenerational problem, and we just keep going backwards
Speaker 3: and forwards between atrocities and reprisals and to get to
Speaker 3: that point of peace. It will come, but at the
Speaker 3: moment it's I don't think it's a many to in
Speaker 3: future because although some countries are speaking out, we're not
Speaker 3: speaking with force, and that international rules based order which
Speaker 3: you need to get that change does not exist. And
Speaker 3: in particular with the United States and at one position
Speaker 3: and the Europeans and US in another, we can't even
Speaker 3: get a cohesion between the allies, let alone those which
Speaker 3: aren't friendly countries to US.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 2: At the same time, the US has said it no
Speaker 2: longer actively is pursuing a two state solution. I know
Speaker 2: we've talked before about what small countries can do when
Speaker 2: they work together, but are those efforts futile if the
Speaker 2: US isn't on board.
Speaker 3: It makes it really hard, and the two state solution
Speaker 3: is a difficult scenario. There's so many steps that you've
Speaker 3: got to get involved with it. You've got questioned about
Speaker 3: what to do with the refugees, what to do with
Speaker 3: the territory, what to do with the governance, and whether
Speaker 3: you've got to exclude or I would argue you must
Speaker 3: exclude groups which are terrorist organizations. It's very hard equation
Speaker 3: to solve, but it's the only real viable, long term
Speaker 3: option towards what peace may look like in this area.
Speaker 3: The alternative of what you've got right now is that
Speaker 3: mister Trump has put on the proposal of kind of
Speaker 3: like a Rivi era of the Middle East, where he
Speaker 3: wants to kind of rebuild and exit those two million
Speaker 3: people from Gaza. And it's simply not plausible as an option.
Speaker 3: And so you've got to come back to what might work,
Speaker 3: even if it's difficult, and that is the two state solution.
Speaker 1: And finally, are we doing enough?
Speaker 2: Should we be bolder in trying to get more aid
Speaker 2: into Gaza and pushing for an end to the war.
Speaker 3: Born in New Zealand. I think we're doing We're on
Speaker 3: the right track to follow the Europeans and the important
Speaker 3: part is not to get ahead of the Europeans or
Speaker 3: behind the Europeans. And I think mister Peters has positioned
Speaker 3: us as a big ginning point quite well. What will
Speaker 3: happen from here, though, is that you may see a
Speaker 3: reaction from Israel, and that it's while we've sanctioned people before,
Speaker 3: we've never sanctioned government ministers, and so it's possible that
Speaker 3: there will be a diplomatic reply, and you might find
Speaker 3: that some of our ministers have similt sanctions placed against them,
Speaker 3: and so this may yet escalate. And if it does escalate,
Speaker 3: we're going to work out how we.
Speaker 2: Reply to that and what about it In the shorter term,
Speaker 2: how do we get that humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Speaker 3: We don't control that debate, that we can make our
Speaker 3: voice known that you must adhere to a rules based order,
Speaker 3: that starvation is a method of warfare, it is prohibited,
Speaker 3: and that you want neutral bodies to distribute the aid.
Speaker 3: We have to keep saying that, and we have to
Speaker 3: be willing to argue that more at the international level
Speaker 3: than we currently are, although that is emerging through the UN.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, OU We'll 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 extend news coverage
Speaker 2: at enzedherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 2: produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 2: our sound engineer.
Speaker 1: I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
Speaker 2: behind the headlines.