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