Kyota.
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. The government's decision on whether it'll recognize the State of Palestine has been put on hold until next month. It's despite our closest neighbor, Australia, following a sweep of countries moving to
support Palestine. Seventy eight years since the United Nations resolution to create the State of Israel and a Palestinian state, Australia's PM Anthony Albanesi said the world can no longer wait for the implementation of that resolution to be negotiated
between the two parties. So how should New Zealand proceed and if it's a matter of when not if, as David Seymour has said, then why are we so behind the April Today on the Front Page, University of Otago Senior politics professor doctor Leon Goldsmith is with us to unpack the complexities of this never ending conflict. Leon Winston Peters has said it's not a straightforward, clear cut issue and the government is still weighing up New Zealand's position. Is he right to wait it out?
I mean I think he's right when he says that it's not a clear cut, straightforward issue, I think I totally agree with that, and we should also, you know, we should be mindful that we don't rush into sort of knee jerk reactions depending on the actions of our neighbors, allies, or the international community. I also agree that we have an independent foreign policy and we need to make our own decisions.
So in that.
Respect, I think it's correct. However, the situation is urgent and imperative, and if it is going to make any different to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, I think that the government needs to weigh up very carefully. Withether adding its voice in a sort of concert with others will help that, but I don't know if it's one hundred
percent sure if it will. I think it's in terms of the way that the messages are being transmitted is really important at this moment, and there's a lot of insecurity, there's a lot of misinformation, and I think we do, actually, regardless of the situation, have to be very measured in the way that we react to the situation.
In terms of so we're looking at recognizing the state of Palestine, what other options are.
There well, I think, I mean that the imperative right now is to try to get a sustainable ceasefire and to try to alleviate the suffering of God and civilians, to get the hostages released, to find some way to de escalate the conflict between Hamas and the IDEF in the Gaza envelope. So I mean, the question of a two state solution is a very complicated one. It's something that hasn't been resolved in the seventy eight years until now.
It's not something that can be achieved through a sort of a diplomatic stroke, And I think it's for the Israelis and the Palestinians once they can find some kind of stable platform to start to develop confidence measuring, confidence building measures which have happened in the past. But unfortunately we've got extremists on both sides who are not really
interested in working towards that kind of situation. So I think New Zealand should be continuing to call for a ceasefire, continuing to call for some kind of hostage release in disarmament where possible, But of course it's not easy.
It's not easy.
What's the difference between recognizing the state of Palestine and supporting the two state solution in Palestinian self determination, which I think is our current standing.
Yeah, I mean we've supported officially a two state solution ever since the Resolution one A one in nineteen forty seven. So, but recognizing the state of Polace oly So on twenty twelve, the General Assembly recognizing Palestinian as a non observer state to the Yun it's symbolic, it's a kind of a diplomatic move and as far as symbolic in terms of presenting these stants on different countries towards the rights of
Palestine and also Israel. We said that we recognize that there could be some kind of state for the Palestinians, but we don't know what that state would look like in terms of its final shape. This has been the key sticking point ever since in nineteen forty nine. What is the final borders? Where will they be? What is the right of return not just for Palestinians who were pushed out of their homes, but also for Jewish people who are pushed out of Arab countries during that conflict
period as well. So what is there compensation? Is there some way that some can come back?
Is there?
And the third thing which is really crucial is what is the status of Jerusalem? Is it the capital for two states? Is that can the Palestinians accept an alternative capital, which they say they won't, And that's really the key issues at the crux of an actual two state solution.
And also it's become this kind of.
The inability of the international community, starting with Obama and previous to actually get the Israelis to freeze the settlements has meant that there is no contigious territory for the Palestinians to create a state on anyway. Like the conditions on the ground, which is I observed firsthand when I was there in twenty twenty three are not conducive to a state. The political criteria that Foreign Minister, our foreign minister spoke about it not there as well. There is
no unity on either the Israeli or the Palestinians. I both are deeply divided politically, with different visions about what each wants, and I think that has to also be taken into account.
Australia will recognize the state of Palestine. Australia will recognize the ride up the Palestinian people to a state of their own predicated on commitments Australia has received from the Palestinian authority. We will work with the international community to make this right a reality. Australia is making this statement today following our cabinet meeting as part of a coordinated global effort building momentum for a two state solution.
I know that when announcing Australia's recognition of the Palestinian State, Anthony Albernezi said he will officially recognize it at the United Nations Leaders Week late next month, and Winston Peters has said his waiting until then as well to announce our stance. What's the significance of waiting until that week.
Well, I guess it's kind of like it gives him more time. It's kind of like stalling for time because I don't think that our government really does have as he's kind of eluded in their press statement that they don't have a a consensus around this even.
Within the government itself.
But the fact that they're talking about potentially acknowledging the Palestinian state that meeting is also could have an impact in terms of the international kind of pattern or the trajectory that the pressure that they're intending to put on Nefhan Yahoo to actually respond and to make some concessions and sort of like some of the you know what's happening right now in Gaza in terms of Gaza City and the humanitarian crisis.
Middle Eastern conflicts are complicated, to say the least. It's not all black and white as some people want it to be. It's certainly not explainable through a twenty minute podcast. It's not explainable probably through a two hour lecture, etc.
You've written before.
The solution to untangle and diffuse the conflict is not to grab one thread and target hard, but to find all the threads that prepare to wait the crisis. I thought that was a really good way of putting it. Explain that to me a little bit more sure.
I mean, exactly like you said, it's not a black and white. These are the good guys and the bad guys. These are the ones who are right, These are the ones who have the rights and those ones that don't. A lot of the sort of zero sum ratract that we've had is actually, I believe, has been making the situation wise because it's increasing a sense of international rejection or a sense of the very genuine perceptions of racism
or anti Semitism or xenophobic against Muslims or whatever. Unfortunately, we don't have this perfect rules based order that can basically come in and impose a solution. With the rules based kind of objective solution, you have to find out what is the political interest of all of the different parties within this Gordian not and try to find some
way that they can find an interest based compromise. So, for example, on the Palestinian side, you have Fattah Plo, Palaestinian Authority and Hamas who have very different ideas about what a future solution looks like. One is resistance based, armed resistance based. The other one is negotiations trying to continue with the Oslo process. It's such like political negotiated
confidence building. And also within the Israeli body politic you have people who have no desire to compromise with the Palestinians and they want to basically use any excuse like October seven provided a good excuse to be able to try to expand ethnically, clans, resettle, all of these things. But they're vast but that's actually probably a minority on
both sides. So for example, this Sunday. I think that they're calling for massive strikes protests, hundreds of thousands up to a million protesting on Sunday against the war on the Israeli side. Whatever New Zealand says is a country should be actually trying to reach out to those groups to work with them, not make a statement which is kind of like can be interpreted as kind of fully pro Palestinian and not really taken into account Israeli interests
as well. So the differences between the Orthodox Jews who won't serve in the army and are seen as a kind of a burden on Israeli society, there's actually quite a strong division between them and sort of secular Israeli Jews as well, the Israeli Arabs. What is their interest? And it's getting more and more complicated as we go in because a lot of them, if, for example, a unilateral Palestinian state was declared, what is their position in that?
Do they want to surrender their Israeli citizenship? Will they be like forced pushed into a Palestinian state which has no and lose their jobs and their security and their status which a lot of them don't want to in a state which is going to be underresourced and almost
under enormous pressure from external forces immediately. So that's what I'm saying, And it's not you say I can't explain everything in a twenty minute podcast, but being aware and being very careful to avoid blanket generalizations which actually can potentially make the situation worse rather than improve it.
We do see protesters here demanding that our government do more, do this, do that. And this is something else that you've written about as well, that protest is by only speaking to one side of the crisis, are unintentionally playing into their part in polarizing the region. Is that because it's it is that want to innate human need to be like, well, these are the good guys, these are the baddies. It should be simple, but it's actually really not.
I think that's unfortunately correct, And what you raised there is really important because for like an Israeli or even a Jewish person around the world, it's hard to know how they feel when they look at these protests.
Are they saying from the river to the sea? Is that?
What does it mean exactly? Because previously when yesa Arafat said it, he meant it was reconquest completely what does the Palestinian flag mean when you look at it, it means it actually comes from Arab nationalism, which is an ethno nationalist ideology, which is this is all Arab land. So it's kind of like a competing ethno nationalist ideology with Jewish nationalism, which is also toxic. And the sense is that this land was never Jewish or fully only
Jewish or only Arab. But if political actors in Israel like Nathania, who who's very skillfully trying to manipulate the narrative, can use some of these protests which seem I know they're not, but they see one sided as a kind of political fodder to be able to show that people who are on the fans, look, we're actually very insecure internationally, we have to stick together, we have to be instead
of feeding into that siege mentality. They use that, and especially the ones on the hard right are using this as evidence that we have to actually be tough Bizill or Smitritch and it might Ben Gevere who are genuine extremist fundamentalists, and so they're looking to use any kind of imagery and narrative and international kind of this course
that they can filill towards their propaganda purposes. So we should take the wind out of their sales and say very clearly, we're not against Israel, We're not against Palestine, We're for both. And now it sounds crazy. It's hard for people to actually try to get their heads around that because we have internalized, you know, this sort of
colonial occupation narrative where there are elements of that. But we also have to remember that sixty percent of Israeli citizens are from the Middle East, whether they are Misiaki, Jews or Arab citizens of Israel. So it's yeah, just being a little bit more careful and not beating the fire trying to help to douse it somehow as what we need to be trying to do.
I'm just acknowledging that this is an issue that has been young.
We've had a long.
Standing position since partition in nineteen forty seven to recognize both Palestine and Israel. And clearly, you know, our focus has been you know, as we've said, when, not if, And as a result for us, we've got to work through this rather serious issue.
We've got to do it properly.
As a complex issue, there are strong feelings on all sides of this debate in the public, as you've seen, and it's important that we make the right sitsum.
In terms of so the government, our government is not disclosing what the conditions or criteria for us joining the recognition of the state of Palestine. They're not disclosing that yet.
What do you think.
I mean, one of them is obviously her Maas releasing hostages. What could be some others?
I mean, I think that we may join with the Arab States and asking Hamas to disarm. They won't do that, of course, I mean, we could find ourselves like they're talking about a UN force coming in to try to do that. We'll end up in the same situation of the idea. And now I think that the hostages, of course are complete cease fire, but of course the current government in Israel doesn't want that to happen. They don't want a ceasefire, and of course smart Rich and Ben
Giberta continuously threatening to collapse Nethania, Who's government. Interestingly, I think like if you look at the the idiosyncrasies of the Israeli electoral system they are currently out of that has finished the summer session, so in technical times, his
coalition partners can't collapse his government. So this might explain why there's a pressure being applied to Nathan now who now, But unfortunately he doesn't seem to be responsive to that, and he's doubling down looking at the long game as well. I mean, of course, officially New Zealand's criterias that there should be political economic security criteria mat but it's very vague.
What does that actually mean. I think that they'll probably interpret that liberally depending on what does the situation come September for that leader's meeting.
At the UN.
What should New Zealand do then to make us better informed?
I mean, I.
Suppose it would be easy now, especially given Australia, Australia's recognition to just follow the herd so to speak. How should we treat the situation differently?
I mean, considering the nature of the current Israeli government and in Hamas as the sort of de facto governing body and Gaza at least, I think that we should be looking to put together some kind of urgent thing tanks. I know, there's a lot of crises around the world. To be able to gather data and information and intelligence.
I mean, for example, I spend a lot of my time talking to people on the Palestinian side, on the Israeli side, Syria, on all of that, and what I've noticed there are really good people, some of them with more or less levels of influence, who have good pragmatic solutions, but they're not reaching.
Policymakers.
So Track two non governmental outreach to potential future for example, parts of the Israeli opposition and the NGOs and civil society, parts of Israeli society, I mean Palestinian society who are increasingly furious with Hamas and what they've dragged them into, instead of some I don't think we're going to get a solution out of the current leadership, but some kind of parallel discussions or trying to bring people together as
a neutral, objective arbiter rather than someone who's pursuing seemingly an agenda on one side or the other.
What's been nearly eighty years since the world pushed for a two states solution? Will it take another eighty to make it happen? I mean, what is the end goal here? When do we say enough is enough?
I think it's been enough for a long time. I think there's genuine will to find some kind of solution. If you can separate the messianic element and the kind of authoritarians out of the picture of contain them, you'll see that there's more desire to solve this situation in Israel than there has ever been in They became a little bit infatuated with military success through forty eight, sixty seven, seventy three, and so they believe that a military solution
could work long term to provide security. But I think a lot of people realizing that can't. So therefore that's an opportunity. And the same applies on the Palestinian side that sort of like acts of terrorism or like want on on violence is not going to actually lead them to a solution that's just going to continue to spiral. So while there's so much dark, kind of gloomy outlock,
there's also some potential there. But we need to have our eyes open, I think, to see it, and our he has opened as well.
Thanks for joining us, Leon, You're most welcome. Thank you for having me.
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzidherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. 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.
Four