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