June 11, 2025 • 17 mins
More than 600 days of war and an 11-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 the more than two million Palestinians living there.
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, we’re joined by Alexander Gillespie to get into the latest on the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
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
(00:29):
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
(00:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Ol looking at the war a little broader.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Are we only closer to ceasefires or an end to
the war at all?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Who are they?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
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
(02:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
In the same breath.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
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
(02:48):
points out that they were struck first.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
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
(03:12):
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
(03:34):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
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.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
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.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Are they right?
Speaker 3 (04:20):
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
(04:41):
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
(05:03):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
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?
Speaker 3 (05:31):
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,
(05:52):
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
(06:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
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.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
So when and how does this end it?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
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
(07:13):
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
(07:34):
terms of who gives it out or what's given to
particular populations.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
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.
(07:57):
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.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Who do we believe.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
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
(08:32):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Swedish activist Greater Tunberg left Israel on a flight to
France after being detained by Israeli forces alongside other activists.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
They were on board an AID ship bound for Gaza.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
It was intercepted earlier this week, with Israel describing it
as a selfie yacht carrying celebrities.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
My name is Gebe Timber and i am from Sweden.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
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?
Speaker 3 (09:40):
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
(10:01):
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
(10:21):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Mister President Man, do you have a message for Greta
Tunberg and did she come up on your call with
the Prime Minister today?
Speaker 5 (10:36):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Why Israel, as she says, she I can I find it?
Speaker 5 (11:00):
I think Israel has enough problems without kidnapping Gratathunburg.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
When it comes to the blockade out, is it illegal
or legal?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
In international law terms.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
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
(11:35):
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
(11:57):
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
(12:17):
their minds.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
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.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
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
(12:57):
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.
(13:21):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
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?
Speaker 3 (13:55):
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
(14:15):
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
(14:38):
aren't friendly countries to US.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
Well.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
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.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
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
(15:15):
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,
(15:36):
even if it's difficult, and that is the two state solution.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
And finally, are we doing enough?
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Should we be bolder in trying to get more aid
into Gaza and pushing for an end to the war.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
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,
(16:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Reply to that and what about it In the shorter term,
how do we get that humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Thanks for joining us, OU We'll welcome Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
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
(00:29):
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
(00:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Ol looking at the war a little broader.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Are we only closer to ceasefires or an end to
the war at all?
Speaker 3 (01:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Who are they?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
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
(02:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
In the same breath.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
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
(02:48):
points out that they were struck first.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
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
(03:12):
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
(03:34):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
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.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
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.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Are they right?
Speaker 3 (04:20):
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
(04:41):
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
(05:03):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
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?
Speaker 3 (05:31):
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,
(05:52):
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
(06:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
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.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
So when and how does this end it?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
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
(07:13):
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
(07:34):
terms of who gives it out or what's given to
particular populations.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
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.
(07:57):
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.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
Who do we believe.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
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
(08:32):
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.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Swedish activist Greater Tunberg left Israel on a flight to
France after being detained by Israeli forces alongside other activists.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
They were on board an AID ship bound for Gaza.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
It was intercepted earlier this week, with Israel describing it
as a selfie yacht carrying celebrities.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
My name is Gebe Timber and i am from Sweden.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
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?
Speaker 3 (09:40):
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
(10:01):
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
(10:21):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Mister President Man, do you have a message for Greta
Tunberg and did she come up on your call with
the Prime Minister today?
Speaker 5 (10:36):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Why Israel, as she says, she I can I find it?
Speaker 5 (11:00):
I think Israel has enough problems without kidnapping Gratathunburg.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
When it comes to the blockade out, is it illegal
or legal?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
In international law terms.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
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
(11:35):
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
(11:57):
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
(12:17):
their minds.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
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.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
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
(12:57):
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.
(13:21):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
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?
Speaker 3 (13:55):
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
(14:15):
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
(14:38):
aren't friendly countries to US.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
Well.
Speaker 2 (14:39):
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.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
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
(15:15):
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,
(15:36):
even if it's difficult, and that is the two state solution.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
And finally, are we doing enough?
Speaker 2 (15:41):
Should we be bolder in trying to get more aid
into Gaza and pushing for an end to the war.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
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,
(16:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Reply to that and what about it In the shorter term,
how do we get that humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
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.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
Thanks for joining us, OU We'll welcome Chelsea.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.