It was perhaps inevitable that the shock Hamas attack on Israel would become a minor election sideshow in New Zealand. Less than a week from the polls, a crisis in the Middle East offered opposition parties a brief chance to criticise the foreign minister’s initial reaction.
But if it was a fleeting and fairly trivial moment in the heat of a campaign, the crisis itself is far from it – and it will test the foreign policy positions of whichever parties manage to form a government after Saturday.
It can be tempting to see the latest eruption of violence in Gaza and Israel as somehow “normal”, given the history of the region. But this is far from normal.
What appear to be intentional war crimes and crimes against humanity, involving the use of terror against citizens and guests of Israel, will provoke what will probably be an unprecedented response.
Israel’s declaration of war and formation of an emergency war cabinet – backed by threats to “wipe this thing called Hamas off the face of the Earth” – were the start. The bombardment and “complete siege” of Gaza, and preparation for a possible ground invasion, have catastrophic potential.
Hundreds of thousands may be forced towards Egypt or into the Mediterranean, with the fate of the hostages held by Hamas looking dire. Israel has now said there will be no humanitarian aid until the hostages are free.
There is a risk the war will spread over Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, with Hezbollah (backed by Iran) now involved. US President Joe Biden’s warning to Iran to “be careful”, and the deployment of a US carrier fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean, only ups the ante.
Rules of war
Given the suspension of some commercial flights to and from Israel, New Zealand’s most meaningful first response has been practical: arranging a special flight from Tel Aviv for citizens and their families currently in Israel or the Palestinian territories who wish to leave.
Beyond these immediate concerns, however, the world is divided. Outrage in the West is matched by support in Arab countries for Palestinian “resistance”. Despite US efforts to get a global consensus condemning the attack, the United Nations Security Council could not agree on a unified statement.
With no global consensus, New Zealand can do little more than assert and defend the established rules-based international order. This includes stating clearly that international humanitarian law and the rules of war are universal and must be applied impartially.
That’s akin to New Zealand’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: the rules of war apply to all, both state and non-state forces (irrespective of whether those parties agree to them). War crimes are to be investigated, with accountability and consequences applied through the relevant international bodies.
This applies to crimes of terror, murder, hostage-taking and indiscriminate rocket attacks carried out by Hamas. But the government needs also to emphasise that war crimes do not justify further retaliatory war crimes.
Specifically, unless civilians take a direct part in the conflict, the distinction between them and combatants must be observed. Military action should be proportionate, with all feasible precautions taken to minimise incidental loss of civilian life.
International law prohibits collective punishments, and access for humanitarian relief should be permitted. To hold an entire population captive – as a siege of Gaza involves – for the crimes of a military organisation is not acceptable.
The two-state solution
It is also important that New Zealand carefully considers definitions of terrorism and legitimate force. Terrorists do not enjoy the political and legal legitimacy afforded by international law.
Unlike other members of the Five Eyes security network, New Zealand designates only the military wing of Hamas, not its political wing, as a prohibited “terrorist entity” under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
Whether this distinction is anything more than a fiction needs to be reviewed. If this were to change, it would mean the financing, participation in or recruitment to any branch of Hamas would be illegal. This might have implications for any future peace process, should Hamas be involved.
At some point, most people surely hope, the cycle of violence will end. The likeliest route to that will be the so-called “two-state solution”, requiring security guarantees for Israel, negotiated land swaps and careful management of Jerusalem’s holy sites.
New Zealand has long supported this initiative, despite its apparent diplomatic near-death status. An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo this week urged Israel to resume talks to establish a viable Palestinian state, and China has also reiterated support such a solution.
New Zealand cannot stay silent when extreme, indiscriminate violence is committed by any group or nation. But joining any movement of like-minded nations to continue pushing for the two-state solution is still its best long-term strategy.
Alexander Gillespie, Senior Lecturer, a Professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article
Israel’s declaration of war and formation of an emergency war cabinet – backed by threats to “wipe this thing called Hamas off the face of the Earth” – were the start. The bombardment and “complete siege” of Gaza, and preparation for a possible ground invasion, have catastrophic potential.
Hundreds of thousands may be forced towards Egypt or into the Mediterranean, with the fate of the hostages held by Hamas looking dire. Israel has now said there will be no humanitarian aid until the hostages are free.
There is a risk the war will spread over Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, with Hezbollah (backed by Iran) now involved. US President Joe Biden’s warning to Iran to “be careful”, and the deployment of a US carrier fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean, only ups the ante.
Rules of war
Given the suspension of some commercial flights to and from Israel, New Zealand’s most meaningful first response has been practical: arranging a special flight from Tel Aviv for citizens and their families currently in Israel or the Palestinian territories who wish to leave.
Beyond these immediate concerns, however, the world is divided. Outrage in the West is matched by support in Arab countries for Palestinian “resistance”. Despite US efforts to get a global consensus condemning the attack, the United Nations Security Council could not agree on a unified statement.
With no global consensus, New Zealand can do little more than assert and defend the established rules-based international order. This includes stating clearly that international humanitarian law and the rules of war are universal and must be applied impartially.
That’s akin to New Zealand’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: the rules of war apply to all, both state and non-state forces (irrespective of whether those parties agree to them). War crimes are to be investigated, with accountability and consequences applied through the relevant international bodies.
This applies to crimes of terror, murder, hostage-taking and indiscriminate rocket attacks carried out by Hamas. But the government needs also to emphasise that war crimes do not justify further retaliatory war crimes.
Specifically, unless civilians take a direct part in the conflict, the distinction between them and combatants must be observed. Military action should be proportionate, with all feasible precautions taken to minimise incidental loss of civilian life.
International law prohibits collective punishments, and access for humanitarian relief should be permitted. To hold an entire population captive – as a siege of Gaza involves – for the crimes of a military organisation is not acceptable.
The two-state solution
It is also important that New Zealand carefully considers definitions of terrorism and legitimate force. Terrorists do not enjoy the political and legal legitimacy afforded by international law.
Unlike other members of the Five Eyes security network, New Zealand designates only the military wing of Hamas, not its political wing, as a prohibited “terrorist entity” under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
Whether this distinction is anything more than a fiction needs to be reviewed. If this were to change, it would mean the financing, participation in or recruitment to any branch of Hamas would be illegal. This might have implications for any future peace process, should Hamas be involved.
At some point, most people surely hope, the cycle of violence will end. The likeliest route to that will be the so-called “two-state solution”, requiring security guarantees for Israel, negotiated land swaps and careful management of Jerusalem’s holy sites.
New Zealand has long supported this initiative, despite its apparent diplomatic near-death status. An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo this week urged Israel to resume talks to establish a viable Palestinian state, and China has also reiterated support such a solution.
New Zealand cannot stay silent when extreme, indiscriminate violence is committed by any group or nation. But joining any movement of like-minded nations to continue pushing for the two-state solution is still its best long-term strategy.
Alexander Gillespie, Senior Lecturer, a Professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article
4 comments:
A very humane and balanced perspective from Professor Gillespie. The problems in Israel and Palestine are, of course, very long-standing - but perhaps the present cycle of violence goes back to the Six Day War in 1967. While Israel initiated the military action then, it did so under great provocation and a very high likelihood of crushing attacks from surrounding states.
Are those territories "occupied" or "disputed"? In general I am a supporter of the Israeli cause, though agreeing that its behavior has not been positive in relation to the construction of settlements and sometimes unkind treatment of Arabs. But look at the history of belligerence from Hammas and the neighboring states. It cannot be easy for an Israeli to live like that, each and every day.
And - we have a problem with our media. So often it presents a particular view. See the article from Donna Miles in The Press (URL below), entitled "We can condemn the Hamas attacks and Israel’s occupation". The title promises a balanced perspective but reads overwhelmingly in support of the Palestinian position. We can agree with Donna that Israel cannot justify terrorism and murder of its people with further terrorism of its own, but Donna makes only scant mention of the viciousness of Hammas.
She says:
"But now that we have this horror unfolding before our eyes, we are, at last, prepared to pay attention and listen to Palestinians as they are finally invited to the likes of CNN and BBC to tell us that what we have seen in the past few days, they have been experiencing for the past 75 years."
A fatuous assertion - because in recent decades the Palestinian cause has received much more traction in Western media than the Israeli cause.
Further she says:
". . . time and time again, have learnt that collective punishment of Palestinians will only strengthen their resolve to fight for their freedom."
AND
"Killing more Palestinians will not solve Israeli’s security problems. The only path to peace is by ending the illegal settlements, annexations and dispossession of Palestinians."
We may agree or disagree with those assertions but Donna has scarcely mentioned the murder of Israeli children.
Do we not see a problem with our New Zealand media? One perspective is advanced but not the other?
David Lillis
Donna Miles (2023). We can condemn the Hamas attacks and Israel’s occupation
https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news/350089960/we-can-condemn-hamas-attacks-and-israels-occupation?utm_source=stuff_website&utm_medium=stuff_referral&utm_campaign=mh_stuff&utm_id=mh_stuff
Yet another contradiction of woke philosophy.
They adopt a cause apparently at random - in this case, Islam over Judaism - and it's full bore in favour, regardless of the terrible things done now and in the past by their chosen side. Balance doesn't come into it.
They're completely blinkered by their conviction that they're right so anything can be justified, including the slaughter of innocent civilians.
There seems to be little logic to it, other than some woke elites support it. So, like a well trained pack of mutts, the woke brigade follow along, excitedly yapping and barking the same tune.
Maybe AI's not such a bad idea after all when you look at some humans so-called intelligence.
How do you pursue a plan of peace when one side only has the total destruction of the other side as it's intended reason for existing.
Two days ago I wrote a comment on Professor Gillespie's very fine article. There, I affirmed my general support for Israel and noted that the New Zealand media has tended strongly towards the Palestinian cause. Though I agree that Israel is most certainly not blameless in this long-standing conflict, I believe that media around the world has presented an unfairly negative picture of Israel and has downplayed the nastiness of particular elements of Palestinian society and the fear that Israeli citizens have of the surrounding nations.
The behavior of Hammas has been appalling beyond belief. However, Israel's response, clearly punishing and killing non-combatant Palestinian civilians (though this may not be Israel's intention) is not justified in any way.
Here in New Zealand, most of us cannot presume to know what it is like to live as an Israeli citizen, fearful at all times of latent terrorism - and nor can we know what it is like to live as a Palestinian. I cannot know either. However, I do know and talk frequently to Muslim immigrants and Israeli immigrants alike, and try to distill as clear a picture as I can.
But, as a supporter (in general) of Israel, while recognizing injustices to Palestinians, I am greatly disappointed by Israel's response. For a day or two, the world began to view the Israeli perspective a little more positively, but now we are back to where we were before. Our personal disappointment is that Israel could have led by example and shown restraint, even in the face of the butchery of Hammas.
We can only hope for all parties to see common sense and behave with greater kindness and humanitarianism - a fatuous statement, perhaps, but sadly the situation is out of the control of New Zealanders.
David Lillis
Post a Comment