logo
Journalists in Gaza are writing their own obituaries, after Israel brands them 'terrorists'

Journalists in Gaza are writing their own obituaries, after Israel brands them 'terrorists'

RNZ News2 days ago
By
Chantelle Al-Khouri
and
Lauren Day
, ABC
This screen grab taken from AFPTV on August 11, 2025 shows Al-Jazeera's Anas al-Sharif speaking during an AFP interview in Gaza City on August 1, 2024. Al Jazeera said two of its correspondents, including a prominent reporter, and three cameramen were killed in an Israeli strike on their tent in Gaza City on August 10.
Photo:
AFP
Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif knew his days were numbered.
The 28-year-old had become one of the most prominent reporters in Gaza and had amassed a large social media following, posting regular updates from the ground.
But as his work attracted a growing international audience, he also drew attention from the Israeli military.
That included escalating rhetoric from IDF spokesman Avichay Adraee, who in July described him as "a mouthpiece for intellectual terrorism" and accused him of being part of "a false Hamas campaign of starvation".
The IDF had claimed since October last year that al-Sharif was part of a group of Al Jazeera journalists working for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, citing documents it claimed showed he'd been a soldier in the Northern Brigade since 2013.
In May last year, the Israeli government shut down the Qatari news network's operations in the country, branding it a mouthpiece for Hamas.
Al Jazeera has repeatedly denied both accusations.
Just over two weeks ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called for al-Sharif's protection, and said he was being targeted by an Israeli military smear campaign he believed was "a precursor for his assassination".
Al-Sharif became one of a growing number of media workers being targeted by Israeli forces and smeared as "terrorists", with what press freedom groups say is no credible evidence to support the claims.
The father of two told the CPJ the campaign was not only a threat to press freedom, but also "a real-life threat".
"All of this is happening because my coverage of the crimes of the Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip harms them and damages their image in the world," al-Sharif said.
"This feeling is difficult and painful, but it does not push me back. Rather, it motivates me to continue fulfilling my duty and conveying the suffering of our people, even if it costs me my life."
On Monday, al-Sharif's premonition came true.
Israel killed him, alongside his Al Jazeera colleagues Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa, with a strike on a tent housing reporters in Gaza.
The attack wiped out the entire Al Jazeera reporting team left in Gaza City.
On Tuesday, hundreds gathered for his funeral through the streets of Gaza, as the UN condemned his death.
A man holds a portrait of the late Palestinian journalist Anas Al-Sharif as he gathers for a vigil to commemorate all journalists killed in Gaza, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague, on August 11, 2025.
Photo:
AFP/PHIL NIJHUIS
Anas al-Sharif was born in the Jabalia camp in Gaza's north, the largest refugee camp and one of the most densely populated areas in the Gaza Strip.
During the 2008 war in Gaza, when Israel launched a widespread bombing campaign on the territory, an 11-year-old Anas al-Sharif was interviewed by Al Jazeera, and said he dreamt of being a reporter.
Sixteen years later - just months after Hamas launched its deadly attacks on Israel in October 2023, prompting a devastating Israeli military response in Gaza - he joined the broadcaster.
"We grew up, but the face of the occupation did not change, and its aggression did not stop," he posted in February 2024.
The CPJ said he had refused to leave Gaza's north or cease coverage in November 2023, when he was a volunteer at another media network, despite threats by Israeli military officers telling him to do so via phone calls and voice notes disclosing his location.
A month later, an Israeli air strike hit his family home in Jabalia, killing his 90-year-old father.
Al-Sharif and his colleagues have been forced to report on what they, too, are living through, including having to announce the deaths of multiple relatives live on air.
As celebrations broke out following the announcement of a ceasefire deal in December 2024, al-Sharif took off his press helmet and bulletproof vest live on air to mark the moment.
"I can finally take off this helmet, which has exhausted me all this time, and also this armour which has become a part of my body," he said.
His final report was published after he was killed - his will and a final message.
"If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice," he said.
"I urge you not to let chains silence you, nor borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland."
Anas al-Sharif is not the first Palestinian journalist to have written his own obituary.
In March, his Al Jazeera colleague Hossam Shabat was killed by an Israeli drone strike on the car he was travelling in through northern Gaza.
Like al-Sharif, the 23-year-old had written a note to be released in the event of his death, beginning with "if you are reading this, it means that I have been killed".
The note, which detailed his sleepless nights, hunger and struggles to document the war, concluded:
"I will finally be able to rest, something I have not been able to do for the past 18 months."
Both men are now on a long list of journalists Israeli forces have targeted after claiming they were affiliated with terrorist organisations, while providing little credible evidence.
In October 2024, they were among six Palestinian Al Jazeera journalists that Israel accused of involvement with Hamas or Islamic Jihad militant groups, on the basis of what it said were documents seized from Gaza.
The documents were unable to be independently verified, and Al Jazeera called the accusation "a blatant attempt to silence the few remaining journalists in the region".
Shabat described the accusations as "fabricated dossiers framing us" and a "blatant and belligerent attempt to transform us, the last witnesses in the north, into kill-able targets".
Exactly five months later, he was killed by Israeli forces, while travelling in a car emblazoned with the "TV" and "Al Jazeera" labels.
Other examples of journalists accused of terrorism and targeted by Israeli forces include Yaser Murtaja, who had been vetted by the US government to receive a USAID grant, and Ismail al-Ghoul, who would have had to have received a Hamas military ranking at just 10 years old, according to an IDF-produced document.
Jodie Ginsberg from the CPJ told the ABC it was part of a pattern seen from Israel not only during the current war, but whenever Israeli forces have killed Palestinian journalists.
"It then subsequently alleges, without providing any credible evidence, that they are terrorist operatives and we've seen that in the case of Anas al-Sharif and a number of our journalists killed in this war," she said.
"Unusually in this war, we've seen Israel allege that journalists are terrorists ahead of time - in what Anas and other journalists have said, and we have said, seems to be a precursor to their killing, justifying their murders."
Israel has not allowed international media to independently enter Gaza since October 7.
With foreign journalists locked out of the enclave, the world has been relying on Palestinian media workers to report on the war - but their numbers are dwindling.
The CPJ has said this is the deadliest conflict for journalists it has ever documented, with more than 186 journalists having been killed.
Of those, at least 178 were Palestinians killed by Israel.
Ginsberg said at least 17 were deliberately targeted as journalists for their work, and it's clear there is no protection available to those who remain.
"We are extremely concerned that we are going to simply see more and more of these deaths as the offensive in Gaza continues," she told the ABC.
Directing attacks against journalists is considered a violation of international humanitarian law and constitutes a war crime.
Nasser Abu Bakr, from the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, described Monday's killings as a "massacre".
"This is a black day for Palestinian journalists," he said.
"It is systematic killing and systematic targeting of our journalists in Gaza from the Israeli government.
"It will not prevent us to continue our duty. We are professional journalists and … we are determined to continue our work under fire, under starvation, without any equipment to show the people what's happening on the ground."
Ginsberg pointed out that journalists are also not immune from the other issues facing the entire population of Gaza.
"They are subject to starvation, continual displacement, the deterioration of equipment [and] communications blackouts, whilst trying to report on a war that is deeply impacting them personally," she said.
Last month, news agency Agence France-Presse asked Israel to allow the immediate evacuation of its freelance contributors and their families from Gaza, after they said they were struggling to work due to the threat of hunger.
They joined the Associated Press, BBC News and Reuters in a rare statement voicing concern about journalists remaining in the territory, which read:
"We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families.
"For many months, these independent journalists have been the world's eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza.
"They are now facing the same dire circumstances as those they are covering."
- ABC
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Full sovereignty and independence': New Caledonia's FLNKS rejects France's Bougival project
'Full sovereignty and independence': New Caledonia's FLNKS rejects France's Bougival project

RNZ News

time2 hours ago

  • RNZ News

'Full sovereignty and independence': New Caledonia's FLNKS rejects France's Bougival project

The independence flag at the FLNKS press conference in Noumea. Photo: AFP / Delphine Mayeur New Caledonia's pro-independence front, the FLNKS, on Wednesday formally confirmed its "block rejection" of the French-fostered Bougival project, signed on 12 July, although it was presented as an agreement between all parties to serve as a guide for the French Pacific territory's political future. This follows the FLNKS's extraordinary Congress held at the weekend in Mont-Dore, near Nouméa. Statements made on Wednesday widely confirmed the pro-independence umbrella's unanimous rejection of the document. The FLNKS confirmed on Wednesday at a press conference its rejection of the Bougival draft agreement and called for provincial elections to be held next November. Photo: AFP / Delphine Mayeur At the weekend Congress, FLNKS president Christian Téin (speaking via telephone from mainland France), had called on FLNKS to "clearly and unequivocally" reject the Bougival document. He said document demonstrated "the administrating power's (France) contempt towards our struggle for recognition as the colonised people". However, he called on the FLNKS to "remain open to dialogue", but only focusing on ways to obtain "full sovereignty" after bilateral talks only with the French State, and no longer with the opposing local political parties (who want New Caledonia to remain a part of France). Some of the mentioned deadlines, he said, were 24 September 2025 and eventually before the end of President Macron's mandate in April 2027, when French Presidential elections are scheduled to take place. Téin was also part of the 13 August media conference, joining via videoconference, to confirm the FLNKS resolutions made at the weekend. Apart from reiterating its calendar of events, the FLNKS, in its final document, endorses the "total and unambiguous rejection" of the French-fostered document" because it is "incompatible" with the right to self-determination and bears a "logic of recolonisation" on the part of France. The document, labelled "motion of general policy", also demands that as a result of the rejection of the Bougival document, and since the previous 1998 Nouméa Accord remains in force, provincial elections previously scheduled for no later than November 2025 should now be maintained. Under the Bougival format, the provincial elections were to be postponed once again to mid-2026. "This will be a good opportunity to verify the legitimacy of those people who want to discuss the future of the country", FLNKS member Sylvain Pabouty (head of Dynamique Unitaire Sud -DUS-) told reporters. Signatures on the last page of New Caledonia's new agreement Photo: Philippe Dunoyer As for the five negotiators who, initially, put their signatures on the document on behalf of FLNKS (including chief negotiator And Union Calédonienne Chairman Emmanuel Tjibaou), they have been de-missioned and their mandate deemed null and void. "Let this be clear to everyone. This is a block rejection of all that is related to the Bougival project," FLNKS political bureau member and leader of the Labour party Marie-Pierre Goyetche told local reporters. "Bougival is behind us, end of the story. The fundamental aim is for our country to access full sovereignty and independence through a decolonisation process within the framework of international law, including the right of the peoples to dispose of themselves." She said that, from now on, the FLNKS will refuse to engage in any aspect of the Bougival document. Part of this further Bougival engagement is a "drafting committee" suggested by French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls, aiming at elaborating all documents (including necessary bills, legal and constitutional texts) related to the general agreement signed in July. Anticipating the FLNKS decision, Valls has already announced he will travel to New Caledonia next week to pursue talks and further "clarify" the spirit of the negotiations that led to the signing. He said he would not give up and that a failure to go along with the agreed document would be "everyone's failure". The Bougival document envisages a path to more autonomy for New Caledonia, including transferring more powers (such as foreign affairs) from France. It also proposes to augment its status by creating a "State" of New Caledonia and creating a dual French/New Caledonia citizenship. The FLNKS stressed it still wanted to talk to Valls, albeit on their own terms, especially when he visits New Caledonia next week. However, according to the FLNKS "motion", this would mean only on one-to-one format (no longer inclusively with the local pro-France parties), with United Nations "technical assistance" and "under the supervision" of the FLNKS president. The only admitted subjects would then be related to a path to "full sovereignty" and further talks were only to take place in New Caledonia. As for the timeline, the FLNKS "motion" states that a "Kanaky Agreement" should be signed before 24 September, which would open a transitional period to full sovereignty not later than April 2027, in other words "before (French) Presidential elections". Goyetche also stressed that the FLNKS motion is warning France against "any new attempt to force its way", as was the case in the days preceding 13 May 2024. This is when a vote in Parliament to amend the French constitution and change the rules of eligibility for voters at New Caledonia's local provincial elections triggered deadly and destructive riots that killed 14 and caused damages worth over €2 billion (as a result of arson and looting). "It seems as if the French government wants to go through the same hardships again", Téin was heard saying through his telephone at the Wednesday conference. "Don't do the same mistake again", Pabouty spoke in a fictitious warning to Valls. In his message posted on social networks on Sunday (10 August), the French minister had blamed those who "refuse the agreement" and who "choose confrontation and let the situation rot away". At the same media conference on Wednesday, FLNKS officials also called on "all of pro-independence forces to do all in their power to peacefully stop the (French) State's agenda as agreed in Bougival". The FLNKS text, as released on Wednesday, also "reaffirms that FLNKS remains the only legitimate representative of the Kanak people, to carry its inalienable right to self-determination". Téin is the leader of the CCAT (field action coordinating cell), a group set up by Union Calédonienne late 2023 to protest against the proposed French Constitutional amendment to alter voters' rules of eligibility at local elections. The protests mainly stemmed from the perception that if the new rules were to come into force, the indigenous Kanaks would find themselves in a position of minority in their own country. Téin was arrested in June 2024 and was charged for a number of crime-related offences, as well as his alleged involvement in the May 2024 riots. He was released from jail mid-June 2025 pending his trial and under the condition that he does not return to New Caledonia for the time being. From his prison cell in Mulhouse (North-east of mainland France), Téin was however elected President of FLNKS in absentia late August 2024. At the same time, as part of the same August 2024 FLNKS meeting, CCAT was admitted as one of the new components of FLNKS, just like a number of other organisations such as trade union USTKE, the Labour party and other smaller pro-independence movement components. Also late August 2024, in a de facto split, the two main moderate pillars of FLNKS, UPM and PALIKA, at the same time, distanced themselves from the pro-independence UC-dominated platform, materialising a persisting rift within the pro-independence umbrella. They asked their supporters to stay away from the riot-related violence, which also materialised through arson, looting and the destruction of hundreds of local businesses, causing in turn thousands of job losses. UPM and PALIKA once again did not take part in the latest FLNKS meeting at the weekend. The two moderate pro-independence parties are part of the political groups who also signed the Bougival document and pledged to uphold it, as it is formulated, and keep the "Bougival spirit" in further talks. The other groups, apart from UPM and PALIKA, are pro-France (Les Loyalistes, Rassemblement-LR, Calédonie Ensemble, as well as Wallisian-based Eveil Océanien. FLNKS, even though five of their negotiators had also signed the document, has since denounced them and said their representative had "no mandate" to do so. Whereas pro-France parties had carefully chosen to not comment on the latest FLNKS moves until they were made public, the official rejection was met by a joint communiqué from Les Loyalistes and Rassemblement-LR. In a long-winded text, the two outspoken pro-France parties have "deplored" what they termed "yet another betrayal". They confirm they will meet Valls along Bougival lines when he visits next week and are now calling on a "bipartisan" committee of those supporting the Bougival text, including parties from all sides, as well as members of the civil society and "experts". They maintain that the Bougival document is "the only viable way to pull New Caledonia out of the critical situation in which it finds itself" and the "political balances" it contains "cannot be put into question".

On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza
On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza

Scoop

time3 hours ago

  • Scoop

On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza

Article – Gordon Campbell The word Gaza is taking on similar connotations to what the word Auschwitz meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity. The word 'Gaza' is taking on similar connotations to what the word ' Auschwitz' meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity. As a result, Israel is isolating itself as a pariah state on the world stage. This week alone has seen Israel target and kill four Al Jazeera journalists, just as it had executed eight Red Crescent medical staff and seven other first responders back in March, and then dumped their bodies in a mass grave. Overall 186 journalists have died at the hands of the IDF since October 7, 2023, and at least 1,400 medical staff as of May Monday night a five year old disabled child starved to death. Reportedly, he weighed only three kilograms when he died. Muhammad Zakaria Khudr was the 101st child among the 227 Palestinians now reported to have died from starvation. Meanwhile, PM Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters keep on saying that with regard to New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state, it is a matter of 'Not if, but when.' Yet why is ' but not now' still their default position? At this rate, a country that used to pride itself on its human rights record – New Zealand has never stopped bragging that this is where women won the right to vote, before they did anywhere else – will be among the last countries on earth to recognise Palestine's right to exist. What can we do ? Some options: (a) Boycott all Israeli goods and services (b) Engage with the local Palestinian community, and support their businesses, and cultural events (c) Donate financial support to Gaza. Here's a reliable link to directy support pregnant Gaza women and their babies (d) Lobby your local MP, and Immigration Minister Erika Stanford – to prioritise the inclusion of hundreds of Gazans in our refugee programme, just as we did in the wake of the civil war in Syria, and earlier, in Sudan (e) Write and phone your local MP, and urge them to support economic sanctions against Israel. These sanctions should include a sporting and cultural boycott along the lines we pursued so successfully against apartheid South Africa (f) Contact your KiwiSaver provider and let it be known that you will change providers if they invest in Israeli firms, or in the US, German and UK firms that supply the IDF with weapons and targeting systems. Contact the NZ Super Fund and urge them to divest along similar lines (g) Identify and picket any NZ firms that supply the US/Israeli war machines directly, or indirectly (h) Contact your local MP and urge him or her to support Chloe Swarbrick's private member's bill that would impose economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its unlawful occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Swarbrick's Bill is modelled on the existing Russian sanctions framework. If 61 MPs pledged support for Swarbrick's Bill, it would not have to win a private members ballot before being debated in Parliament. Currently 21 MPs (the Greens and TPM) formally support it. If and when Labour's 34 MPs come on board, this will still require another six MPs (from across the three coalition parties) to do the right thing. Goading MPs into doing the right thing got Swarbrick into a world of trouble this week. (Those wacky Greens. They're such idealists.) We should all be lobbying our local MPs for a firm commitment that they will back the Swarbrick Bill. Portray it to them as being in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and as them supporting the several UN resolutions on the status of the occupied territories. And if they still baulk ask them flatly- if not, why not? (i) Email/phone/write to the PM's office, and ask him to call in the Israeli ambassador and personally express New Zealand's repugnance at Israel's inhumane actions in Gaza and on the West Bank. The PM should also be communicating in person New Zealand's opposition to the recently announced Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza City, and expansion of the war in Gaza. (h) Write to your MP, to the PM, and to Foreign Minister Winston Peters urging them to recognise Palestinian statehood right now. Inquire as to what further information they may need before making that decision, and offer to supply it. We need to learn how to share our outrage. (i) Learn about the history of this issue, so that you convince friends and family to take similar actions. Here's a bare bones timeline of the main historical events. This map showing (in white) the countries that are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood speaks volumes. Those holdout nations in white tend to have been the chief enablers of Israel's founding in 1948, a gesture of atonement driven by European guilt over the Holocaust. This 'homeland' for the Jews already had residents known to have had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Yet since 1948 the people of Palestine have been made to bear all of the bad consequences of the West's purging of its collective guilt. Conditional justice The same indifference to the lives of Palestinians is evident in the belated steps towards supporting the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Even the recognition promised by the UK,Canada, France and Australia next month is decked out with further conditions that the Palestinians are being told they need to meet. No equivalent demands are being made of Israel, despite the atrocities it is committing in Gaza. There's nothing new about this. Historically, all of the concessions have been made by the Palestinians, starting with their original displacement. Some 30 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation formally recognised Israel's right to exist. In response, Israel immediately expanded its settlements on Palestinian land, a flagrant breach of the commitments it made in the Oslo Accords, and in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement. The West did nothing, said little. As the New York Times recently pointed out: In a 1993 exchange of letters, the Palestine Liberation Organization's chairman, Yasir Arafat, recognized the 'right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security' and committed the P.L.O. to peaceful negotiations, renouncing terrorism and amending the Palestinian charter to reflect these commitments. In return, Israel would merely recognize the P.L.O. as the representative of the Palestinian people — and only 'in light of' Mr. Arafat's commitments. Palestinian sovereignty remained remote; Israeli occupation continued apace. This double standard persists: This fundamental unfairness has informed every diplomatic effort since. The rump Palestinian government built the limited institutions it was permitted under the Oslo Accords, co-operated with Israeli security forces and voiced support for a peace process that had long been undermined by Israel. Led by then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority's statehood campaign in the 2000s was entirely based on playing the game according to rules set by Israel and the Western-dominated international community. Yet recognition remained stalled, the United States blocked Palestine's full membership in the United Nations — and still, no conditions were placed on the occupying power. That's where we're still at. Luxon, Peters and David Seymour are demanding more concessions from the Palestinians. They keep strongly denouncing the Hamas October 7 atrocities – which is valid – while weakly urging Israel to abide by the international laws and conventions that Israel repeatedly breaches. When a state deploys famine as a strategic weapon, doesn't it deserve to be condemned, up front and personal? Instead, the language that New Zealand uses to address Israel's crimes is almost invariably, and selectively, passive. Terrible things are 'happening' in Gaza and they must 'stop.' Children, mysteriously, are 'starving.' This is 'intolerable.' It is as if there is no human agent, and no state power responsible for these outcomes. Things are just somehow 'happening' and they must somehow 'cease.' Enough is enough, cries Peters, while carefully choosing not to name names, beyond Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel has announced its plans to expand the war, even though 600 Israeli ex-officials (some of them from Shin Bet, Israel's equivalent to the SIS) have publicly said that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. As mentioned, Israel is publicly discussing its plans for Gaza's ' voluntary emigration ' and for the permanent annexation of the West Bank. Even when urged to do so by Christopher Luxon, it seems that Israel is not actually complying with international law, and is not fulfilling its legal obligations as an occupying power. Has anyone told Luxon about this yet? Two state fantasy, one state reality At one level, continuing to call for a 'two state' solution is absurd, given that the Knesset formally rejected the proposal a year ago. More than once, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced it while also laying Israel's claim to all of the land west of Jordan, which would include the West Bank and Gaza. Evidently, the slogan ' from the river to sea' is only a terrorist slogan when Hamas uses it. Yet the phrase originated as a Likud the West evidently thinks it is quite OK for Netanyahu to publicly call for Israeli hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Basic rule of diplomacy: bad is what they do, good is what we do, and we have always been on Team Israel. Over the course of the three decades since the Oslo Accords were signed, the West has kept on advocating for a two state solution, while acting as if only one of those states has a right to exist. On what land do Luxon and Peters think that a viable Palestinian state can be built? One pre-condition for Palestinian statehood that Luxon cited to RNZ last week required Israel to be 'not undermining the territorial integrity that would then undermine the two state solution.' Really? Does Luxon not realise that this is exactly what Israel has been doing for the past 30 years? Talking of which.. are Luxon and Peters genuinely expecting Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders? That land was agreed at Oslo and mandated by the UN as the territory needed for a viable Palestinian state. Yet on the relatively small area of the West Bank alone, 3.4 million Palestinians currently subsist on disconnected patches of land under occupation amid extreme settler violence, while contending with 614 Israeli checkpoints and other administrative obstacles impeding their free movement. Here's what the land left to the Palestinians looks like today: A brief backgrounder on Areas A, B and C and how they operate can be found here. Obviously, this situation cannot be the template for a viable Palestinian state. What Is The Point? You might well ask…in the light of the above, what is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? Given the realities on the ground, it can only be a symbolic gesture. The reversion to the 1967 borders (a necessary step towards a Palestinian state) can happen only if the US agreed to push Israel in that direction by withholding funds and weaponry. That's very hard to imagine. The hypocrisy of the Western nations on this issue is breath-taking. The US and Germany continue to be Israel's main foreign suppliers of weapons and targeting systems. Under Keir Starmer's leadership as well, the UK sales of military equipment to Israel have sharply increased. New export licensing figures show that the UK approved licenses for £127.6 million worth of military equipment to Israel in single issue licenses between October to December 2024. This is a massive increase, with the figure in this three-month period totaling more than 2020-2023 combined. Thanks to an explicitly enacted legal exemption, the UK also continues to supply parts for Israel's F-35 jets. UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts [ estimated ] to be worth at least £500 million since 2016, and [this] is the most significant part of the UK arms industry [relationship]with Israel…at least 79 companies [are] involved in manufacturing components. These are the same F-35 war planes that the IDF has used to drop 2,000 pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods in Gaza. Starmer cannot credibly pose has as a man of peace. So again…what exactly is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? No doubt, it would boost Palestinian morale if some major Western powers finally conceded that Palestine has a right to exist. In that narrow sense, recognition would correct a historical injustice. There is also optimistic talk that formal Palestinian statehood would isolate the US on the Security Council (Trump would probably wear that as a badge of honour) and would make Israel more accountable under humanitarian law. As if. Theoretically, a recognition of statehood would also enable people in New Zealand and elsewhere to apply pressure to their governments to forthrightly condemn and sanction Israel for its crimes against a fellow UN member state. None of this, however, is likely to change the reality on the ground, or prevent the calls for Israel's 'accountability' and for its 'compliance with international law' from ringing hollow. As the NYT also says: After almost two years of severe access restrictions and the dismantling of the U.N.-led aid system in favour of a militarized food distribution that has left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead, [now 1,838 dead at these 'aid centres' since late May, as of yesterday ]… The 15 nations [at a UN meeting in late July that signed a declaration on Gaza] still would not collectively say 'Israel is responsible for starvation in Gaza.' If they cannot name the problem, they can hardly hope to resolve it. In sum…the world may talk the talk of Palestinian statehood being a matter of 'not if, but when' and witter on about the 'irreversible steps' being taken toward statehood, and finally – somewhere over the rainbow – towards a two state solution. Faint chance: 'For those who are starving today, the only irreversible step is death. Until statehood recognition brings action — arms embargoes, sanctions, enforcement of international law — it will remain a largely empty promise that serves primarily to distract from Western complicity in Gaza's destruction. Exactly. Behind the words of concern are the actions of complicity. The people of Gaza do not have time to wait for symbolic actions, or for sanctions to weaken Israel's appetite for genocide. Consider this option: would New Zealand support an intervention in Gaza by a UN-led international force to save Gaza's dwindling population, and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected, however belatedly? Would we be willing to commit troops to such a force if asked to do so by the UN Secretary-General? That is what is now needed. Footnote One: On Gaza, the Luxon government has a high tolerance for double standards and Catch 22 conditions. We are insisting that the Palestinians must release the remaining hostages unconditionally, lay down their arms and de-militarise the occupied territories. Yet we are applying no similar pre-conditions on Israel to withdraw, de-militarise the same space, release all their Palestinian prisoners, allow the unrestricted distribution of food and medical supplies, and negotiate a sustainable peace. Understandably, Hamas has tied the release of the remaining hostages to the Israeli cessation of their onslaught, to unfettered aid distribution, and to a long-term commitment to Palestinian self-rule. Otherwise, once the Israeli hostages are home, there would be nothing to stop Israel from renewing the genocide. We are also demanding that Hamas be excluded from any future governing arrangement in Gaza, but – simultaneously – Peters told the House recently that this governing arrangement must also be 'representative.' Catch 22. 'Representative' democracy it seems, means voting for the people pre-selected by the West. Again, no matching demands have been made of Israel with respect to its role in the future governance of Gaza, or about its obligation to rebuild what it has criminally destroyed. Footnote Two: There is only one rational explanation for why New Zealand is currently holding back from joining the UK, Canada, France and Australia in voting next month to recognise Palestine as a full UN member state. It seems we are cravenly hoping that Australia's stance will be viewed with such disfavour by Donald Trump that he will punish Canberra by lifting its tariff rate from 10%, thereby erasing the 5% advantage that Australia currently enjoys oven us in the US market. At least this tells us what the selling price is for our 'independent' foreign policy. We're prepared to sell it out to the Americans – and sell out the Palestinians in the process – if, by sitting on the fence for now, we can engineer parity for our exports with Australia in US markets. ANZAC mates, forever.

On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza
On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza

Scoop

time3 hours ago

  • Scoop

On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza

The word 'Gaza' is taking on similar connotations to what the word ' Auschwitz' meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity. As a result, Israel is isolating itself as a pariah state on the world stage. This week alone has seen Israel target and kill four Al Jazeera journalists, just as it had executed eight Red Crescent medical staff and seven other first responders back in March, and then dumped their bodies in a mass grave. Overall 186 journalists have died at the hands of the IDF since October 7, 2023, and at least 1,400 medical staff as of May Monday night a five year old disabled child starved to death. Reportedly, he weighed only three kilograms when he died. Muhammad Zakaria Khudr was the 101st child among the 227 Palestinians now reported to have died from starvation. Meanwhile, PM Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters keep on saying that with regard to New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state, it is a matter of 'Not if, but when.' Yet why is ' but not now' still their default position? At this rate, a country that used to pride itself on its human rights record – New Zealand has never stopped bragging that this is where women won the right to vote, before they did anywhere else – will be among the last countries on earth to recognise Palestine's right to exist. What can we do ? Some options: (a) Boycott all Israeli goods and services (b) Engage with the local Palestinian community, and support their businesses, and cultural events (c) Donate financial support to Gaza. Here's a reliable link to directy support pregnant Gaza women and their babies (d) Lobby your local MP, and Immigration Minister Erika Stanford – to prioritise the inclusion of hundreds of Gazans in our refugee programme, just as we did in the wake of the civil war in Syria, and earlier, in Sudan (e) Write and phone your local MP, and urge them to support economic sanctions against Israel. These sanctions should include a sporting and cultural boycott along the lines we pursued so successfully against apartheid South Africa (f) Contact your KiwiSaver provider and let it be known that you will change providers if they invest in Israeli firms, or in the US, German and UK firms that supply the IDF with weapons and targeting systems. Contact the NZ Super Fund and urge them to divest along similar lines (g) Identify and picket any NZ firms that supply the US/Israeli war machines directly, or indirectly (h) Contact your local MP and urge him or her to support Chloe Swarbrick's private member's bill that would impose economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its unlawful occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Swarbrick's Bill is modelled on the existing Russian sanctions framework. If 61 MPs pledged support for Swarbrick's Bill, it would not have to win a private members ballot before being debated in Parliament. Currently 21 MPs (the Greens and TPM) formally support it. If and when Labour's 34 MPs come on board, this will still require another six MPs (from across the three coalition parties) to do the right thing. Goading MPs into doing the right thing got Swarbrick into a world of trouble this week. (Those wacky Greens. They're such idealists.) We should all be lobbying our local MPs for a firm commitment that they will back the Swarbrick Bill. Portray it to them as being in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and as them supporting the several UN resolutions on the status of the occupied territories. And if they still baulk ask them flatly- if not, why not? (i) Email/phone/write to the PM's office, and ask him to call in the Israeli ambassador and personally express New Zealand's repugnance at Israel's inhumane actions in Gaza and on the West Bank. The PM should also be communicating in person New Zealand's opposition to the recently announced Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza City, and expansion of the war in Gaza. (h) Write to your MP, to the PM, and to Foreign Minister Winston Peters urging them to recognise Palestinian statehood right now. Inquire as to what further information they may need before making that decision, and offer to supply it. We need to learn how to share our outrage. (i) Learn about the history of this issue, so that you convince friends and family to take similar actions. Here's a bare bones timeline of the main historical events. This map showing (in white) the countries that are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood speaks volumes. Those holdout nations in white tend to have been the chief enablers of Israel's founding in 1948, a gesture of atonement driven by European guilt over the Holocaust. This 'homeland' for the Jews already had residents known to have had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Yet since 1948 the people of Palestine have been made to bear all of the bad consequences of the West's purging of its collective guilt. Conditional justice The same indifference to the lives of Palestinians is evident in the belated steps towards supporting the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Even the recognition promised by the UK,Canada, France and Australia next month is decked out with further conditions that the Palestinians are being told they need to meet. No equivalent demands are being made of Israel, despite the atrocities it is committing in Gaza. There's nothing new about this. Historically, all of the concessions have been made by the Palestinians, starting with their original displacement. Some 30 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation formally recognised Israel's right to exist. In response, Israel immediately expanded its settlements on Palestinian land, a flagrant breach of the commitments it made in the Oslo Accords, and in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement. The West did nothing, said little. As the New York Times recently pointed out: In a 1993 exchange of letters, the Palestine Liberation Organization's chairman, Yasir Arafat, recognized the 'right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security' and committed the P.L.O. to peaceful negotiations, renouncing terrorism and amending the Palestinian charter to reflect these commitments. In return, Israel would merely recognize the P.L.O. as the representative of the Palestinian people — and only 'in light of' Mr. Arafat's commitments. Palestinian sovereignty remained remote; Israeli occupation continued apace. This double standard persists: This fundamental unfairness has informed every diplomatic effort since. The rump Palestinian government built the limited institutions it was permitted under the Oslo Accords, co-operated with Israeli security forces and voiced support for a peace process that had long been undermined by Israel. Led by then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority's statehood campaign in the 2000s was entirely based on playing the game according to rules set by Israel and the Western-dominated international community. Yet recognition remained stalled, the United States blocked Palestine's full membership in the United Nations — and still, no conditions were placed on the occupying power. That's where we're still at. Luxon, Peters and David Seymour are demanding more concessions from the Palestinians. They keep strongly denouncing the Hamas October 7 atrocities – which is valid - while weakly urging Israel to abide by the international laws and conventions that Israel repeatedly breaches. When a state deploys famine as a strategic weapon, doesn't it deserve to be condemned, up front and personal? Instead, the language that New Zealand uses to address Israel's crimes is almost invariably, and selectively, passive. Terrible things are 'happening' in Gaza and they must 'stop.' Children, mysteriously, are 'starving.' This is 'intolerable.' It is as if there is no human agent, and no state power responsible for these outcomes. Things are just somehow 'happening' and they must somehow 'cease.' Enough is enough, cries Peters, while carefully choosing not to name names, beyond Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel has announced its plans to expand the war, even though 600 Israeli ex-officials (some of them from Shin Bet, Israel's equivalent to the SIS) have publicly said that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. As mentioned, Israel is publicly discussing its plans for Gaza's ' voluntary emigration ' and for the permanent annexation of the West Bank. Even when urged to do so by Christopher Luxon, it seems that Israel is not actually complying with international law, and is not fulfilling its legal obligations as an occupying power. Has anyone told Luxon about this yet? Two state fantasy, one state reality At one level, continuing to call for a 'two state' solution is absurd, given that the Knesset formally rejected the proposal a year ago. More than once, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced it while also laying Israel's claim to all of the land west of Jordan, which would include the West Bank and Gaza. Evidently, the slogan ' from the river to sea' is only a terrorist slogan when Hamas uses it. Yet the phrase originated as a Likud the West evidently thinks it is quite OK for Netanyahu to publicly call for Israeli hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Basic rule of diplomacy: bad is what they do, good is what we do, and we have always been on Team Israel. Over the course of the three decades since the Oslo Accords were signed, the West has kept on advocating for a two state solution, while acting as if only one of those states has a right to exist. On what land do Luxon and Peters think that a viable Palestinian state can be built? One pre-condition for Palestinian statehood that Luxon cited to RNZ last week required Israel to be 'not undermining the territorial integrity that would then undermine the two state solution.' Really? Does Luxon not realise that this is exactly what Israel has been doing for the past 30 years? Talking of which.. are Luxon and Peters genuinely expecting Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders? That land was agreed at Oslo and mandated by the UN as the territory needed for a viable Palestinian state. Yet on the relatively small area of the West Bank alone, 3.4 million Palestinians currently subsist on disconnected patches of land under occupation amid extreme settler violence, while contending with 614 Israeli checkpoints and other administrative obstacles impeding their free movement. Here's what the land left to the Palestinians looks like today: A brief backgrounder on Areas A, B and C and how they operate can be found here. Obviously, this situation cannot be the template for a viable Palestinian state. What Is The Point? You might well the light of the above, what is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? Given the realities on the ground, it can only be a symbolic gesture. The reversion to the 1967 borders (a necessary step towards a Palestinian state) can happen only if the US agreed to push Israel in that direction by withholding funds and weaponry. That's very hard to imagine. The hypocrisy of the Western nations on this issue is breath-taking. The US and Germany continue to be Israel's main foreign suppliers of weapons and targeting systems. Under Keir Starmer's leadership as well, the UK sales of military equipment to Israel have sharply increased. New export licensing figures show that the UK approved licenses for £127.6 million worth of military equipment to Israel in single issue licenses between October to December 2024. This is a massive increase, with the figure in this three-month period totaling more than 2020-2023 combined. Thanks to an explicitly enacted legal exemption, the UK also continues to supply parts for Israel's F-35 jets. UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts [ estimated ] to be worth at least £500 million since 2016, and [this] is the most significant part of the UK arms industry [relationship]with least 79 companies [are] involved in manufacturing components. These are the same F-35 war planes that the IDF has used to drop 2,000 pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods in Gaza. Starmer cannot credibly pose has as a man of peace. So exactly is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? No doubt, it would boost Palestinian morale if some major Western powers finally conceded that Palestine has a right to exist. In that narrow sense, recognition would correct a historical injustice. There is also optimistic talk that formal Palestinian statehood would isolate the US on the Security Council (Trump would probably wear that as a badge of honour) and would make Israel more accountable under humanitarian law. As if. Theoretically, a recognition of statehood would also enable people in New Zealand and elsewhere to apply pressure to their governments to forthrightly condemn and sanction Israel for its crimes against a fellow UN member state. None of this, however, is likely to change the reality on the ground, or prevent the calls for Israel's 'accountability' and for its 'compliance with international law' from ringing hollow. As the NYT also says: After almost two years of severe access restrictions and the dismantling of the U.N.-led aid system in favour of a militarized food distribution that has left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead, [now 1,838 dead at these 'aid centres' since late May, as of yesterday ]... The 15 nations [at a UN meeting in late July that signed a declaration on Gaza] still would not collectively say 'Israel is responsible for starvation in Gaza.' If they cannot name the problem, they can hardly hope to resolve it. In world may talk the talk of Palestinian statehood being a matter of 'not if, but when' and witter on about the 'irreversible steps' being taken toward statehood, and finally - somewhere over the rainbow – towards a two state solution. Faint chance: 'For those who are starving today, the only irreversible step is death. Until statehood recognition brings action — arms embargoes, sanctions, enforcement of international law — it will remain a largely empty promise that serves primarily to distract from Western complicity in Gaza's destruction. Exactly. Behind the words of concern are the actions of complicity. The people of Gaza do not have time to wait for symbolic actions, or for sanctions to weaken Israel's appetite for genocide. Consider this option: would New Zealand support an intervention in Gaza by a UN-led international force to save Gaza's dwindling population, and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected, however belatedly? Would we be willing to commit troops to such a force if asked to do so by the UN Secretary-General? That is what is now needed. Footnote One: On Gaza, the Luxon government has a high tolerance for double standards and Catch 22 conditions. We are insisting that the Palestinians must release the remaining hostages unconditionally, lay down their arms and de-militarise the occupied territories. Yet we are applying no similar pre-conditions on Israel to withdraw, de-militarise the same space, release all their Palestinian prisoners, allow the unrestricted distribution of food and medical supplies, and negotiate a sustainable peace. Understandably, Hamas has tied the release of the remaining hostages to the Israeli cessation of their onslaught, to unfettered aid distribution, and to a long-term commitment to Palestinian self-rule. Otherwise, once the Israeli hostages are home, there would be nothing to stop Israel from renewing the genocide. We are also demanding that Hamas be excluded from any future governing arrangement in Gaza, but – simultaneously - Peters told the House recently that this governing arrangement must also be 'representative.' Catch 22. 'Representative' democracy it seems, means voting for the people pre-selected by the West. Again, no matching demands have been made of Israel with respect to its role in the future governance of Gaza, or about its obligation to rebuild what it has criminally destroyed. Footnote Two: There is only one rational explanation for why New Zealand is currently holding back from joining the UK, Canada, France and Australia in voting next month to recognise Palestine as a full UN member state. It seems we are cravenly hoping that Australia's stance will be viewed with such disfavour by Donald Trump that he will punish Canberra by lifting its tariff rate from 10%, thereby erasing the 5% advantage that Australia currently enjoys oven us in the US market. At least this tells us what the selling price is for our 'independent' foreign policy. We're prepared to sell it out to the Americans – and sell out the Palestinians in the process – if, by sitting on the fence for now, we can engineer parity for our exports with Australia in US markets. ANZAC mates, forever.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store