Hamas has accused Israel of “cheap and unacceptable blackmail” over its decision to halt the electricity supply to war-ravaged Palestinian enclave of Gaza to pressure the group into releasing the captives.

“We strongly condemn the occupation’s decision to cut off electricity to Gaza, after depriving it of food, medicine, and water,” Izzat al-Risheq, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, said in a statement.

He said it was “a desperate attempt to pressure our people and their resistance through cheap and unacceptable blackmail tactics”.

• READ MORE: Israel cuts off Gaza electricity supply ahead of truce talks
• International Women’s Day activists protest in solidarity with Palestinians
• Israel cuts off electricity supply to Gaza as new truce talks set to resume
• Other Gaza genocide reports

“Cutting off electricity, closing the crossings, stopping aid, relief and fuel, and starving our people, constitutes collective punishment and a full-fledged war crime,” al-Risheq said.

He accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of attempting “to impose a new roadmap” that prioritised his personal interests.

Israel has been widely condemned for violating the terms of the three-phased ceasefire agreement signed on January 19. It has been trying force “renegotiation” of the terms on Hamas by cutting off food supplies and now electricity.

Albanese slams ‘clean water’ cut off
Francesa Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, said Israel’s decision to cut off electricity to Gaza meant “no functioning desalination stations, ergo: no clean water”.

She added that countries that were yet to impose sanctions or an arms embargo on Israel were “AIDING AND ASSISTING Israel in the commission of one of the most preventable genocides of our history”.

According to Human Rights Watch, Israel had already intentionally cut off most ways that Palestinians in Gaza could access water, including by blocking pipelines to Gaza and destroying solar panels used to try to keep some water pumps and desalination and waste management plants running during power outages.

GENOCIDE ALERT!Israel cutting off electricity supplies to Gaza means, among others, no functioning desalination stations, ergo: no clean water.
STILL NO SANCTION/NO ARMS EMBARGO against Israel means, among others, AIDING AND ASSISTING Israel in the commission of one of the… https://t.co/x2cX4MuP0K

— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) March 9, 2025

In a December report, the organisation noted that Palestinians in many areas of Gaza had access to 2 to 9 litres (0.5 to 2 gallons) of water for drinking and washing per day, per person, far below the 15-litre (3.3 gallons) per person threshold for survival.

“At this point in the war, I do not believe that Israel, Hamas and America are far apart. I want to see our people home. All of them, not just the Americans,” he added.

Boehler praises Qatar’s role
US President Donald Trump’s envoy on captives, Adam Boehler, said face-to-face talks with Hamas representatives — the first such discussions between the US and the organisation in 28 years — had been “very useful”.

In an interview with Israel’s Channel 13, the envoy dismissed a question by the channel’s reporter, who asked if the US had been “tricked” by Qatar into holding talks with Hamas.

“I don’t think it was a trick by the Qataris at all. It was something we asked for,” he said, reports Al Jazeera.

“They facilitated it. I think the Qataris have been great in this, quite frankly, in a number of different regards. They’ve done a very good job.

“Sometimes, it’s very very hard when you’re talking through intermediaries to understand what people actually want.”

Boehler added that his first question to Hamas was what the movement wanted.

“To me, they said they wanted it [the war] to end. They wanted to give all the prisoners back. They wanted prisoners on the other side. Eventually, we will rebuild Gaza,” he said.

Hamas also knew they would not be in charge of Gaza when the war ended, the US envoy said.

“At this point in the war, I do not believe that Israel, Hamas and America are far apart. I want to see our people home. All of them, not just the Americans,” he added.

Communities in Vanuatu continue to rely on government for basic necessities and still lack access to clean water sources almost a month after severe tropical cyclones Judy and Kevin made landfall.

Sisead village community council chairman Paul Fred in Port Vila lives in one of the many homes in which residents do not have water seeping into the house because of a tarpaulin handed out in aid that lines his corrugated tin roof.

“To accept two cyclones within a week, it’s unexplainable. We’ve never experienced two cyclones like this one,” Fred told RNZ Pacific.

• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu cyclone reports

“But it’s a good experience for the generations of today, it comes to remind them that we have to prepare.”

His village is one of five in the country requesting financial assistance from the Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau’s government to build houses that are strong enough to withstand the impacts of severe tropical cyclones.

“The government should focus to help ni-Vanuatu people to build cyclone-proof buildings so that when the next cyclone comes we can minimise the need for relief and donations,” he said.

‘It’s up to themselves’
Frederica Atavi is from the same community.

Atavi, who grew up in Australia, said a post-cyclone assessment was still needed to be done in the village.

“It’s nearly a month now and you can see there’s still rubbish on the side of the road,” Atavi said.

“It is slow but that’s probably the island life. It’s slow and steady.”

Like Fred, she wants financial assistance to go towards rebuilding homes for the people in her community.

“The people in Vanuatu don’t have access to financial aid or anything to help them with their structural damage,” she said.

“It’s only the food and the hygiene kits but for structural damage it’s up to them to do it themselves.”

Charlie Willy, also from Sisead, stayed in the village during both the cyclones.

During Kevin, while the older people were moved out of the village for safety, Willy and six others stayed in a concrete bathroom block, so they could nail down roofs in the middle of the storm.

Willy said roofs were still leaking and it was challenging for people to pay for materials to fix homes.

Water source declared unsafe
In the rural village of Pang Pang, about an hour’s drive away from the capital, Serah John, who tends the community’s gardens, said the village had become reliant on food from government aid.

“All the gardens, the fruits and food crops were damaged… bananas and cassava that were uprooted from the strong wind,” John said in bislama.

She said their clean water source had been contaminated by livestock waste after Cyclones Judy and Kelvin and declared not safe for human consumption.

Kalsakau told RNZ Pacific last month that the damage caused by the twin cyclones would cost the country tens of million of dollars.

New Zealand providing help
New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta was in Vanuatu for three days last week and visited both villages.

She announced a $NZ1 million grant to support post-cyclone recovery efforts that would be made available to local non-governmental organisations.

Mahuta also meet with her counterpart Jotham Napat to sign the first-ever cooperation agreement between the two countries.

The deal will see the New Zealand government provide almost $NZ38m as part of its commitment to assist Vanuatu – with the money going towards climate change resilience projects, general budget support, and the tourism sector.

Mahuta said the resilience of the ni-Vanuatu people stood out.

“You can not truly appreciate resilience until you come into communities where there has been absolute devastation,” she said.

“Yet the people still pull together, they still smile, they still have the endurance factors that help them get through, something which I think is probably emotionally and mentally draining,” she said while visiting the Pang Pang community.

“It reinforces why the world needs to take action on climate change because those most vulnerable in the Pacific require us all to do our bit.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

While ostensibly about improving Aotearoa New Zealand’s water infrastructure, the government’s proposed Three Waters reforms have instead become a lightning rod for political division and distrust.

Critics cite concerns about local democracy, de facto privatisation and co-governance with Māori as reasons to oppose the Water Services Entities Bill currently before Parliament.

With the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch now proposing an alternative plan, the reforms may be far from a done deal.

• READ MORE: The UK’s water industry is broken – here’s how to fix it
• 11,000 litres of water to make one litre of milk? New questions about the freshwater impact of NZ dairy farming
• If we want to improve NZ’s freshwater quality, first we need to improve the quality of our democracy

But behind the debate lies an undeniable truth: clean water is a necessity of life. In fact, 20 years ago this month the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights first affirmed that water is a human right.

The anniversary is a timely reminder of what Aotearoa’s proposed water reforms are essentially about.

Covering drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (hence the “three waters” label), the reforms would have a wider remit than the human right to water. They fold in environmental and cultural considerations alongside public health concerns.

But the human right to water, as well as lessons learned from implementing that right, have important implications for the Three Waters debate, not least around water quality and affordability.

An alternate three waters plan has been proposed by the mayors of Auckland and Christchurch, with control and ownership remaining with local councils, and the type and degree of iwi involvement decided locally.https://t.co/prVSbJuuSL

— RNZ (@radionz) October 31, 2022

A fragile right
By acknowledging it to be a human right in 2002, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights argued water is indispensable for leading a dignified life and essential for other human rights.

Since then, the human right to water has been repeatedly declared, including by the UN General Assembly and the European Union. This right is included in the constitutions and laws of numerous countries.

Despite this, 1 billion people still lack access to safe drinking water, and six out of ten people live with inadequate sanitation. More than 2 billion people live in areas of water scarcity, likely to become an even bigger issue due to climate change.

The human right to water covers five essential factors:

• access to enough water for drinking, personal sanitation, washing clothes, preparing food, personal and household hygiene
• water that is clean and won’t cause harm
• the look and smell of water should be acceptable
• water sources should be within easy reach and accessible without danger
• the cost should be low enough to ensure everyone can buy enough water to meet their needs.

Access and affordability
Internationally, there is evidence that the adoption of a human right to water has made a difference. In South Africa, where access to sufficient water is a constitutional right, the courts have repeatedly referred to the human right to water when determining government obligations around water services.

In 2014, the first European Citizens’ Initiative pushed the European Union to exclude water supply and water resources management from the rules governing the European internal market. This means EU citizens have a stronger voice in water governance decisions.

In 2016, Slovenia became the first EU country to make access to drinkable water a fundamental right in its constitution.

New Zealand’s Three Waters reforms are not unrelated to these basic issues of safety, accessibility and affordability. They aim to address significant problems with the country’s existing water services model, including ageing infrastructure, historical under-investment, the need for climate change resilience, and rising consumer demand.

These all require a serious programme of water service transformation — one the government believes is beyond what local councils (which currently administer most water assets) will be able to deliver.

The projected cost is estimated at between NZ$120 billion and $185 billion (on top of currently planned investment), rolled out over the next 30 years.

Three Waters debates need to be based on fact – Ardernhttps://t.co/mNtkdKTjpw pic.twitter.com/NxvlJgtpeR

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) July 20, 2022

Ambition and equity
One way or another, the work has to be done. Last year elevated lead levels were found in the water in east Otago. Ageing infrastructure and increasing demand are likely to increase the risk of similar incidents unless expensive upgrades are undertaken.

Without reform, the government argues, the huge cost of those upgrades will be unevenly spread across households, with a substantially higher burden on rural consumers.

To be affordable and equitable for everyone, therefore, the Three Waters plan involves creating four publicly owned, multi-regional entities. These will benefit from greater scale, expertise, operational efficiencies and financial flexibility compared to local councils.

But because councils could still contract out water services for 35 years, concerns have been raised about the potential for creeping privatisation.

Indeed, similar concerns, including failed attempts to privatise water services in other countries, were a significant catalyst for asserting the human right to water more than two decades ago.

While international acknowledgment of water as a human right doesn’t automatically create binding obligations on New Zealand’s government, it can still inform the Three Waters debate.

Over the past 20 years, many of the benefits of this right have accrued from its ability to focus attention on securing high-quality and sustainable water services for everyone. That remains an essential ambition for New Zealand in 2022 and beyond.

Dr Nathan Cooper is associate professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.