By Stephanie Tran of Michael West Media

Under new registration requirements introduced by Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, NGOs have been required to submit lists of their Palestinian employees for review and to refrain from criticism of Israel.

A number of NGOs did not comply with the requirement to disclose the identities of their Palestinian staff, citing safety concerns amid reports that Israel has deliberately targeted and killed aid workers in Gaza.

As a result, the registrations of 37 international NGOs lapsed on 31 December 2025. The organisations will be required to withdraw by 1 March 2026 if their registrations are not renewed.

• READ MORE: Which aid groups is Israel banning from Gaza now — and what will it mean?
• Other Gaza reports

The aid ban comes as Israel has passed laws prohibiting the supply of water and electricity to UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

Michael West Media wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) seeking clarification on Australia’s position regarding Israel’s suspension of humanitarian organisations operating in Gaza.

The questions included whether Australia intended to publicly condemn Israel’s decision to ban aid organisations; how the government assessed the move’s compatibility with international humanitarian law, including Israel’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions; and whether Australia would join or support diplomatic statements or measures alongside other countries calling for the ban to be lifted.

DFAT declined to provide a comment on the record, while Minister Wong did not respond to the request for comment.

In correspondence with MWM, DFAT instead provided a statement “for use in reporting, not for attribution”. In their response, the Department referred to a previous joint statement signed by Minister Wong calling on Israel to allow aid into Gaza.

International condemnation rises
The refusal to comment comes as the UN Secretary-General, multiple governments and at least 53 international NGOs have publicly condemned Israel’s suspension of 37 aid organisations from operating in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, warning it will severely restrict humanitarian access to Gaza and breach Israel’s obligations under international law.

The foreign ministers of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement condemning  the aid ban, warning that

One in three healthcare facilities in Gaza will close if INGOs operations are stopped.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on Israel to reverse the measures, warning it “will further exacerbate the humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians”.

On Monday, seven European countries denounced Israel’s policies as incompatible with humanitarian principles and obligations under international law.

In a joint letter, 53 international aid organisations called the ban “a deliberate policy choice with foreseeable consequences”.

“More than 500 humanitarian workers have been killed since 7 October 2023. INGOs cannot transfer sensitive personal data to a party to the conflict since this would breach humanitarian principles, duty of care and data protection obligations,” the letter stated.

NGOs in limbo
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), one of the largest medical providers operating in Gaza, said it remained in a state of uncertainty.

“Our registration expired as of the 31st of December,” said Ashley Killeen, director of engagement at Médecins Sans Frontières Australia and New Zealand. “We are still trying to have dialogue with Israeli authorities to try and maintain some type of access.”

“At this point in time, we are still continuing to try and negotiate and stay in Gaza. It’s a fragile moment.”

Killeen said claims that MSF had failed to comply with the new registration process were inaccurate.

“We’ve fully engaged in the process announced in July, we submitted the majority of the required information,” she said.

However, Killeen said MSF was unwilling to comply with the requirement to provide the identities of its Palestinian staff due to safety concerns. She stated that

Providing the names of our staff is an ethical red line that we’re not willing to cross.

“Fifteen of our colleagues have been killed since the start of this war by Israeli forces. We have an obligation to safeguard the rights of our staff, and that is why we’re not willing to provide the staff list of our Palestinian colleagues in Gaza.”

Delivering 1 in 3 babies
MSF has operated in Gaza since 1989 and supports six hospitals and two field hospitals.

“We deliver one in three babies in Gaza. I don’t know what their solution would be if MSF were not allowed to operate,” Killeen said.

“The entire health system is decimated. Banning the little aid and services that’s available for those people in there is horrific.”

“We’re not finished yet; there’s a lot more to do.”

In the ER of Al-Rantisi hospital in Gaza City, our teams help 300 children receive medical care each day.

Dr Jennifer Hulse explains our vital services and what it would mean for Palestinians if Israel stops us from… pic.twitter.com/GENl2PnIyR

— MSF International (@MSF) January 9, 2026

ActionAid Australia has also warned that deregistration would severely undermine its ability to operate.

“Being de-registered will severely restrict our ability to bring food, medical supplies and other relief into Gaza, scale operations, and respond at the huge level of humanitarian need,” said Michelle Higelin, ActionAid Australia’s executive director.

“This action by the government of Israel undermines not just ActionAid,

but the entire humanitarian response architecture.

ActionAid has delivered humanitarian assistance and medical support to more than 650,000 displaced people over the past two years.

Impact ‘not abstract’
“The impact is not abstract — it is borne by families already surviving day to day,” Higelin said. “For people in Gaza, this decision will mean less water and food, little or no sanitation, reduced shelter and medical support and increasing exposure to health risks.”

Higelin warned that pregnant women would be particularly affected by the aid ban.

“As we support one of the only functioning maternity hospitals in Gaza, we are particularly concerned about the impacts on pregnant women who are already giving birth in unsterile conditions”

ActionAid reiterated MSF’s concerns regarding the disclosure of the identities of their Palestinian staff.

“We cannot comply with requirements that compel us to hand over sensitive personal data of Palestinian staff and their families or accept political and ideological conditions unrelated to humanitarian work,” Higelin said.

“No humanitarian organisation should be forced to choose between protecting its staff and continuing lifesaving assistance.”

Violation of international humanitarian law
Under international humanitarian law, occupying powers are obliged to ensure the provision of life saving aid to civilians in conflict zones. The 4th Geneva Convention and customary international law require that humanitarian assistance be allowed to reach civilians without undue obstruction.

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute has warned that deliberate obstruction of humanitarian assistance, resulting in hunger and widespread suffering, constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and may amount to war crimes.

Amnesty International Australia has characterised Israel’s broader blockade and systematic obstruction of aid as not only a violation of humanitarian law but as potentially amounting to crimes against humanity, citing provisions of the Geneva Conventions that require occupying powers to ensure the food and medical supplies of the population are met unconditionally. 

“It’s an obligation under international law to provide humanitarian aid. Israel has an obligation to allow aid into Gaza,” said Killeen.

Killeen said MSF was urging the Australian government to do more than reiterate general support for aid access.

International law?
“What we would hope for from our government is that they continue to uphold the principles of international humanitarian law, and in doing so, they would advocate for the rights of organisations like MSF to continue providing aid to people in Gaza,” she said.

Higelin said the moment demanded decisive action from the Australian government.

“This is a watershed moment: one that will make or break the future of civic space and humanitarian assistance in Palestine, which Israel has been occupying unlawfully for decades.

“We urge UN agencies and donor governments, including Australia, to use all available leverage to secure the reversal of this decision. Independent, principled humanitarian operations must be protected to ensure civilians can receive the assistance they urgently need.

“Lives depend upon it.”

Stephanie Tran is a journalist with a passion for uncovering stories that hold power to account. With a background in both law and journalism, she has worked at The Guardian and as a paralegal, where she assisted Crikey’s defence team in the high-profile defamation case brought by Lachlan Murdoch. Her reporting has been recognised nationally, earning her the 2021 Democracy’s Watchdogs Award for Student Investigative Reporting and a nomination for the 2021 Walkley Student Journalist of the Year Award. Republished from Michael West Media with permission.

Three New Zealanders, who were detained in Israel, after taking part in an international flotilla heading to Gaza, claim they were treated like animals.

Rana Hamida, Youssef Sammour and Samuel Leason arrived at Auckland International Airport this afternoon, and were greeted by a crowd of supporters and loved ones.

Among the supporters were Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson and MP Ricardo Menéndez March.

• READ MORE: US activist from Gaza flotilla alleges ‘psychological torture’ by Israel
• NZ flotilla members arrive in Jordan, state news agency says
• Two years after October 7: Israel’s war, Gaza’s ashes, and the collapse of moral authority

Members of the Global Sumud Flotilla, who were detained and deported from Israel last week, reported allegations of physical and psychological abuse by Israeli forces.

Video: RNZ News

Israel’s foreign ministry said the claims were “complete lies”, and the detainees rights were upheld, but Hamida and Sammour claimed conditions were harsh.

“We were there for almost a week, more or less, and we were treated like crap, to be honest,” Sammour said. “We were treated like animals.”

Hamida said: “It was a violation of what humanitarian law is.”

Guards refused medicine
Sammour said one of their fellow prisoners was diabetic, but the guards refused to give him his insulin, but Hamida admitted the hardship they faced was just a fraction of that experienced by the occupants of Gaza.

The flotilla, a group of dozens of boats carrying 500 people — including Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg — had been trying to break Israel’s blockade.

Leason’s father, Adi Leason, earlier told RNZ’s Midday Report he was “immensely proud” of his 18-year-old son.

“We’ve been going to mass every Sunday for 18 years with Samuel, and he must have been listening and taking something of that formation on board. It’s lovely to see a young man with a deep conscience caring so deeply about people who he will never meet and to put himself in harm’s way for them.”

Samuel Leason felt a mix of relief and anger upon returning to New Zealand. He said it was amazing to see his family again, but he felt frustrated that the New Zealand government did not do more to intervene.

The trio said they had not been discouraged and planned to mobilise more than ever.

More than 67,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children — have been killed since Israel launched its retaliation for Hamas’ 2023 attack, which killed about 1200 Israelis.

The first stage of a Gaza ceasefire came into force today.

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

New Zealand has joined 24 other countries in calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and criticising what they call the inhumane killing of Palestinians.

The countries — including Britain, France, Canada and Australia plus the European Union — also condemed the Israeli government’s aid delivery model in Gaza as “dangerous”.

“We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.”

• READ MORE: At least 65 killed in Gaza attacks as Israel sends tanks into Deir el-Balah
• UK, France and 23 other nations demand Israel’s war on Gaza ‘must end now’
• PSNA calls on NZ to urgently condemn Israeli weaponisation of starvation
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

They said it was “horrifying” that more than 800 civilians had been killed while seeking aid, the majority at food distribution sites run by a US- and Israeli-backed foundation.

“We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively,” it said.

“Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a ‘humanitarian city’ are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.”

The statement said the countries were “prepared to take further action” to support an immediate ceasefire.

Reuters reported Israel’s foreign ministry said the statement was “disconnected from reality” and it would send the wrong message to Hamas.

“The statement fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas’s role and responsibility for the situation,” the Israeli statement said.

Having NZ voice heard
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters told RNZ Morning Report, New Zealand had chosen to be part of the statement as a way to have its voice heard on the “dire” humanitarian situation in Gaza.

“The tipping point was some time ago . . .  it’s gotten to the stage where we’ve just lost our patience . . . ”

Peters said he wanted to see what the response to the condemnation was.

“The conflict in the Middle East goes on and on . . .  It’s gone from a situation where it was excusable, due to the October 7 conflict, to inexcusable as innocent people are being swept into it,” he said.

“I do think there has to be change. It must happen now.”

The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel’s subsequent air and ground war in Gaza has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians — including at least 17,400 children, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, while displacing almost the entire population of more than 2 million and spreading a hunger crisis.

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

Israel has rejected a statement by 25 countries calling for an end to the war on Gaza as a move “disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas.”

LIVE updates: https://t.co/iILghl87p3 pic.twitter.com/McUxk6PYMr

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 21, 2025

Protesting New Zealanders donned symbolic masks modelled on a Palestinian artist’s handiwork in Auckland’s Takutai Square today to condemn Israel’s starvation as war weapon against Gaza and the NZ prime minister’s weak response.

Coming a day after the tabling of Budget 2025 in Parliament, peaceful demonstrators wore hand-painted masks inspired by Gaza-based Palestinian artist Reem Arkan, who is fighting for her life alongside hundreds of thousands of the displaced Gazans.

The “bodies” represented more than 53,000 Palestinians killed by Israel’s brutal 19-month war on Gaza.

• READ MORE: Children among 29 ‘starvation-related deaths’ in Gaza; Israel pounds Strip
• Australia’s Wong condemns ‘abhorrent, outrageous’ Israeli comments over blocked aid
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

The protest coincided with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon addressing the Trans-Tasman Business Circle in Auckland.

The demonstrators said they chose this moment and location to “highlight the alarmingly tepid response” by the New Zealand government to what global human rights organisations — such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch — have branded as war crimes and acts of collective punishment amounting to genocide.

“This week, we heard yet another call for Israel to abide by international law. This is not leadership. It’s appeasement,” said a spokesperson, Olivia Coote.

“The time for statements has long passed. What we are witnessing in Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe, and New Zealand must impose meaningful sanctions.

“Israel’s actions, including the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, forced displacement, and obstruction of humanitarian aid, constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of which we are signatories.”

Green Party Co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick challenged Prime Minister Luxon in Parliament over his government’s response earlier this week, saying: “We’ve had lots of words. We need action.”

Luxon claimed that sanctions were in place — but the only measure taken has been a travel ban on 12 extremist Israeli settlers from the West Bank.

“This is an action that does nothing to protect the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza who face daily bombardment, siege, and starvation,” Coote said.

The protesters are calling on the New Zealand government to act immediately by:

• Imposing sanctions on Israel; and
• Suspending all diplomatic and trade relations with Israel until there is an end to hostilities and full compliance with international humanitarian law.

“This government must not be complicit in atrocities through silence and inaction,” Coote said.

“The people of Aotearoa New Zealand demand leadership as the world watches a genocide unfold in real time.”

Al Jazeera reports that Israeli strikes have killed at least 85 people in Gaza since the early hours of Thursday, according to medical sources, and casualties are continuing to mount amid unrelenting bombardments.

Gaza’s Health Ministry said 29 children and elderly people who had died in recent days in Gaza had been registered as “starvation-related deaths”, and thousands more were at risk of starving.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) has launched an open letter calling on the Aotearoa New Zealand government to take action on the future of the besieged enclave of Gaza.

The network is asking Foreign Minister Winston Peters to speak up for the people of New Zealand to at least condemn Israel’s use of humanitarian aid as a weapon of war.

It also wants the government to call for international humanitarian and human rights law to be applied.

• READ MORE: Israel steps up attacks on Gaza, killing 8, as truce talks continue
• Hamas accuses Israel of ‘cheap blackmail’ as Gaza electricity cut-off widely condemned
• With the Gaza ceasefire in limbo, Israel tries to impose an alternative plan on Hamas
• The full PSNA letter

The PSNA says New Zealand has an internationally respected voice, and “we are asking the government to use this voice” for a lasting peace.

The letter says:

Kia ora Mr Peters,

The situation in Occupied Gaza has reached another crisis point.

Last Sunday [March 2], Israel announced it was ending its January ceasefire agreement with Palestinian groups resisting the occupation and was once more imposing a total ban on humanitarian aid entering Gaza.

Israel says this is because it wants to extend the first phase of the ceasefire agreement rather than negotiate phase two which would see the agreed withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The renewed blockade on food, water, fuel and medical supplies has been widely condemned as a breach of the ceasefire agreement and the use of “starvation as a weapon of war” by Palestinian groups, international aid organisations and many governments.

The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres has called for “humanitarian aid to flow back into Gaza immediately”. Israel has refused this request.

Compounding the crisis is US President Donald Trump’s recently declared intention to permanently remove all the Palestinian people of Gaza and send them to other countries such as Egypt and Jordan so Gaza can be rebuilt as a US territory in the Middle East — in his words “the riviera of the Middle East”.

Israel has accepted this US proposal but Palestinians and the vast majority of governments and civil society groups around the world are appalled at the scheme.

To this point our government has not commented on either Israel’s new blockade of humanitarian supplies into Gaza or the US President’s plan for ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian territory.

Back in December 2023, when the government was commenting, the Prime Minister stated “…Israel must respect international humanitarian law. Civilians and civilian infrastructure must be protected…Safe and unimpeded humanitarian access must be increased and sustained.”

None of this has happened in the more than 14 months since.

We are asking our government to speak out once more on behalf of the people of New Zealand to, at the very least, condemn Israel’s use of humanitarian aid as a weapon of war and to call for international humanitarian and human rights law to be applied.

We believe the way forward for peace and security for everyone who calls the Middle East home is for all parties to follow international law and United Nations resolutions so that a lasting peace can be established based on justice and equal rights for everyone in the region.

New Zealand has an internationally respected voice which can make a strong contribution to this end. We are asking the government to use this voice.

Labour supports sanctions against Israel
Meanwhile, the opposition Labour Party said it would support Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick’s member’s bill calling for sanctions against Israel for its illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

“The International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared the decades-long occupation illegal and called for Israel’s withdrawal, and for countries like New Zealand to take action,” Labour associate foreign affairs spokesperson Phil Twyford said in a statement.

“The New Zealand government recently voted at the UN General Assembly for a resolution calling for sanctions against Israel on this issue.

“Labour has been calling for stronger action from the government on Israel’s invasion of Gaza, including intervening in South Africa’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice, creation of a special visa for family members of New Zealanders fleeing Gaza, and ending government procurement from companies operating illegally in the Occupied Territories.”

Twyford said New Zealand had long recognised Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as illegal.

In 2016, the then National government co-sponsored a successful Security Council resolution that Israel’s settlements in the Occupied Territories were illegal.

‘In Gaza, only UNRWA has the infrastructure to distribute aid to scale, such as vehicles, warehouses, distribution centres and staff. However, Israeli authorities are making this extremely difficult,’ writes Chris Gunness.

A pro-Palestinian advocacy group has put the New Zealand government “on notice” over its alleged complicity with Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza now in its eighth month.

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) issued the government a “letter of demand” today for what it claims to be the government’s breaches of international law, and individual criminal liability under the Genocide Convention.

The PSNA said in the letter that “with the support of the Palestinian community,
human rights advocates, and community organisations, [we] hereby raise our concerns as to Aotearoa’s breaches of international law in relation to the unfolding situation in Gaza, as well as the individual criminal liability which may attach to New Zealand Government Ministers, Members of Parliament and other officials for aiding and abetting international crimes committed by Israel, including genocide, pursuant to the Rome Statute.

“This letter hereby puts you on notice for any relevant breach of the New Zealand domestic law or international law.”

• READ MORE: Nine killed as Israeli forces target people awaiting aid in southern Gaza
• Laws of war likely ‘consistently violated’ in Israeli strikes on Gaza: UN rights office
• PSNA issues notice to the government for complicity in Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza
• Other War on Gaza reports

PSNA’S National chair John Minto said that “in writing this letter to you, we have engaged the assistance of several legal experts, students, academics, and human rights advocates.”

In a separate explanatory statement, Minto said the letter of demand “signals our intent with the support of members of the Palestinian community to pursue legal accountability for the lack of actions taken by the government, and key government ministers, in their roles.

“PSNA is deeply concerned about New Zealand failing to uphold our legal responsibilities under the Genocide Convention which requires the government to take actions that ‘prevent and punish the crime of genocide’.”

The letter was addressed to nine cabinet ministers, including Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

The other ministers are Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters, Attorney-General Judith Collins, Immigration Minister Erica Standford, Regulation Minister David Seymour, Trade Minister and Associate Foreign Affairs Minister Todd McClay, Minister for Women Nicola Grigg, Associate Minister of Immigration Casey Costello, and Associate Minister of Defence Chris Penk.

‘We have never seen anything like this’: UN Commission of Inquiry head  Video: Al Jazeera

NZ’s obligations
The letter stated that New Zealand’s obligations under international law were:

1. Its responsibility under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) to prevent and to punish the ongoing genocide in Gaza;
2. Its obligation pursuant to the Geneva Conventions to ensure respect for international humanitarian law; and
3. Its obligations under customary international law to cooperate with other states to bring an end Israel’s ongoing serious breaches of peremptory norms, and to refrain from aiding or assisting Israel in those breaches.

Alleged breaches
The PSNA letter alleged the following breaches of international law:

1. 

   Potential failure to prevent the export of military components for use in weaponry by Israel. Specifically, failure to adequately regulate Rakon Limited (a company based in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland) regarding the export of components to the United States for use in military equipment, which may be being used in Israel’s genocide;

2. Sending New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to train alongside Israel Defence Forces during the US-led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military exercises beginning on 26 June 2024;
3. Sending NZDF personnel to assist in United States and United Kingdom-led military operations against the Houthis in Yemen, with the effect of suppressing regional protest against Israel’s genocide in Gaza;
4. Withholding approval for funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA);
5. Failure to provide humanitarian visas to Palestinians in Gaza who have family members in Aotearoa (by contrast with the 2022 Special Ukraine Visa for Ukrainians fleeing from war);
6. Failure to take any measures of retortion against Israel, such as expelling diplomats or suspending diplomatic relations;
7. Continuing to allow shipping company ZIM to use New Zealand ports;
8. Failure to suspend the Israel Working Holiday Visa for Israeli citizens who have served with the Israel Defence Forces carrying out international crimes;
9. Relatedly, failure to implement a ban on investments in, and imports from, companies building and maintaining illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land in line with UN Security Council resolution 2334 (UNSC2334 was co-sponsored at the UN Security Council by New Zealand in 2016); and
10. Failure to engage with proceedings in the genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and failing to denounce Israel’s breaches of ICJ rulings, most notably by illegally continuing its military assault on Rafah.

Minto concluded the detailed 39-page letter including supporting appendices by saying, “It is not too late for Aotearoa to hold Israel to account and to help bring an end to its impunity, and its atrocities.

“New Zealand must defend the international rule of law. We may rely upon it ourselves one day.”

PSNA plans to take further steps if it fails to get a “meaningful response” from the government and the relevant ministers by 18 July 2024.

• Full PSNA “letter of demand” to the New Zealand government

New Zealand has taken another shameful act in its tone deaf approach to Israel’s War on Gaza this week by declaring Hamas a “terrorist entity” at a time when millions are marching worldwide for an immediate ceasefire and a lasting peace founded on an independent state of Palestine.

It would have been more realistic and just to condemn Israel for its genocidal war and five months of atrocities.

Instead, it has been corralled into the Five Eyes clique with an increasingly isolated United States as it continues to support the war with taxpayer funded armaments and providing the cloak of diplomacy.

• READ MORE: More chil­dren die of mal­nu­tri­tion — Is­rael hits Gaza amid truce push

It was really unwise of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s coalition government to declare the Hamas political wing as terrorist, after already having declared the military wing terrorist in 2010.

Many argue around the world with increasing insistence that actually Israel is a rogue terrorist state.

Also, it is very unlikely that Benjamin Netanyahu will succeed in his aims of “destroying” the Hamas movement, whatever the final outcome of the war.

As John Minto points out, Palestinian resistance movements have the right under international law to take up arms to fight against their colonial occupiers just as the African National Congress (ANC) had the right to take up arms to fight for freedom in apartheid South Africa.

Hamas represents an ideal, an independent Palestinian state and that can never be defeated.

Factions meet for unity
The various factions of the Palestinian resistance and political movements, including Fatah and Hamas, have been meeting in Moscow this week to settle their differences and stitch together a framework for a “Palestinian government of unity” as a basis for the future political architecture of independence.

Meet Gaza’s 11-year-old war reporter Sumayya Wushah, who says she was inspired by Shireen Abu Akleh to tell Palestine’s stories. pic.twitter.com/a7vB99nkqa

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 27, 2024

The United Nations General Assembly in 1969 — two years after the 1967 Six Day War when Israel seized Gaza from Egypt and Occupied West Bank from Jordan — recognised and reaffirmed “the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination”.

This includes the right to choose their own representatives, including Hamas, an Islamist nationalist independence and resistance movement defending their illegally occupied territory, not a “terrorist” movement that the US and Israel try to have the world believe.

They are still very likely to be in the post-war line-up ending the status quo after five decades of illegal military occupation of Palestinian lands and the rash of illegal Israeli settlements.

American economist and public policy analyst Professor Jeffrey Sachs summed up the reality over Israel’s colonial settler project in an interview this week by describing the Netanyahu government as a “murderous gang” and “zealots”, warning that “they are not going to stop”.

“Israel has deliberately starved the people of Gaza. Starved. I am not using an exaggeration.

“I’m talking literally starving a population,” said the director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at New York’s Columbia University.

‘Israel is criminal’
“Israel is a criminal. Israel is in non-stop war crime status. Now, I believe, it is in genocidal status, and it is without shame, without remorse, without truth, without insight into what it is doing.

“But what it is doing is endangering Israel’s fundamental security because it is driving the world to believe that the Israeli state is not legitimate.

“This will stop when the United States stops providing the munitions to Israel. It will not be by any self-control in Israel. There is none in this government.

“This is a murderous gang in government right now. These are zealots. They have some messianic vision of controlling all of today’s Palestinian lands. They are not going to stop.

“They believe in ethnic cleansing, or worse, depending on whatever is needed. And it is, again, the United States, which is the sole support. And it our mumbling, bumbling president and the others that are not stopping this slaughter.”

In addition, to the growing massive protests around the world against the Israeli extremism, a growing number of countries and organisations, inspired by two International Court of Justice cases against Israel — one by South Africa alleging genocide by Israel and the other by the UNGA seeking a ruling on the legality of Israel’s military occupation of Palestine — have introduced lawsuits.

A Dutch court last month ordered the government to block all exports of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel following concern that the country may be violating international laws such as the Genocide Convention.

Follow-up lawsuit
South Africa is preparing a follow-up lawsuit against the US and the UK for “complicity” in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. South African lawyer lawyer Wikus Van Rensburg said: “The United States must now be held accountable for the crimes it committed.”

Nicaragua is suing Germany at the ICJ for funding Israel – its export of weapons and munitions to the country has risen ten-fold since the Hamas deadly attack on Israel last October 7 — and cutting aid to the UN Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA), the major humanitarian agency in Gaza.

It has called for emergency measures that would force Germany to cease military aid to Israel, and restart funding to the UNRWA.

Nicaragua lawyers said in their lawsuit that the action was necessary because of Germany’s “participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law” in Gaza.

Instead of joining the US-led coalition in the Red Sea operation against the Houthis, who are targeting US, UK and Israeli-linked ships to disrupt maritime trade in support of the Palestinians, New Zealand would have been more constructive by joining the South African case against Israel in The Hague.

Principle before profit if New Zealand is really committed to international rules based diplomacy.

Nicaragua lawyers said in their lawsuit that the action was necessary because of Germany’s “participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law” in Gaza.

No time to be ‘neutral’
This is no time to be “neutral” over the War on Gaza, there are fundamental issues of global justice and human rights at stake. As various global aid officials have been saying, every day that passes without a ceasefire and a step towards an independent Palestine as a long-term solution means more children dying of starvation or from the bombing.

The death toll is already a staggering more than 30,000 — mostly women and children. The war is clearly directed at the people of Gaza, collective punishment. At least, 112 Gazans were killed while seeking food aid in Gaza City when Israeli Occupation Force (IOF) troops opened fire in what has been described as the “flour massacre”.

At least, 15 children have died from malnutrition so far.

Caretaker Palestinian Health Minister Mai al-Kaila told Al Jazeera that “the ceasefire is much more important than having food under fire . . . People are running from one place to another just to save their lives.”

Australian columnist Caitlin Johnstone warns against neutrality, advice that might have been heeded by New Zealand’s foreign affairs advisers.

“At least be real with yourself that by refusing to pick a position you are licking the boot of a nuclear-armed ethnostate that is backed by the most powerful empire the world has ever seen.”

And that impunity needs to end.

Hamas has responded to Israel’s escalating violence with an unprecedented attack. This is not a new tragedy; it is an extension of the same old cycle.

We grieve all the losses of this calamity, and we call on our government not to speak the same old words but to finally act.

To call today’s act “unprovoked” is wilful blindness. Choose your timeframe; choose your provocation.

• READ MORE: Gaza-Israel war: Death toll rises as Israeli attacks continue to pound Gaza – live updates
• What is Hamas? A simple guide to the armed Palestinian group
• John Minto: Systemic NZ misreporting on Israeli occupation of Palestine and Palestinian resistance
• Al Jazeera coverage of the war
• Other Palestine reports

Israel is carrying out the longest, now-illegal, now-apartheid occupation in modern history. Gaza has been illegally blockaded for 17 years, confining more than two million mostly civilian human beings in deteriorating conditions, subjecting them to repeated bombardments and ceaseless deprivation.

More than 200 Palestinians have been killed in 2023 so far, including four the other day. The latest of Israel’s settler-state pogroms in the West Bank took place in Huwara one day before Hamas’s action.

Hamas’s attack is a response to longterm and escalating, immediate violence.

The blockade wall that was breached is an illegal structure. A million children have been born behind that wall; did you expect them to sit quietly?

Wall deserves to fall
That wall deserves to fall — but we, here in Aotearoa and throughout the world, should have brought it down with diplomatic and economic and legal sanctions long before it came to this.

Now Hamas’s violent resistance has broken through the wall.

Palestinians have a legal right to armed resistance, but no one has a right to unlimited violence. There is no honour in attacking civilians in their homes or bombing Gazan apartment buildings.

It is a core principle of international humanitarian law that the violations of one armed group do not release another armed group from its constant obligation to uphold the rights of civilians. Armed groups are responsible to the law, to the idea of minimising the harm done in this world.

We who demand the protection of Palestinian civilians can best do that by calling for the protection of all civilians: human rights are either everyone’s rights or they are nothing.

If we lose sight of that, the world becomes even more dangerous — and Palestinians have always borne the brunt of that danger.

No military solution
There is no military solution. Solutions call for political will here, outside Israel/Palestine.

The rage and despair accumulated through generations and decades of brutality will not reset. Do not call for the return to the status quo ante because it was intolerable, unjust and illegal.

We, here in Aotearoa New Zealand, need to act on the basis of law and the equal rights of human beings to protection, to justice, to self-determination.

We call on our government to initiate, to pick up the phone and lead in mustering international action.

For anyone to be safe, Palestinians must be free and civilians must be protected.

An International Criminal Court official in the Pacific is calling on all parties in the Afghanistan conflict to respect humanitarian law.

Thousands of foreign nationals, including Afghanis who worked for international agencies, are fleeing the conflict as Taliban forces seized control of the country.

Suicide bombers struck the crowded gates of Kabul airport with at least two explosions on Thursday, causing a bloodbath among civilians, shutting down the Western airlift of Afghans desperate to flee the Taliban regime.

• READ MORE: Other Afghanistan reports

The death toll from the attack is at least 175, including 13 US soldiers, according to media reports.

The attacks came amid ongoing chaos around the airport amid the American withdrawal after 20 years in the region.

Fijian lawyer Ana Tuiketei-Bolabiu has reiterated the Hague Court’s call for all parties to the hostilities to fully respect their obligations under international humanitarian law, including by ensuring the protection of civilians.

She said the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over any genocide, crime against humanity or war crime committed in Afghanistan since the country joined the court in 2003.

First woman counsel
Tuiketei-Bolabiu became the first woman counsel appointed to the Hague Court in April last year. In September, she was elected to the Defence and Membership Committee of the ICC’s Bar Association.

She told RNZ Pacific she is concerned about reports of revenge killings and persecution of women and girls in Afghanistan.

“It’s just an evolving and deteriorating situation in Afghanistan,” she said.

“The UN Security met in New York to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and what was interesting to hear from the Afghani UN ambassador Ghulam Isaczai confirming his concerns on human rights violations for girls, women and human rights defenders, and journalists, including the internally displaced people.

“He also elaborated on the fear of the Kabul residents from the house-to-house search carried out by the Taliban, registering of names and the hunt for people.

“The UN meeting also discussed safety, security, dignity and peace but also trying to protect the lives and the movement of women and children, the international community, displaced people and even the food and all the other humanitarian care that is supposed to be given to the people there.

“We’re hoping that the international human rights laws will actually be observed.”

UN chief Antonio Guterres has also called for an end to the fighting in Afghanistan.

Challenges for prosecutor
Tuiketei-Bolabiu said challenges lay ahead for the Hague Court’s new prosecutor, Karim Khan, who replaced Fatou Bensouda in June this year.

Khan inherits the long-running investigation by his predecessor into possible crimes committed in Afghanistan since 2003.

Those included alleged killings of civilians by the Taliban, as well as the alleged torture of prisoners by Afghan authorities, and by American forces and the CIA in 2003-2004.

Tuiketei-Bolabiu said the ICC only approved a formal investigation in March 2020, which prompted then US President Donald Trump to impose sanctions on Bensouda.

“In May, Afghanistan pleaded with Bensouda for a deferral of the ICC prosecution investigation, arguing that the government was already conducting its own inquiries, mostly focusing on alleged Taliban crimes,” she said.

“Under ICC rules, the court only has power to prosecute crimes committed on the territory of member states when they are unwilling or unable to do so themselves.”

It is not yet clear how the ICC will proceed with the current investigation.

Interests of justice
But Tuiketei-Bolabiu is adamant justice will prevail.

“In March last year, the ICC appeals chamber judges found that in the interest of justice investigations should proceed by the prosecution on war crimes since 2003 including armed conflicts and other serious crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the courts and that includes the Taliban, Afghan national police, other security forces and the CIA,” she said.

“What’s interesting now is the ICC does not have a police force so it solely relies on member states for arrests and investigations. Now the political landscape in Afghanistan has extremely changed.

“The cooperation with the ICC prosecutions office to support the court’s independence will become a bigger challenge in the future.”

UN Human Rights Council meets
The UN Human Rights Council held a special session this week to address the serious human rights concerns and the situatiation in Afghanistan.

The meeting was called by the council’s Afghanistan and Pakistan members.

Discussions were centred on the appointment of a committee to investigate crimes against humanity.

Tuiketei-Bolabiu said any evidence from the human rights council would help the court’s investigations.

But Amnesty International said the UN council has failed the people of Afghanistan.

In a statement, Amnesty said the meeting neglected to establish an independent mechanism to monitor ongoing crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses in Afghanistan.

“Such a mechanism would allow for monitoring and reporting on human rights violations and abuses, including grave crimes under international law, and to assist in holding those suspected of criminal responsibility to justice in fair trials.”

However, the calls were ignored by UNHRC member states, who adopted by consensus a weak resolution which merely requests further reports and an update by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in March 2022, which adds little to the oversight process already in place.

“The UN Human Rights Council special session has failed to deliver a credible response to the escalating human rights crisis in Afghanistan. Member states have ignored clear and consistent calls by civil society and UN actors for a robust monitoring mechanism,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s secretary-general.

“Many people in Afghanistan are already at grave risk of reprisal attacks. The international community must not betray them, and must urgently increase efforts to ensure the safe evacuation of those wishing to leave,” she said.

Amnesty International said member states must now move beyond handwringing, and take meaningful action to protect those feeling the conflict in Afghanistan.

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

The multi-billion-dollar NZ Super Fund  – New Zealand’s state pension fund – has finally divested from five of Israel’s biggest banks due to their funding of illegal settlement construction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

New Zealand Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman said the party welcomed the decision, telling The Spinoff:

“Our nation’s values and legal obligations have been long in breach by investments facilitating what the United Nations has consistently called an illegal occupation, causing the suffering of the Palestinian people, and leading to a number of other breaches of humanitarian law.”

• READ MORE: NZ Super Fund divestment from Israeli banks lesson for NZ government

A Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) statement last week said that Palestinian supporters in Aotearoa-New Zealand had frequently complained about these banks to the NZ Super Fund, especially following a 2018 report by Human Rights Watch which identified their active participation in settlement building in breach of international law.

In 2012, the NZ Super Fund ended its investment with three Israeli companies on ethical grounds. These were companies that were directly building illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa spokesperson Janfrie Wakim said that the NZ Super Fund had, at last, conducted a thorough investigation and reached a firm conclusion that it would be unethical to continue to invest in these banks.

As documented by @hrw, in a 41 page report, most of Israel’s largest banks are complicit in settler colonialist apartheid as they help support, maintain, and expand illegal settlements by financing their construction in the occupied West Bank.https://t.co/Uq3KNitspC

— BDS movement (@BDSmovement) March 3, 2021

“There is a wealth of reliable information and law that makes any continuing NZ Super Fund investment with these banks untenable. No New Zealand institution should provide any support to the ongoing dispossession of the Palestinian people in their homeland and the brutal Israeli occupation,” she said.

“The fund still has investments in other Israeli companies, and the fund says it will be paying close attention to any future reports from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights about the culpability of other Israeli companies in illegal settlement construction.”

NZ government ‘lagging behind’
Janfrie Wakim also said that the NZ Super Fund divestment decision – and the evidence it had used – had shown up what she called a “dreadful lagging behind” by the New Zealand government.

“The NZ Super Fund divested in weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems in its first round of Israeli disinvestment in 2012,” Wakim said.

“Yet, the New Zealand government has admitted to buying military equipment, ground tested on Palestinians, from Elbit Systems, which is the very same company which the NZ Super Fund dropped from its portfolio in 2012.”

Roger Fowler is a veteran peace activist and community advocate from Auckland, Aotearoa-New Zealand, and coordinator of Kia Ora Gaza which organises support for international solidarity convoys and the Freedom Flotillas to break Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza. Fowler is editor of kiaoragaza.net. This article was first published in The Palestine Chronicle and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

• The NZ Super Fund document on the Israeli banks is here.

NZ’s $50b Super Fund is divesting from Israeli banks that fund settlement construction in West Bank and Gaza https://t.co/HwnSkXXlcj

— The Spinoff (@TheSpinoffTV) March 4, 2021

For the purpose of this analysis, we examine the statements and claims of the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), Lieutenant-General Tim Keating, made before journalists during his press conference on Monday, 27 March 2017. We also understand, that the claims put by the general form the basis of a briefing by NZDF’s top ranking officer to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Bill English.

It appears the official account , if true, underscores a probable breach of legal obligations – not necessarily placing culpability solely on the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) commandos on the ground, but rather on the officers who commanded their actions, ordered their movements, their tasks and priorities prior to, during, and after Operation Burnham.

READ MORE: No inquiry – ‘It is the next step in the seven-year cover-up’

*******

According to the New Zealand Defence Force’s official statement, Operation Burnham “aimed to detain Taliban insurgent leaders who were threatening the security and stability of Bamyan Province and to disrupt their operational network”. (ref. NZDF rebuttal)

We are to understand Operation Burnham’s objective was to identify, capture, or kill (should this be justified under NZDF rules of engagement), those insurgents who were named on a Joint Prioritized Effects List (JPEL) that NZDF intelligence suggested were responsible for the death of NZDF soldier Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell.

When delivering NZDF’s official account of Operation Burnham before media, Lieutenant General Tim Keating said:

“After the attack on the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team (NZPRT), which killed Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell, the NZPRT operating in Bamyan Province did everything it could to reduce the target profile of our people operating up the Shakera Valley and into the north-east of Bamyan Province.

“We adjusted our routine, reduced movements to an absolute minimum, maximised night driving, and minimised time on site in threat areas.

“The one thing the PRT [NZPRT] couldn’t do was to have an effect on the individuals that attacked Lieutenant O’Donnell’s patrol. For the first time, the insurgents had a major success — and they were well positioned to do so again.”

For the purpose of a counter-strike, intelligence was sought and Lieutenant-General Keating said: “We knew in a matter of days from local and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) intelligence who had attacked our patrol [where and when Lt. O’Donnell was killed].”

The intelligence specified the villages where the alleged insurgents were suspected of coming from and Leutenant-General Keating said: “This group had previously attacked Afghan Security Forces and elements of the German and Hungarian PRTs.”

The New Zealand government authorised permission for the Kabul-based NZSAS troops to be used in Operation Burnham.

“What followed was 14 days of reliable and corroborated intelligence collection that provided confirmation and justification for subsequent actions. Based on the intelligence, deliberate and detailed planning was conducted,” Lieutenant-General Keating said.

Revenge, Keating said, was never a motivation. Rather, according to him, the concern was for the security of New Zealand’s reconstruction and security efforts in Bamyan province.

As stated above, Operation Burnham’s primary objective was to identify, capture or kill Taliban insurgent leaders named in the intelligence data.

We know, from the New Zealand Defence Force’s own account, Operation Burnham failed to achieve that goal.

Analysis of the NZDF official account
The official account of events that occurred in the early hours of 22 August 2010, describe how Taliban insurgents, realising coalition forces were preparing to raid the area (marked as “Operation Burnham Area of Operation” in a map (slide 3) declasified and released to media on 27 March 2017), formed a tactical maneuver using civilians (women, children and elderly) as a human shield.

Despite the official account placing this group within a building, within a small hamlet, within the area of operation, within Tirgiran Valley, there is no clear definitive official account yet given of what happened to either the civilians or the insurgents.

This appears to be an obvious void in the official record, but one that has failed so far to be scrutinised.

To follow the logic of Lieutenant-General Tim Keating’s account (detailed below), is to discover our defence personnel, who were in charge of the ground and air operation during Operation Burnham, failed to identify what had become of those civilians (women, children, and the elderly), and also importantly the suspected insurgents who Lt. General Keating said during his briefing used the villagers as a human shield.

We know from the Chief of Defence Force’s notes as provided on 27 March 2017, that as Operation Burnham began, NZDF was in command of United States manned aircraft (including helicopters and possibly a AC-130). The aircraft were swarming above the Tirgiran Valley.

From the NZDF account, an NZDF joint terminal air controller was in charge of the air attack against those NZDF had defined as insurgents.

Lieutenant-General Keating stated the alleged insurgents were armed and a NZDF commander authorised the US manned aircraft to commence firing. Weapons-fire then began to rain down on the valley from above.

Meanwhile, NZSAS ground force soldiers prepared to secure their positions and to defend themselves against any potential enemy counter-attack.

Lieutenant-General Keating stated the insurgents responded: “The insurgents, the guerrilla force, the tactic is mixed in with the civilian population, if you like, the term used is a human shield. So they use civilians as a shield.”

He added: “What occurred, is a helicopter was engaging a group of insurgents outside the village, on the outskirts of the village. During that engagement, it was noted by the ground forces there – the SAS ground forces – that some of the rounds [from the US manned aircraft] were falling short, and went into a building where it was believed there were civilians as well as armed insurgents.”

To be clear, from this account, Lieutenant-General Keating stated a group of insurgents were being tracked, targeted, and fired upon by the US manned aircraft and under the command of a New Zealand Defence Force terminal air controller.

Meanwhile, according to the NZDF record, one of the airborne helicopter’s weapon’s sights were not calibrated correctly, and, according to Lieutenant-General Keating, 30mm projectiles went into a building where it was believed there were civilians as well as armed insurgents – remember these 30mm projectiles are capable of penetrating the side of a tank.

For accuracy, Lieutenant-General Keating restated his account: “It is noted, the building, there were armed insurgents in there, but it is believed that there may have been civilians in the building.”

He then added: “There’s no confirmation that any casualties occurred, but there may have been.”

He restated again: “There were civilians in that building.”

Now, this is where the Chief of Defence Force’s account fails to further explain what occurred after that point.

To summarise, the official position of the New Zealand Defence Force is:

• There were civilians in a building within the village that was fired upon by an armor piercing aircraft weapon
• That it was believed insurgents were also in that building
• That civilian casualties or deaths “may have been” or occurred inside the building.

At this juncture, we must consider whether the New Zealand Defence Force ground commanders had a responsibility to determine whether there were Taliban insurgents in the building? And if so, whether they were the individuals listed on the JPEL list, those deemed responsible for the death of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell? And what of the ground commanders’ legal requirements, the duty of care with respect to civilians, were NZDF commanders on the ground or back in Kabul compelled by law to confirm the status of the civilians, whether they were injured or killed?

When asked by a journalist at the 27 March 2017 press conference: “If there may have been civilian casualties, why not have an inquiry to find out?”

Lieutenant-General Keating replied: “Even if there was, as far as the New Zealand Defence Force has heard, the coalition investigation has, um, said that uh, if there were casualties, the fault of those casualties was a mechanical failure of a piece of equipment.”

This reply does not appear to consider the legal requirements under:

• Second Protocol to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Article 7: the obligation to provide medical assistance to all wounded, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict
• Second Protocol to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Article 8: the obligation to search for and collect the wounded and to ensure their adequate care
• Second Protocol to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Article 13: the obligation to protect the civilian population against dangers arising from military operations
• Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, section 102. This section provides that the commanding officer of a person alleged to have committed an offence under that Act must initiate proceedings in the form of a charge or refer the allegation to civil authorities, unless the commanding officer considers the allegation is not well-founded. While little legal guidance is provided, it cannot be accepted that preliminary inquiries to determine whether an allegation is well-founded can be considered adequate where they fail to obtain evidence from the injured parties, determine their identities or even verify that they exist
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 28
• The NZDF Manual of Armed Forces Law provides that there are three types of inquiry in the NZDF: a preliminary inquiry, a court of inquiry and a command investigation. (It appears however the ISAF investigation cited by the Chief of Defence Force was not any of the above forms of inquiry).

Specifically, if you analyse Lieutenant-General Keating’s account, the New Zealand Defence Force commanders failed to identify whether any insurgents were inside the building and whether there were dead or wounded civilians.

Why was this the case? It seems reasonable to suggest, this is an abandonment of logic. It does not make sense.

We know from official NZDF documents the soldiers arrived at the scene of Operation Burnham at 0030 hours on 22 August 2010 and left at 0345 hours, that’s the official record.

To clarify, the NZSAS commandos were in the area of operation for 3 hours 15 minutes. Lieutenant-General Keating stated, near the conclusion of the raid: “The ground force commander chose at that time that there was no longer a threat and they were leaving.”

How could that rationally be the case unless the suspected insurgents inside that building had been checked? Was it not suspected that there were insurgents in that building?

Surely the ground force commanders would be compelled to seek and identify the inhabitants of that building to see if they matched the names/descriptions on the JPEL list? After all, the manhunt for Taliban leadership was the purpose of the raid that night.

Also, logic would suggest, the people inside the building were in part civilians including women and probably children – by Lieutenant-General Keating’s account the group likely included wounded civilians and probably a dead child.

Also, it is reasonable to suggest, considering the events over those 3 hours 15 minutes, the survivors would have been crying, weeping, even howling, and the wounded would likely have been in agony.

It defies belief that the ground force commanders, and their counterparts back in Kabul, were not aware of this building, that the NZDF account states was housing suspected Taliban, and included a group of civilian victims that had been used as a human shield.

The entire area of operation specific to Operation Burnham is a skewed rectangle approximately 500 metres wide by 1 kilometre long, with an intensified operation plan focusing on two small hamlets, each approximately 50×200 metres in area [based on the scale measures of the NZDF map] – named Objective 1 and Objective 2 in the NZDF released material.

To state it simply, the official silence surrounding the above-mentioned building, and the fate of the people inside, speaks volumes. It leaves one to consider at worst whether a crime was committed by New Zealand Defence Force commanders that night – whether by failing in their duty to care for the injured they were in breach of Articles 8, 9 and 13 of the Second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.

Additional note:

• The Statute of the International Criminal Court defines war crimes as, inter alia, “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict” and “serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in an armed conflict not of an international character”. (Ref. IHL Definition of war crimes, page 1 (pdf) – ICC Statute, Article 8 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 44, § 3))
• “The Statute defines as within the scope of the law, the “launching an attack without attempting to aim properly at a military target or in such a manner as to hit civilians without any thought or care as to the likely extent of death or injury amounts to an indiscriminate attack”.
• War crimes can consist of acts or omissions. Examples of the latter include failure to provide a fair trial and failure to provide food or necessary medical care to persons in the power of the adversary.’

At best, if NZDF’s official account is to be relied upon, we are to believe the NZSAS ground commanders failed to ensure the Taliban insurgents they sought were not holed up in a building that had sustained damage from coalition force aircraft. If this assumption is incorrect, at what point had the suspected insurgents left the building? And what had become of the civilians that had been allegedly used as a human shield? Again, the vacuum of information specific to this aspect of the official account needs to be explained, including an explanation as to why NZDF’s account remains vague after six years since Operation Burnham was conducted.

It appears reasonable to assert that this single issue, notwithstanding the irregularities of official NZDF stated “facts”, warrants further official and independent investigation.

As it is, at this juncture, we are left to consider a series of unanswered questions that to date the New Zealand Chief of Defence Force has failed to satisfy. Here are some of them.

Key unanswered questions:

• What were the specific definitions of an insurgent that were used by NZDF for the purposes of evaluation during Operation Burnham and for the purpose of post-operation official analysis? For example; was it deemed that anyone who was male and of a fighting age was defined to be an insurgent?
• Were NZDF soldiers fired upon by individuals (villagers or insurgents) located within the confines of the villages or surrounding area during Operation Burnham?
• Was the individual who was killed by a NZSAS soldier or NZDF personnel carrying a weapon at the time of this shooting? If so, had he fired or attempted to fire his weapon in an attempt to kill or wound NZDF personnel?
• How long in minutes were the coalition forces’ helicopters, and any other airborne craft, firing their weapons on the villages and surrounding region during Operation Burnham?
  How long in minutes were NZSAS soldiers involved in securing the operational area from real or potential insurgent attack?
• Did NZDF personnel at anytime seek to identify individuals (and their status, injured, killed, or otherwise) who were located inside or near the building that Lt. General Keating said had suffered damage from an alleged mis-aimed firing from an airborne coalition aircraft?
• Were those who were injured or killed within sight of NZDF personnel before, during, and/or after the alleged mis-aimed firing?
• How many individuals did the NZDF personnel suspect were inside the building?
• How many of these people did the NZDF personnel suspect were civilians?
• How many were suspected of being women?
• How many were suspected of being children?
• Lieutenant-General Keating suggested that one of the individuals that may have been killed during Operation Burnham was a six year-old child. What was the gender of this child?
• Was their any attempt to identify this six year-old victim?
• Was this child Fatima, the three year-old child identified in the Hit & Run [ISBN 978 0 947503 39 0] book? If not, then who was this child?
• What actions did NZDF personnel do to exercise their duty of care obligations to the injured and to civilians?
• What reports, cautions, evaluations were written and/or submitted regarding Operation Burnham to NZDF by the NZDF legal officer who was on the ground during Operation Burnham?

The twisting turning official account – is this smoke and mirrors?
As a consequence of the Hit & Run book [ISBN 978 0 947503 39 0] being published, New Zealand Defence Force’s top ranking soldier, Lieutenant-General Tim Keating admitted civilians “may have been” killed during the operation.

Up until 27 March 2017, for the past six years, New Zealand Defence Force has insisted that no civilians were killed during Operation Burnham on 22 August 2010.

But on Monday, under questioning from the media, at the March 27 press conference, Lietenant-General Keating stated that the NZDF’s new “official line” regarding civilian deaths was “there may have been”.

He then attempted to suggest that NZDF’s previously stated position – that claims of civilian deaths were “unfounded” – was basically the same thing.

“I’m not going to get cute here and say it’s a twist on words, it’s the same thing, ‘unfounded’, ‘there may have been’. The official line is that there may have been casualties,” Lieutenant-General Keating said.

A journalist then challenged him further suggesting: “They’re different things, one means they didn’t happen and one mean might’ve done.”

Lieutenant-General Keating then replied: “You’re right…the, the, the official line is that civilian casualties may have occurred, but not corroborated.”

When asked how many insurgents were killed, Lieutenant-General Keating replied: “A significant number of insurgents, identified insurgents, were killed during Operation Burnham.”

When asked again how many were killed, Lt. General Keating stated: “Nine.”

When asked if NZDF had the names of the insurgents that were killed, he replied: “No, we do not have names of insurgents.”

This trajectory, inching toward a truth, occurred under tight questioning by a journalist, over just a few minutes.

What further truths will become relevant to understanding what occurred that night in Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages should a commission of inquiry be established?

The inconsistencies – a summary
In evaluation, it is reasonable to assert the official government inconsistencies observed along a six-year timeline offer the appearance of a military hierarchy that has being dragged, by degrees, (mainly by the work of Jon Stephenson, an investigative journalist specialising in war and conflict reportage) into an arena where the floodlight of public interest ought to shed light on secrets long since filed into a dark place.

However, considering the above, rather than responding openly to the challenge of meeting its responsibilities to the New Zealand Minister of Defence and public, the New Zealand Defence Force appears resistant to its obligations toward open and accurate disclosure of non-classified fact.

In conclusion, if this is true, this conduct exhibited by the officials of New Zealand Defence Force and its Chief Lieutenant-General Tim Keating is hardly a defining benchmark of “exemplary” standards.

Actually, the admissions of relevant information, that is forthcoming only when lanced from the New Zealand Defence Force under questioning, offers the impression of a smoke and mirrors operation – it may appear churlish to suggest, but perhaps the post-Operation Burnham aftermath ought to be referred to as Operation Desert Road (bleak, cold, inhospitable, proceed with caution).

The public deserves to know the whole truth, not spin or part-truths – both the public interest and the national interest depends on it.

By the New Zealand Defence Force’s own account, it appears reasonable to suggest that the commanders overseeing Operation Burnham had legal obligations to civilians; that they were potentially negligent when considered against their stated rules of engagement, rules of conduct, obligations to international human rights law and international humanitarian law – negligent of their obligations to laws covering war and armed conflict, notwithstanding their obligations as representatives of the people and government of New Zealand to observe the Bill of Rights Act.

It is also reasonable to suggest; there are significant established facts as mentioned above, as put by the New Zealand Defence Force, that require an official investigative response from the New Zealand government.

It is also reasonable to insist that the matter of an absence of consistent fact emitting from the New Zealand Defence Force upon which a reliable opinion can be draw, adds weight to the burden on the Government to establish an inquiry into this matter.

If the New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English elects not to act then it will likely become a matter of political leadership or lack thereof.

If Bill English does not care to act on his office’s public interest obligations, then, it is reasonable to suggest he consider the empirical facts underlying this matter and the impact the matter has on New Zealand’s national interest. Should he fail to do so, this matter potentially could be argued before the International Criminal Court.

*****

Background relevancies
Were NZDF officials and Hit & Run authors describing the same raid? Let’s compare.

“It seems to me,” Lieutenant-General Tim Keating stressed, “that one of the fundamentals, a start point if you like, of any investigation into a crime is to tie the alleged perpetrators of a crime to the scene. Then we would examine the motive and means, and other scene evidence.” – Lieutenant General Tim Keating, 27 March 2017.

On Monday, 27 March 2017 both the Prime Minister Bill English and the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force Lieutenant-General Tim Keating countered details revealed in the book Hit & Run and argued facts stated in the work could not be relied upon because the authors “incorrectly” alleged Operation Burnham took place in Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village deep in the mountainous Baghlan province of Afghanistan – two locations the Defence Force chief insisted his soldiers had never been to.

Lieutenant-General Keating asserted that the New Zealand Defence Force had never been to the two villages (Khak Khuday Dad and Naik) and insisted Operation Burnham took place 2.2 kilometres to the south of where the authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson had marked the location of the villages (specifically on a map published in the book Hit & Run).

Lieutenant-General Keating said: “As you will note from the book, the authors have been precise in locating these villages with geo reference points — so I have no doubt they are very accurate in the villages they are taking their allegations from.

“The villages lie in the Tirgiran Valley some 2 kilometres north from Tirgiran Village. In straight distance this is like comparing the distance from Te Papa to Wellington Hospital. However, if you overlay the elevated terrain, you will see we are talking about two very separated, distinct settlements,” Lieutenant-General Keating said.

Beyond the obvious, it was a staggering claim, especially for those aware the New Zealand Defence Force had insisted one week prior, that its official position remained the same as stated in a media release dated 20 April 2011 that: “On 22 August 2010 New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) elements, operating as part of a Coalition Force in Bamyan province, Afghanistan, conducted an operation against an insurgent group.”

NZDF’s earlier position asserted New Zealand soldiers had not been in Baghlan province on or near 22 August 2010 the night of Operation Burnham. Now, the chief of New Zealand’s armed forces was admitting that they had.

At the press conference on Monday, 27 March 2017, the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force prepared to stake his claim that the book could not be relied on as a factual reference.

Before around 30 journalists, Lieutenant-General Tim Keating pointed to four relevant bullet-points underlying key claims of fact in the book:

• Helicopter landing sites
• Location of houses that were destroyed
• Locations of where civilians were allegedly killed
• Presumed location of an SAS sniper with evidence presented of SAS ammunition and water bottles which were found at the site.

A relationship was drawn between the sniper location and the alleged killing of the individual Islamuddin, the school teacher.

He acknowledged that the book contained a detailed list of those alleged to have been killed or wounded during a military operation in Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages and a detailed list of the houses destroyed at the two locations.

Lieutenant-General Keating then drove his point home that: “The underlying premise of the book is that New Zealand’s SAS soldiers conducted an operation on Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village…”

“It seems to me,” he stressed, “that one of the fundamentals, a start point if you like, of any investigation into a crime is to tie the alleged perpetrators of a crime to the scene. Then we would examine the motive and means, and other scene evidence.”

Lieutenant-General Keating pivoted. “Let me now talk about the ISAF Operation Burnham in Tirgiran Village.”

The premise of the Chief of Defence Force’s position was; the book Hit & Run described events that may or may not have occurred in Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages, but that these alleged events had nothing to do with New Zealand Defence Force soldiers as they had never been to the two locations as marked in the book.

Likewise, the Prime Minister, Bill English, said the book got it wrong, that the New Zealand Defence Force had never been to either Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village.

The Prime Minister added: “We believe in the integrity of the Defence Force more than a book that picks the wrong villages.”

For some, it appeared the raid that night as described by the authors could have been committed by another force. For others, it seemed the authors had got a major fact wrong so therefore the remaining claims in the book were moot.

By mid-Wednesday morning, the government and the public found out there was more to it, that the Chief of New Zealand Defence Force was also wrong with regard to his geography.

Unpicking the official line began in earnest late on Tuesday night (28 March 2017) when the lawyers representing the alleged victims of Operation Burnham contacted their clients back in Afghanistan. The purpose of the contact was to identify the exact location of Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village; to confirm or otherwise disprove the existence of “Tirgiran Village” (the NZDF stated official location of Operation Burnham), and to identify and confirm what village or villages are located at the exact co-ordinates as provided by Lieutenant-General Tim Keating in his briefing to New Zealand media.

The lawyers’ clients, represented by a doctor from the region, stated categorically that “Tirgiran Village” (as stated by Lieutenant-General Keating) does not exist. That the region is known as Tirgiran Valley.

The lawyers evaluated from the new information, that to refer to the location of Operation Burnham as Tirgiran Village is like insisting an operation had occurred in Otago City (obviously Otago is a region and a city of that name does not exist, and as such would fail to offer an exact point of reference on a map).

Importantly, the lawyers confirmed, New Zealand Defence Force co-ordinates of where Operation Burnham took place were correct – but that the location was not as the NZDF had stated as “Tirgiran Village” (an incorrect reference to a village that does not exist) but rather marks the geo-locations of where Khak Khuday Dad Village and Naik Village are located.

Specifically, the villagers confirmed the red-rectangle as marked on the NZDF map provided by the Lt. General on Monday, March 27, and referred to as the area specific to Operation Burnham, frames the exact positions of where Khak Khuday Dad and Naik villages are located.

So simply, the book contained a map that placed Khak Khuday Dad and Naik 2.2 kilometres north of their specific real locations. And, the NZDF got it wrong by stating that those two villages were located where the book suggested, and that the village at the centre of Operation Burnham was a different village called Tirgiran Village (again, a place-name that does not exist).

So it turns out, according to those that live in the Tirgiran Valley, the Chief of Defence Force’s statement is incorrect or false; that when NZDF stated as a categorical fact that the New Zealand SAS commandos had never been to Khak Khuday Dad Village nor Naik Village, that that information was false.

At this point politically, it is inescapable that the Prime Minister’s stated position ought to have taken a hit.

Remember back to the Prime Minister’s statement to media on Monday, March 27, 2017 where he pitched his rationale: “We believe in the integrity of the Defence Force more than a book that picks the wrong villages.”

Surely, the same measure that was applied to the authors of Hit & Run now ought to be applied in equal measure to the New Zealand Defence Force chief and his officials. After all, they also got their geography wrong.

Since then, there has been stated unease about the whole issue by Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne (the minister who would have to sign off and authorise the costs of an inquiry should the Prime Minister order an inquiry be established). By Thursday, 30 March 201,7 Dunne, through media, called for an inquiry into the whole affair. (ref. Stuff.co.nz )

Also on Thursday, the Minister of Defence at the time of the raid, Dr Wayne Mapp, wrote of his unease about Operation Burnham in a piece published on the Pundit website. (ref. Pundit )

Dr Mapp argued that the government’s position, and that of the New Zealand Defence Force, cannot be the end of it.

“Part of protecting their [the SAS’] reputation is also finding out what happened, particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of military conflict,” wrote Dr Mapp.

Common statements of fact
The descriptions of Operation Burnham, in both the book, and, as stated by the New Zealand Defence Force, do mirror each account with precision on numerous vital points, including:

• The time of night Operation Burnham took place
• That New Zealand Defence Force was commanding and leading the operation (both on the ground and in the air)
• That the helicopters were manned by United States military personnel under New Zealand’s command
• That the purpose of the operation was to kill or capture those named as having been part of a Taliban insurgent raid that killed Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell
• That buildings were destroyed during the operation
• That people were killed at the villages.

However, anyone who has reasonably assessed the issue can see there is much more information to be revealed.

Conclusion
In concluding this analysis, it is an imperative that due to the highest levels of public and national interest concerning the alleged conduct, the seriousness of allegations, and the variables relating to the official account, that the matter be subjected to an independent commission of inquiry.

Selwyn Manning is editor of EveningReport.nz. This analysis was first published on Kiwipolitico.com and on Evening Report and is republished on the sister website Asia Pacific Report with the permission of the author.

• No basis for probe into Hager book allegations, says English
• No inquiry – ‘It is the next step in the seven-year cover-up’