How one of the key Greens in the New Zealand parliament yesterday challenged the country’s foreign minister Murray McCully over the ongoing Gaza siege:
KEITH LOCKE (Green) KEITH to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will the Government call for the immediate lifting of Israel’s economic blockade of Gaza; if not, why not?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The New Zealand Government has consistently called for humanitarian and other essential supplies to be given free access to Gaza. I reiterated that to the Israeli Ambassador yesterday. We have also made it clear that the substantive solution to the Gaza conflict is for Hamas to guarantee the cessation of attacks on Israel and for Israel to lift the blockade.
Keith Locke: Why will the Minister not go beyond what he has just said about granting more access to essential supplies, and support the call made by both the European Parliament and the European Union in the last couple of days for the immediate—and I stress the word “immediate”—lifting of the economic blockade?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: It is very clear that the reason for the blockade being in place in the first place is that Israel has concerns about its security. The obvious way forward has always been for Hamas to guarantee the cessation of attacks and for Israel to lift the blockade.
Keith Locke: What security is there for either Israelis or the Palestinian people when Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur for Palestine, describes it as “a massive form of collective punishment” and thus a crime against humanity under *Geneva conventions? Does the Minister agree with Mr Falk; if not, in what way does he disagree with that statement?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I said yesterday, the events of the last few days—tragic as they are—underline the unsustainability of the current situation in Gaza. Clearly we need to see an intensification of international efforts to find a solution. It has been apparent for some time that for that solution to be durable it must involve Hamas guaranteeing the security of Israel, and Israel in return lifting the blockade.
Keith Locke: Is the Minister, as he appears to be from his answer, justifying the continued existence of the blockade? Why does he not agree with the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, who said that the blockade is “unacceptable and counter-productive”?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am not necessarily disagreeing that the blockade is unnecessary and counter-productive. The fact is that for the international community to succeed in its efforts to get the blockade lifted, it will have to address the security issues that brought the blockade into existence in the first place. This issue cries out for further intensification of international efforts to find a solution. Those efforts will simply not succeed without addressing both sides of that equation.
Keith Locke: In the meantime, does he think it is okay to starve a whole population, deny them the necessities of life, and virtually close down their entire economy; if he does not think it is OK to do that to the 1.5 million people of Gaza, why will he not support an immediate end to the economic blockade?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I agree absolutely with the member’s assessment of the implications of the blockade, and I share his strong desire to see it removed. However, we have to ask ourselves whether we will achieve that objective by making lofty and meaningless speeches, or whether we should devote ourselves to getting some movement in this area by ensuring that we deal with the root cause. The root cause of this issue is that Israel has put in place a blockade because it has security concerns. The obvious solution has always been to see those security concerns addressed at the same time as the lifting of the blockade.
Keith Locke: On the question of the attack itself, does he agree with the president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, that the Israeli operation of a couple of days ago was an “unjustified attack” and an “unacceptable breach of international law”; if he does not, in what way does he disagree with those statements?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Government supports the *United Nations Security Council’s call for “a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.” In supporting such an investigation, I suggest to the member that it is best to wait for that investigation to occur before making its findings available. In other words, if we are going to have the investigation, let us at least wait for the conclusions before we make the findings ourselves.
Keith Locke: Does the Minister not accept that the basic facts of the situation—that there was an illegal attack in international waters by the Israeli troops on a peaceful aid flotilla—are already at hand, and that he should at least criticise that, along with the rest of the world, while rightly supporting a further investigation?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Government was very clear in condemning the violence, and, in particular, condemning the loss of life that has occurred off the shores of Gaza. That member, along with others, has called for a full investigation, but simultaneously announced what the findings of that investigation should be. The Government believes that completing the investigation before declaring a verdict is an approach that might engender greater international respect and credibility.
Hon Chris Carter: Does he stand by the statement he made on 25 February, just prior to his visit to Israel and Palestine, that New Zealand takes a principled and balanced approach to the key issues in the Middle East; if so, did he request permission from the Israeli authorities to visit Gaza and see the situation personally, as part of our balanced approach; if not, why not?
Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Yes, I did make that statement. Yes, I did seek from the Israeli authorities and others the opportunity to go to Gaza, but for reasons that I am happy to explain at greater length, I was not permitted to go.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is from European Voice, where the EU spokesperson calls for an immediate end to the blockade.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Keith Locke: The second document is an article by Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on Palestine, talking in Countercurrents about the blockade being a massive form of collective punishment.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Keith Locke: The third document is a press release from the European Parliament of 1 June, talking about forcing Israel to lift the siege on the people of Gaza immediately.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.