ANALYSIS: By Jeffrey D. Sachs and Sybil Fares

On February 16, 2026, one of us (Jeffrey Sachs) sent a letter to the UN Security Council warning that the United States was on the verge of tearing up the United Nations Charter.

That warning has now come to pass. The United States and Israel have launched an unprovoked war against Iran in flagrant violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter, without authorisation from the Security Council, and without any legitimate claim of self-defence under Article 51.

They are trying to kill the UN Charter and the international rule of law, but they will fail.

At the Security Council on February 28, 2026, the US and its allies directed their condemnation not at the American and Israeli aggression, but at Iran.

One US ally after the next condemned Iran for its retaliatory attacks yet absurdly failed to condemn the illegal and unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran. This performance by these countries was disgraceful and turned reality completely upside down.

The joint US-Israeli attacks were described by Trump as necessary because Iran “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore.”

This is of course a flat lie. As the letter of February 16 recounted, Iran agreed a decade ago to a nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was adopted by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231.

Trump ripped up agreement
It was Trump who ripped up the agreement in 2018. In June 2025, Israel bombed Iran in the midst of US-Iran negotiations.

This time too, the Israel-US war plans were set weeks ago when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump, and the negotiations underway between the US and Iran were a charade. This seems to be the new modus operandi of the US: start negotiations and then aim to murder the counterparts.

It is easy to understand why the US allies behave in the embarrassing and self-abasing way they did at the UN Security Council. In addition to the United States, eight of the other 14 Council members host US military bases or grant the US military access to local bases: Bahrain, Colombia, Denmark, France, Greece, Latvia, Panama, and the United Kingdom.

These countries are not fully sovereign. They are partially governed by the US. The US military bases house CIA operations, and the host countries constantly look over their shoulder to try to avoid US subversion in their own countries.

As Henry Kissinger famously said, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be its friend is fatal.” We can add that to host US military bases and CIA operations is to turn your country into a vassal state.

As an absurd but telling example, the Danish ambassador parroted every US talking point, pointing her finger at Iran for its aggression as if Iran had not been attacked by the US and Israel.

She completely forgot that such humiliating vassalage to the US will not play well for Denmark if the US occupies Greenland.

Truthful voices at UN
The truthful voices at the Security Council came from the countries not occupied by the United States. Russia explained correctly that the so-called West (that is, the countries occupied by the US) is engaged in victim-blaming when it points its finger at Iran.

China reminded the Council that the crisis began with the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, not with Iran’s retaliation.

Somalia’s ambassador, speaking on behalf of several African member states, truthfully portrayed the source of this recent escalation.

The UN Representative of the League of Arab States spoke brilliantly about the root cause of Israel’s mad aggression: the denial of rights to Palestinian people, and Israel’s use of mass murder and regional war to prevent the emergence of a State of Palestine.

When Iran retaliates against US military bases in the Gulf, it is exercising its inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter. We must remember that the US and Israel are openly and repeatedly assassinating Iran’s leaders, with the aim of overthrowing its government.

When states murder a foreign head of state and attempt to destroy the government, the target of those threats is entitled under international law to defend itself.

The US-Israeli bombing murdered not only Iran’s Supreme Leader and several top government officials, but also more than 165 young girls in their school in Minab. These young children are the victims of a horrific war crime.

Complicit in war crime
The countries that gave a UN Security Council pass to the United States and Israel for these killings — notably Denmark, France, Latvia, the United Kingdom, and of course the US — are also complicit in this war crime.

This UN Security Council emergency meeting will likely be remembered as the day the United Nations ceased to function from its headquarters on American soil. An international organisation dedicated to the peaceful settlement of disputes cannot credibly operate from a country that wages illegal wars, threatens member states with annihilation, and treats UN Security Council resolutions as disposable instruments of convenience.

For the UN to survive, and we need it to survive, it will need several homes around the world — in Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and others — honouring the true multipolarity of our world.

Let us be clear about what the United States and Israel are pursuing. The US objective is not the security of the American people. The objective is global hegemony. The attempt is to destroy the UN and the international rule of law—an attempt that will fail.

Israel’s objective is to establish a Greater Israel, destroy the Palestinian people, and assert its hegemony over hundreds of millions of Arabs across the Middle East (from the Nile to the Euphrates, as US Ambassador Mike Huckabee recently asserted).

The United States’ delusional efforts at global hegemony are proceeding region by region. The US has recently claimed, in a wholly twisted supposed revival of the Monroe Doctrine, that it controls the Western Hemisphere and can dictate how Latin American countries conduct their economic and political affairs.

The US kidnapped the sitting Venezuelan president to prove the point, and it now threatens to overthrow the Cuban government as well.

US ‘owns Middle East’
Today’s war against Iran aims to prove that the US similarly owns the Middle East. The war is part of a 30-year campaign, initiated by the Clean Break doctrine, to overthrow all governments that oppose US and Israeli hegemony in the region.

Those joint Israel-US wars have included the genocide in Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank and the decades of wars and regime-change operations in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

One part of the US global plan is to commandeer the world’s oil exports and to weaken China and Russia in the process. The US seizure of Venezuela was designed to ensure American control of that country’s oil exports, especially to control the flow of oil to China.

US sanctions on Russia aim to prevent Russian oil from reaching India and China. Now the US aims to stop the flow of Iran’s oil to China. More broadly, the US aims to control the entire Gulf region plus Iran to maintain its imperial dominance.

The international order that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt helped to build after the catastrophe of the Second World War was founded on a simple and profound idea — that law and respect, not force, should govern relations among states. That idea is now being destroyed by the very nation that did most to promote it in founding the UN. The irony is bitter beyond measure.

The truth is that the devastation of the war will not directly affect the so-called West: their children will not suffer traumas or death, and their countries will not be set ablaze. The victims of this attack are the people of the Middle East. They are the expendable ones who suffer from Western arrogance, abuse of power, and addiction to war.

We close with two observations. First, the United States will not achieve global hegemony or kill the UN. The world is too large, too diverse, and too determined to resist domination by any single power, much less one with 4 percent of the world’s population.

World outside US
The world outside of the US and the countries it occupies want the UN to live and thrive. The US attempt will surely fail, but it may cause immense suffering before it does.

Second, if Israel continues its addiction to war and occupation, it too will not survive. That addiction represents a mix of theocracy and post-traumatic stress.

Part of Israel believes that it is the biblical kingdom of the 5th century BC. The other part lives in the traumatic memory of the Holocaust, and so is determined to kill any perceived adversary rather than learn to live together with it in peace.

The Israeli Ambassador’s twisted defence of Israel’s brazen attack on Iran, as usual, cited the Bible and Auschwitz as the two justifications. These are Israel’s two perennial references, but not the real world of today.

A state that depends on permanent war, permanent occupation and slaughter of the Palestinians, and the indefinite subjugation of millions of people has no viable future, and the policies that the United States is now pursuing on Israel’s behalf will accelerate rather than prevent that outcome.

The two-state solution, which the Council has endorsed repeatedly, offers Israel a path to peace. Tragically Israel rejects that. The result, eventually, will be the end of Israel itself in its current form, especially as the US population is rapidly turning against Israel’s violent theocracy and towards the cause of Palestine.

Perhaps there will be one democratic state for both Arabs and Jews living in peace, together, with an end of apartheid rule.

These are harsh truths, but emergencies demand honesty. The UN is being murdered by Israel and the United States. The Security Council must rouse itself from their military occupation by the US, and remember that they are the stewards of the UN Charter’s promise to maintain international peace and security.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed the Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. Sybil Fares is a specialist and advisor in Middle East policy and sustainable development at SDSN.

Republished under Creative Commons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An invitation from a distant warzone landed in Suva earlier this month. The United States, with Israel’s endorsement, has asked Fiji to send troops to join a proposed International Stabilisation Force in Gaza.

For a nation proud of its United Nations peacekeeping legacy, this whispers of global recognition. Yet, it is a dangerous siren’s call, urging Fiji toward a perilous mission that risks betraying a far more urgent duty at home.

This force would swap impartial peacekeeping for coercive enforcement, serving great-power ambition over principle.

Simultaneously, Australia faces its own costly summons, involving a bill of up to US$1 billion, to take up a permanent seat on a controversial “Board of Peace” overseeing Gaza.

With no Palestinian voice and critics decrying it as a “transactional colonial solution”, this board aims not for peace but to sideline the UN, cementing a donor-driven world order.

For Oceania, these parallel invitations present a defining choice: expend finite resources on a flawed project thousands of kilometres away, or assert true regional independence by confronting the clear and present danger eroding our own communities — the transnational crime and drug epidemic.

The Gaza plan is architecturally unsound. The force Fiji is asked to join is not a traditional UN mission deployed with consent; it is a peace enforcement body expected to demilitarise a shattered, hostile territory — a task requiring overwhelming force and unambiguous political will, neither of which is guaranteed.

Designed for dysfunction
The Board of Peace itself is designed for dysfunction, acting as a parallel structure to the UN Security Council where influence is bought, not earned.

For Australia, the billion-dollar question is stark: is this investment in distant geopolitical theatre wiser than addressing the existential crisis in its primary sphere of influence?

This moment mirrors a recent lesson from Europe. When President Trump targeted Greenland, European nations stood collectively on the principle of territorial integrity, forcing a retreat.

Their unity demonstrated that defending sovereignty collectively is the only way smaller states are protected from the predatory actions of larger ones.

For the Pacific, the lesson is clear: our security lies in collective regional resolve, not in subsidising external power plays that undermine the very multilateral rules that protect us.

This dynamic exposes the core hypocrisy of the new transactional order. It invites regions like ours to help manage conflicts born of imperial histories and great-power rivalries, while the same powers show a willingness to disregard the sovereignty of smaller states when it suits their strategic whims.

The Greenland episode is not an isolated fantasy; it is a blueprint. If economic coercion can be levelled against a NATO ally for territory, what guarantees exist for nations in the Pacific, whose strategic waterways and exclusive economic zones are equally coveted?

Enshrines coercion
The Board of Peace model enshrines this very coercion, asking nations to pay for a voice in a system that inherently devalues the sovereign equality that the UN Charter promises.

While Gaza beckons with false prestige, a real war is destroying our social fabric. Fiji’s National Security Strategy identifies the methamphetamine epidemic as a top-tier threat (p. 19). Record drug busts reveal not success, but the staggering scale of invasion.

This crisis fuels violence, overwhelms health systems, corrupts leaders and drains state resources.

To even contemplate diverting military and political focus to Gaza is to declare this domestic war secondary. It begs a foundational question: what is the ultimate purpose of sovereignty if not to deliver safety and security to one’s own people first?

This is the primary duty of any state. When institutions are eroded by cartels while security forces look abroad, that duty has failed.

This crisis is the true test of our regional architecture. The traffickers’ networks are transnational, exploiting fragmented governance and weak maritime surveillance. Their success is a direct result of our collective vulnerability.

To confront them requires a consolidation of sovereignty, not its diversion. Every police officer, intelligence analyst and naval patrol boat committed to a quagmire overseas is a resource stripped from guarding our own shores.

Diplomatic minefield
The political capital spent navigating the diplomatic minefield of Gaza is capital not spent rallying the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) to adopt a wartime footing against a clear, shared enemy. We cannot allow the spectre of one crisis to blind us to the substance of another.

The strategic response lies not in the Middle East, but in our own waters. Australia must make up its mind. That US$1 billion — a sum that could transform regional security — could and should be the cornerstone of a bold, coordinated campaign against the drug crisis, championed through the Forum.

I am not arguing for a return to failed, militarised prohibition. I propose a holistic, regional compact built on:

• Integrated policing: A permanent regional Task Force with real-time intelligence fusion to disrupt trafficking syndicates and their finances;
• Community resilience: Co-designed programs creating economic alternatives for youth and supporting rehabilitation to erode the cartels’ demand; and
• Institutional integrity: Major initiatives to shield judiciaries and border services from corruption, ensuring the rule of law is an asset.

In a world of transactional great-power politics, Australia must consciously encircle the Pasifika. This means investing politically and financially in the PIF, respecting its priorities and heeding its calls.

Addressing this crisis would be an act of enlightened self-preservation for Australia, and a lifeline for the region. The model exists in our history: the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, known as RAMSI, succeeded because it blended Australian resources with Pasifika personnel and local knowledge. We must summon that spirit again for a more complex fight.

The invitations to Gaza are a test of strategic identity. For Fiji, it is a test of resisting the seductive glare of distant drama for the sober duty of safeguarding the homeland.

Choice for Australia
For Australia, it is a choice: to fund a board that undermines global order or to invest in a sovereign regional compact against a shared existential threat.

True leadership is demonstrated not by saying a reflexive “yes” to powerful patrons, but by having the wisdom to say “no” when their wishes conflict with fundamental principles of multilateralism and life-and-death needs at home.

Europe showed that collective defence of sovereignty is how smaller states secure their future. For the Pasifika, our path to security and independence does not run through the rubble of Gaza. It runs through the strengthened, cooperative spirit of our own Blue Continent.

Choosing this closer, harder path is the mark of a region that truly knows where it belongs. It is the only choice that builds a legacy of genuine security, leaving our children a future defined not by the crises we attended elsewhere, but by the community we fortified here.

Ro Naulu Mataitini is a Fijian high chief of Rewa Province. A founding member of the People’s Alliance Party, he now serves as an apolitical member of Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs and is the chairman of Rewa Provincial Holdings Company Limited. He is a retired security executive with the United Nations. This article appeared first on the Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre at the Australian National University and is republished under Creative Commons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Robert Inlakesh

Passing with 13 votes in favour and none in defiance, the new UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution has given the United States a mandate to create what it calls an “International Stabilisation Force” (ISF) and “Board of Peace” committee to seize power in Gaza.

US President Donald Trump has hailed the resolution as historic, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has stood in opposition to an element of the resolution that mentions “Palestinian Statehood”.

In order to understand what has just occurred, it requires a breakdown of the resolution itself and the broader context surrounding the ceasefire deal.

When these elements are combined, it becomes clear that this resolution is perhaps one of the most shameful to have passed in the history of the United Nations, casting shame on it and undermining the very basis on which it was formed to begin with.

An illegal regime change resolution
In September 2025, a United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel to have committed the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip.

For further context, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the most powerful international legal entity and organ of the UN, ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and thus issued orders for Tel Aviv to end specific violations of international law in Gaza, which were subsequently ignored.

Taking this into consideration, the UN itself cannot claim ignorance of the conditions suffered by the people of Gaza, nor could it credibly posit that the United States is a neutral actor capable of enforcing a balanced resolution of what its own experts have found to be a genocide.

This resolution itself is not a peace plan and robs Palestinians of their autonomy entirely; thus, it is anti-democratic in its nature.

It was also passed due in large part to threats from the United States against both Russia and China, that if they vetoed it, the ceasefire would end and the genocide would resume. Therefore, both Beijing and Moscow abstained from the vote, despite the Russian counterproposal and initial opposition to the resolution.

It also gives a green light to what the US calls a “Board of Peace”, which will work to preside over governing Gaza during the ceasefire period. The head of this board is none other than US President Trump himself, who says he will be joined by other world leaders.

Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who launched the illegal invasion of Iraq, has been floated as a potential “Board of Peace” leader also.

Vowed a ‘Gaza Riviera’
On February 4 of this year, President Trump vowed to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The American President later sought to impose a plan for a new Gaza, which he even called the “Gaza Riviera”, which was drawn up by Zionist economist Joseph Pelzman.

Part of Pelzman’s recommendations to Trump was that “you have to destroy the whole place, restart from scratch”.

As it became clear that the US alone could not justify an invasion force and simply take over Gaza by force, on behalf of Israel, in order to build “Trump Gaza”, a casino beach land for fellow Jeffrey Epstein-connected billionaires, a new answer was desperately sought.

Then came a range of meetings between Trump administration officials and regional leaderships, aimed at working out a strategy to achieve their desired goals in Gaza.

After the ceasefire was violated in March by the Israelis, leading to the mass murder of around 17,000 more Palestinians, a number of schemes were being hatched and proposals set forth.

The US backed and helped to create the now-defunct so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” (GHF) programme, which was used to privatise the distribution of aid in the territory amidst a total blockade of all food for three months.

Starving Palestinians, who were rapidly falling into famine, flocked to these GHF sites, where they were fired upon by US private military contractors and Israeli occupation forces, murdering more than 1000 civilians.

The ‘New York Declaration’
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and France were busy putting together what would become the “New York Declaration” proposal for ending the war and bringing Western nations to recognise the State of Palestine at the UN.

Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, here came Trump’s so-called “peace plan” that was announced at the White House in October. This plan appeared at first to be calling for a total end to the war, a mutual prisoner exchange and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in a phased approach.

From the outset, Trump’s “20-point plan” was vague and impractical. Israel immediately violated the ceasefire from the very first day and has murdered nearly 300 Palestinians since then. The first phase of the ceasefire deal was supposed to end quickly, ideally within five days, but the deal has stalled for over a month.

Throughout this time, it has become increasingly clear that the Israelis are not going to respect the “Yellow Line” separation zone and have violated the agreement through operating deeper into Gaza than they had originally agreed to.

The Israeli-occupied zone was supposed to be 53 percent of Gaza; it has turned out to be closer to 58 percent. Aid is also not entering at a sufficient rate, despite US and Israeli denials; this has been confirmed by leading rights groups and humanitarian organisations.

In the background, the US team dealing with the ceasefire deal that is headed by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has been juggling countless insidious proposals for the future of Gaza.

Even publicly stating that reconstruction will only take place in the Israeli-controlled portion of the territory, also floating the idea that aid points will be set up there in order to force the population out of the territory under de facto Hamas control. This has often been referred to as the “new Gaza plan”.

The disastrous GHF
As this has all been in the works, including discussions about bringing back the disastrous GHF, the Israelis have been working alongside four ISIS-linked collaborator death squads that it controls and who operate behind the Yellow Line in Gaza.

No mechanisms have been put in place to punish the Israelis for their daily violations of the ceasefire, including the continuation of demolition operations against Gaza’s remaining civilian infrastructure. This appears to be directly in line with Joseph Pelzman’s plan earlier this year to “destroy the whole place”.

The UNSC resolution not only makes Donald Trump the effective leader of the new administrative force that will be imposed upon the Gaza Strip, but also greenlights what it calls its International Stabilisation Force. This ISF is explicitly stated to be a multinational military force that will be tasked with disarming Hamas and all Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip.

The US claims it will not be directly involved in the fighting with “boots on the ground”; it has already deployed hundreds of soldiers and has been reportedly building a military facility, which they deny is a base, but for all intents and purposes will be one.

Although it may not be American soldiers killing and dying while battling Palestinian resistance groups, they will be in charge of this force.

This is not a “UN peacekeeping force” and is not an equivalent to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon; it is there to carry out the task of completing Israel’s war goal of defeating the Palestinian resistance through force.

In other words, foreign soldiers will be sent from around the world to die for Israel and taxpayers from those nations will be footing the bill.

‘Self-determination’ reservation
The only reason why Israel has reservations about this plan is because it included a statement claiming that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) — that does not control Gaza and is opposed by the majority of the Palestinian people — undergoes reforms that the West and Israel demand, then conditions “may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”.

A keyword here is “may”, in other words, it is not binding and was simply added in to give corrupted Arab leaderships the excuse to vote yes.

Hamas and every other Palestinian political party, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah that answers to Israel and the US, have opposed this UNSC resolution.

Hamas even called upon Algeria to vote against it; instead, the Algerian leadership praised Donald Trump and voted in favour. Typical of Arab and Muslim-majority regimes that don’t represent the will of their people, they all fell in line and bent over backwards to please Washington.

It won’t likely work
As has been the story with every conspiracy hatched against the people of Gaza, this is again destined to fail. Not only will it fail, but it will likely backfire enormously and lead to desperate moves.

To begin with, the invasion force, or ISF, will be a military endeavour that will have to bring together tens of thousands of soldiers who speak different languages and have nothing in common, in order to somehow achieve victory where Israel failed.

It is a logistical nightmare to even think about.

How long would it take to deploy these soldiers? At the very least, it’s going to take months. Then, how long would this process take? Nobody has any clear answers here.

Also, what happens if Israel begins bombing again at any point, for example, if there is a clash that kills Israeli soldiers? What would these nations do if Israeli airstrikes killed their soldiers or put them in harm’s way?

Also, tens of thousands of soldiers may not cut it; if the goal is to destroy all the territory’s military infrastructure, they may need hundreds of thousands. Or if that isn’t an option, will they work alongside the Israeli military?

It is additionally clear that nobody knows where all the tunnels and fighters are; if Israel couldn’t find them, then how can anyone else?

After all, the US, UK, and various others have helped the Israelis with intelligence sharing and reconnaissance for more than two years to get these answers.

How do regimes justify this?
Finally, when Arab, European, or Southeast Asian soldiers return to their nations in body bags, how do their regimes justify this? Will the president or prime minister of these nations have to stand up and tell their people . . .  “sorry guys, your sons and daughters are now in coffins because Israel needed a military force capable of doing what they failed to do, so we had to help them complete their genocidal project”.

Also, how many Palestinian civilians are going to be slaughtered by these foreign invaders?

As for the plan to overthrow Hamas rule in Gaza, the people of the territory will not accept foreign invaders as their occupiers any more than they will accept Israelis. They are not going to accept ISIS-linked collaborators as any kind of security force either.

Already, the situation is chaotic inside Gaza, and that is while its own people, who are experienced and understand their conditions, are in control of managing security and some administrative issues; this includes both Hamas and others who are operating independently of it, but inside the territory under its de facto control.

Just as the Israeli military claimed it was going to occupy Gaza City, laying out countless plans to do this, to ethnically cleanse the territory and “crush Hamas”, the US has been coordinating alongside it throughout the entirety of the last two years. Every scheme has collapsed and ended in failure.

It has been nearly a month and a half, yet there are still no clear answers as to how this Trump “peace plan” is supposed to work and it is clear that the Israelis are coming up with new proposals on a daily basis.

There is no permanent mechanism for aid transfers, which the Israelis are blocking. There is no clear vision for governance.

‘Two Gazas’ plan incoherent
The “two Gazas” plan is not even part of the ceasefire or Trump plan, yet it is being pursued in an incoherent way. The ISF makes no sense and appears as poorly planned as the GHF.

Hamas and the other Palestinian factions will not give up their weapons. There is no real plan for reconstruction. The Israelis are adamant that there will be no Palestinian State and won’t allow any independent Palestinian rule of Gaza, and the list of problems goes on and on.

What it really looks like here is that this entire ceasefire scheme is a stab in the dark attempt to achieve Israel’s goals while also giving its forces a break and redirecting their focus on other fronts, understanding that there is no clear solution to the Gaza question for now.

The United Nations has shown itself over the past two years to be nothing more than a platform for political theatre. It is incapable of punishing, preventing, or even stopping the crime of all crimes.

Now that international law has suffocated to death under the rubble of Gaza, next to the thousands of children who still lie underneath it, the future of this conflict will transform.

This UNSC vote demonstrates that there is no international law, no international community, and that the UN is simply a bunch of fancy offices, which are only allowed to work under the confines of gangster rule.

If the Palestinian resistance groups feel as if their backs are against the wall and an opportunity, such as another Israeli war on Lebanon, presents them the opportunity, then there is a high likelihood that a major military decision will be made.

In the event that this occurs, it will be this UNSC resolution that is in large part responsible.

When the suffering in Gaza finally ends, whether that is because Israel obliterates all of its regional opposition and exterminates countless other civilians in its way, or Israel is militarily shattered, the UN should be disbanded as was the League of Nations. It is a failed project just as that which preceded it.

Something new must take over from it.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) has challenged Defence Minister Judith Collins over her “can’t be trusted” backing for controversial BlackSky Technology satellite launches and called on the Prime Minister to withdraw approval.

National co-chair John Minto today wrote to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon — who is currently in Korea for the APEC meeting — in response to what he described as a “shocking” TVNZ 1News interview with Collins last Friday that revealed the satellite launches could be used by Israel in its genocidal attacks on the besieged enclave of Gaza.

Minto asked Luxon to “overrule” Collins and end the BlackSky satellite launches

He said PSNA had requested the Prime Minister direct Collins to withdraw approval for forthcoming Rocket Lab satellite launches for BlackSky Technology from Mahia, which could be used by Israel in Gaza.

Collins “can’t be trusted to uphold New Zealanders’ values”, Minto said in a statement.

“She went for any excuse to justify approving the launches, and the Prime Minister must rein her in.”

‘Free hand’ claim
Collins had said in the 1News report that the UN Security Council did not encourage sanctions, so she believed New Zealand had a “free hand to be militarily complicit” in Israel’s resumed genocide in Gaza, PSNA said as the ceasefire remained shaky today with Israel’s renewed attacks on the enclave.

“But New Zealand has complained for decades about the veto powers of one country in the Security Council,” Minto said.

“Then, our government uses the very same US veto — which it opposes — to justify licensing the launch of spy satellites to target Gaza.”

Minto said New Zealand government was ignoring the International Court of Justice(ICJ), which has directed countries to do what they could to prevent Israel’s illegal occupation from continuing.

“Signing off on delivering the technology, which the IDF [Israeli military] uses for its bombing runs on a civilian population, can hardly be interpreted as helping Israel end its occupation of Gaza.”

Minto said Collins’ alternative excuse was that New Zealand was “not at war with Israel, so can’t sanction it” was “equally nonsensical”.

“It may come as news to the Defence Minister, but New Zealand is not at war with Iran or Russia either,” Minto said.

“Yet the government routinely imposes sanctions on both of these countries, with putting new sanctions on Iran just a few days ago.”

Israel kills 91 people
Meanwhile, Israeli forces have killed at least 91 people in Gaza overnight, including at least 24 children, according to medical sources, in violation of the US-brokered ceasefire.

Al Jazeera reports that US President Donald Trump said Israel had “hit back” after a soldier was “taken out” but he claimed “nothing was going to jeopardise” the ceasefire, Al Jazeera reports.

Trump also said Hamas had “to behave”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ANALYSIS: By Paul Heywood-Smith

The recognition of the State of Palestine by Australia, leading, it is hoped, to full UN member state status, is an important development.

What has followed is a remarkable demonstration of ignorance and/or submission to the Zionist lobby.

Rewarding Hamas
Let us consider aspects of the response. One aspect is that recognising Palestine is rewarding the resistance organisation Hamas.

There are a number of issues involved here. The first issue is that Hamas is branded as a “terrorist organisation”. So much is said, apparently, by eight nations compared to the overwhelming majority of UN recognised states which do not so regard it.

May I suggest that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation: refer P&I, October 23, 2022, Australia must overturn its listing of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist political party which chose to fight apartheid by calling for one state.

That was Hamas’s objective when it fought the election against Fatah in 2006.

As an aside, it now results in the lie that it is ridiculous that the Albanese government would recognise Palestine as part of a two-state solution when Hamas rejects a two-state solution. This is just yet another attempt to demonise Hamas.

Hamas leaders have repeatedly said they would accept a two-state solution. It has only recently done so again.

On 23 July last, when Hamas responded to a US draft ceasefire framework the Hamas official, Basem Naim, affirmed Hamas’s publicly stated pledge that it would give up power in Gaza and support a two-state solution on the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestine.

These are the very borders stipulated by international law — see hereunder.

The Palestinians constituting Hamas are residents of an illegally occupied territory. International law affords to them the right to resist: Geneva Conventions I-IV, 1949.

The hypocrisy associated with the demonisation of Hamas is massive. Much is made of hostages having been taken on 7 October 2023 — a war crime according to international law. Those militants who took the hostages might be forgiven for thinking that it was minimal compared with the seven years of non-compliance with Security Council Resolution (SCR) 2334 calling for the end of occupation and removal of settlements.

The second issue is that Hamas commenced the events in Gaza by its horrific, unprovoked, attack on 7 October 2023. As to October 7 being unprovoked, see P&I, October 9, 2023 Palestinians, pushed beyond endurance, defend their homeland against violent apartheid.

The events of October 7 are, in any event, shrouded in doubt. This follows from Israel’s suppression of evidence concerning what happened. What we do know is that the Israel Defence Force (IDF) received orders to shell Israeli homes and even their own bases on October 7.

In addition, the Hannibal Directive justified IDF slaughter of Israelis potentially being taken as hostages. It is also accepted that allegations of rape and beheading of babies by Hamas militants were false. The disinformation put out by Israel, and Israel’s refusal to allow journalists on site, or to interview participants, make it impossible to form any clear or credible understanding of what happened on October 7.

It is accepted that Hamas militants attacked three Israeli military bases, no doubt with the intention that those bases should withdraw from their positions relative to Gazan territory. Such action can be understood as consistent with an occupied citizenry resisting such illegal occupation.

Compounding the uncertainty over October 7 is the continuing conjecture, leakage, of information suggesting that the IDF had advance warning of the proposed Hamas attack but chose, for other purposes, to take no action. These uncertainties are never adverted to by our press which repeatedly attributes responsibility for all Israeli deaths on the day to the actions of Hamas militants, which actions are presented as an “abomination, barbarity”. Refer generally to P&I, November 5, 2023 (Stuart Rees) Expose and dismiss the domination Israeli narrative; P&I, January 4, 2024 Israeli general killed Israelis on 7 October and then lied about it.

The third issue, the major hypocrisy, is that Hamas is being rewarded. Consider the position of Israel. Israel is, and has been, illegally occupying Palestinian territory since 1967. This is undisputed according to international law as articulated in the following instruments:

• 1967 – SCR 242;
• 2004 – the ICJ decision concerning The Wall;
• Dec. 2016 – SCR 2334, not vetoed by Obama, recognising the illegal occupation and calling for its end; and
• 2024 – the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of 19 July.

Israel has done nothing to comply with any of these instruments. It is set on a programme of gradual acquisition.

The result is that now there are illegal settlements all over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. When Israel is told: the West Bank and East Jerusalem are to be part of a Palestinian state, it will scream, “But large parts are occupied by Jewish Israelis!” These are “facts on the ground”.

Supporters of Israel ignore the fact that occupation by settlers occurred in the full knowledge that international law branded such occupation as illegal. If the settlements are considered as a “done deal”, that would be rewarding knowingly illegal conduct — some might say, Israeli terrorism.

So that there can be no doubt about the import of the position it is appropriate to specify the critical parts of SCR 2334:

The Security Council

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
3. Underlines that it will not recognise any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;.

Following the ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 19, the UN General Assembly in adopting the same set 17 September 2025 as the deadline for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territory.

Negotiated settlement
And when Israel now says, “Recognition now is going to prevent a negotiated settlement”, it is ignoring the fact that in the six, 12, 20 months, two, three, four years until such negotiated settlement occurs, many more settlements would have been commenced, which of course, are more “facts on the ground”.

Then we have the response of the Coalition, which demonstrates how irrelevant the Opposition is in today’s Australia. That response is that the recognition will inhibit a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians.

The Coalition, however, says nothing about the fact that the Israeli government has repeatedly stated that there will never be a Palestinian State. Indeed, Israel has legislated to that effect and is moreover periodically purporting to annex Palestinian land.

So how does the Coalition believe that a negotiated settlement will come about? Well, one way, over which Israel may have no say, is for Palestine to become a full member State of the UN. One UN member state cannot occupy the land of another.

Failure of our press to ask any question of pro-Israel interviewees about the end of occupation is a disgrace.

Next challenge
Now for the next challenge — to bring about the end of occupation. Israel will not accede readily. Sanctions must be the first step. Such sanctions must be immediate, concrete and crippling.

They must result in the immediate suspension of trade. That can be the first step.

Watch this space.

Paul Heywood-Smith is an Adelaide SC (senior counsel) of some 20 years. He was the initial chairperson of the Australian Friends of Palestine Association, an incorporated association registered in South Australia in 2004. He is the author of The Case for Palestine, The Perspective of an Australian Observer (Wakefield Press, 2014). This article was first published by Pearls & Irritations and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Yet that reputation doesn’t hold true when it comes to Gaza and the Palestinian desire and right to self-determination.

Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, states must take positive steps to prevent genocide. The New Zealand government appears to be failing in this obligation.

So far, our ministers have chosen carefully crafted diplomatic language buried under joint country statements to influence the situation in Gaza, while at the same time protecting relationships with allies, particularly the US.

An example of these was a statement issued last month, in which New Zealand joined a group of 28 “concerned” countries to express horror at the “suffering of civilians in Gaza”, which, it says, “has reached new depths”. The statement calls for the lifting of restrictions on the “flow of aid” and demands “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire.”

Just to be clear, the “flow of aid” is the life-saving food and water that’s needed to prevent the mass starvation of Palestinians as famine driven by Israel deepens.

Demands for a ceasefire have been made on numerous occasions in the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, to no effect.

Failure to sanction Israel
Yet countries like New Zealand fail to sanction Israel for its non-compliance. Indeed, they do worse. These same countries continue to trade with Israel, and a number of them continue to provide weapons and arms.

According to trade data, New Zealand in 2023 imported goods and services of US$191 million from Israel and exported US$16.4 million the other way.

Most recently, New Zealand joined 14 other countries to “express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine, as an essential step towards the two-State solution.”

The statement is heavily caveated by saying that “positive consideration” is one option — so it’s not clear if all, or indeed any, of the countries will end up recognising Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has issued a separate statement, saying the UK would recognise the state of Palestine in September if Israel doesn’t agree to a ceasefire.

Starmer’s concern for the starvation of civilians in Gaza hasn’t stopped the UK from sending military arms to Israel. But this is at least a clearer stance than New Zealand has been able to muster.

More than 147 UN member states out of 193 formally recognise Palestinian statehood now.

Level of solidarity
And while recognition of statehood is largely symbolic, it does signal a level of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Inexplicably, New Zealand has been unwilling to take that step, while calling it a future option under “two-state” diplomacy.

New Zealand has trundled out its support of the two-state solution since at least 1993, reinforced by its co-sponsorship, in 2015-16, of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement expansion.

That resolution declared settlements in occupied territories illegal under international law and urged member states to distinguish in its dealings between Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

Since then, Israel has continued to transfer its citizens to the West Bank and Gaza. More than 750,000 Israeli settlers are now living illegally in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — areas where a future Palestinian state would be located.

Meanwhile, New Zealand has failed to take any meaningful action — sanctions or suspension of trade, for example — to implement the requirements of the Security Council resolution. That the government consistently frames its response as supporting a two-state solution beggars belief in light of such inaction.

New Zealand’s refusal to sanction Israel is nothing but shameful.

When foreign affairs minister Winston Peters expressed shock about the “intolerable situation” in Gaza, RNZ asked him whether New Zealand would entertain placing sanctions on Israel. He responded by saying that we are a “long, long way off doing that.”

The genocide in Gaza is happening with the support of countries like New Zealand, through inaction and failure to implement sanctions.

And statements about recognising statehood provide the appearance of supporting an end to the genocide, but change nothing in reality.

John Hobbs has been a career public servant, working in a number of government departments (most recently the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet). He also worked for a number of ministers on secondment from government agencies. He is currently undertaking a PhD at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Te Tumu School of Māori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies, Otago University. This article was first published by E-Tangata and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Paris-based media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the Israeli military’s “disgraceful tactic” to cover up war crimes in the wake of the killing of six journalists in Gaza on Sunday.

It has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to stop the massacre of journalists, RSF said in a statement.

“RSF strongly condemns the killing of six media professionals by the Israeli army, once again carried out under the guise of terrorism charges against a journalist,” said RSF’s  director-general Thibaut Bruttin.

“One of the most famous journalists in the Gaza Strip, Anas al-Sharif, was among those killed.

“The Israeli army has killed more than 200 journalists since the start of the war. This massacre and Israel’s media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately.

“The international community can no longer turn a blind eye and must react and put an end to this impunity.

“RSF calls on the UN Security Council to meet urgently on the basis of Resolution 2222 of 2015 on the protection of journalists in times of armed conflict in order to stop this carnage.”

Targeted strike on tent
The Israeli army killed Al Jazeera reporter Anas al-Sharif in a targeted strike on a tent housing a group of journalists near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza.

The strike, claimed by Israeli authorities, also killed five other media professionals, including four working or having worked for Al Jazeera — correspondent Mohammed Qraiqea, video reporter Ibrahim al-Thaher, Mohamed Nofal, assistant cameraman and driver that day, and Moamen Aliwa, a freelance journalist who worked with Al Jazeera — as well as another freelance journalist, Mohammed al-Khaldi, creator of a YouTube news channel.

The attack also wounded freelance reporters Mohammed Sobh, Mohammed Qita, and Ahmed al-Harazine.

This attack, claimed by the Israeli army, replicates a tactic previously used against Al Jazeera journalists. On 31 July 2024, the Israeli army killed reporters Ismail al-Ghoul and Rami al-Rifi in a targeted strike, following a smear campaign against the former, who, like Anas al-Sharif, was accused of “terrorist affiliation”.

Hamza al-Dahdouh, Mustafa Thuraya and Hossam Shabat, who also worked for the Qatari media outlet, are among the victims of this method denounced by RSF.

As early as October 2024, RSF warned of an imminent attack on Anas al-Sharif following accusations by the Israeli army.

The international community, led by the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, ignored these warnings.

Under Resolution 2222 of 2015 on the protection of journalists in armed conflict, the UN Security Council has a duty to convene urgently in response to this latest extrajudicial killing by the Israeli army.

Since October 2023, RSF has filed four complaints with the International Criminal Court (ICC) requesting investigations into what it describes as war crimes committed by the Israeli army against journalists in Gaza.

The New Zealand-based Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Prominent lawyers are joining opposition parties as they call for the New Zealand government to denounce the United States attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iranian New Zealander and lawyer Arman Askarany said the New Zealand government was showing “indifference”.

It comes as acting Prime Minister David Seymour told reporters on Monday there was “no benefit” in rushing to a judgment regarding the US attack.

US President Trump says Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire to end the “12-day war,” with the truce taking effect in stages over 24 hours, following Iran’s missile attack on a US base in Qatar.

🔴 Follow our LIVE coverage: https://t.co/f0V5nlsAMR pic.twitter.com/XC4Xld0Q7U

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 24, 2025

“We’re far better to keep our counsel, because it costs nothing to get more information, but going off half-cocked can be very costly for a small nation.”

Iran and Israel continued to exchange strikes over the weekend after Israel’s initial attack nearly two weeks ago.

Israeli authorities say at least 25 people have been killed, and Iran said on Sunday Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people since June 13.

The Human Rights Activists news agency puts the death toll in Iran above 650 people.

US attacked Iran nuclear sites
The US entered the war at the weekend by attacking what it said was key nuclear sites in Iran — including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — on Sunday.

On Monday, the Australian government signalled its support for the strike, and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy.

Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the strike was a unilateral action by its security ally the United States, and Australia was joining calls from Britain and other countries for Iran to return to the negotiating table

Not long after, Foreign Minister Winston Peters issued a statement on X, giving tacit endorsement to the decision to bomb nuclear facilities.

The statement was also released just ahead of the NATO meeting in Brussels, which Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was attending.

Peters said Iran could not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and noted the United States’ targeted attacks aimed at “degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities”.

He went on to acknowledge the US statement to the UN Security Council saying the attack was “acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter”.

Self-defence ‘complete joke’
Askarany told RNZ it was a “complete joke” that New Zealand had acknowledged the US statement saying it was self-defence.

“It would be funny if it wasn’t so horrific.”

He said it was a clear escalation by the US and Israel, and believed New Zealand was undermining the rules-based order it purported to support, given it refused to say Israel and the US had attacked Iran.

Askarany acknolwedged the calls for deescalation and for peace in the region, but said they were “abstract platitudes” if the aggressor was not named.

He called on people who might not know about Iran to learn more about it.

“There’s so much history and culture and beautiful things about Iran that represent my people far more than the words of Trump and Netanyahu.”

Peters told RNZ Morning Report on Monday the government wanted to know all the facts before taking a position on the US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Politicians at a crossroads
Acting Prime Minister David Seymour held his first post-cabinet media conference on Monday, in which he said nobody was calling on New Zealand to rush to a judgment on the rights and wrongs of the situation.

He echoed the Foreign Minister’s statement, saying “of course” New Zealand noted the US assertion of the legality of their actions.

He also indicated, “like just about every country in the world, that we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran.”

“That does not mean that we are rushing to form our own judgment on the rights or wrongs or legality of any action.”

He insisted New Zealand was not sitting on the fence, but said “nor are we rushing to judgement.”

“I believe the world is not sitting there waiting for New Zealand to give its position on the legality of the situation.

“What people do want to see is de escalation and dialogue, and most critically for us, the safety of New Zealanders in the region.”

When asked about the Australian government’s position, Seymour said New Zealand did not have the intelligence that other countries may have.

Hikpins says attack ‘disappointing’
Labour leader Chris Hipkins called the attack by the US on Iran “very disappointing”, “not justified” and “almost certainly” against international law.

He wanted New Zealand to take a stronger stance on the issue.

“New Zealand should take a stronger position in condemning the attacks and saying that we do not believe they are justified, and we do not believe that they are consistent with international law.”

Hipkins said the US had not made a case for the action taken, and they should step back and get back around the table with Iran.

The Green Party and Te Pāti Māori both called on the government to condemn the attack by the US.

“The actions of the United States pose a fundamental threat to world peace.

‘Dangerous escalation’
“The rest of the world, including New Zealand, must take a stand and make it clear that this dangerous escalation is unacceptable,” said Green Party coleader Marama Davidson.

“We saw this with the US war on Iraq, and we are seeing it again with this recent attack on Iran. We are at risk of a violent history repeating itself.”

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said the government was remaining silent on Israel.

“When the US bombs Iran, Luxon calls it an ‘opportunity’. But when Cook Islanders assert their sovereignty or Chinese vessels travel through international waters, he leaps to condemnation,” said Waititi.

“Israel continues to maintain an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Yet this government won’t say a word.

“It condemns non-Western powers at every turn but remains silent when its allies act with impunity.”

International law experts weigh in
University of Waikato Professor Alexander Gillespie said it was “an illegal war” and the option of diplomacy should have been exhausted before the first strike.

As Luxon headed to NATO, Gillespie acknowledged it would be difficult for him to take a “hard line” on the issue, “because he’s going to be caught up with the members and the partners of NATO.”

He said the question would be whether NATO members accept there was a right of self-defence and whether the actions of the US and Israel were justified.

Gillespie said former prime minister Helen Clark spoke very clearly in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq, but he could not see New Zealand’s current Prime Minister saying that.

“That’s not because they don’t believe it, but because there would be a risk of a backhand from the United States.

“And we’re spending a lot of time right now trying not to offend this Trump administration.”

‘Might is right’ precedent
University of Otago Professor Robert Patman said the US strike on Iran would likely “make things worse” and set a precedent for “might is right.”

He said he had “no brief” for the repressive Iranian regime, but under international law it had been subject of “two illegal attacks in the last 10 days”, from Israel and now from the US.

Patman said New Zealand had been guarded in its comments about the attacks on Iran, and believed the country should speak out.

“We have championed non nuclear security since the mid 80s. We were a key player, a leader, of the treaty to abolish nuclear weapons, and that now has 94 signatories.”

He said New Zealand does have a voice and an expectation to contribute to an international debate that’s beginning to unfold.

“We seem to be at a fork in the road moment internationally, we can seek to reinstate the idea that international relations should be based on rules, principles and procedures, or we can simply passively accept the erosion of that architecture, which is to the detriment of the majority of countries in the world.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Had Israel not launched its unprovoked attack on Iran on Friday night, in direct violation of the UN Charter, Iran would now be taking part in the sixth round of negotiations concerning the future of its nuclear programme, meeting with representatives from the United States in Muscat, the capital of Oman.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he acted to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, saying Iran had the capacity to build nine nuclear weapons. Israel provided no evidence to back up its claims.

On 25 March 2025, Trump’s own National Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said: 

Even if Iran had the capability to build a bomb, it is quite another thing to have the will to do so.

Any such bomb would need to be tested first, and any such test would be quickly detected by a series of satellites on the lookout for nuclear detonations anywhere on the planet.

It is more likely that Israel launched its attack to stop US and Iranian negotiators from meeting on Sunday.

Only a month ago, Iran’s lead negotiator in the nuclear talks, Ali Shamkhani, told US television that Iran was ready to do a deal. NBC journalist Richard Engel reports:

Shamkhani died on Saturday, following injuries he suffered during Israel’s attack on Friday night. It appears that Israel not only opposed a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear impasse: Israel killed it directly.

A spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baghaei, told a news conference in Tehran the talks would be suspended until Israel halts its attacks:

“It is obvious that in such circumstances and until the Zionist regime’s aggression against the Iranian nation stops, it would be meaningless to participate with the party that is the biggest supporter and accomplice of the aggressor.”

On 1 April 2024, Israel launched an airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Syria, killing 16 people, including a woman and her son. The attack violated international norms regarding the protection of diplomatic premises under the Vienna Convention.

Yet the UK, USA and France blocked a United Nations Security Council statement condemning Israel’s actions.

It is worth noting how the The New York Times described the occupation of the US Embassy in November 1979:

Now it is Israel conducting a “war on diplomacy itself”, first with the attack on the embassy, followed by Friday’s surprise attack on Iran. Scuppering a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue appears to be the aim. To make matters worse, Israel’s recklessness could yet cause a major war.

Trump: Inconsistent and ineffective
In an interview with Time magazine on 22 April 2025, Trump denied he had stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites.

In the same interview Trump boasted “I think we’re going to make a deal with Iran. Nobody else could do that.” Except, someone else had already done that — only for Trump to abandon the deal in his first term as president.

In July 2015 Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) alongside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union. Iran pledged to curb its nuclear programme for 10-15 years in exchange for the removal of some economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also gained access and verification powers.

Iran also agreed to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent U-235, allowing it to maintain its nuclear power reactors.

Despite clear signs the nuclear deal was working, Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and reinstated sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Despite the unilateral American action, Iran kept to the deal for a time, but in January 2020 Iran declared it would no longer abide by the limitations included in JCPOA but would continue to work with the IAEA.

By pulling out of the deal and reinstating sanctions, the US and Israel effectively created a strong incentive for Iran to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, not for the sake of making a bomb, but as the most obvious means of creating leverage to remove the sanctions.

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for civilian fuel programmes.

Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1960s with US assistance. Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran was ruled by the brutal dictatorship of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahavi.

American corporations saw Iran as a potential market for expansion. During the 1970s the US suggested to the Shah he needed not one but several nuclear reactors to meet Iran’s future electricity needs. In June 1974, the Shah declared that Iran would have nuclear weapons, “without a doubt and sooner than one would think”.

In 2007, I wrote an article for Peace Researcher where I examined US claims that Iran does not need nuclear power because it is sitting on one of the largest gas supplies in the world. One of the most interesting things I discovered while researching the article was the relevance of air pollution, a critical public health concern in Iran.

In 2024, health officials estimated that air pollution is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year in Iran. Deputy Health Minister Alireza Raisi said the “majority of these deaths were due to cardiovascular diseases, strokes, respiratory issues, and cancers”.

Sahimi describes levels of air pollution in Tehran and other major Iranian cities as “catastrophic”, with elementary schools having to close on some days as a result. There was little media coverage of the air pollution issue in relation to Iran’s energy mix then, and I have seen hardly any since.

An energy research project, Advanced Energy Technologies provides a useful summary of electricity production in Iran as it stood in 2023.

With around 94.6 percent of electricity generation dependent on fossil fuels, there are serious environmental reasons why Iran should not be encouraged to depend on oil and gas for its electricity needs — not to mention the prospect of climate change.

One could also question the safety of nuclear power in one of the most seismically active countries in the world, however it would be fair to ask the same question of countries like Japan, which aims to increase its use of nuclear power to about 20 percent of the country’s total electricity generation by 2040, despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran’s uranium enrichment programme “must continue”, but the “scope and level may change”. Prior to the talks in Oman, Araghchi highlighted the “constant change” in US positions as a problem.

Trump’s rhetoric on uranium enrichment has shifted repeatedly.

So with Iran seemingly willing to accept reasonable conditions, why was a deal not reached last month? It appears the US changed its position, and demanded Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, including what Iran needs for its power stations.

One wonders if Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) influenced this decision. One could recall what happened during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first stint as Israel’s Prime Minister (1996-1999) to illustrate the point.

In April 1995 AIPAC published a report titled ‘Comprehensive US Sanctions Against Iran: A Plan for Action’. In 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as President of Iran. The following year Khatami expressed regret for the takeover of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and denounced terrorism against Israelis, while noting that “supporting peoples who fight for their liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism”.

The threat of improved relations between Iran and the US sent the Israeli government led by Netanyahu into a panic. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Israel has expressed concern to Washington of an impending change of policy by the United States towards Iran” adding that Netanyahu “asked AIPAC . . . to act vigorously in Congress to prevent such a policy shift.”

20 years ago the Israeli lobby were claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb was imminent. It didn’t happen.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s National-led coalition government’s policy on Gaza seems caught between a desire for a two-state diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and closer alignment with the US, which supports a Netanyahu government strongly opposed to a Palestinian state

In the last 17 months, Gaza has been the scene of what Thomas Merton once called the unspeakable — human wrongdoing on a scale and a depth that seems to go beyond the capacity of words to adequately describe.

The latest Gaza conflict began with a horrific Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 that prompted a relentless Israel ground and air offensive in Gaza with full financial, logistical and diplomatic backing from the Biden administration.

During this period, around 50,000 people – 48,903 Palestinians and 1706 Israelis – have been reported killed in the Gaza conflict, according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry, as well as 166 journalists and media workers, 120 academics,and more than 224 humanitarian aid workers.

Moreover, a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, signed in mid-January, seems to be hanging by a thread.

Israel has resumed its blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza and cut off electricity after Hamas rejected an Israeli proposal to extend phase 1 of the ceasefire deal (to release more Israeli hostages) without any commitment to implement phase 2 (that envisaged ending the conflict in Gaza and Israel withdrawing its troops from the territory).

Hamas insists on negotiating phase 2 as signed by both parties in the January ceasefire agreement

Over the weekend, Israel reportedly launched air-strikes in Gaza and the Trump administration unleashed a wave of attacks on Houthi rebel positions in Yemen after the Houthis warned Israel not to restart the war in Gaza.

New Zealand and the Gaza conflict
Although distant in geographic terms, the Gaza crisis represents a major moral and legal challenge to New Zealand’s self-image and its worldview based on the strengthening of an international rules-based order.

New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation between indigenous Māori and European settlers in nation-building.

While the aspirations of the Treaty have yet to be fully realised, the credibility of its vision of reconciliation at home depends on New Zealand’s willingness to uphold respect for human rights and the rule of law in the international arena, particularly in states like Israel where tensions persist between the settler population and Palestinians in occupied territories like the West Bank.

New Zealand’s declaratory stance towards Gaza
In 2023 and 2024, New Zealand consistently backed calls in the UN General Assembly for humanitarian truces or ceasefires in Gaza. It also joined Australia and Canada in February and July last year to demand an end to hostilities.

The New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, told the General Assembly in April 2024 that the Security Council had failed in its responsibility “to maintain international peace and security”.

He was right. The Biden administration used its UN Security Council veto four times to perpetuate this brutal onslaught in Gaza for nearly 15 months.

In addition, Peters has repeatedly said there can be no military resolution of a political problem in Gaza that can only be resolved through affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The limitations of New Zealand’s Gaza approach
Despite considerable disagreement with Netanyahu’s policy of “mighty vengeance” in Gaza, the National-led coalition government had few qualms about sending a small Defence Force deployment to the Red Sea in January 2024 as part of a US-led coalition effort to counter Houthi rebel attacks on commercial shipping there.

While such attacks are clearly illegal, they are basically part of the fallout from a prolonged international failure to stop the US-enabled carnage in Gaza.

In particular, the NZDF’s Red Sea deployment did not sit comfortably with New Zealand’s acceptance in September 2024 of the ICJ’s ruling that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) was “unlawful”.

At the same time, the National-led coalition government’s silence on US President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to “own” Gaza, displace two million Palestinian residents and make the territory the “Riviera” of the Middle East was deafening.

Furthermore, while Wellington announced travel bans on violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank in February 2024, it has had little to say publicly about the Netanyahu government’s plans to annex the West Bank in 2025. Such a development would gravely undermine the two-state solution, violate international law, and further fuel regional tensions.

New Zealand’s low-key policy
On balance, the National-led coalition government’s policy towards Gaza appears to be ambivalent and lacking moral and legal clarity in a context in which war crimes have been regularly committed since October 7.

Peters was absolutely correct to condemn the UNSC for failing to deliver the ceasefire that New Zealand and the overwhelming majority of states in the UN General Assembly had wanted from the first month of this crisis.

But the New Zealand government has had no words of criticism for the US, which used its power of veto in the UNSC for more than a year to thwart the prospect of a ceasefire and provided blanket support for an Israeli military campaign that killed huge numbers of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

By cooperating with the Biden administration against Houthi rebels and adopting a quietly-quietly approach to Trump’s provocative comments on Gaza and his apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to help Israel “to get the job done’, New Zealand has revealed a selective approach to upholding international law and human rights in the desperate conditions facing Gaza

Professor Robert G. Patman is an Inaugural Sesquicentennial Distinguished Chair and his research interests concern international relations, global security, US foreign policy, great powers, and the Horn of Africa. This article was first published by The Spinoff and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The United Nations General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to demand an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip — but three of the isolated nine countries that voted against are Pacific island states, including Papua New Guinea.

The assembly passed a resolution yesterday demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was adopted with 158 votes in favour from the 193-member assembly and nine votes against with 13 abstentions.

Of the nine countries voting against, the three Pacific nations that sided with Israel and its relentless backer United States were joined by Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

The other countries that voted against were Argentina, Czechia, Hungary and Paraguay.

Thirteen abstentions included Fiji, which had previously controversially voted with Israel, Micronesia, Palau. Supporters of the resolution in the Pacific region included Australia, New Zealand, and Timor-Leste.

#BREAKING
UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution A/ES-10/L.33 demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza as well as the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages

VOTE:
In favor: 158
Against: 9
Abstain: 13 pic.twitter.com/ijOnemfKL7

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 11, 2024

In a separate vote, 159 UNGA members voted in favour of a resolution affirming the body’s “full support” for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

UNRWA has been the target of diplomatic and financial attacks by Israel and its backers — which have baselessly accused the lifesaving organisation of being a “terrorist group” — and literal attacks by Israeli forces, who have killed more than 250 of the agency’s personnel.

Nine UNGA members opposed the measure — including Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Tonga — while 11 others abstained. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, while General Assembly resolutions are not, and are also not subject to vetoes.

#BREAKING
UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution A/ES-10/L.32 affirming its full support for the mandate of the UN Relief and Works Agency @UNRWA and deploring the legislation adopted by the Israeli Knesset on 28 October 2024

VOTE:
In favor: 159
Against: 9
Abstain: 11 pic.twitter.com/KTlsA8V86k

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 11, 2024

The US has six times vetoed Security Council resolutions in favour of a ceasefire in the past 14 months.

The UN votes yesterday took place amid sustained Israeli attacks on Gaza including a strike on a home sheltering forcibly displaced Palestinians in Deir al-Balah that killed at least 33 people, including children, local medical officials said.

This followed earlier Israeli attacks, including the Monday night bombing of the al-Kahlout family home in Beit Hanoun that killed or wounded dozens of Palestinians and reportedly wiped the family from the civil registry.

“We are witnessing a massive loss of life,” said Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia, reports Common Dreams.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In this episode of A View From Afar political scientist Paul Buchanan and host Selwyn Manning I will analyse how the state of Israel has gone rogue, attacking United Nations peacekeepers in southern Lebanon.

At this juncture it is clear this is an intentional attack. Over the past week Israel Defense Force troops have repeatedly attacked UN peacekeepers who were authorised and deployed to the region by the United Nations Security Council.

Also last week; the Government of Israel issued a statement notifying the United Nations Secretary General that he was now banned from Israel and was persona non grata.

Within a day of that statement, IDF troops had fired on UN peacekeeping positions in Southern Lebanon. Since then, the IDF has continued operations that threaten the UN’s presence.

And Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now issued a directive to the UN peacekeeping force to withdraw from the area north of its borders in Southern Lebanon.

Also, despite the United States Biden Administration cautioning Israel on its attacks on UN personnel, overnight New Zealand time, the United States has deployed 100 US troops on the ground in Israel to operate missile defence systems.

It would appear the Biden Administration has allowed Israel’s Government to draw it further into a war justified on defence but is factually a conflict that is clearly disproportional to Israel’s threat.

Atrocities against Palestinian civilians in Gaza continue; and, IDF hostilities continue in the occupied West Bank; missile attacks against civilian areas in Lebanon; and missiles have been fired into Syria over the weekend.

Today, Paul and Selwyn will consider:

* Why Israel has begun to attack United Nations peacekeepers in the region?

* Why has the United Nations deepened its involvement in Israel’s so-called defence?

* What of Hezbollah, Hamas; are their attacks on Israel a defence or an attacking offensive?

* What of Iran, what is its position and will it engage in a full-scale war with Israel and what are the consequences should it do so?

Live Audience: Remember, if you are joining us live via the social media platforms, feel free to comment as we can include your comments and questions in this programme.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this episode of A View from Afar political scientist and former Pentagon Analyst, Paul G. Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning discuss: The Murky World of Israel’s Booby-Trapped Pagers and Walkie-Talkies.

Paul and Selwyn reveal Israel’s long-form planning that led to it sabotaging hand-held communication devices that Hezbollah used to communicate with.

This episode’s questions include:

• Who was behind the manufacturing of the booby-trapped devices?
• How long has Israel been planning last week’s attack – an attack that saw thousands injured and many killed in Lebanon after Israel remotely pulled the virtual-pin and exploded the devices indiscriminantly?
• And why now? Presumably the devices were also programmed to be tracked. So why did Israel decide to abandon tracking Hezbollah and to attack?
• Was it to cause chaos among its enemies in a preemptive move immediately prior to its widespread bombing and targeting of communities in Lebanon?
• And what of international law? Has Israel gone so far beyond the Rubicon with Gaza that it senses international law no longer applies to Israel?
• And, finally, has the United Nations abandoned its right to protect principles, its peacemaking and peacekeeping responsibilities in favour of aid, development and an overly bureaucratic institution?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters is putting off recognition of Palestine as a state, despite opposition Labour’s formal request that he make the move.

Peters said diplomatic recognition of Palestine was a matter of “when not if”, but doing so now could impede progress towards a two-state solution — and the focus should be on aid for civilians.

Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker had written to Peters, calling for New Zealand to take “meaningful action” by recognising Palestine as a state.

He noted this did not mean a recognition of Hamas, “which is one political party in the Palestinian territories”.

“There can be no lasting peace without Palestinian statehood,” Parker wrote, pointing to 139 of the 193 member states of the United Nations having already recognised it.

“Recognition signals this. It doesn’t matter that the state is yet to be fully established, with agreed borders. Many states and much of the Western world recognised Israel well before it was established as a state. Similarly with Kosovo.”

Parker said New Zealand should do this by inviting the Palestinian Authority to send an ambassador to present their credentials to New Zealand, a role which could be performed by the Head of the General Delegation of Palestine based in Canberra Izzat Abdulhadi.

‘Immediate ceasefire’ needed
Peters, however, said the “immediate and urgent need is for an immediate ceasefire and the provision of aid to help alleviate the desperate plight of an innocent civilian population”.

“The government supports the establishment of a Palestinian state and has done so for decades. We must see momentum towards this goal and it’s a matter of ‘when not if’ we see Palestinian statehood,” he wrote.

However, he said they could not afford to take focus away from the current crisis.

“Bluntly asserting statehood unilaterally at this point, however well intentioned, would do nothing to alleviate the current plight of the Palestinian people. Indeed, it might impede progress.

“We would need to be sure that any change in our current settings would contribute credibly to a serious diplomatic push to achieve a two-state solution. We do not believe we are currently at that point.

“We are realistic that achieving this will require serious negotiations, including over the territory and political authority of a future Palestinian state. Statehood is neither a prerequisite for renewed negotiations, nor is it a guarantee they will progress faster.

“It is important for any Palestinian state that it does not contain elements that threaten Israel’s security, and that the Palestinian Authority can govern effectively. That is why we have said an organisation like Hamas — which commits terrorism — cannot be part of future governance in Palestine.”

Case for recognition
Parker had laid out his case for recognition, saying Israel had ignored two resolutions of the UN General Assembly backed by an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations, including “its closest ally, the United States, which has repeatedly said the loss of civilian life in Gaza is an unacceptable price to pay for Israel’s pursuit of Hamas”.

“The international community, including New Zealand, should not stand by and watch Israel breach international law and ignore entreaties without taking meaningful action,” he wrote.

“The absence of progress for many years, and the current war, make the status quo ever more untenable.

“The occupying Israeli government forces cannot legitimately continue to deprive Palestinians of basic rights to govern themselves.

“We believe it is time now for New Zealand to reinforce our opposition to the war and our support for a lasting peace including Palestinian independence.”

Parker said Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s recent statements also contemplating recognition was coincidental, and Labour had already decided to make the proposal to Peters.

He accepted it was unlikely Peters would be able to give an immediate response, other than to say no.

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

• Asia Pacific Report says that in the UN Security Council vote last week, only the US voted against Palestine becoming a full member of the United Nations by using its veto. But an overwhelming majority of 12 nations out of the 15 voted in favour of admission, including three of the permanent members (China, France and Russia). Only the fifth permanent member, UK, and Switzerland abstained.
• Palestine currently has had permanent observer status since 2012.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has told the United Nations the situation in Gaza is an “utter catastrophe” and criticised the Security Council for failing to act decisively.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly in New York, Peters said Gaza was a “wasteland” and that New Zealand was “gravely concerned” that Israel may soon launch a military offensive into Rafah.

Peters condemned Hamas for its terrorist attacks on October 7 and since.

“All of us here must demand that Hamas release all remaining hostages immediately,” he said.

But he said the facts on the ground in Gaza were absolutely clear with more than 33,000 people killed, millions displaced and warnings that famine was imminent.

“Gaza, which was already facing huge challenges before this conflict, is now a wasteland. Worse still, another generation of young Palestinians — already scarred by violence — is being further traumatised.”

Peters said New Zealand was a longstanding opponent of the use of the veto at the UN.

Security Council ‘failed by veto’
“Since the start of the current crisis in Gaza, the veto has been used five times to prevent the Security Council from acting decisively. This has seen the Council fail in its responsibility to maintain international peace and security,” he said.

Peters acknowledged Israel’s “belated announcements” that it would allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

“Israel must do everything in its power to enable safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access,” he said.

He called on all parties to comply with Resolution 2728 which demanded an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.

“Palestinian civilians must not be made to pay the price of defeating Hamas,” he said.

The risks of the wider region being further drawn into this conflict also remained alarmingly high.

“We strongly urge regional actors, including Iran, to exercise maximum restraint.

“Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security. There is overwhelming support in the international community — including from New Zealand — for a two-state solution.

“Achieving this will require serious negotiations by the parties and must involve a Palestinian state.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz