Palestine Forum Of New Zealand Calls For Safe Passage Of Madleen And Urgent Sanctions Against Israel
'The Madleen was carrying life-saving aid to a population enduring unimaginable suffering under Israel's illegal siege. Its interception is a flagrant violation of international law and a direct attack on humanitarian principles,' said a spokesperson for the Palestine Forum of New Zealand.
The unlawful blockade of Gaza — now in its 18th year — has turned the region into what human rights organisations have described as the world's largest open-air prison. The systematic denial of aid, food, water, fuel, and medical supplies is part of Israel's ongoing campaign of collective punishment against the Palestinian people.
Palestine Forum of New Zealand reiterates the following urgent demands:
Immediate safe passage for the Madleen and all humanitarian vessels to Gaza.
The New Zealand Government is to impose targeted sanctions against Israel, including an end to military, economic, and diplomatic cooperation.
Support for the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and pressure on Parliament to prioritise it for debate.
Active support for international legal mechanisms, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes and crimes against humanity.
'Aotearoa cannot remain silent while innocent people are bombed, starved, and denied medical care. New Zealand has a proud history of standing on the side of justice — from opposing apartheid in South Africa to advocating for nuclear-free policies. It's time our government showed the same moral courage for Palestine,' the spokesperson added.
The Palestine Forum of New Zealand stands in unwavering solidarity with the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the Madleen crew, and the people of Gaza. It will continue to amplify the call for justice, dignity, and the right of return for all Palestinians.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Which countries recognise the state of Palestine. What would statehood look like?
By Zena Chamas Moroccans chant slogans and wave the Palestinian flag during a march to express their solidarity with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Rabat on 19 July, 2025. Photo: AFP As of 2025, there are about 147 countries that officially recognise the state of Palestine. France is set to recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September, bringing the total to 148 countries. Currently, there is no Palestinian state. Instead, there are the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which include Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Only the Jewish state - Israel - exists. Some Palestinians live in Israel as citizens. Others live as refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. As of March 2025, the state of Palestine has been recognised as a sovereign nation by 147 of 193 member states of the United Nations, about 75 percent. In 2024, a group of UN experts called on all United Nations member states to recognise the State of Palestine, in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza war. Since then, nine countries - Armenia, Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, Spain, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Barbados - formally recognised the State of Palestine. Most of the Middle East, Africa and Asia recognise Palestinian statehood. On Thursday (local time), France's President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise a Palestinian state in hopes it would bring peace to the region. In response to Macron's move, Netanyahu said that such a move "rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy". "A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel - not to live in peace beside it," Netanyahu said in a post on X. In other parts of Europe, Slovenia, Malta and Belgium are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood. Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea also do not. Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state. On its website, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states Australia is: "Committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders." Public outrage as the Palestinian death toll has climbed has been followed only slowly by official statements from governments reluctant to criticise Israel - until now. The Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) has argued that Australia symbolically recognising Palestinian statehood would mean "establishing a formal diplomatic relationship with Palestine". Australia currently has an ambassador to Israel, but only a representative to Palestine. In recent comments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not refer directly to recognising Palestine, but pointed to Australia's long-standing ambitions around recognition. "Recognising the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own has long been a bipartisan position in Australia," Albanese said. "The reason a two-state solution remains the goal of the international community is because a just and lasting peace depends upon it. "Australia is committed to a future where both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can live in peace and safety, within secure and internationally recognised borders." Last year, Foreign Minister Penny Wong indicated Australia was considering recognising a Palestinian state as part of a peace process, rather than at the endpoint. This week, Australia joined 27 other countries demanding an immediate end to the war. In November 2024, Australia voted in favour of a draft United Nations resolution recognising "permanent sovereignty" of Palestinians and the Golan Heights to natural resources in the Occupied Territories for the first time in more than two decades. A total of 159 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution in a UN committee, including Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Germany and Japan. The State of Palestine was formally declared by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) on 15 November, 1988. It claims sovereignty over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. According to senior lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, Juliette McIntyre, a state has certain defining features under international law. These features include a permanent population, a determinate territory, an "effective" government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. "In some ways, the most important thing is recognition by other states - this enables entering into diplomatic relations, and membership of international organisations," McIntyre said. She added that the governance of a Palestinian state could look like "free and fair elections for all Palestinians exercising their right of self-determination". "It is up to the Palestinian people to elect their representatives and decide on their form of governance," she said. Recognising a Palestinian state could mean the beginning of a "two-state solution" where both a Jewish state and an Arab state would exist at the same time. "A two-state solution requires two states. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory has been found to be unlawful. "Recognition of Palestine is not hostile to Israel, Israel is an established state and recognition of Palestine does nothing to impact on this," McIntyre said. The two-state solution is still widely regarded by world leaders as the only way to end the conflict, but is not as popular in Israel and parts of the occupied Palestinian territories. "The territorial integrity of both states should be respected, and new borders could only come about by treaty agreement between both states," McIntyre said. What are the one-state and two-state solutions? Photo shows Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags. Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags. On Wednesday, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, voted 71-13 in favour of annexation of the West Bank, raising questions about the future of a Palestinian state. The non-binding vote was backed by members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, as well as some opposition members of parliament. In a recent post on X, Netanyahu said: "Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel." Both Netanyahu and other members of Israel's parliament have shown their lack of support for a two-state solution. This year, the UN, which largely supports a two-state solution, will hold an international conference on the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution in New York from 28 to 29 July. The United States has opted out of attendance. - ABC
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
UN Experts Call For End To Israeli State And Settler Violence In The West Bank
GENEVA (24 July 2025) - UN experts* today expressed grave concern over systematic and ongoing violations by Israeli settlers and Israeli security forces against Palestinian peasants and rural workers in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. "We are deeply troubled by alleged widespread intimidation, violence, land dispossession, destruction of livelihoods and the resulting forcible displacement of communities, and we fear this is severing Palestinians from their land and undermining their food security,' the experts said. "The alleged acts of violence, destruction of property, and denial of access to land and resources appear to constitute a systemic pattern of human rights violations," they said. The experts noted a disturbing pattern of attacks targeting West Bank communities, including assaults on civilians, destruction of homes and livelihoods, and the forcible displacement of families. 'Settler violence has reportedly involved arson, livestock theft, and the poisoning or destruction of water sources, severely undermining the ability of Palestinians to sustain their agricultural way of life,' the experts added. 'The demolition of Palestinian-owned structures has further exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, leaving families homeless and vulnerable.' They said the continued attacks targeting Palestinian Bedouin, peasant and rural communities do not appear to be incidental, but rather an intentional strategy to erase their presence in key agricultural areas, undermine their food security and food sovereignty and ultimately sever Palestinians from their land. Hundreds of Bedouin families, including a significant number of children, have been displaced due to settler violence and intimidation. These attacks have caused significant economic harm, including an estimated USD $76 million in direct agricultural damages in the West Bank between October 7, 2023, and late 2024. It is estimated that the West Bank GDP declined by more than 19 per cent, and the unemployment rate rose to 35 per cent. "Israel, as the occupying power, bears the obligation to take necessary measures to safeguard Palestinian communities at risk of displacement and violence," the experts said. "This includes stopping the violence immediately, halting illegal settlement expansion, holding effective and impartial investigations into violations, prosecuting those responsible, and guaranteeing victims access to justice and reparations." 'It is essential that the West Bank be kept under Palestinian control, based on the rights to self-determination of the Palestinian people and full respect of international law,' they said. 'Israel must promptly bring to an end its unlawful presences in the West Bank, and ensure its compliance with the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice issued on 19 July 2024, including by evacuating all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory.' The experts called on the international community to act with urgency to hold perpetrators accountable and ensure that violent settlers and armed forces cannot continue to operate with impunity. 'Silence and inaction only embolden further violations. We call on all States to uphold their obligations under international law—including through targeted measures, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure—to end these systematic abuses and protect Palestinian lives, livelihoods, and fundamental rights. The time for justice is now,' they said. * The experts: Carlos Arturo Duarte Torres, Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
How And Why Artificial Intelligence Is Being Used To Process Your Submissions To Politicians
Explainer - The public likes to have their say. Tens of thousands of public submissions come in every year to bills before Parliament and to local government entities. With large-scale campaigns and website submission forms, the ability to speak out is easier than ever - but that's causing a problem on the other end of the system, where planners and politicians can struggle to keep up. Artificial intelligence has increasingly been drafted to go over public submissions. Some have applauded the technology's ability to process data quicker than humans, while others fear the human touch may be getting lost in the shuffle. What exactly does AI processing of public submissions mean, how does it work, and are everyone's views getting a fair shake in the process? Here's a breakdown of it all. First, how do public submissions work? It's a chance for people to get their voice heard in local and national government. People can make submissions to both their local councils and to Parliament. Submissions can be made to local councils on things like planning and urban development, while the public can make submissions to Parliament select committees on upcoming bills. Submissions have been sky-high in recent months, where the Treaty Principles Bill received more than 300,000 submissions, while the Regulatory Standards Bill which is now before Parliament also has had huge interest. Final submission numbers on that have not been released, but even the early discussion on the proposed bill at the end of last year received about 23,000 submissions. Dr David Wilson, Clerk of the House of Representatives who oversees the business of Parliament's rules and procedures, said public input is at a high. "The Treaty Principles Bill had more submissions than the last two parliaments combined," he said. At one point submission numbers were so large the website suffered technical difficulties. Wilson said the number of submissions does put a strain on resources in Parliament. "If that is the sorts of volumes we're going to see on more and more bills, the days of human beings being able to deal with them in a sort of reasonable time will be past." When submissions come to Parliament, staff of the Office of the Clerk first process them to make sure they are relevant to the bill and not defamatory or insulting before they go on to select committees. Select committees then process and consider feedback before making possible changes to a bill ahead of a final vote on it. "It's great that the public want to engage with Parliament and see the value in making their thoughts known even in such volumes," Wilson said. "I think people understand that no individual MP could read 300,000 submissions. We can't create more time for MPs to read them." Eddie Clark, a senior lecturer in public law at Victoria University of Wellington who is critical of AI use in public submissions, noted that large numbers of submissions have been processed before AI became widely available, such as the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill in 2021 which received more than 100,000 entries. "So it is possible for very large numbers of submissions to be actually read and processed by actual human staff. What was required was time and resource, and in my opinion the denial of both is a reason the huge number of submissions has become such a problem several times over the last couple of years." Enter artificial intelligence This is where artificial intelligence is starting to come in - both in local and national government, where it's being used to help process, sort and analyse public input. The Office of the Clerk does not use AI in processing submissions, but it's up to the individual committee overseeing the bill to decide whether to do so when the bills come to their end, Wilson said. For instance, it's been used along the way for the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Committees make their own individual decisions; they don't have any central guidelines around it at the moment." Wilson said the Office of the Clerk is looking at how it might use AI in the future, but is being cautious and "not rushing into it". "I still think ultimately we need to have human decision makers but AI has capacity to do things more quickly than people can - such as flagging submissions that are irrelevant or defamatory. Most submissions are absolutely fine." AI processing has been taken up by local councils, too. In Nelson, the city council worked with local firm the AI Factory to process submissions to their long term plan, Group Manager for Strategy and Communications Nicky McDonald said. "We used the tool to analyse views on issues, including numbers for/against, and to provide us with a summary of views which we then used when writing the first draft of our deliberations report to council. "This report went through multiple iterations as we edited it, but AI was able to give us a starting point which we then developed into a final draft." Xinyu Fu, a senior lecturer in environmental planning at the University of Waikato, organised a pilot project with Hamilton City Council analysing thousands of public submissions on planning proposals. "A lot of them are facing stresses on analysing public submissions," he said of local planners. "Planners spend a lot of time going through those public submissions and those are very laborious work." What exactly are they using AI to do? Prompts - instructions, questions and information put into generative AI - are used to direct it. In Hamilton, Fu's research paper explained that "we tasked ChatGPT with extracting five key elements from public feedback: 1) political stance (support, opposition, or unspecified), 2) reasons from submitters, 3) decisions sought by submitters, 4) sentiment of the submission (positive, negative, or neutral), and 5) relevant planning topics." "AI models are sensitive to prompt phrasing so a slight change in prompt may result in changes in its responses," Fu said. With the Regulatory Standards Bill, public feedback on the discussion document last year drew 22,821 submissions. (The feedback to the select committee on the bill itself is still being processed and is confidential until the Finance and Select Committee releases that information.) In a summary of submissions, the Ministry for Regulation said that all submissions on the then-proposed bill were analysed using a Large Language Model (LLM) AI, and it worked with the independent research organisation Public Voice. "All emails and Citizen Space submissions (a digital tool that submits an online form) were assigned a preliminary classification by Public Voice using a LLM that followed a logic model created by the Ministry, analysing it and classifying it as supporting, partially supporting, opposing the bill or unclear on its stance." The majority of submissions on the proposed bill were analysed by AI. However, the summary also said that in a qualitative analysis sample, 939 of those 22,821 submissions were examined by Ministry for Regulation staff to "analyse the themes raised in submissions and feedback on specific policy proposals." That process "involved several staff across the Ministry manually reviewing the sample of submissions (both email and Citizen space submissions) and applying thematic tags." Another 605 submissions were also looked at separately. Submissions made in te reo Māori were translated. "Our approach was carefully designed to reflect all submissions in the final analysis, noting there were many similar points made across most of the submissions," the ministry's deputy chief executive Andrew Royle told Newsroom. How much human scrutiny is applied to the process? Can the AI avoid a bias? "As a rule of thumb, having humans in the loop will be the best practice - humans in charge and AI as a co-pilot," Fu said. "The risk is very high if we completely rely on AI to do the work. To put simply, such biases are generally embedded in our institutions as well as the information humans generated, and these biases are then input into the model to train. Then they become inherent to the model. Because AI systems are black boxes, it is uncertain and unclear about the nature and degree of these biases." Nelson Council's McDonald said they were transparent about how they were using AI. "Every submission form included a statement saying we'd be trialling AI to help speed up submission processing and reduce the resource burden on staff. "We intentionally ensured there was always a (sceptical!) human in the loop sense checking the tool's outputs. Staff (and elected members) read every submission and we had processes to check AI responses." Fu said there are differences in how AI approaches looking at thousands of public submissions. "AI is really good at consistency (if instructed properly) whereas humans are likely to miss things due to fatigue, boredom, or bias towards particular viewpoints (humans are biased too). "AI can do things much faster than humans, and AI's work can be more transparent if designed well because you can ask AI to document its processes and responses for later review and replication. On the downside, humans excel in knowing about the contexts, while AI knows little about the local contexts and backgrounds." Is there a risk that people's voices aren't being heard? "I absolutely think that a regular practice of AI analysis of submissions risks undermining people's confidence in the democratic process and thus the legitimacy of government," Victoria University's Clark said. He said there was a need for more options for people to consult on legislation. He noted in the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, the pre-legislative consultation was conducted mostly over the holiday period from mid-November to mid-January. This "leads to people seeing the Select Committee stage as their only real chance to comment, incentivising mass submissions expressing simple opposition or support", Clark said. "Giving people a chance to be heard throughout the process, not just at Select Committee, could help deal with the problem. There is a reason the legislative process is generally slow and deliberate, and derailing that good, democratic process has consequences. In my opinion the glut of submissions at the Select Committee stage is one of them." Labour MP Duncan Webb spoke out about the government's use of AI on the Regulatory Standards Bill submissions, writing on social media site BlueSky that it "turns out democracy under this government is real people making submissions and computers reading them". When contacted by RNZ, Webb said he is not opposed to the use of AI, but concerned about how it is used in the democratic process. "New Zealanders who take the time to share their views deserve more than a computer reading their submission. "AI can help with sorting large volumes of submissions, but it can't replace the value of reading someone's views, like the handwritten letter from an 85-year-old or a bundle of colourful drawings from school kids. These submissions often reflect deeply held experiences and emotions, and politicians need to read them." However, Fu said that in local government planning the use of AI in analysis could give staff more time to work with local and underrepresented communities. "Planning has become very reactive," he said. "If we can use AI planners then planners can actually do better work because otherwise they're overwhelmed." A lot of the submissions made on local planning tend to be by developers, Fu said. He said planners could use the time to reach out to communities whose voices aren't heard as often in public submissions, including Māori. What about privacy? When it comes to privacy, public submissions are already just that - public. All submissions sent to select committees become public and are posted on Parliament's website and become part of the permanent parliamentary record - they can only be removed in exceptional circumstances by the Clerk of the House. "They know their submission will become public," Wilson said of submissions. "Our staff are going to read it, officials will read it." "The main privacy concern is about people's contact details - they are always separated from submissions now." Contact information is removed from public submissions before they are posted publicly but Wilson said privacy is one reason to be cautious of the use of AI in analysing them. "We want to make sure we've got a key set of principles and some business rules in place," Wilson said. The government unveiled its first national AI strategy earlier this month mostly aimed at economic growth, "unlocking innovation, productivity, and smarter decision-making across New Zealand" and responsible AI guidance for businesses "to overcome concerns about ethics and complexity." In Nelson, McDonald said they also considered privacy issues. "The submissions, numbering 1505, were redacted of all personal data before they were processed to ensure there were no privacy issues - this is something we would do anyway, before all submissions are uploaded to the Council website for public view." Where should AI not be used? Most agree AI should never be making decisions on policy, however. "What I don't think I can do - and I wouldn't trust it to do anyway - is make judgements," Wilson said. "Nobody's going to predict what's going to happen next month in the AI space because it's evolving so rapidly," Fu said, noting that hyperbole over AI is everywhere at the moment. "We're still in that hype space ... I think we need to start thinking about the responsible use." And for some, there's still a question as to whether the technological advances of AI might be leaving something behind. "In short, democracy takes money and time," Clark said. "Trying to avoid the necessary costs of democratic infrastructure has consequences, and while I understand why the hard-working people in our underfunded and rushed systems might see AI as helpful in these circumstances, in my opinion it will not solve the underlying issue and could unintentionally undermine people's faith in a democracy that cares about their voices."
