Thousands of people took to the streets across Aotearoa New Zealand on Saturday, standing in solidarity with Palestine as part of the Global Day of Action. Yet where was the media coverage?

From Auckland to Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, and communities across the country, people turned out to demand justice, freedom and an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people.

These are not insignificant gatherings. These are people exercising their democratic right to protest, raising their voices against injustice and demanding accountability.

• READ MORE: Aotearoa marches, vigils kick-off ‘global day of action’ for Palestine with mass protests in dozens of countries
• Tens of thousands join pro-Palestinian march in New Zealand — coverage in 2025
• Death toll from Israel’s war on Gaza rises to 74,370, says Health Ministry
• Other Palestine reports

When thousands take to the streets for Palestine, that is news. When their voices are barely heard, that raises serious questions about media priorities.

Whose voices are being amplified, and whose are being pushed to the margins?

New Zealanders deserve journalism that reflects what is happening in their communities — not selective silence when the issue is Palestine.

The media cannot claim to represent the public while overlooking thousands of people demanding justice.

Palestine is not going away. Our voices are not going away. And neither is our demand for justice.

Do your job. Cover the protests. Let the public see what is happening.

Maher Nazzal is chair of the Palestine Forum of New Zealand.

Mass pro-Palestine protests across at least 60 countries in more than 250 locations worldwide were launched as part of a Global Day of Action beginning in Aotearoa New Zealand today.

Thousands of people took part in solidarity rallies and marches in the three largest cities, Auckland, Wellington and Chistchurch — and vigils and actions happened at least 23 other places around the country.

An estimated 15,000 people, including representives of more than 50 organisations and movements backing the global action took part in the march up Queen Street from downtown Te Komititanga Square next to the Waitemata transport hub to Albert Park.

• READ MORE: Death toll from Israel’s war on Gaza rises to 74,370, says Health Ministry
• Other Palestine reports

Giant banners proclaiming “Genocide is a crime — Free Palestine” and “Global March for Palestine – NZ Sanction Israel now” were carried by lead marchers, and posters displaying slogans such as “The genocide feeds on the silence”, “Freedom for Palestine”, and “Bombing and shooting kids is not self-defence — Free Palestine” were carried throughout the crowd.

One cardboard poster said “The intifada is global now” and another “The Epstein class are killers”, referring to allegations in the United States against members of the elite, including President Donald Trump.

A counter-protest was staged by supporters of Israel and the Shah’s regime in Iran — waving Israeli, Lion and Sun flags of the ousted monarchy, Stars and Stripes and Union Jack flags — but this was dwarfed by the pro-Palestine rally.

Police kept the peace and 1News reported just one minor incident.

Detained and tortured
Before the march began, organised by the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) and a coalition of groups, two protesters who had been on Gaza freedom flotillas in humanitarian aid efforts to break the siege and had been detained and tortured by Israeli security forces talked of their experiences.

Hāhona Ormsby (Ngāti Maniapoto), son-in-law of the late Kia Ora Gaza activist Roger Fowler, condemned a recent “Indigenous” delegation from New Zealand hosted by Israel and said this was undermining Tangata Whenua solidarity with Palestinians.

“We know what settler colonialism is,” he said.

In Albert Park, representatives of opposition parties pledged their support for a change in government policy in active support for Palestine if elected on November 7.

The Labour Party foreign affairs spokesperson Vanushi Walters told the crowd that New Zealand could not stand by in the face of genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and ongoing violations of international law.

The party has made it clear that a Labour-led government would recognise the State of Palestine, including diplomatically with presentation of credentials, impose economic sanctions on Israel via new laws similar to the Russian Sanctions Act, support South Africa’s genocide case at the International Court of Justice, and ensure our Super Fund and ACC divest from companies identified by the UN as operating in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Today was the third anniversary of protests against the Israeli genocide.

Major global protests
Meanwhile, the Middle East Eye reports that capital cities across the globe will see major protests and actions in support of Palestine today, according to the Global Alliance for Palestine (GAFP).

The statement says that more than 200 organisations will be mobilising for a mass “synchronised Global Day of Action”, involving civil society groups, trade unions, student federations and human rights networks across 60 countries.

The global event is organised by GAFP alongside the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) and Global Coalition Against Occupation of Palestine (SANED).

The Global March for Palestine action in Christchurch Ōtautahi today. Video: PSNA

“As governments actively fund, arm, and protect Israel from any legal accountability, grassroots movements are refusing to allow this genocide to become normalised as the status quo,” GAFP wrote.

It added that the event “marks a decisive shift, moving beyond symbolic protest toward direct civil intervention to shut down public complicity and demand systemic accountability for Israel’s war crimes and genocide”.

Anas Altikriti, secretary-general of the Global Alliance for Palestine, said that the third anniversary marking Israel’s continued genocide in Gaza was a “stark, devastating reminder of the unbearable terror and suffering that the Palestinian people had been forced to endure every single day for three years”.

“As world powers remain silent and complicit, civil society is rising,” he added, saying that the global demonstration is a a direct response to “this ongoing horror”.

‘Global conscience’
Altikriti described the event as a “declaration that the global conscience will not stand idly by as a genocide is normalised”.

“We are taking to the streets to demand total accountability, an immediate end to the siege, and a free Palestine.”

Participating organisations in more than 250 locations worldwide are expected to shut down civic squares, encircle government buildings and blockade corporate entities directly tied to military supply chains.

“The objective is clear: render normal commerce and political diplomacy impossible while Israel’s genocide continues uninterrupted.”

As well as mass protests in major capitals worldwide, in cities like Athens and Modena, the coalition indicated that “actions will extend across multiple days with cultural sit-ins, public teach-ins, and large-scale visual projections highlighting Israel’s war crimes directly onto government and corporate buildings”.

“Three years into Israel’s genocide, the global movement for Palestine has grown in power, unity, and resolve,” the statement added.

27 February 1933 was a momentous turning point in German history; a lightning rod for what was to follow.

It enabled Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party to quickly transition Germany from a formal democracy (Weimar Republic) to a fascist dictatorship (inspired by Benito Mussolini’s fascist takeover in Italy).

On that day, an unemployed Dutch construction worker named Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag (German Parliament) building, causing considerable damage.

• READ MORE: Trump says US will not strike Iran before midterm elections
• Other Donald Trump reports

The Nazis first falsely blamed the communists for the fire and then claimed emergency powers to crush all opposition, not just those it blamed.

The event was contrived by the newly formed Nazi government to turn public opinion against its opponents and consequently to successfully achieve these fascist objectives.

This began with the emergency law decree for the Protection of the People and State which restricted free speech and freedom of the press, and allowed the imprisonment of enemies without trial.

Scene setting for US-style ‘Reichstag Fire’
Fintan O’Toole is an advising editor at the New York Review of Books (NYRB). An award-winning journalist and recognised public intellectual, he is a former editor The Irish Times where he still continues as a longstanding columnist.

On 25 July 2025 he began an article (paywalled) in the NYRB on the direction of the United States under President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement with the above-mentioned “Reichstag Fire”: A show of force stepping stone towards a ‘Reichstag Fire’.

O’Toole analysed Trump’s endeavours to militarise American politics and politicise the American military describing them as unfinished business. This meant:

“…defining all those who do not conform to his version of normality as mortal enemies to be confronted as though they were hostile foreign nations [and] … dismantling its self-image as an institution that transcends partisan divisions, is broadly representative of the US population, and owes its primary loyalty not to the President but to the Constitution.”

This analysis continued on to the much reported brutally derogatory narrative and actions (including armed force) against immigrants (which got much worse since the article was published) and Trump’s dishonest delusional endeavour to portray himself as having known “military life”.

This delusional military self-image contrasts with Adolf Hitler’s actual record of being a decorated (Iron Cross) German soldier in the First World War.

It also contrasts with other past dictators; in particular, Benito Mussolini (Italy), Francisco Franco (Spain) and Augusto Pinochet (Chile).

O’Toole refers to Trump’s speech to his supporters at the 6 January 2021 insurrection;

“And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Language and form to achieve absolute military obedience
At the time of the article’s publication in the NYRB, Donald Trump’s militarism was primarily about language and form, including supporting references to the Confederate insurrectionists of the American Civil War in the 1860s.

Pointingly, Fintan O’Toole notes that Trump:

“… is offering soldiers what fascist leaders have always offered their followers: a peculiar amalgam of the thrill of transgression and the submissive surrender to absolute obedience.”

This is the opposite of the military non-partisanship that is necessary in order to defend the US Constitution.

Fintan O’Toole has convincingly outlined an analysis that under Donald Trump’s presidency this emerging authoritarianism in the United States is evolving towards fascism.

In this process, Trump is seeking his own “Reichstag Fire”. This includes seeking in various ways to use his position to rig the mid-term elections in early November for the Congress (House of Representatives) and one-third of the Senate.

Currently he controls both but is likely to lose the former and possibly the latter. Losing control of both is a realistic outcome given popular feeling and mobilisation.

Desperation to seize mid-term US elections
Thirteen months after the above NYRB article was published, the UK newspaper The Independent discussed this endeavour further (August 18): Trump desperate to seize elections.

Journalist Alex Woodward outlined the Trump administration’s numerous roadblocks with courts in his attempts to seize control of these federal elections by establishing a national voter registration list that would be used to decide who is eligible to cast a ballot.

Trump has also not dismissed the idea of declaring a national security emergency to unilaterally enforce his takeover of federal elections. In his reported words:

“Let me just say that stranger things have happened, OK. I’ll leave it at that.”

Woodward reports that Trump could also threaten to use federal troops or law enforcement “…to seize voting equipment or ballots, which would disrupt ballot collection and vote-tallying and insert a hunt for alleged fraud to satisfy his conspiracy theories.”

In another measure to rig the mid-term elections, the Trump administration has abruptly removed the three remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency tasked with supporting election officials.

The practical effect is to leave the key bipartisan agency effectively paralysed weeks before election day.

Election officials are behind-the-scenes public servants. However, they are increasingly on the frontlines of conspiracy theory-fuelled threats.

Woodward reports an annual poll of elections revealing that at least 38 percent of election officials have experienced threats, harassment and abuse because of their job, with more than 60 percent of those threats delivered in person. More than half feared for their safety.

Now is the right time to compare US politics to Nazi Germany
In response to the question “when is the right time to compare US politics to the Nazi era”, The Guardian said “now” on October 3: US politics today compares with Nazi politics in Germany.

Washington DC based British Guardian journalist David Smith writes about a book on the declining white Christian influence in the United States managing to fuel an alliance with Trump and working to reshape its “democracy”.

The book, Backslide: Reclaiming a Faith and a Nation after the Christian Turn against Democracy, is by Robert P Jones arising out of a consideration of studied US demographic numbers, Christian nationalism, and Trump’s use of the language of racial purity. This led him to his inescapable conclusion that “This is our 1933”.

Jones began with the rise of the Nazi party and the complicity of the German people, including German Christians and churches.

He cites a Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller, who was eventually imprisoned for opposing Hitler. Niemöller is famously remembered for the powerful poem “First They Came”.

For the first four years of Hitler’s reign Niemöller did not fully oppose the Nazis. He later regretted that he and the Protestant German church did not speak out sooner.

Revival of white Christian nationalism strengthens drive to US fascism
David Smith argues convincingly that US democracy is experiencing a severe “backslide” that is directly aided and abetted by an “apostate” white Christianity, including Donald Trump’s language on the campaign trail. Further:

“This dehumanising language, talking about immigrants as vermin, and this racial purity language, like they’re ‘poisoning the blood of our country’. What does that mean? If they’re poisoning the blood, what’s the pure blood? We know where that story goes.”

Smith then refers to Trump’s repeated use of the concept of genetic inheritance. Addressing a mostly white crowd in Minnesota in 2020, Trump declared:

“You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory, you think we’re so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”

In his diagnosis, Jones links Trump’s language to the influence and activism of white Christian nationalism:

… white American Christianity has committed a profound act of apostasy by trading its spiritual core for political dominance. By endorsing anti-democratic tactics, white Christian institutions have become the primary engine behind the country’s autocratic slide.

Jones notes that whereas in 2008 white Christian Americans constituted 54 percent of the US population, by 2026 it had dropped to 41 percent. The decline among white evangelicals is even steeper. In 2000, they represented 25 percent of all Americans; today it is 13 percent.

Jones then observes:

“Trump loves to talk about the art of the deal and, in many ways, there’s been a massive quid pro quo deal struck between a declining white evangelical population and Trump. His big appeal to them was less about policy and more anti-immigrant: I’m going to restore an America that looks like you, and I’m going to restore power to the Christian churches.

“He was literally saying on the campaign trail: this is a quid pro quo deal. Give me your votes and you won’t even have to vote again. I’ll fix it so you don’t have to vote again.”

And now for Gleichschaltung
Gleichschaltung is an interesting German word meaning synchronisation or coordination.

In the context of German history it was used to describe the process of Nazification in the mid-1930s; that is, establishing a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society.

On 1 June, I posted on Gleichschaltung in Political Bytes: Gleichschaltung and the far right momentum:

“The NZ First party is a toned-down version of the MAGA movement with deputy leader Shane Jones the loudest proponent of its rhetoric.”

In the context of Aotearoa New Zealand, my narrative in this post includes the following observation:

“New Zealand is a long way away from Nazi Germany in 1933. We are also long way away from having a Gleichschaltung. But, when certain stars align, the unexpected can occur very quickly.

“Donald Trump has succeeded by both synchronisation and coordination over the past nearly 18 months in turning immigrants in the United States into the Jews of Nazi Germany in 1933-35.

“A tipping point leading to our own Gleichschaltung should not be dismissed out-of-hand even if the recipe’s ingredients might be different.”

‘First they came . . .’
It is appropriate to come back to Pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous poem (English translation of the original German version):

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I kept quiet; I wasn’t a communist.
When they came for the trade unionists, I kept quiet;
I wasn’t a trade unionist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I kept quiet;
I wasn’t a social democrat.
When they locked up the Jews, I kept quiet;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest

In terms of Donald Trump’s “1933 trajectory” towards the mid-term elections, should he succeed then he will be well-placed to control the institutions necessary to ensure authoritarianism’s success.

This may well include declaring a national emergency based on a false manufactured pretext as was the case with the Reichstag fire in 1933.

However, his vote rigging attempts, along with the growing unpopularity of his presidency, appear to be arousing much public contempt; sufficient for him to lose control of both the Congress and Senate.

As a narcissist who is devoid of empathy, Trump sees strategic and tactical decision making through a limiting narrow lens.

Anything is possible over how responds to such a plausible mid-terms defeat; attempted dictatorial actions stronger than declaring a state of emergency should be anticipated.

In these circumstances concerted political opposition within the Congress and Senate are important, including impeachment moves and investigations into illegalities and corruption.

However, what will be most decisive is popular mobilisation against this drive towards a fascist state in the world’s strongest military power, whether or not Trump’s electoral vote rigging succeeds.

Organising the popular will is the critical task. “Power to people” as the old but permanently relevant slogan goes.

The final word
Meanwhile let’s leave the final word to Robert P Jones. In the epilogue to his above-discussed book he writes:

“Just as God asked Niemöller where he was between 1933 and 1937, God will ask us where we were between 2025 and 2028. Just as Germans who backed Hitler and the Nazi Party after 1933 were fully aware of what they were joining, so Christians who have backed Trump and the MAGA movement a second time know and bear responsibility for what they are now endorsing.”

Not just powerful words; very timely and directly relevant words as well. Time will tell whether Trump and his MAGA movement will achieve this endorsement; but it is not inevitable.

History does not have to repeat itself nor even rhyme a lot. Germany 1933 does not have to be United States 2025-28.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

ANALYSIS: By Shailendra Singh

In his address at last month’s Pacific Media Summit, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka highlighted his government’s repeal of Fiji’s Media Industry Development Act 2010, saying that it was in the interest of democracy.

While the Rabuka government has been rightly recognised for scrapping that Act in 2023, another piece of legislation with potential significant implications for journalism remains in force — the Online Safety Act 2018.

Like the Media Act, the Online Safety Act was enacted under the FijiFirst government and gives the state a role in regulating expression.

• READ MORE: Special fijivillage Straight Talk public forum on online safety
• Other Fiji online safety reports

The Online Safety Act was tabled in Parliament in 2018 in response to escalating social media abuse, but was controversial from the outset, especially the breadth of its provisions.

The backlash was such that the entire opposition voted against it, arguing that it undermined democracy. Rights groups were similarly alarmed, describing the Act as a “Trojan horse” for censorship.

However, because much of the attention focused on the draconian Media Act, and relatively few people were being charged under the Online Safety Act, the latter escaped sustained scrutiny.

That changed in 2025, as the unabated abuse of digital platforms and a spate of charges laid under Section 24 of the Act, which criminalises the posting of electronic communication that causes harm, brought it back into the spotlight.

Expecting stronger legislation
Currently, the Act is under review and Information Minister Lynda Tabuya, under whose ministry the Act falls, has told Parliament to expect stronger legislation by the end of this year.

To some extent, Tabuya’s call for tougher laws is understandable. The misuse of social media platforms is a global problem, but the threat is considered greater in fragile democracies with multiethnic societies, such as Fiji.

The Online Safety Commission received 1609 complaints in 2025 alone, with more than 50 percent involving cyberbullying, harassment and defamation.

More broadly, policymakers have warned that online misconduct poses a serious national security threat.

In March 2026, Tabuya flagged the increased prevalence of misinformation and disinformation, stating, “A single lie can divide a nation”.  Likewise, Fiji’s National Security Strategy 2025-2029 warned the malicious use of emerging technologies for misinformation and disinformation posed a threat and could “undermine the credibility of national leaders and erode public trust in governance structures”.

Even before the proliferation of social networking platforms, there were concerns in Fiji about the mainstream media’s alleged role in fomenting societal conflict, with some analysis even suggesting that the media acted as a catalyst in the 2000 and 2006 coups.

The increase in digital penetration has added a new dimension to these security challenges.

Young people particularly, the most avid consumers of online networks, risk exposure to disparaging and damaging online discourses, including racism and hate speech.

While these trends are serious and require a firm response, they do not negate legitimate concerns about the flaws in the Online Safety Act.

Implications for media and press freedom
While the aim of the Act is not specifically to regulate media — Section 4 stipulates the law applies to the “whole of Fiji” — media are, nonetheless, caught in its crossfire.

The Act contains no protections for the practice of journalism. Professional journalists using social media platforms in the public interest are lumped with ordinary citizens who may be using them with malicious intent.

This renders journalists and media organisations particularly vulnerable to the Act due to the broad provisions of “electronic communication” that causes “harm” (defined in the Act as “serious emotional distress”), as most of their work is published online and can require critiquing the actions of private individuals and public officials.

The Act also does not differentiate between public and private individuals. In general, public figures such as politicians enjoy a lower level of privacy compared to private citizens. The scrutiny can extend to their private lives should they overlap with, or endanger the fulfillment of, their public duties.

Under the Online Safety Act, media could be held culpable if their reporting causes individuals “serious emotional distress”, which could be a consequence of, for example, news coverage of actual or alleged wrongdoing.

Then there is Section 2’s treatment of electronic communication as “any information, whether truthful or untruthful…”. This suggests journalists publishing legitimate and verified information in the course of their professional duties could face the same criminal liability as bad actors posting untruthful content with malicious intent.

Section 6 raises concerns about the independence of the Online Safety Commission, including the ministerial-appointed Commissioner, which introduces the risk of a political appointment.

Indeed, the appointment of Anne Dunn as the first Commissioner by the then Communications Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was controversial for this very reason. Dunn contested Fiji’s 2018 election under Sayed-Khaiyum’s FijiFirst Party.

The potential conflict of interest could render the Commission vulnerable to political pressure, and have consequences for the Commissioner’s role as an independent and unbiased authority.

The Act does outline seven factors the courts may use to determine whether an offence has occurred, including: the extremity of the content; the age and characteristics of the victim; whether the posting was anonymous; the repetitiveness and extent of circulation; and its truth or falsity, along with the context in which it appeared.

However, it does not provide specific defences based on public interest, truth, reasonable error, or the absence of malice.

An opportunity for reform
The fact that no journalist or media organisation has been charged under the Act in the eight years since its inception is of little consolation. No journalist or media organisation was charged under the now-repealed Media Act, but we are all aware of that legislation’s deleterious effect on the media sector as a deterrent to robust journalism and a catalyst for self-censorship.

Some criticisms of the Online Safety Act — including its open-ended provisions, the Minister’s role in appointing the Commissioner, and the potentially chilling effect on freedom of expression — are uncannily similar to those expressed about the Media Act.

Against this backdrop, Rabuka’s remarks at the Pacific Media Summit are pertinent. The Prime Minister emphasised that the media are “not a threat to democracy” but a “part of” it.

The reviewers of the Online Safety Act would do well to heed his words, as well as those of Rabuka’s deputy, Manoa Kamikamica, at the same event. Kamikamica stated that while this government was committed to media freedom, there was no guarantee future governments would share the same mindset.

In other words, the weaponisation of the Online Safety Act might not be a present danger, but it cannot be ruled out as a future one.

Associate Professor Shailendra Singh is head of journalism at The University of the South Pacific. This article is derived from his submission to the review of the Online Safety Act 2018 and was first published by Pacific Security. It is republished with the author’s permission. Dr Singh’s views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of his employer.

Tracing the illegal land, sea and air siege of the Gaza enclave by Israel:

2006: Hamas elected in the last Palestinian legislative election
Israel withheld Palestinian tax revenues and imposed further restrictions on Gaza. Major international donors suspended direct funding to the Palestinian Authority.

That summer Israel launched a major attack on Gaza. On June 28, Israel destroyed all six transformers at Gaza’s only power station.

• READ MORE: Fear and a far-right lurch: How October 7 reshaped Israel
• How Israel’s genocide in Gaza pulled Britons into the Palestine movement
• Three years of Israel’s mass dispossession of West Bank Palestinians
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

2007: Gaza ghetto was sealed
Israel imposed an unlawful land, sea and air blockade on Gaza. For the next 16 years, more than 2 million people were trapped in a strip of land about 40 km long with illegal occupation forces controlling their borders, airspace and territorial waters. Most people could not leave without Israel’s permission. Israel restricted imports, virtually eliminated exports for years, restricted fishing waters and prevented people from accessing farmland along the perimeter.

The United Nations described Gaza’s population as “locked in”. UN bodies repeatedly described Israel’s blockade as collective punishment. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective punishment.

Children born when Israel imposed the blockade were 16 years old by October 2023.

And inside the ghetto came Israel’s attacks:

2008–09: Operation Cast Lead
Israel killed 1383 Palestinians in three weeks — more than the resistance attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023.

2012: Operation Pillar of Defense
Israel killed 174 Palestinians in eight days.

2014: Israel attacked Gaza for 51 days
Israel killed 2251 Palestinians, including 551 children — more than October 7, 2023.

Then Palestinians tried peaceful resistance.

2018–19: The Great March of Return
For almost two years, Palestinians marched against Israel’s blockade and for their right of return. Israel put snipers on the ghetto walls and shot them.

Illegal occupation forces killed more than 200 people and shot and crippled thousands more during the demonstrations. A UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israeli snipers intentionally shot children, journalists, health workers and people with disabilities who were recognisable as such.

In 2020, Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed the snipers. One Israeli sniper described shooting 42 knees in a single day.

It was the end of peaceful resistance in illegally occupied Gaza.

2021: Israel bombed Gaza again
Israel killed 261 Palestinians, including 67 children.

2022: Israel killed another 49 Palestinians, including 17 children.

May 2023: Israel killed another 33 Palestinians.

By October 2023, an entire generation had been born and raised inside Gaza Ghetto under an unlawful Israeli blockade, through repeated Israeli attacks, electricity shortages, polluted water, economic strangulation and an Israeli permit system controlling whether people could leave.

Then came 7 October 2023 — Al-Aqsa Flood.
Al Qassam Brigades and other armed groups broke through the ghetto walls and attacked Israeli military bases and communities.

7 October 2023 was not Year Zero
It came after sixteen years of unlawful blockade.

It came after Israel repeatedly attacked Gaza and killed thousands of people.

It came after the people marched against their imprisonment and Israeli snipers shot them from high on the wall.

It came after decades of illegal occupation.

And what followed is genocide by Israel.

Israel has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians according to the recorded death toll alone. The real number is substantially higher.

As early as July 2024, when the recorded direct death toll stood at 37,396, public-health researchers writing in The Lancet estimated that, once indirect deaths were included, a death toll of 186,000 or more attributable to Israel’s attack on Gaza was plausible.

Israel has displaced almost the entire population of Gaza, many repeatedly. Israel has destroyed homes, neighbourhoods, hospitals, schools, universities, water systems, sanitation systems and much of the infrastructure necessary to sustain human life.

In September 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel had committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, with genocidal intent. Its conclusion was unequivocal: Israel is responsible for genocide in Gaza.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful. The Court has also confirmed that the law of occupation applies in Gaza and treats Israel as the occupying power there.

For 20 years Israel told the world that history begins and ends when Israel suffers.

It does not.

Al-Aqsa Flood belongs to history. It was never Year Zero.

Tracy-Moana Campbell is an employment relations advocate based in Masterton and an activist on Palestinian human rights. She had a commercial orange grove in Lebanon 10km from the Israeli border in 2005-2011. Israel bombed her oranges in 2006. It is a war crime to destroy civilian food sources. This commentary was originally a social media post but has been republished with the author’s permission.

EDITORIAL: By Michael West, founder of Michael West Media

On Friday, Mario Christodoulou, executive producer of ABC Media Watch, quoted two posts we had made on X regarding last Wednesday’s FlyDubai “terror hijacking” incident and asked two questions:

Do you believe this incident was an Israeli Government “false flag” event? If so, on what basis? If not, how do you explain your posts above?

Perpetuating unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like this, especially from an established journalist such as yourself, can help spread misinformation. Your post likely contributed to this. What is your response?

(Full email and X posts below.)

• WATCH MORE: Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post – Netanyahu’s fight for political survival: PR stunts and press control

Our response

Hi Mario,

Excellent questions. You are barking up the wrong tree, however. My take on both flydubai and RAF Fairford is clearly — and the word was used in one of the tweets — “probably” false flags, or at the least “beat-ups” concocted for political advantage.

This view is borne out by evidence of multiple false flag attacks in Australia, as belatedly admitted by police, and around the world.

The bigger story, the real public interest in media coverage of these incidents, is how they are leveraged by our politicians and a compliant mainstream media. The minute they occur, whether actual false flags or just suspicious incidents, they are branded as “terror plots”, “Islamist attacks … jihadis” etc.

This media branding of these events, *before* the circumstances are known and the evidence is established, has given licence to political actions such as the ramping up of hate speech laws in Australia and justification for passing the private data of Australian citizens to foreign parties as per the arrangements with Cellebrite and Palantir.

As a pilot for 20 years I have questions:

– where are the cabin crew here?
– where are the oxygen masks that automatically drop during a rapid emergency descent?
– how did the Capt manage to open the door while being stabbed?
– Omani pilots were not allowed to fly to Israel, why was he allowed?
– how did the offending pilot get a weapon onboard?
– why has this happened so close to elections?
– how are passengers walking around while apparently in a nosedive?
– who else was injured? Nose dives cause significant g force incidents
– why is there two perfectly positioned people recording the incident and not helping?
– why did a plumber take control and not the 2 pilots onboard who would certainly know when an aircraft was in a nosedive?
– why was the plumber speaking in English to Bibi after the flight
– why was he still in his blood soaked clothes 8 hours after the incident

False Flags have been a very effective mechanism to influence public opinion

Hitler burnt down the Reichstag just before his parliament elections and he won the election…changing the course of history.

A full and independent investigation should be carried out here.

Hopefully independent journalist will be allowed to view this too.

— The Long Investor (@TheLongInvest) October 1, 2026

flydubai X post retweeted by MW

Let’s say flydubai is not a false flag in a technical sense; that is, a ploy cooked up by the Netanyahu regime in Israel just a few weeks before the election. Let’s just say it was actually a fight between the pilots and a happy ending. The fact that the initial coverage branded the event as a terrorist hijacking demonstrates that the incident was used for political gain.

The Fairford incident was also branded as a terrorist plot in its initial coverage, egged on by Trump and Rubio and the usual people on social media. Why did they not wait until it became evident that it was 5 lads pilfering diesel before reporting it as terror?

Here in “evidence-land” we try to ignore the noise and report the truth. And the truth is that the mainstream media has blood on its hands, a lot of blood. Its failure to address the exaggerated claims of the October 7 Hamas attacks — 40 babies beheaded, mass gang rapes, babies in ovens, babies on clotheslines — has given licence to genocide, to the worst human atrocities of this century.

Lies have dragged us into war against Iran which is hurting every citizen via higher petrol and food prices.

The effect on humanity has been drastic, and much of that can be foisted home to a failure by a craven media to report responsibly. The media is culpable and the rise of new media such as MWM is due to plunging public confidence in the institutions of power such as the ABC and traditional corporate media.

We haven’t grown from scratch to millions in audience a month by making stuff up.

To be fair, the ABC has done better than corporate media but it is still culpable. Where is the Four Corners on the hasbara movement, the litany of false flag attacks in Australia such as the Dural caravan hoax and the other 12 or so “terror” acts which turned out to be no-hopers with no political ideology apparently paid for by foreign interests?

This is the real story, the culpability of media in genocide, not some guy on X raising credible doubts about the official narrative because the evidence for terror claims does not stack up and the historical evidence of false flags is so compelling it should not be ignored.

As we approach the three-year anniversary of October 7, it would be apposite for traditional media to contemplate its own epic failures, its complicity in the genocide in Gaza. You could start by analysing the lies which have already been debunked.

Here are some questions: how many Israelis were slaughtered by IDF Apache gunships on October 7? Why did Netanyahu ignore warnings of the Hamas attacks from Egyptian and Qatari leaders? What is the evidence for mass rapes and babies beheaded? How and why were the Nova Festival arrangements changed prior to the attacks? Why has there been no official inquiry by Israeli authorities?

And what role did the mainstream media play to give licence to genocide?

Cui bono?

Media Watch email
Thanks for your time on the phone just now. Here’s what I sent via your website portal. 

We’re writing an item examining the FlyDubai incident, which has been widely reported this week, where passengers managed to seize control of a 737 en route to Tel Aviv from Dubai. As part of that story, we are examining the conspiracy theories that have cropped up online, and we noticed you have been posting about this being a “false flag” operation.

There was this repost in particular: 

But also this:

We may mention this in the segment. To my knowledge, there is no evidence this was an Israeli “false flag”, and theories like this are unsubstantiated.

Questions below:

• Do you believe this incident was an Israeli Government “false flag” event? If so, on what basis? If not, how do you explain your posts above?
• Perpetuating unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like this, especially from an established journalist such as yourself, can help spread misinformation. Your post likely contributed to this. What is your response?

Deadline is 5pm today.  Let me know if you are having trouble reaching this.

 ‘Cheap 20 second opinions’
When the show aired last night, host Linton Besser didn’t hold back on the accusations of peddling conspiracy theories and “cheap 20 second opinions”.

We concede that in the absence of ABC’s $1.23 billion budget — even a dedicated team of researchers and others working for an entire week to produce 15 minutes of television for just 42 weeks of the year — that we may be cheap, at least in budget terms, by necessity.

Yet with our humble budget and the goodwill of the community we have managed to break a lot more stories than the ABC in relation to the crime of the century. Where is the ABC’s coverage of Australian charities funnelling money to the IDF and illegal West Bank settlements?

Nowhere, despite it being raised in Parliament.

Where is the coverage of Australians serving with the IDF, a story we broke with FOIs? Where is the coverage of the money trail of public grants to the Israel lobby?

We even beat this billion-dollar corporation on the story of Australian UN commissioner, Chris Sidoti, releasing an independent report for the UN on the systematic slaughter of Palestinian children by the IDF. We were literally first media in the world.

The ABC trundled along timidly a day late with its billion-dollar budget and, typically, buried the story anyway. This — an investigation about a rogue state engaged in genocide which Australia furnishes with weapons parts, to be found by the highest body in the world, to be deliberately murdering children.

Shamelessly buried.

And here they are with the gall, to sermonise about an independent journalist saying on social media that flydubai was “probably” a false flag or at least had been leveraged for political advantage. This, after three years of spinelessly tip-toeing around every single story which mentions the word Israel.

As Media Watch host, my former SMH colleague, and a first-rate journalist, Linton Besser did note in his piece, Benjamin Netanyahu was very quick out of the blocks when the story broke to get on the phone to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News to kick off his media campaign.

With zero evidence Israel’s PM pointed the bone at Iran. Was Iran directly behind the plot, asked career misinformation-spreader Sean Hannity? “Too early to say,” said Netanyahu. Job done, as with the RAF Fairford “terror plot”, Iran named. The rest of the corporate media followed.

This is the way it works and ABC is a part of it. “Israel says”. Frothing forth with every false claim uttered by a war lobby whose lies are established and far too prolific to list here. They are daily.

Is flydubai a false flag?
Is the flydubai incident a false flag? It’s too early to tell but the narrative has changed a lot, the evidence suggests the official story is not credible, even CNN had a pilot demonstrate why it did not stack up. Many questions remain.

“This is Hollywood on steroids … ordinary civilians became superheroes,” Netanyahu told Fox News. “If you’re next hijacked, make sure an Israeli is sitting next to you.”

Is not the story — the story for Media Watch — why are so many sceptical about Israel’s claims? The answer is clear: they lie and twist facts relentlessly. The suspicion is warranted. The propaganda is documented. Why does ABC not cover that, bigger, story?

Our personal favourite was the still glass of water after the 14,300 ft nosedive (no, not the heroic plumber who watched aviation rescue shows or the pilot, Hamam al Hamami, whose name has been translated by scallywags as Bathroom King of Bathrooms).

Why does the ABC continue to trot out the Israel lobby’s propaganda when it has been proven time and time again to be false? The mainstream media has literally, deliberately missed the story of the century.

They avoid the G-word like the plague.

And this cowardice, this complicity by our institutions of power, has degraded all humanity. Our leaders and our institutions, in not standing up to genocide, in perpetuating lies, even rewarding them, have let us all down.

At least we said “probably” a false flag. They can’t even bring themselves — with all their sanctimonious tut-tutting about journalistic integrity to say “probably a genocide”, let alone admit they’ve been captured to the point of even sacking at least one journalist for raising the question.

Just look at the pictures. Gaza razed by US bombs, a population starved and tortured, homeless, 70,000 to 700,000 dead, concentration camps, the largest population of child amputees in history.

You allowed this to happen.

Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker. This article was first published by Michael West Media on 6 October 2026 and is republished with permission.

Pro-Palestinian protesters in Aotearoa New Zealand will be the first to kick off a Global Day of Action next Saturday marking 1100 days of Israeli genocide with a rally and march in the heart of the country’s largest city.

Many other protests will be carried out across the country in a wave of solidarity for the people of Palestine suffering from genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank under illegal Israeli occupation.

The Global Alliance for Palestine (GAFP) has issued an urgent call for support worldwide for upholding international law.

• READ MORE: Challenging apartheid, defending human rights and amplifying global solidarity for Palestine
• Other Gaza genocide reports

“In Aotearoa New Zealand, our kaupapa/purpose is to build a landmark demonstration here as part of this worldwide global mobilisation for Palestine, with demonstrations in every major city,” the local organisers for a grand coalition of activist groups, churches and solidarity movements.

“Why does it matter? This mobilisation marks three years — 1100 days — of Israel’s systematic genocide against the Palestinian people.”

Media contact Rana Hamida for the Global March for Palestine Coalition (Tāmaki Makaurau) said: “International law is not optional. On October 10, we the people of the world and here in Aotearoa, demand an end to the violence, complicity and the enabling of a system that fuels crimes against humanity.

“New Zealand has the responsibility to stand on the right side of history, and we will hold our elected government accountable.”

Ceasefire ‘fiction’
The coalition’s statement said that despite diplomatic language and the “fiction of a ceasefire, the bombing of Gaza has not stopped”.

More than 74,200 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military, including more than 18,000 children, and about 70 percent of buildings in Gaza are damaged or destroyed.

In the West Bank, land seizures and forced displacement continue.

The protest coalition said the New Zealand government had refused to “act meaningfully against this genocide. This is complicity.” The following “lack of action” was cited:

• Silence on illegal land seizures — Even when 22 countries, including Australia, Britain and Canada, condemned the latest West Bank land seizure, New Zealand stayed silent;
• Refusal to recognise Palestine — The coalition had the chance to recognise Palestine alongside Australia, the UK and Canada, but refused, calling it a matter of “when, not if” — then did nothing;
• Blocking sanctions — Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill was denied even a first reading;
• Failure to support the ICJ case — The government does not support South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, which centres on Israel’s violations of the Genocide Convention in Gaza;
• Refusal to ban IDF holiday visas — The government will not alter the Working Holiday Scheme with Israel;
• Ignoring Rocket Lab and Black Sky concerns — The Palestine Solidarity Network of Aotearoa raised concerns with then Defence Minister Judith Collins in November 2024; she refused to investigate. On 12 August 2026, court proceedings were filed in the High Court of Wellington challenging the government’s approval of BlackSky satellites launched from the Rocket Lab site at Māhia, for spying for Israel over Gaza;
• Ongoing military cooperation — The NZDF sent its largest contingent in a decade to RIMPAC 2026, alongside Israel and the US; and
• Denying evidence of illegal abduction and torture. The government has dismissed evidence that Israel illegally abducted and tortured New Zealand citizens and tangata whenua during the Global Sumud Flotilla humanitarian mission, including videos posted by Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir himself showing him taunting and abusing detained flotilla participants.

23+ protests nationwide
More than 23 demonstrations will take place across the motu/nation on October 10, from Whangārei in the north to Waihōpai Invercargill in the south — making this one of the largest coordinated days of action for Palestine ever seen in this country,” said the protest coalition statement.

“In Tāmaki Makaurau alone, more than 50 organisations have endorsed the Auckland rally and march, which will assemble at 2pm at Te Komititanga/Britomart Square before marching to Albert Park,” the statement said.

Groups taking part include 350 Aotearoa, Alternative Jewish Voices, Amnesty International Aotearoa, Auckland Peace Action, Banners for Palestine, Bayan Aotearoa New Zealand, Council of Islamic Organisations of New Zealand, Dayenu: New Zealand Jews against Occupation, Global Sumud Flotilla Aotearoa, ISO – University of Auckland, Justice for Palestine, Kaiāwhina, Kia Ora Gaza, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, Palestinian Forum of New Zealand, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Pax Christi Aotearoa, Polynesian Panther Party Aotearoa, Stop Wars Aotearoa, Students’ Justice for Palestine, Toitū te Tiriti, and Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom Aotearoa.

The march will feature speakers spanning human rights and social justice organisations, political parties, Palestinian families and performances from local artists.

The protesters are demanding:

• Sanction Israel immediately and isolate the apartheid regime. Introduce comprehensive sanctions now, particularly targeting companies supporting illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This includes imposing an immediate arms embargo, supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, and backing Chlöe Swarbrick’s Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill;
• Uphold international law and end impunity. This includes supporting South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice;
• Recognise the State of Palestine;
• End complicity in military supply chains. Halt the export of surveillance technology and other dual-use goods that aid Israel’s military operations, including the launch of BlackSky satellites from Rocket Lab’s Māhia site;
• Expel the Israeli Ambassador and stop the diplomatic cover;
• Revoke the IDF holiday visas programme;
• Permit Palestinian families to settle in Aotearoa New Zealand, as was done for Ukrainian families; and Exit RIMPAC and Five Eyes for a robust, independent foreign policy.

Seeking to discredit reports of its unprecedented killing of journalists in Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces last week published a list of 170 slain Palestinians it claimed were not legitimate media workers but members of “terrorist groups”.

Palestinian political analyst Muhammad Shehada, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, reviewed every single entry on the list.

He called it “the most sloppy shameless fraud possible.”

• READ MORE: Al Jazeera rejects Netanyahu’s attack on journalists in UN speech
• Silencing the messenger: Israel kills journalists, while the West merely censors them — David Robie
• West Bank: RSF condemns Israeli army over escalating violence against Palestinian journalists
• Other Gaza media freedom reports

Israeli officials and Western supporters have trumpeted the IDF’s list as a counter to findings by groups like the International Federation of Journalists, which has described Israel’s nearly-three-year-old-war in Gaza as “the deadliest period in the history of journalism” and cataloged at least 240 journalists and media workers killed.

Other global media watchdogs have cited an even higher number while the Qatar-based Al Jazeera news channel has reported at least 270 killed — 12 of them being its own journalists.

Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has found dozens of cases in which it concluded journalists were targeted deliberately because of their reporting and filed multiple complaints with the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging war crimes against the press.

The database, which the IDF refers to as the “Press Files,” says “that claim does not tell the full story” and alleges that “individuals presented as innocent journalists were, in fact, militants in the military wings of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and other terrorist organisations.”

Investigating war crimes in Gaza                     Video: Al Jazeera

Claims ‘in-depth’ list
The IDF claims the list was the product of an “in-depth investigation” consisting of open-source information, documents recovered by Israeli forces in Gaza, interrogations of alleged Palestinian militants, and intelligence gathered during military operations.

But as Shehada explained in a thread posted to social media on Sunday, “in the overwhelming majority of those listed, the IDF presents ZERO credible evidence. In most of them, their pages are literally blank”.

In 59 cases, Shehada found that the IDF did not provide any evidence for its claim that a journalist was a member of Hamas or PIJ other than that the claim was “based on multiple intelligence sources”.

Shehada said this amounted to essentially saying “trust me, bro,” which is especially insufficient given the numerous instances in which the IDF has been found to have misled the public about its responsibility for certain attacks, like the killing of 5-year-old Hind Rajab in 2024.

In another 42 cases, Shehada found that the IDF provided only decontextualized “snippets” of files, which were “undated and unspecified”. Without more information, Shehada said, this is “not… evidence of anything”.

“Those snippets could be taken from random files; they could be outdated or fabricated,” Shehada said, pointing to previous cases in which purported Hamas intelligence circulated by Israeli sources was later revealed to be misleadingly presented as fabricated.

Shehada pointed to specific cases in which Israel’s allegations against specific journalists have been undermined by the underlying evidence.

Israel claimed that Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul, whom the IDF killed in July 2024, was an operative with Hamas’ elite Nukhba wing and released a supposed Hamas personnel document as proof.

Debunked by RSF
But as Reporters Without Borders has previously explained, the document says al-Ghoul, born in 1997, received a military rank in 2007, when he was 10, while elsewhere saying he joined in 2014.

It also identifies him as an engineer, contradicting the IDF’s description of him as a Nukhba fighter. Israeli troops also detained al-Ghoul at al-Shifa hospital months before he was killed but released him after 12 hours.

The case of Anas al-Sharif, another Al Jazeera journalist killed in 2025, is similar. As Shehada documented for +972 magazine last year, al-Sharif was seriously injured in 2017, listed in a military context in 2019, but described as “suspended” and “unassigned” by 2023 — while another document nevertheless portrays him as an elite Nukhba fighter. He was also reportedly detained and released by Israeli forces during the 2024 al-Shifa raid.

In other cases, the IDF’s evidence outright debunks the military’s own claims. For instance, Israel labeled photojournalist Hassan Aslih — killed by an airstrike at Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis in May 2025 — as a “military operative.”

But the 2019 Hamas document provided as evidence for this lists him as a “photographer” involved with “media services”.

While the document, if authentic, does establish a relationship between Aslih and Hamas’ Qassam Brigades at least six years before his death, this does not make him a legitimate target under international humanitarian law, which distinguishes between those who have a “continuous combat function” and those who provide political or other indirect forms of support, like media coverage.

Shehada found at least seven cases in which the only evidence provided by the IDF was photos of slain journalists holding guns. In another 12 cases, the IDF provided undated photos of journalists allegedly taking part in Hamas or PIJ military activities.

Israeli journalists’ military service
Shehada noted that many prominent Israeli journalists also have past military service, such as Axios correspondent Barak Ravid, who was an IDF reservist until 2023. “Does that make him a ‘legitimate target’? or a non-civilian forever?” Shehada asked.

The distinction between past military affiliation and active combatant status has been a repeated source of dispute for press freedom groups that have attempted to tally the number of journalists killed.

Last month, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) completed a sweeping review of 229 deaths after Hamas and PIJ published obituaries identifying some people listed as journalists as members of armed groups.

CPJ ultimately removed 22 people from its list, including some it found had participated in combat — but retained others despite militant obituaries, gun photos, or past organisational ties when the evidence did not establish active combatant status.

The “Press Files” database contains 49 cases in which the main piece of evidence is one of these obituaries. Among them are people who CPJ examined and concluded were not active combatants, such as photojournalist Amr Abu Odeh — a 26-year-old freelance photographer for the Anadolu Agency and Reuters — whom the IDF database labels a Hamas “squad commander”.

CPJ examined photos of Odeh wearing a military uniform, which came from a 2021 military training course with Gaza’s Ministry of the Interior. The group noted that “No armed factions in Gaza have claimed Abu Odeh as being affiliated with them, and the IDF has not alleged he was involved in combat”.

‘NOT engaged’ militarily
“In multiple cases, despite obituaries by Hamas/PIJ, the Committee to Protect Journalists investigated thoroughly and concluded those journalists were NOT engaged in any militant activity during the genocide,” Shehada wrote.

“They may have in the past. That doesn’t make them combatants forever.”

He added that the flimsiness of the IDF’s evidence was more striking given the sophistication of the intelligence unit it uses to “dig up dirt” on journalists to provide post hoc justification for their killings, which has been referred to internally as the “Legitimisation Cell,” which was revealed in a +972 investigation.

“If that’s all they can provide as ”evidence“ (e.g. blank pages, random snippets, outdated docs) despite having formidable resources,” Shehada wrote, “then it’s a vindication of Gaza’s journalists!”

Stephen Prager is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Republished under Creative Commons.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from Publix, the House of Journalism in Berlin, Germany.

The Pentagon is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East as President Trump considers a new escalation of the US war on Iran. The latest move adds 7000 sailors, up to 3000 Marines, to the US military presence in the region.

Today, we look at the US bombing of a children’s school in the southern Iranian city of Minab on the first day of the 2026 US-Israeli war on Iran. The bombing killed at least 156 people — 120 of them children, 26 teachers, all women. A United Nations fact-finding mission recently concluded the US strike was a war crime, but the Trump administration has not yet even acknowledged US responsibility.

Drop Site News is out this week with a devastating investigation into the bombing of the school. The article and accompanying video is headlined “Massacre at Minab: The School That Became a Grave.” We’re joined right now by investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, lead author on the report.

In a moment, Jeremy, we’ll play some of your interviews with survivors, first responders and parents. But first, Jeremy, set up what happened that day on February 28.

‘The school that became a grave.’                    Video: Democracy Now!

JEREMY SCAHILL: Thanks, Amy.

You know, we need to back up a few weeks and remember that Iran and the United States were engaged in an intense round of negotiations that were being mediated by the Sultanate of Oman, which had been the main mediator for two decades between the United States and Iran on nuclear issues and had played a major role in brokering the 2015 JCPOA agreement signed under Barack Obama.

And the Iranians were very sceptical about this process, because just some months before these negotiations, in June of 2025, when the Iranians were negotiating with the United States, the US and Israel launched surprise bombing attacks against Iran in what became known as the 12-Day War.

But the foreign minister of Oman, on February 27, had gone to the United States. He met with Vice-President JD Vance in the White House. He came out, and he told media that he was optimistic that a deal was going to be reached and that it would be historic in nature — yes, there were details to work out; nothing was guaranteed — but that there were technical talks scheduled for the following week in Vienna, Austria.

And so, when Iranians woke up on the morning of February 28, let’s remember this was a Saturday, but in Iran, Saturday is the beginning of the school and workweek, and so Iranians were, you know, paying attention to everything, but they went to bed understanding that this process was still going on, that war was very much a possibility, but not believing it was going to start imminently, because you had this next round of negotiations and you had the Omani foreign minister expressing optimism.

Well, then, as people are stuck in traffic jams, they’re getting their kids out the door for school, children start arriving at school, we get the initial reports that there are airstrikes that have happened in Tehran, the capital of Iran. And the first strikes that happened that day were on the residence and offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and so a lot of the media speculation at that point was about whether or not Iran’s supreme leader had been assassinated.

And word starts to spread very quickly across Iran and on state media that there are attacks happening throughout the country. And so, administrators and officials in provinces around Iran begin calling schools and directing principals and teachers to start having parents come to take their children home. There was going to be a shelter-in-place order.

The Iranians had been through this before.

So, as this is happening, we then start to hear shocking reports that in the southern Iranian city of Minab, a missile has slammed into a girls’ school, and we start to see images that show children and the bodies of children. And very quickly, the media narrative sort of becomes — and this is being pushed kind of by the United States — that the school had been right next to an IRGC missile facility and that it was sort of collateral damage.

We did an investigation into this. There’s been some very good reporting on this. This is not a story that we broke. But what we did is we really went deeply into what happened in the experience of Iranians who lived it that day, and by talking to teachers who survived. You know, 26 teachers were killed in this attack — one of them was pregnant — 120 children.

This was not a single bombing or collateral damage. There were at least two direct hits on a school packed with children. That was with Tomahawk cruise missiles, one of the most sophisticated weapons in the US arsenal. And a couple of hours after those initial hits, as first responders came, as parents came, the US launches more strikes.

A total, Iran says, of 13 missiles were launched. The justice minister of Iran told me, “This isn’t a double-tap — a double-tap strike; this is a triple-tap strike.”

You know, one of the most horrifying details, Amy, that we uncovered is that after the first bomb had hit near the school that morning, the teachers didn’t believe that their school would be bombed, because it was a school, and they had gathered the children, many of the children, in the schoolyard because their parents had come to pick them up.

And when the bombs hit not far away from the school, they said, “My god, we need to get everyone back into the school.” So they ushered the children back into the school. One of the teachers took some of the girls into a prayer hall inside of the school, and then, moments later, direct hit with a Tomahawk cruise missile on the school.

So, the protected site of the school, the parents and the teachers thought that they would find shelter there, and the United States directly bombed that school while they were inside.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, I want to go to the voices of the people themselves. This is an excerpt of your Drop Site News new investigation, “Massacre at Minab: The School That Became a Grave,” featuring interviews with Yaghoub Yazdanpanah. His daughter Fatemeh died in the strike. But first, this is preschool teacher Hossniyeh Salem. She survived the bombing.

HOSSNIYEH SALEM: [translated] Like any other day, I got my child ready at 7:00, because my son is in fifth grade and attended the same school. I got my child ready and headed to school.

My son went to the boys’ school, and I stayed at preschool in my own class. Our school had two floors. The upper floor was for the girls, and the downstairs was for the boys.

One section was for preschool. You can say there were three schools there. There were students there from all walks of life, children from working-class families, educators. We had all kinds of students there.

YAGHOUB YAZDANPANAH: [translated] I have to go back a little and tell you about how I chose this school. Fatemeh’s mother and I had noticed Fatemeh’s overflowing intelligence. When we would tell her a story, she would never forget the story, and she would recite the story moment by moment, word for word.

I wanted to find a very good school that would address Fatemeh’s needs and her active mind. After asking a lot of questions, I found Shajareh Tayyebeh School.

HOSSNIYEH SALEM: [translated] After the lesson started, we handed out books, and the children did their activities. I took the children to the schoolyard, the park that was in our schoolyard, so the children could play. The time was around 9:30, I think, when I was informed by a friend that the war had started and they had hit Tehran.

JEREMY SCAHILL: In the first moments of the US and Israeli bombing campaign, they strike the personal residence and offices of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. And they killed, assassinated not only Khamenei, but members of his family.

They start then striking other leadership targets of the IRGC, the elite military force of Iran; political offices in Iran; government ministries in Iran. And word starts to spread all across the country that this isn’t just like a one-off airstrike, that this does seem to, in fact, be a full-scale war.

HOSSNIYEH SALEM: [translated] Administrators said there are war conditions, and it’s better if the children go home early. We didn’t have a single thought or didn’t imagine that they may want to hit our school.

In complete calm and relaxation, we were calling families and telling them to come and take their children. As they were coming to get the kids, a number of the children had left, and some were still at the school. I first heard the sound of an explosion.

ON-SCREEN TEXT: After a missile strike nearby, some teachers ushered children back inside the school for protection.

HOSSNIYEH SALEM: [translated] The preschool children were 5 years old, and all they did was yell, “Miss! Miss!” and were crying. I ran to the children. I just said, “Get under the table!” I didn’t think they were going to hit the school. I just thought that someplace had been hit. I said, “Don’t be afraid. Sit down.”

I heard this horrible sound, and it was so close, two simultaneous sounds. They’re still in my ear. My son even describes them.

“Woosh, boom! Woosh, boom!” And then explosion. Plaster was falling. The ground was shaking. And at that moment, I just looked at my preschool girls and my son, and I said to myself, “It’s over. Now is the time when we go under the rubble. It’s going to fall now.”

Then there were no more sounds. The class was full of smoke and dust. I told my son, “Yassin, run and open the door. Let’s get out!” My preschool kids didn’t have shoes on since our classroom was carpeted. I took the children in my arms, one by one, and brought them outside. We exited from the preschool yard gate until we reached the first street.

I looked behind me, and I saw smoke and fire coming from the school office. All I said to the preschool children was, “Kids, just look in front of you. Don’t look back!”

I told everyone to run to the school because they had hit the school. “The children are under the ruins. Go save them!”

AMY GOODMAN: That’s an excerpt from Drop Site News’ new investigation, “Massacre at Minab: The School That Became a Grave.” That was preschool teacher Hossniyeh Salem. She survived the bombing. In this clip, we hear more from Yaghoub Yazdanpanah, who describes how he raced to the school to look for his little daughter Fatemeh.

YAGHOUB YAZDANPANAH: [translated] It was like something was telling my heart that the school they were talking about was Shajareh Tayyebeh. I lost it. I left my classroom, ran home, took my car and sped to Minab.

When I arrived, I said, “Oh no!” The unimaginable had happened. As soon as I arrived there, I saw there was no school left. Two-thirds of the school, maybe more, had been destroyed.

Smoke was rising from all over the school. It had turned into rubble. For a moment, I thought I was asleep and having a nightmare.

AMY GOODMAN: In this excerpt from Drop Site News’ new investigation, “Massacre at Minab: The School That Became a Grave,” we hear two Iranian Red Crescent Society emergency workers describing the utter devastation following the US strike on the Minab school.

EHSAN MOHSEN: [translated] Mothers came to me and said, “My daughter is in the classroom,” “My son is in the classroom. In God’s name, please bring me my son.”

We didn’t know how to answer these families. Each body part that was brought out from the building and taken to the ambulances, the families ran, looking to see who it was.

YAGHOUB YAZDANPANAH: [translated] People kept coming and coming to help, to remove children from under the ruins. All of us were there waiting. I, a 32-year-old father, was waiting for them to bring my daughter from under the ruins. Imagine the depth of this catastrophe and how hard it was for us.

MAJID DADANIA: [translated] There was a father with us who was searching for his two children until it was 4:00 or 5:00 at night, when his fingers no longer worked. His fingers were covered in blood. He had lost his fingernails. In that same condition, he fell asleep.

There was also a father — we had nothing to give him. All that remained was a school bag and shoes. Where we had collected the school bag and shoes, the father sat and was talking to the school bag and shoes.

He was just talking to the school bag and shoes. Nothing from his child has been recovered.

AMY GOODMAN: Again, those are two Red Crescent workers, an excerpt of Drop Site News’ new investigation, “Massacre at Minab: The School That Became a Grave.”

In March, President Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth denied the US was responsible for bombing the school. They spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One.

REPORTER: Did the United States bomb a girls’ elementary school in southern Iran on the first day of the war and kill 175 people?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.

REPORTER: Is that true, Mr. Hegseth, that it was Iran who did that?

DEFENCE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: We’re certainly investigating.

REPORTER: Still investigating?

DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH: But the only — the only side that targets civilians is Iran.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We think it was done — we think it was done by Iran.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump. In July, President Trump told a different story, appearing on Fox News, talking about the airstrike.

TREY YINGST: There are images from this site that show fragments that appear to be from US Tomahawk missiles. Is it possible that old intelligence or a mistake during a very active time in the war led to this event?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It is, but it’s also possible that those images that you have are AI-generated. … Now, I know we’re waiting for a conclusive report. I don’t think there can be a conclusive report.

AMY GOODMAN: Oh, really? So, that’s President Trump talking about the report. Jeremy Scahill, you are the co-founder of Drop Site News. This is an incredible investigation, “Massacre at Minab.” Can you respond to what Hegseth and Trump said? And talk about the state of the investigation into this deadly attack on the schools, February 28, that killed over 150 people, as you said, 120 of them children.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amy, I think there’s only two possibilities here for what actually happened that day. On the one hand, it’s possible that because Pete Hegseth came in with a tone set by Trump himself that civilian deaths don’t matter, that soldiers and military personnel should not worry about killing or injuring civilians, that they eliminated the entire department that is supposed to do civilian harm mitigation, that they used AI, including Maven systems developed by Palantir, to rush to develop as many targets as possible, that they had old satellite photos that indicated that this was a military base and not a school, and that because of that disregard for civilians and civilian life, they pushed forward and said, “We want to break records”.

They’re always talking about records — “and maximised lethality.” And so, it was a process where they didn’t care, and they just started striking everything.

On the flip side of it — and, you know, a former senior State Department official told me this — knowing what she knows about the entire system and the fact that this was struck in the first hours of the first day of this war that they had been planning, that something very sinister may well be at the core of this.

So, you know, it’s important to say, up until the year 2013, this was — this area in Minab was actually a facility that was operated by the IRGC. We obtained documents, and the satellite photos also show this clearly, showing that in 2014 the school filed for registration.

The IRGC donated the land. The province redistricted the whole area, and the IRGC actually moved most of its facilities more than 3 km away. That base, which was a publicly known base, was not hit during these attacks that morning. Instead, it was an area that was a school, a car wash, a clinic — what we would call in America a strip mall — and the only remaining IRGC building in that vicinity was an administrative office of the naval forces of the IRGC, and they had totally vacated that property after the June 2025 war.

So, what happened that day was there was literally no presence of the IRGC whatsoever there. And in fact, satellite photos from just weeks — that the public can see — from just weeks before the strike, you could see the murals on the wall. You could see the soccer field. Some of the satellite photos show shadows of tiny people playing outside.

I spoke to Wes Bryant, who used to be one of the people in charge of civilian harm mitigation at the Pentagon up until 2025. His division was the one that Hegseth shut down. And he said that under the rules in the doctrine, they should have checked the most readily available satellite imagery before launching any strike of that nature. The other thing is, Tomahawk cruise missiles have cameras on them. They can loiter. They can shift direction.

So, there are many, many questions that need to be asked about this.

This is one of the single gravest war crimes that I’m aware of since Vietnam. It’s akin to the Amariyah shelter bombing in Baghdad, Iraq, in the 1991 Gulf War, when the US dropped a bomb, a bunker buster bomb, ripped open a hole in a bunker where hundreds of civilians were, and then dropped another 2000-pound bomb directly, incinerating more than 400 people. It rises to the level of gravity of that crime.

And it’s really just shocking that there isn’t more outcry from the American public and the US Congress. This is one of the most severe war crimes. And it’s not like, you know, the tone under Obama, where he says, “Oh, oops, we tortured some folks,” or they said, you know, “We regret this.”

Trump’s people are defiant about this. And the Democrats, you know, they’re not in control of the Congress right now, but this should be front and center of foreign policy questions toward Donald Trump. If the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives, they should go after them for this. These are war crimes.

AMY GOODMAN: Has any — has any investigation been done by the US government, made public?

JEREMY SCAHILL: No, the United States Central Command is supposedly doing an investigation, but Bradley Cooper, the head of CENTCOM, lied in front of Congress and said this was an active IRGC missile base. There’s no evidence to suggest that there ever were missiles launched from this site. And this was congressional testimony.

It seems like the best-case scenario is that they kind of say this was human error, artificial intelligence and outdated maps, because the threat was so serious, and we moved forward, and, oops, this was a mistake. That would be the best-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario, in some ways, is that Trump’s people and the Pentagon just simply say, “Oh, no, this is Iranian propaganda. We still think that maybe the IRGC bombed it themselves.”

That’s why it’s so important to have actual investigations. The UN sent a commission there, and they’ve determined that it’s a war crime, just on the basis of the idea that if they used AI, if they used systems where they shut down the civilian harm mitigation and they didn’t check to see what was there before they launched the missile, that satisfies the legal barriers to indicate that a war crime, not just a crime against humanity, was committed.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, we just have 20 seconds, but the devastating pictures of — I mean, the victims are not only those who’ve died, but the children that survived, that are saying to their parents, “I wish I had been one of the martyred to be with my friends.” These last 20 seconds, the effect today?

JEREMY SCAHILL: You know, one of the drawings from the psychologist, a child just drew a severed hand. And she said, you know, that the kids feel like they did something wrong, that they don’t understand why their friends died and they weren’t able to save them.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, we have to leave it there. It is an incredibly devastating report. Jeremy is co-founder of Drop Site News. We’ll link to your new investigation and film, “Massacre at Minab: The School That Became a Grave.”

The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished by Asia Pacific Report under Creative Commons.

The seeds of resistance and later community empowerment began in Tāmaki Makaurau in a humble but lively bookshop in a rundown two-storeyed shop at 436 Queen Street. Called the Resistance Bookshop, it became the headquarters for protesters in 1969 for three years as anti-Vietnam War action grew and grew.

This was where many students, workers and radicals gathered — including the young Roger Fowler — to plan their protest action. Many of them lived in dilapidated inner-city flats within a stone’s throw of the bookshop.

As the anti-war movement gained momentum, many young men faced conscription into the New Zealand army and there were fears that conscripts would be drafted to fight in Vietnam — as was their fate in the United States and Australia.

• READ MORE: Other Roger Fowler reports

Fowler, an icon of Aotearoa protest and community empowerment, recalled how those men whose “number came up” in the archaic Compulsory Military Training (CMT) “lottery law” were ordered to report to a special train at Auckland Railway Station.

They were “transported to the Waiouru army camp to endure a harsh, three-month course of military training plus follow-up camps,” wrote Fowler.

“My number was drawn and I refused to go; instead burning my draft card at a demonstration at the US Consul’s Paritai Drive mansion.

“I organised a protest at the railway station, where fellow Resistance supporters and I handed out leaflets, encouraging the young conscripts on the train to disembark and refuse to go.

“I was later arrested for refusing to attend the army call-up, then locked up in Mt Eden prison for about three weeks for refusing the pay the fine.”

Fowler recalled that this period of “defiant non-compliance” by conscripts led to the founding of the Organisation to Halt Military Service (OHMS). Eventually, the pressure paid off when the Norman Kirk-led Labour government was elected in November 1972 — and it immediately scrapped CMT.

This saga is one of many stories of the people’s resistance that are recounted in a new book being launched next Saturday, Ponsonby People’s Union: At the Frontline of Community Activism in the 1970s, with an overview written by Roger Fowler in the months before he died earlier this year. Many activists from the era, including his wife and fellow campaigner, Dr Lyn Doherty (Ngati Porou and Ngāpuhi), have also contributed.

Arrested 20 times
He was arrested or charged more than 20 times “during those turbulent years”, and was imprisoned four times for refusing to pay fines — a political prisoner.

Reading about this period was particularly poignant for me because in 1969 I was living in Melbourne as the young activist editor of the independent Sunday Observer and being threatened with prosecution for writing an editorial urging young Australians to burn their draft cards.

I didn’t know Roger, Lyn and their whānau then. This came many years later, especially when we crossed paths over our Palestine activism with Roger founding and campaigning with the Kia Ora Gaza project in a sustained effort to break the cruel Israeli siege of the Gaza enclave to deliver humanitarian aid.

Veteran activist Roger Fowler, co-founder of the Ponsonby People’s Union and a founding member of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, died on 21 February 2026, aged 77. His whānau have put in tremendous mahi in their effort to try to complete this remarkable book before his death, and it is a compelling testament to his life, and to the comrades and activist supporters.

Fowler’s “vision, energy and guitar helped sustain a remarkable initiative in collective action” for a fairer and better community.

Back to the Resistance Bookshop.

In fact, there were three of them – one each in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. They were at the “forefront of this vibrant groundswell of protest and rebellion”. Young people, including many students, spearheaded new forms of activism such as “sit-ins, street theatre, graffiti, leaflets, protest songs and pickets”.

‘Bowels of the underground’
Countless leaflets and screen-printed posters were produced from what was dubbed “the bowels of the underground”.

Auckland’s Resistance Bookshop was also a popular rendezvous for Australian and US draft dodgers who had fled to New Zealand to escape the Vietnam War.

The Progressive Youth Movement (PYM) was at the forefront of street protests venting outrage at the pointless slaughter in Vietnam and the “brutal oppression in apartheid South Africa”.

Within walking distance of the Resistance Bookshop — few protesters had cars back then — were two popular hangouts: the Babel restaurant in Victoria Street, and the Kiwi Tavern pub in Symonds Street.

The Vietnam War protests peaked with about 35,000 taking part but eased off as NZ troops were gradually withdrawn from 1971 onwards. Committed activists began looking for a fresh “meaningful direction”.

Many of the serious radicals who had left the bookshop formed an inner city Marxist study group exploring works by Mao Zedong and Lenin, and other more modern authors analysing class struggles against capitalism.

“PMY activist and secretary Cliff Kelsall and I became friends and workmates as labourers on various building sites,” wrote Fowler. ”We started exploring ideas about urban activism, especially inspired by the appeal of Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale and George Jackson to ‘bring the war back home’, by Newton’s concept of grassroots community organising, building a global network of ‘revolutionary intercommunalism’, and by Seale’s clarion call to ‘Seize the time’.”

North Vietnamese meeting
In 1972, a group of the “young radicals” were invited to meet a visiting North Vietnamese delegation, including the mayor of Hanoi, at the Auckland University Student Union building.

“Among issues discussed,” recalled Fowler, “I asked about the idea that had been quietly floating about, of organising an international militia to support the Vietnamese struggle — similar to the International Brigades that about a dozen young Kiwis had joined up with in the 1930s to fight Franco’s fascists during the Spanish Civil War.”

Several New Zealand medics had volunteered then too, explained Fowler, including the activist and late Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt’s aunt, Rene Shadbolt.

“The startled visitors politely responded: “Thanks, but no thanks.” The Vietnamese suggested that the New Zealanders should instead support their struggle by building a “homegrown revolutionary movement”.

“Advice some of us took to heart,” noted Fowler.

This led to the foundation of an urban movement to organise around “real life struggles and developing survival skills” — useful for the then working class neighbourhoods of Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, Freeman’s Bay and Newton.

From the Resistance Bookshop, the movement had now graduated to become the Ponsonby People’s Union for Survival and Freedom (PU, for short), with its headquarters at 15 Ponsonby Road in a rundown block of shops skirting Western Park, a block long since demolished to provide more space in the reserve.

‘Clear sense of purpose’
“We decided we needed to start with a clear unified sense of purpose,” wrote Fowler. “A Ten Point Statement of Direction evolved, inspired by the Ten Point Programme adopted earlier by the US Black Panther Party.

“This statement was to become our set of guiding principles for positive practical actions and for addressing the key issues facing our community – such as substandard housing, police harassment, poor education and health services, racism, women’s rights, costly food, arbitrary evictions, and the isolation of prisoners, often in faraway prisons, from their families and loved ones, and advancing social cohesion.”

As Fowler summed up the problem-solving objective, “we aimed to advance the wellbeing, resilience, social cohesion and survival of our community and to strive for civil liberties and freedom from oppression”.

Although clearly influenced by Newton and the Black Panthers — but never a “copycat” movement, PU often operated as a “sister organisation” cooperating with the Polynesian Panthers — of anti-Dawn Raids fame — the Communist Party of New Zealand (CPNZ), PYM, Ngā Tamatoa, ACORD and “other left activist groups of the day”.

While deciding on PU’s programmes, Cliff Kelsall and Fowler met Polynesian Panthers leaders at their office in Three Lamps, Ponsonby (honoured today with a pavement panther tile), and forged a warm rapport and community partnership that lasted for the seven-year life of the union and beyond. First up for collaboration was a community food co-op.

“We wanted the co-op to engage with people and encourage them to work together as volunteers around the common goal of sustaining our households with fresh, low-cost food,” wrote Fowler.

And the movement introduced itself in 1972 through leaflets as “a community-based group of people getting together to try to solve common problems and build a real community with control over its own destiny”.

Borrowed old trucks
The Ponsonby headquarters had four upstairs bedrooms and a meeting room (plus garage space and a courtyard), so Kelsall and Fowler immediately moved in with others to help pay the rent — at $15 a week!

To get the food co-op underway, the collective borrowed old trucks from their networks, collated food orders and bought fresh vegetables and fruit in bulk from the downtown Turners & Growers markets each Monday morning.

“By cutting out the middlemen, up to half of the retail prices were slashed. And we knew the goods were fresh,” Fowler wrote.

“We would choose to buy – at rock bottom prices – spotted apples and misshapen pumpkins that no retailer wanted on their display shelves.”

The co-op was an ideal platform for supporting other struggles, especially during the 1977 Timber Workers’ Union dispute — “when we dispatched our truck packed to the roof with donated food to support workers on the picket line at Kawerau”.

The PU also helped about 300 locked out workers at the NZMC Honda car assembly plant and set up a co-op distribution depot at the Panmure Town Hall.

People’s Union activists carried on taking part in anti-Vietnam War protests and over “other issues of the day”. One of the memorable banners read: “Learn from the Vietnamese — unite to defeat our common enemies”.

China ‘educational tour’
In 1975, the NZ China Friendship Society facilitated a “workers’ educational tour” of China, which included six People’s Union activists — including Roger Fowler, his wife Lyn Doherty, and the late mayor Tim Shadbolt of Invercargill: “We visited communal farms, big worksites, and met renowned NZ author Rewi Alley.”

This was six years before I also — now living back in Aotearoa after several years in Paris, France, following the 1968 student riots — went on a Friendship Society visit to China and wrote a series of articles for The Auckland Star.

Now as a semi-retired journalist with also strong beliefs about community-owned and independent media, I was heartened to read Roger Fowler’s chapter on the PU’s independent information efforts.

Fowler wrote about this PU initiative saying: “The People’s Union started to attract the interest of some established media, though unlike other left organisations, we never courted the media. We believed it was more important for people to develop our own independent ‘people’s media’.

“However, a journalist from the Women’s Weekly followed the food co-op for her scoop one day and wrote a sympathetic article.”

In 2016, Roger Fowler and former Polynesian Panther Party members Tigilau Ness and Tuu’ulenana Iluli attended the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party in Oakland, California.

In 2025, Fowler and Ness collaborated with a vinyl album, “Songs of  Struggle and Solidarity”.

Prison whānau bus trips
Among the many projects of the PU was in 1972 starting a visitors’ weekly free bus run to Pāremoremo maximum security prison near Albany, and a monthly bus trip to Waikēria Borstal near Te Awamutu.

“These services were very popular, as both prisons were purposely located far away from any viable public transport, making family or community relationships difficult for many,” Fowler wrote.

“We once crowded about 80 people into a 55-seater bus to Waikēria. Polynesian Panther Party leader Tigilau Ness brought along his guitar and would get a big singalong going from the back seat – his ‘American Pie’ got everyone joining in the chorus, ‘Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie . . . “

The People’s Union food co-op became a key organising tool and platform, recalled Fowler, for another important “problem solving” programme – defending tenants. The PU centre became the “go-to place for local people facing issues inflicted by rapacious landlords, a major problem that plagued the area”.

Fowler pays tribute to community activist Betty Wark and her 1976 Tole Street “tent city” occupation of a public park in Ponsonby in protest for “decent housing”.

In a page devoted to her campaigning, Helene Connor is quoted saying; “Housing the homeless and utilising the buildings to their full extent became a passion for Betty. The Tole Street tent ‘village’ kept going for several months while Betty continued to look for suitable accommodation to house the group.”

Vasau family eviction
Fowler recalled “one of our most high-profile housing cases was the eviction of the Vasau family from their home in Norfolk Street, Ponsonby, in 1974”.

“A new owner had told the family to leave their family home of five years, so he could bang the rent up. They had nowhere to go, so had no choice but to stay and fight.

“One day when nobody was home the landlord seized the chance to break in and toss the family’s furniture and belongings outside.”

The People’s Union was called and activists along with neighbours moved the family’s belongings back inside and barricaded the house. Eventually, six months later the landlord returned along with a senior police officer and a court order.

The good news was that the court order along with community support actually helped the family gain a new state house in South Auckland for their home.

Police harassment “was often a problem for some of the people we worked with,” recalled Fowler. A police “task force” would parade through the streets and stop outside local pubs.

“They would intimidate people, usually in an arrogant, racist manner. They called this ‘team policing’, but the People’s Union newspaper compared them to an invading army.”

Defining historical event
The Māori Land March in 1975 “was a defining event in the history of Aotearoa — People’s Union members supported the march in many ways, whether joining with the marchers on the road, feeding them, or supplying the bus so that kaumatua could rest when they needed to”.

Fowler devoted an inspired chapter to the struggle of Takaparawhau–Bastion Point. On 6 January 1977, Ngāti Whātua’s Ōrākei Action Committee “put out an urgent call for supporters to join a tent protest” at Takaparawhau, Bastion Point.

“The vast area of open fields was under direct threat by the Muldoon government, which intended to develop the land as elite real estate for upmarket housing.”

Fowler quoted Sharon Hawke, one of the protest occupiers and the daughter of Joe Hawke, one of the leaders, declaring in Takaparawhau, the people’s story: “This was to become one of the greatest shows of strength in modern [NZ] history.”

“The protest camp evolved into a formidable village occupation that stood firm on the disputed land, until evicted by 600 police 506 days later. The uniting catchcry was: ‘Bastion Point is Māori Land’.”

People’s Union activists were there in the protest from the beginning. The land was “unprotected, windswept terrain exposed to the elements which can be very harsh”. The PU advocated the need to build shelters and huts rather than relying on tents. Some people were able to bring on caravans.

Activists from the PU hired a large rotary hoe to help dig vegetable gardens and the protest community rapidly grew into a “living village” — it was “transformed into a vibrant marae”.

Lyn Doherty and Roger Fowler lived in the protest village “in a little tin shack at the rear of Arohanui [the wharenui] — cooking toasted sandwiches for breakfast on a small methylated spirits burner each morning”.

Shameful Bastion Point raid
On 25 May 1978, a massive police operation moved to evict and demolish the village. On that fateful morning, 222 Ngāti Whātua and supporters were arrested and all the buildings were demolished and removed in a shameful repressive action by the state.

“But although we lost the battle,” recalled Fowler, “we won the war — the land remains as public space under Ngāti Whātua control.”

The Ponsonby food co-op grew until about 600 local households were taking part by the end of the 1970s. But the inner Auckland suburbs of Ponsonby and Grey Lynn and their demographics were rapidly changing. Old houses were being sold and renovated as the suburbs were being “gentrified” and rundown shops were being converted into cafes, restaurants and fashion boutiques.

Sadly, the final edition of People’s Union community newspaper in April 1979 announced the closure of the Ponsonby People’s Union, saying “the need for an ‘umbrella’ organisation to coordinate a wide range of community action (from prison visiting to food co-ops) is no longer necessary”.

However, Roger Fowler and whānau expanded their community activism to their new home in Māngere East, where Roger drove buses and was an Engineers Union delegate before managing the Mangere East Community Learning Centre.

In 1999, he was awarded the Queens Service Medal for community service.

Roger and Lyn have four children — Tawera, Hone, Maia and Kahutia — and 11 mokopuna.

Besides the book’s overview by Roger Fowler, there are 22 contributed chapters by activists in an 18-page section titled “Other activists’ voices”. This includes essays by Sir Bob Harvey, David Williams, Dr Lyn Doherty (“The shooting of Daniel Houpapa – a gross miscarriage of justice”), Vivian Hutchinson, Wayne Toleafoa, Rod Davis, Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua, Anna and Barry Lee, Catherine Manning (a profile on her mother Pat Hammond), Joris de Bres, Fuimaono Norman Tuiasau, and Tigilau Ness (“A legacy to pass onto our children”).

As well as the historical record of a remarkable era in the 1970s, the book is adorned with a superb gallery of photographs and graphic art. The Fowler whānau have worked extraordinarily hard to bring this publication to fruition after Roger’s death. A labour of love.

Something new that I learned from reading the book is that along with being such an influential activist and strategic organiser, protest entertainer and singer, Roger Fowler was also a gifted political cartoonist. Such extraordinary talent.

In the foreword, Nick Bollinger sums up: “Even though Roger writes in this book that ‘we never considered ourselves as part of a “youth culture” or so-called “alternative counterculture”, when I look back the People’s Union for Survival and Freedom stands out as perhaps the most inspiring application of countercultural ideals. I am very glad its story — and Roger’s — is at last being told in these pages.”

And so am I.

• Ponsonby People’s Union: At the Frontline of Community Activism in the 1970s, overview by Roger Fowler, and contributors (Steele Roberts), 2026, 102 pages.
• Two book launch events: Saturday, 3 October 2026, 1pm-3.30pm, The Ponsonby Community Centre, 20 Ponsonby Terrace, Auckland.
  Sunday, 11 October 2026, 1-4pm, Whare Wānanga, Level 2, Tāmaki Pātaka Kōrero – Auckland Central Library, 44/46 Lorne St, CBD.

AGAINST THE CURRENT: By Steven Cowan

The ferocity with which sections of the New Zealand right have moved to discredit Nicky Hager’s new book Dirty Work before even turning a page tells its own story.

It is the same reflexive hostility that has greeted every major investigation Hager has produced over the past three decades: a rush to delegitimise, to sneer, to dismiss, all before the evidence has been examined.

But this time the haste has been almost comical. Within hours of the book’s release, Newstalk ZB’s Tim Beveridge — who could not possibly have read it — declared it “junk” and banned callers from discussing it on his overnight show.

• READ MORE: Other Nicky Hager reports

Beveridge’s contempt was not grounded in analysis; it was a strike against uncomfortable truths. His close association with Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers’ Union, a regular guest on Beveridge’s Saturday afternoon show, only underscores how tightly woven these networks of mutual reinforcement have become. When a book threatens the legitimacy of that ecosystem, the ecosystem responds like a single organism.

National Party MP and former minister Chris Penk, too, performed the same ritual denunciation. In a column for Stuff, he admitted he had not read Dirty Work — then proceeded to attack it anyway.

Penk reduced Hager’s investigation to a caricature: “a person with left-wing views disagrees with people with right-wing views.”

Penk’s dismissal was not an argument; it was another conservative signal that the book should be treated as illegitimate and unworthy of engagement.

But more revealing still was the intervention of Dane Giraud, a member of the Free Speech Union (FSU) and a committed Zionist defender of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. According to Giraud, those who take Hager seriously belong to an “elite intelligentsia” suffering from something he calls “Free Speech Union derangement”.  This “elite (liberal) intelligentsia” is apparently inherently hostile to an organisation like the FSU because it is an authentic grassroots movement representing everyday working-class people.

FSU’s dishonest portrayal
This is a thoroughly dishonest portrayal of the FSU. It is not a working-class organisation that has emerged organically from within the workplace. It is a rebranded conservative lobby group, born out of the Taxpayers’ Union in 2018 and co-founded by corporate and political operatives including Jordan Williams. Its board includes several committed Zionists, and its campaigns consistently align with the interests of the political right.

To describe such an organisation as “grassroots” is not merely dishonest; it is an appropriation of working-class language for elite political ends. Traditional unions are democratic institutions funded and governed by workers themselves. They exist to bargain collectively, to protect wages, to improve safety, to build solidarity.

The FSU, by contrast, operates as a top-down lobby group focused on legal interventions, media pressure campaigns, and cultural warfare. It is structurally indistinguishable from the constellation of conservative advocacy outfits that have proliferated over the past decade — groups that claim to defend “free speech” while consistently mobilising against progressive movements, academic institutions, and public broadcasters.

Giraud’s rhetorical manoeuvre — painting critics as elitist while presenting the FSU as authentically proletarian — is a classic deflection. It shifts attention away from the organisation’s funding sources, political alliances, and ideological commitments. It reframes scrutiny as snobbery.

But Hager’s work has never been about cultural disdain; it has been about mapping the hidden architecture of influence. Dirty Politics exposed how attack blogs, political strategists, and wealthy donors coordinated smear campaigns. Dirty Work continues that tradition by tracing how lobby groups like the Taxpayers’ Union and their offshoots shape public debate while presenting themselves as neutral civic actors. To investigate such structures is not “derangement”. It is democratic hygiene.

The right’s panic over Dirty Work is therefore unsurprising. Hager’s investigations threaten the mythology that groups like the FSU and the Taxpayers Union depend on: the myth of independence, the myth of grassroots authenticity, the myth of representing “ordinary New Zealanders” rather than well-connected political networks.

When those myths are punctured, the public can see these organisations for what they are — professionalised advocacy machines that weaponise culture-war grievances to advance conservative interests.

A shadow infrastructure
From a left-wing perspective, Dirty Work is invaluable precisely because it illuminates the machinery of contemporary conservative politics. It shows how consent is manufactured, how outrage is cultivated, how media ecosystems are manipulated, and how lobby groups coordinate narratives across platforms. It reveals the connective tissue linking talkback hosts, political operatives, advocacy groups, and sympathetic MPs.

Furthermore, it does not claim that these actors are engaged in a grand conspiracy; rather, it shows how shared interests, ideological alignment, and personal networks create a shadow infrastructure of influence that operates largely out of public view.

If the book has a limitation, it is that it stops short of connecting these dynamics to the deeper failures of capitalism itself — the structural incentives that reward polarisation, the economic interests that benefit from deregulation and austerity, the corporate funding streams that sustain lobby groups committed to shrinking the public sphere.

But even without that broader analysis, Dirty Work arms progressives with the factual ammunition needed to challenge the narratives that dominate New Zealand’s political discourse. It exposes the machinery behind the manufactured outrage, the faux-populism, and the relentless attacks on public institutions.

The right’s rush to bury the book before reading it is not a sign of confidence. It is a sign of fear. Hager has once again pulled back the curtain, and those who prefer to operate in the shadows are scrambling to turn off the lights.

Republished from Steven Cowan’s blog Against The Current with permission.

• Dirty Work: The Taxpayers’ Union and New Zealand’s Hard Right, by Nicky Hager, 2026 (Potton & Burton).

Al Jazeera has rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attack against the network during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, the news channel reports.

In a statement on Friday, Al Jazeera Media Network said it “categorically rejects” Netanyahu’s remarks, regarding them as the latest example of Israel’s “sustained campaign against Al Jazeera and its journalists”.

In his address at the UNGA on Thursday, where he attacked critics of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and pogroms in the occupied West Bank, Netanyahu singled out Al Jazeera.

• READ MORE: Al Jazeera rejects Netanyahu’s remarks about the network in his address to the UN General Assembly
• Al Jazeera decries ‘unfounded’ Israeli claims about its Gaza journalists
• ‘Baseless lies meant to sanitise his genocide’ – Mayor Mamdani hits back after Netanyahu’s attacks during UN speech
• Other Gaza media freedom reports

He called the network one of the world’s “toxic media outlets” that intends to “brainwash young minds to hate Israel”.

Al Jazeera said Netanyahu wanted to stop the outlet from “reporting facts from the ground, documenting events, providing context and ensuring that a range of voices and perspectives are heard”.

Further rejecting Netanyahu’s verbal assault, Al Jazeera said the fact that “such rhetoric was delivered from the podium of the United Nations is a matter of particular concern, given the threat such rhetoric poses to the safety of Al Jazeera journalists working in the field”.

“This rhetoric cannot be separated from the heavy toll borne by Al Jazeera’s journalists in Gaza,” the network’s statement added.

Israel’s war on journalists -targeting Al Jazeera               Video: Al Jazeera

270+ journalists killed in Gaza
More than 270 journalists have been killed in Gaza during Israel’s genocidal onslaught. At least 12 of the victims had been reporting for Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera said the network “has lost a number of journalists and camera operators while they were carrying out their work. Some were subjected to campaigns of incitement and vilification before being targeted”.

Of the more than 75,000 people killed in Gaza, at least 706 are family members of journalists of Palestinian journalists, according to the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate.

Israel has repeatedly cracked down on Al Jazeera and used pressure campaigns against Qatar.

Two years ago, Israel’s cabinet voted to shut down Al Jazeera in the country, immediately ordering the closure of its offices and a ban on the network’s broadcasts. This came after Israel’s Knesset passed a law allowing the government to temporarily close down foreign media outlets it deemed a “threat to security”.

“These measures do not target Al Jazeera alone; they also undermine the right of every person to access truthful information and independent journalistic coverage,” Al Jazeera said on Friday.

It added that “the role of journalism is to provide the world with facts and context, while respecting the right and ability of individuals to assess sources and form their own opinions.”

Republished by Pacific Media Watch from Al Jazeera.

With the US midterm elections just weeks away, US President Donald Trump’s administration is trying to put a positive spin on a war with Iran that shows no sign of letting up, reports the Al Jazeera media watch programme Listening Post.

Climbing fuel and grocery prices, the president’s provocative social media posts and the Pentagon’s combative relationship with the media are making that story harder to sell.

Contributors:
Laicie Heeley – Editor-in-chief, Inkstick
Mark Kimmitt – Former US Assistant Secretary of State
Negar Mortazavi – Host, The Iran Podcast
Samira Mohyeddin – Founder, On The Line Media

On our radar:
Revelations from Israeli newspaper Haaretz about what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knew before the October 7 attacks have ignited a firestorm in the country. Netanyahu calls the reporting fabricated and is threatening to sue. Ryan Kohls reports.

How covid coverage broke trust in the US:
Six years on from the start of the pandemic, covid-19 is back in the headlines — and so are questions about how newsrooms covered it.

The Listening Post’s Nicholas Muirhead on how the pandemic broke trust in the US.

Featuring:
Amesh Adalja – Infectious Disease Physician, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
Frances E Lee – Co-author, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us
Jeanne Lenzer – Investigative Medical Journalist

The Listening Post, 13 September 2026.

Reaching communities beyond Pacific capitals must remain at the heart of journalism as technology creates new ways for the region to share its stories, says Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Opening the 8th Pacific Media Summit in Savusavu, Rabuka said the vast distances separating Pacific communities should not prevent people from being informed, heard and connected.

The summit theme, “Reaching the Remote: Media and Digital Innovation for a Connected Blue Pacific,” reflected a challenge that was bigger than technology.

• READ MORE: Rabuka urges Pacific media to verify facts, warns over rise of AI
• Other PINA reports

“Connectivity is more than just technological issue. It is a development issue. It is an inclusion issue. It is a resilient issue,” Rabuka said.

For communities far from major centres, he said access to reliable information could affect their ability to access services, participate in national discussions and respond during emergencies.

Rabuka said this was particularly important during cyclones, floods and other disasters, when accurate and timely information could save lives.

He urged Pacific journalists to go beyond reporting from capital cities and document what was happening in communities across the region.

“Reaching the remote means reaching the people,” he said.

Pacific responsibility
Rabuka said Pacific reporting also had a responsibility to take the region’s own experiences to wider audiences.

He pointed to issues including climate change, oceans, fisheries, natural resources, poverty, inequality, economic pressures and transnational crime as matters that needed to be reported through the experiences of Pacific communities.

“These are not simply statistics. They are stories about people, families, communities and livelihoods,” he said.

He said the Pacific should not be defined only by outside reporting.

“The Pacific should not only be spoken about. The Pacific must also speak for itself,” Rabuka said.

While technology could expand the reach of Pacific journalism, Rabuka said it also created greater responsibility for journalists to maintain professional standards.

He warned that information could reach thousands of people before it had been properly checked, while artificial intelligence, synthetic content and digital manipulation were creating new challenges for newsrooms.

Stronger media literacy
Rabuka said journalists needed to verify information and citizens needed stronger media literacy to assess what they see and hear.

“We need citizens who can question what they see and hear. We need journalists who can verify information and we need newsrooms that can adapt to new technologies while protecting professional standards,” he said.

He also linked responsible journalism to the role of the media in a democracy, saying journalists must continue to question institutions, investigate issues and hold those in positions of power accountable.

Rabuka said disagreement between governments and the media was normal in a democracy and should not prevent dialogue.

Instead, he said, differences should encourage better questions, better information and better decisions.

The Prime Minister also announced the establishment of the Pacific Centre for Communications and Journalism, through a partnership between Fiji National University and the Fijian Media Association (FIMA).

The centre will provide a platform for professional training, research, regional cooperation and the development of future Pacific media leaders, with a focus on digital journalism, media literacy and the responsible use of emerging technologies.

Rabuka said strengthening Pacific journalism would require cooperation between governments, media organisations, civil society, academia, development partners and stronger regional media networks.

He said the goal should be a media sector capable of adapting to technological change while retaining the professional standards that underpin public trust.

Prishanta Sharma is a third-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific (USP), Laucala Campus. She was sponsored by PINA and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to participate in a pre-summit workshop in Savusavu.

Fiji Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has urged Pacific journalists to check and verify information before disseminated it to the public, warning that the rise of artificial intelligence, synthetic content and digital manipulation had added to the challenges facing journalists.

Speaking at the opening of the 8th PINA Pacific Media Summit in Savusavu, Fiji, yesterday, he said headlines could reach thousands of people before facts were properly checked and verified.

False claims, he added, could spread before accurate information reached the public.

• READ MORE: In the wake of MIDA, Fiji’s news industry has turned full circle for media freedom
• Other PINA reports

“This is why professional standards matter more than ever,” he said.

He said his call for caution was not a call for journalists to remain silent.

“This is not a call for silence. It is a call for responsible journalism.”

Inflamed social tensions
He called for greater caution, especially, when reporting issues that could inflame social tensions or contribute to conflict, particularly as information spreads rapidly online.

“Information can travel across the world in seconds or in fractions of a second,” he said.

He said digital innovation should strengthen public understanding and regional co-operation rather than become a tool for misinformation, disinformation or sensationalism that divided communities.

Rabuka also called for greater media literacy, saying citizens needed to question what they saw and heard, while journalists needed to verify information.

He said newsrooms also needed to adapt to emerging technologies while maintaining professional standards.

“Freedom also comes with responsibility.”

He said a free, independent and professional media remained important to a healthy democracy.

‘Check Pacific’ launched
Pacnews correspondent Pita Ligaiula reports that Cook Islands News editor Rashneel Kumar has called for Pacific media, civil society and universities to work together to tackle the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation across the region.

Speaking at the media summit, he introduced “Check Pacific”, a new platform aimed at bringing regional organisations and practitioners together to respond to misinformation.

“We want our civil societies, our media practitioners, and universities to come together and work together to actually battle this misinformation,” he said.

Kumar said misinformation and disinformation were major challenges for Pacific countries, particularly given the region’s geographical remoteness and separation.

Republished with permission.

After facing public scrutiny, some of the members of different Māori delegations to Israel have spoken out about the trip.

The trips were reported to have been organised and funded by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with conflicting claims over whether they were fully or partially funded. The Israeli Embassy has declined to confirm the details.

The trip was advertised under the banner of “business and innovation”.

• READ MORE: ‘Is it NZ First, or Israel First?’ Ormsby challenges NZ foreign minister Peters
• Māori delegation’s Israel trip under scrutiny over funding and itinerary
• Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission of Inquiry finds
• Other Gaza reports

But questions remained on why Māori leaders were going to Israel, while its government is committing a genocide in Gaza.

‘The other side of the story’
One of the people who have just recently come back from the trip was Iwi leader Renata Hakiwai, who believed the trip was to promote Israel and to “provide the other side of the story”.

He claims the trip was partly due to personal reasons as well.

“I have interest in business technology and innovation, and the cohort was about business technology and innovation,” he said.

“As a child, you learn around the Bible, and as a Christian, I thought, ‘Wow, this is a good opportunity for me to visit some of these sites’.”

Before going, Hakiwai stated he had “anti-Semitic thoughts”, but his mind was changed after the visit.

He called himself a “truth seeker” and pointed to social media’s algorithm for people believing certain stories over others, which was one of the reasons he went.

“One thing I found is that you get an algorithm on TikTok or social media, and it can totally consume someone’s brain with a certain subject, and I had to check myself.

“I started learning the other side, and some of the history, and some of the reasons as to why things have been happening, and that’s sort of the reason why I thought, ‘Actually, I need to go and hear what’s on the ground and some of the truths’.

“And so it changed my mind totally.

“I haven’t swung right to the other side, but I think my view is probably a little bit more balanced.”

Hakiwai admits he did not speak to any Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank, but did visit the Gaza Envelope, an area of southern Israel bordering the Gaza Strip.

When asked by Te Ao with Moana whether he could present a balanced view without speaking to people in Gaza and the West Bank, he instead pointed to the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023.

“I think to myself, if my daughter or my young fellow or kids were at that concert, I would want ultimate revenge.

“Obviously, Israel came down hard. Have they come down too hard? Potentially,” said Hakiwai.

“I didn’t read too much into the UN stuff, because I even know at the UN there’s opposing views depending on what side of the board you sit on,” said Hakiwai.

He also said he did not believe a two-state solution would work because of Hamas.

Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN finds        Video: UNNews

‘They didn’t really like being asked the hard questions’
Indigenous lawyer Maui Solomon was invited on the trip but was later excluded for asking “hard questions”.

“I was maybe half an hour talking with [the organiser], and I just did not have a good vibe because I was asking the hard questions. And to be fair to Riki [Manarangi], actually, he said, ‘Ask the hard questions’. But yeah, they didn’t really like being asked the hard questions,” he told Te Ao with Moana.

Solomon said he had already intended not to go before being kicked out of the group.

He claims to have tried showing those in the delegation what happened to Māori who supported Palestine in Israel.

“I also posted to the group a video of Hāhona Ormsby, a Māori who had been there as part of the flotilla delivering aid into Gaza. He says in that video that he was captured, he was bound, he was beaten, he was tortured, he was kneed in the genitals. And he was singled out because he was Māori. He’s got a full mataora.

“As a result of that, I was excluded because I was ‘fear-mongering’.

“So I was merely highlighting what some of the concerns were, but then I was accused of just buying into all of the fear-mongering, and someone accused me of being an algorithm.”

He believes the trip was to promote the people of Israel as “Indigenous”, not a “business and innovation” trip.

“I’d also heard that Israel had been bringing Indigenous peoples from Australia and Canada and the United States over there.

“But that’s what seems to be the agenda is for the State of Israel to say they have the support of Indigenous peoples around the world, and therefore they are also Indigenous.

“Some of the comments I’ve heard from former delegates who have been there is exactly that. It’s all been pro-Israel, State of Israel, and that they are Indigenous to the region, so whether there’s been a brainwashing going on or whatever?”

Solomon said it’s concerning that the Israeli government was reaching out to Aotearoa.

In saying that, adding that he might have gone if there was more transparency and the delegation was allowed to enter Gaza to see what was happening first-hand.

‘I want to make decisions myself’
Former Broadcaster Neil Waka went on the 2025 delegation after being shoulder-tapped to join.

He told Te Ao with Moana he “hesitantly” said yes.

Waka said he did not regret going to Israel, despite the deaths happening in Gaza — more than 75,000, mostly women and children, have been killed since October 2023.

“People are very ferocious about their thinking around Israel and Gaza. I know they are, but I don’t have to agree with them because they think a certain way, and I certainly don’t follow trends.

“I want to make decisions myself over whether or not I believe certain things, and it all came back to the ideologies to me.

“It just came back to this organisation wants a complete eradication of Israel. This organisation wants to just exist,” said Waka.

When questioned on whether he spoke to any Palestinian people in their own space, Waka immediately said: “No, I never wanted to”.

“For me, personally, I didn’t trust that that was a place [Gaza] that I’d be safe.”

Similar to Hakiwai, the former broadcaster doesn’t believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

“Yeah, look, some people can say it is, but a genocide is the absolute ethnic cleansing or eradication of a people. That’s not happening.

“That’s just not happening because Israel has the power to do that if they wanted to. Now, if they did that, if they threw in nukes and just cleaned up the whole of Gaza, evil. They’re not doing that.”

He instead blames the current state of Gaza on Hamas, not Israel.

Te Ao with Moana pointed out similarities between Waka’s talking points and those of the Israeli government.

“I’m just going on what my feeling is. Did I feel comfortable being there all the time? No. Did I feel comfortable that I could talk to whomever I wanted to? Yes. Do I agree with everything that happens on both sides? No.

“I don’t think anyone’s perfect in this. What I find the most fascinating is that one side is being globally attacked.”

First published by Te Ao Māori News and republished with permission.

• Watch Te Ao with Moana on Māori+, every Monday at 8 pm.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

We profile a remarkable new documentary about Paulo Freire, the acclaimed Brazilian educator whose revolutionary approach to teaching connected literacy to critical thinking and democratic participation.

In the early 1960s, Freire led an experiment in adult education in the northeastern Brazilian town of Angicos that helped hundreds of rural adults learn to read and write in just 40 hours.

Freire rejected rote memorisation, instead favouring culture circles, where students and educators drew on their own lives to learn vocabulary and develop critical consciousness.

But the experiment was abruptly halted in 1965, when Brazil’s military overthrew President João Goulart in a US-backed coup. The literacy campaign was dismantled. Students burned their books out of fear of persecution. Paulo Freire himself was imprisoned and forced into exile for 16 years.

The new documentary, Reading the World, draws on rare archival footage of the 1960s Brazil and weaves together the memories of farmers, students, educators who took part in the culture circles. This is the film’s trailer.

NEWSREEL: [translated] In Angicos, a small town of Rio Grande do Norte, next to an old railway station, a revolution has begun.

MARIA MIRANDA GOMES: [translated] Before the school came, I didn’t even know how to sign my name, because I had never gone to school.

LUZIA DE ANDRADE: [translated] No one cares about poor people who don’t know anything. They taught us that if we studied, we could be citizens.

PAULO ALVES DE SOUZA: [translated] Paulo Freire, for us, was a symbol of kindness in our lives. I had the seeds of education planted in my chest directly by him.

MARCOS GUERRA: [translated] At the time, Brazil was living through a period of great political fervoUr. There was a desire to change things, a desire to transform the country.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is another clip from Reading the World that features Paulo Freire himself, speaking in 1975.

PAULO FREIRE: [translated] At that moment, the literacy students realise that transforming reality through their work, actions and reflections is a way to create and recreate the world.

And they take on the role of a transformer, not of an object.

AMY GOODMAN: The film Reading the World, or Lendo o Mundo, focuses on a time in Paulo Freire’s life before he wrote the famous book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It comes as Brazil prepares for its general election next month.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is up for reelection. His challengers include Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is now in prison for his role in the 2022 coup attempt. Lula and Paulo Freire were longtime allies.

For more, we’re joined by Catherine Murphy, co-director of Reading the World, which recently premiered here in New York and will air on PBS WORLD Channel on October 9. And we’re joined by Maria Luisa Mendonça, a consulting producer on the documentary, director of the Network for Social Justice and Human Rights in Brazil.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! In fact, President Lula just met with the New York mayor, Mamdani, yesterday here in New York. Tell us about Lendo o Mundo. Tell us about this amazing documentary, Reading the World.

Reading The World                          Video: Democracy Now!

CATHERINE MURPHY: Well, thank you so much for having us.

You know, Paulo Freire was one of the most influential educators of the past century and is still widely studied all around the world. But the studies often focus on his ideas, his philosophies, his books, and much less is known about his original praxis, the beginning, those early on-the-ground, in-the-trenches, grassroots-level experiences that Paulo Freire had in the years leading up to writing Pedagogy of the Oppressed and his other first books.

And that’s exactly what we ask in this film. We explore these years leading up to writing his first books. And we ask: Who were his closest collaborators? What was that collective that he was working with? And importantly, we ask: Who were the students?

How can we look at this experience through their eyes and through their words, their voices, and sort of see them as co-creators of this methodology that continues to make impacts around the world?

Brazil at the time was highly feudal and colonial. One percent of the population owned the vast majority of the arable land. In the northeast, 70 percent of people were illiterate, could not read and write. And if you couldn’t read and write, you could not vote. So, it was also prohibited to do any kind of rural union organising. So, these were these institutionalised, intersecting ways to keep the majority of people outside of any personal and political empowerment. And this was the Brazil that Freire and his collaborators were seeking to change.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Maria Luisa, could you talk — what was — what was revolutionary or unusual about Paulo Freire’s methods, his pedagogical methods?

MARIA LUISA MENDONÇA: Yes, I think one of the most important points of his philosophy is that everyone has knowledge. So, when he started this group, teaching farmers, farm workers that sometimes didn’t even get paid with money — sometimes they just worked for food — in a very poor area, very remote area in the countryside in the northeast of Brazil, when they gathered together, they felt that they had knowledge.

So, the key point about Paulo Freire’s philosophy is that everyone has knowledge. And teaching is about exchanging knowledge, and it’s about seeing the world around you. So, teaching has — needs to have meaning, and learning needs to make sense for people from the concrete reality where they live.

And I think this is something that is very needed in all levels of education all over the world.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Catherine, as Brazil prepares for its elections this year, what does your film show so powerfully in the lessons of Paulo Freire that are necessary to keep alive today?

CATHERINE MURPHY: Well, I think it’s important to understand that the demands of the grassroots movements in the early 1960s, when Paulo Freire was working, remain the demands of grassroots movements in Brazil today. For a more democratic and more just Brazil, with greater access to quality education, with expanded voting rights, with political representation through people and sectors of the society that have been historically excluded — women, Afro-Brazilians and Indigenous people — representing themselves and the country, the real Brazil, also advancing labor rights and labor relations, and, importantly, this land justice and land tenure issue, which is still such a huge problem in Brazil today.

So, these issues which were the core of the early 1960 movements are defining, at the core of the presidential debate now and what will be the future vision of the nation.

AMY GOODMAN: The 1964 coup, what happened to Paulo Freire?

CATHERINE MURPHY: So, Paulo Freire was arrested soon after the coup. He was taken to jail for 70 days and forced into exile, during which time he lived all over the world and started writing his books, and wrote his first books, Pedagogy of the Oppressed and others.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain Pedagogy of the Oppressed, this seminal work.

CATHERINE MURPHY: Yes. So, Paulo Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was really largely based on this Angicos experience and his first experiences in Brazil, looking at how to democratise education, to democratise the entire society.

And after he left Brazil, Pedagogy of the Oppressed circulated clandestinely in Brazil during the years of the dictatorship and circulated openly around the rest of the world.

But then, Paulo Freire also engaged with a number of adult education projects around the world during those two decades that he was out of Brazil, notably in Guinea-Bissau working with Mário Cabral, in Nicaragua working with Fernando Cardenal, and working with grassroots social justice educators all over the world, including in the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to end with Paulo Freire in his own words from the film Reading the World.

PAULO FREIRE: [translated] I said that we had to challenge the illiterate adults and the groups of illiterate adults, challenge them with certain representations of the concrete reality they experienced.

The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License and is republished under Creative Commons.

In 2023, Fiji’s Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) was scrapped, marking a significant moment for Fiji’s media landscape.

A year later, at the PINA Media Summit in Niue, Fijian journalists spoke openly about rebuilding — of a media industry that was learning to find its feet again, reclaim its confidence and, importantly, rediscover its freedom.

At that Niue meeting, we lobbied and won the bid to bring 2026 PINA Summit to Fiji.

• READ MORE: Other PINA Pacific media summit reports

This week, we are in Savusavu and with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka choosing to attend and officially open the summit almost four years after his government threw out MIDA, it feels like a full circle has been completed.

The Prime Minister’s announcement that Fiji National University will partner with the Fijian Media Association to establish a media training centre in Suva was the icing on the cake.

It is a significant commitment to strengthening journalism skills, professional development and the future of Fiji’s media industry.

Allowed media space
Love him or hate him, Prime Minister Rabuka has maintained an open and accessible relationship with Fijian journalists. He has taken questions, faced tough interviews and allowed the media space to scrutinise his government and his decisions.

For an industry that has spent years navigating uncertainty, rebuilding trust and finding its voice, having the Prime Minister open the regional media summit in Fiji — and announce support for journalist training — was more than symbolic.

It was a reminder of how far we have come, and how much further we still have to go.

Republished from Fiji Times managing digital editor Anish Chand’s social media post with permission. He is a former Fiji TV news operations manager.

Journalists in the Pacific have been encouraged to investigate how climate change funding is managed and whether financial assistance reaches communities affected by disasters.

Speaking during the Climate Change and Corruption Roundtable for Pacific journalists at Daku Resort in Savusavu yesterday, Pacific UNODC OIC’s Regional Anti-Corruption Adviser Marie Pegie Cauchois highlighted the importance of integrating integrity into disaster preparedness beyond the provision of food and equipment.

Cauchois explained that preparedness should also ensure community members have access to relevant councils and opportunities to have their voices heard, particularly when decisions affect their communities.

• READ MORE: Pacific media summit to set direction for next decade of Pacific media
• Other PINA reports

“Integrity is to be built in from the get-go into preparedness,” she said.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Pacific Integrity Toolkit for Disaster Planning aims to serve as a bridge between national disaster management organisations and integrity-related institutions, which may not always work closely together.

Cauchois said the toolkit had undergone a soft launch the previous year, following presentations to disaster management authorities in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, before an official launch earlier this year involving national disaster management representatives, civil society, persons with disabilities, and UN personnel.

While UNODC hopes the toolkit will be used across Pacific Island countries, Cauchois said efforts were still underway to generate interest among national disaster management organisations.

The toolkit is intended to help connect disaster management and integrity institutions, ensuring that integrity measures are incorporated into preparedness systems, even when they are not explicitly labelled as anti-corruption measures.

Looking ahead, Cauchois said UNODC was in discussions with partners about conducting a pilot project in Fiji, while efforts to implement a pilot in Tuvalu had faced funding challenges.

Journalists were encouraged to examine how national disaster management organisations incorporated integrity into their work and used questions about accountability from the toolkit when engaging with these institutions.

Cauchois emphasised that the toolkit was designed to benefit communities, particularly vulnerable people who needed access to support when disasters occurred.

“It’s not a tool for itself, it’s a tool for the community,” she said.

The importance of this approach was further highlighted during a panel discussion, where journalists shared experiences involving climate-related funding and disaster recovery projects in Fiji.

Questions surrounding climate adaptation funding
A senior journalist at The Fiji Times, Anish Chand, discussed the importance of investigating the relationship between climate funding received by countries and actual progress in climate adaptation.

Chand referred to a Fiji adaptation programme that reportedly involved about F$25 million (NZ$19.5 million) and was intended to support adaptation initiatives in smaller villages.

He explained that after several years the programme was reportedly withdrawn because the necessary agreements and documentation had not been provided.

Chand said journalists could investigate how climate-related funds were allocated, who managed them, and whether the intended projects were being implemented.

He also pointed to challenges journalists faced when attempting to access official information, noting that limited access to information could make it difficult to examine climate-related projects and financial decisions.

Lessons from post-cyclone recovery reporting
Fiji Sun journalist Ivamere Nataro shared her experience reporting on Fiji’s recovery efforts following Tropical Cyclone Winston in 2016.

Nataro explained that her investigations examined the management of funds allocated to school reconstruction and housing assistance programmes following the cyclone.

She said her reporting raised concerns about transparency, procurement processes, and the awarding of contracts to companies involved in reconstruction and the supply of building materials.

Nataro also discussed reports of families who received electronic cards intended to assist with rebuilding damaged homes but allegedly continued waiting for building materials or construction assistance.

She stressed that issues relating to disaster funding should not be considered outdated simply because several years had passed, as communities might still be affected by incomplete projects and unresolved questions about public funds.

Her experience demonstrated how journalists could continue following up on disaster recovery programmes, even years after a disaster has occurred.

Creating space for accountability reporting
The perspectives shared by Anish Chand and Ivamere Nataro highlighted the importance of sustained investigative reporting on climate change funding, disaster preparedness, and recovery programmes.

As climate-related funding and disaster preparedness continue to affect Pacific communities, the toolkit could provide journalists with another means of bringing transparency and accountability issues into public discussion.

Prishanta Sharma is a third-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus. She was sponsored by PINA and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to participate in the pre-summit workshop in Savusavu. Republished as a collaboration between Wansolwara and Asia Pacific Report.

Last Saturday, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto was in the middle of a speech when he stopped talking, wiped his eyes with a small towel, and apologised to the crowd.

“I am sorry,” he said. “I just remembered our brothers and sisters in Palestine. They are being slaughtered, they are bombed, they are attacked again and again. And we seem powerless to help them.”

He was speaking at Pondok Modern Darussalam Gontor in Ponorogo, East Java, one of Indonesia’s oldest Islamic boarding schools, marking its 100th anniversary.

• READ MORE: Indonesian president chants ‘Free Palestine’ at reception
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

Later, the Palestinian ambassador gave him a keffiyeh, the scarf that symbolises Palestine. Prabowo cried again, then chanted “Free Palestine” several times, saying a strong Indonesia can help its oppressed “brothers and sisters.”

It was an emotional moment. But Palestinians in Gaza do not need tears from a school celebration in East Java. They need action.

Start with what Prabowo still seems to believe should happen to Palestine: a two-state solution, the old idea that Israel and a Palestinian state can exist side by side in peace, and the official position of most governments for 30 years.

But does anyone who matters still actually want it?

No longer trust a plan
Palestinians do not, not in the form it has taken for decades. After two years of bombing that flattened Gaza and killed tens of thousands of people, most no longer trust a plan that leaves their security and borders in the hands of others.

Israel does not want it either. Israeli leaders have expanded settlements in the West Bank for years, cutting Palestinian land into pieces too small and scattered to ever become a real state.

So, when a leader cries and repeats “two-state solution,” we should ask him plainly: after everything the world has watched in Gaza, do you still believe Israel wants peace?

A United Nations commission of inquiry has documented what it calls genocide there. Tears mean little if the plan behind them is the same formula that failed for 30 years.

If the two-state solution is dead, silence is not the answer. A real solution could mean equal rights for everyone between the river and the sea, in one state. It could mean a Palestinian state with real borders, a real army, and control of its own resources, not the walled-off pieces offered so far.

Prabowo Serukan “Free Palestine” dan Dikalungi Keffiyeh oleh Dubes Palestina

Baca di https://t.co/eb1EK6hS2z pic.twitter.com/SIlYusMkha

— Kompas.com (@kompascom) September 19, 2026

What matters most is who decides. A solution designed for Palestinians in a boardroom, not with them at the table, is not a solution.

That is also the problem with the “Board of Peace,” set up by world leaders to oversee Gaza’s future once the fighting quietens down. A board made mostly of foreign powers, without Palestinians in control of their own land.

This is not liberation
It is not liberation, but another arrangement where outsiders decide the fate of a people who have already had enough decisions made for them. Indonesia has a proud history of standing against colonialism, and supporting this goes against everything it claims to believe.

But the deepest problem is closer to home. While Prabowo cries in public for Palestine, Israeli companies continue quiet business on Indonesian soil. Ormat Technologies, an Israeli-founded energy company, won a geothermal concession in Halmahera, North Maluku, earlier this year, and is now developing it.

If the President is serious, he needs to look at his own country’s companies, mines and energy concessions, and ask: are we still doing business with the people responsible for Gaza?

Indonesia is the largest Muslim majority country in the world, with real economic weight and moral standing on this issue. It does not officially recognise Israel and has long supported Palestine at the UN.

That gives Prabowo something rare among world leaders: the credibility to actually do something, not just say something.

A scarf wiped across wet eyes will be forgotten by next week. A serious investigation into which Indonesian entities still profit from ties with Israel, followed by real consequences, would not be.

Neither would it be forgotten if Prabowo used Indonesia’s voice to push for a real solution, instead of recycling a peace process that has already failed.

Crying is human. Leadership is different. Palestinians have watched enough leaders cry for them while nothing changes.

If Prabowo wants his tears to mean something, he should turn them into policy: investigate the companies his own country still does business with, and back a future for Palestine that Palestinians actually choose.

• Indonesia also has a decolonisation issue since 1969 over its Melanesian provinces in the Papuan region — known as West Papua among Pacific nations.

Dr Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the director of the Indonesia-MENA desk at the Centre for Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS) in Jakarta and a research affiliate at the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore. He spent more than a decade living and traveling across the Middle East. Republished from Middle East Monitor.

Fifty-four years ago, this very day, martial law was declared across the entire Philippines under then President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

On 21 September 1972, Proclamation No. 1081 was signed — marking the beginning of a terrible, dark time in Philippines history.

So today especially, more than any other day, we Filipino people, remember.

• READ MORE: Questions for Marcos Jr 40 years after Philippines ‘People Power’ revolt
• Other martial law reports

This 21 September 2026, we join our fellow Filipinos in the homeland, and across the diaspora, to commemorate the heroes and martyrs, the citizens and allies who fought against the dictatorship and its many, many documented human rights abuses.

We recognise the power of collective memory as a testament to the past. And we say, never again!

Disinformation campaigns grossly distorting the reality of martial law are rife across traditional and social media, incorporated in modern education curricula and taught in classrooms across the Philippines.

Aimed at new generations, these campaigns even go so far as claiming martial law was a “necessary good”. This we categorically reject. Our collective memory and experience are a most powerful antidote to this historical revisionism. We remember. Never Again!

Honouring the martyrs
So, we are most glad for your solidarity here, now. Thank you for being here, as we honour our revolutionary martyrs; the men and women; the students, the workers, the activists, and journalists, the farmers, religious workers, our indigenous, the youth and old alike — ordinary citizens detained, imprisoned, tortured, raped, disappeared, and for what crimes? For speaking truth against a dictatorship.

For demanding what is only right, what is true, and just. For aspiring to a life of dignity and freedom.

We will not dishonour their memory. Never Again!

Never forget, the documented, targeted and sustained human rights abuses under 14 years of martial law in which

• 70,000 people were incarcerated. That’s the entire population of Napier to put it into perspective;
• 35,000 documented tortures; and
• More than 3000 extrajudicial killings, Yet only 11,000 victims have been officially recognised and given reparations by the Philippine government through the tireless advocacy of human rights groups KARAPATAN and SELDA — the group of former political prisoners and their supporters.

Under this regime, six out of 10 Filipino families became entrenched in poverty; wages fell by 30 percent. The cost of commodities tripled. Even our precious natural resources were not spared, as almost half of our Philippines forests were denuded.

External debt skyrocketed to almost $27 billion dollars by the end of 1986, binding the future of the Philippines even more to the chains of Western imperialism and US hegemony.

Women vital in resistance
Of the recognised, documented human rights abuses cases, 15 percent were perpetrated against women. Women played a vital role in the resistance, standing on the frontlines.

• Liliosa Hilao, a student leader and journalist remembered as the first political prisoner to die under torture and detention;
• Eugena Apostol, a publisher and journalist who founded alternative publications critical of the regime;
• Coracion “Waling Waling” Chiva, a veteran guerilla from the Second World War who opened her home and shared her experiences to support young anti-martial law activists;
• Margarita “Maita” Gomes and Nelia Sancho, former beauty queens who turned activists; and
• Maria Lorena Barrios, founder of MAKIBAKA — a rallying cry for solidarity meaning “to struggle” — which helped articulate the plight of all women within the broader framework of national and class oppression.

These women, and many others, were subjected to untold atrocities, not surprisingly to include extreme gender based, sexual violence . Tactics that continue to be employed today by the state to terrorise citizens all around the globe, from Gaza and the West Bank, the United States and Occupied Palestine, to our beloved homeland, the Philippines.

A very recent case in point — the Banjawan sisters, Pauline and Fatima, detained in 2024 and 2025 and subjected to torture and interrogation under incarceration. Pauline is still in prison — she is currently suffering a severe mental health breakdown in a Batangas prison cell. She desperately needs aid.

Free the Banjawan sisters.

Which brings us to the present.

Here we are in 2026, and yet another Marcos — this time the late dictator’s only son — continues his father’s legacy. The plague of political family dynasties “continues to bear diseased, rotten fruit as the same spectres of graft and corruption, of bureaucrat capitalism and Western imperialism flourish under yet another Marcos regime”.

The Philippines may no longer be under martial law, but the violence inflicted on our people is still real, and even more insidious.

For Marcos Jr is selling us out. He is selling our land from under us, without our consent; our precious resources to imperialists intent on warmongering.

Even as the Filipino people continue to be mired in poverty, forced to swim in flood waters or mourn loved ones swept away by the deluge; even as we demand justice for flood control projects that have never come to fruition because the money was stolen — yet again — to fund corrupt politicians and their so called nepo babies’ lavish lifestyles.

As the price of oil at the pump keeps climbing and the cost-of-living crisis bites even harder, all directly attributable to America and its war against Iran. Where is the accountability? Where is justice? Where is the rule of law?

Make no mistake — our precious natural resources are being offered up freely to US imperialists and the “fake state” of Israel via the Pax Silica initiative. The United States will have free reign to plunder our water, our land, our minerals for technologies used in endless war, in the genocides in Gaza, Congo, the Sudan.

Palantir, the surveillance company founded by billionaire super villain Peter Thiel, will have first dibs on materials needed for AI surveillance, which has proven to have been used to target and kill children, women, innocent civilians.

And decimate entire populations.

Pax Silica proponents claim it will bring thousands of jobs and will stimulate the Philippines economy to new heights. In truth? Those promised jobs will be on the lowest end of the production scale; low paid and exploitative.

Land — 1600 hectares of ancestral land which rightfully belongs to the indigenous Aeta people who have tended to it for centuries — will be taken for spoils; poisoned, polluted, and plundered, the indigenous living there forcibly displaced.

Our water — hard enough to get as it is — will be used to cool gigantic data centres, diverted from our communities and our farmers who grow our food and feed us. All to feed the Imperialist War Machine.

This is violence, state sanctioned and abetted. This is our government actively working against its own citizens’ interests

No one is free, until we are all free.

And the Philippines has never been truly free. Our sovereignty and self-determination thwarted by the three hundred years of Spanish colonisation, and the Japanese occupation during the Second World War, to of course, US imperialism that has coloured every aspect of Philippine daily life, without the people’s general consent or approval.

Centuries of colonisation, semi-feudalism and Western imperialism have driven millions of Filipinos — including our women, to leave their families and their children in search of financial security, to take care of your children, your elderly, your wounded and hurt, you, even as they experience discrimination, racism and unjustified hate.

We need your international solidarity, most especially now before Pax Silica is fully entrenched in material reality. Our people, our women, our children — the Collective Future — are at stake. Now is the time to agitate, organise and mobilise. Fascism is playing in our faces.

What will be your response? Will you stand with us? Free all political prisoners.

Melissa Cruz is secretary-general of GABRIELA Auckland, the General Assembly Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality, Leadership and Action. The movement is named after Gabriela Silang, a Filipino woman general revolutionary who led troops, fought and died for Philippine independence from Spain in the 18th century. This article was edited from her speech at Te Komititanga Square, Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau, New Zealand, on 21 September 2026.

Pacific media leaders and journalists from across the region will tackle press freedom, newsroom survival, artificial intelligence, anti-corruption, climate change and the future of journalism when the Pacific Media Summit gets underway in Savusavu today.

Fijian Media Association (FMA) general secretary Stanley Simpson told PACNEWS the summit comes at a critical time as media organisations across the region face growing pressure from misinformation, disinformation, new technology and declining traditional advertising revenues.

“Newsrooms are not just fighting for their independence, they are fighting for their survival,” Simpson said.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific meda reports

The 8th Pacific Media Summit, organised by the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and hosted by the Fijian Media Association, will bring together regional media practitioners, researchers and leaders to discuss press freedom, media sustainability, climate and disaster reporting, artificial intelligence, digital inclusion and inclusive media leadership.

Simpson said the discussions would focus on how newsrooms can respond to technological change without losing the basic principles of independent journalism.

“We have really consulted widely about all the challenges facing both the big and small countries of the region, the challenges faced by newsrooms, brought about by the new technology, but also how we maintain the basics, the independence of the media,” he told PACNEWS.

The summit theme, “Reaching the Remote: Media and Digital Innovation for a Connected Blue Pacific,” reflects the need to ensure media and digital developments reach communities beyond capital cities.

Closer to communities
Simpson said Savusavu in Fiji was deliberately chosen as the venue to put the discussions closer to communities experiencing some of the challenges being discussed.

“We have come to Savusavu to talk about this, a place that is facing these challenges, as opposed to holding these meetings in a capital city where we may be far removed from the challenges we are aiming to overcome,” he said.

He said the growth of digital platforms and AI was also putting pressure on the traditional business models that have sustained news organisations.

“Many of the traditional ways of the media staying alive through advertising is under threat now with the digital spaces and AI,” Simpson said.

The summit will also examine how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used by newsrooms to improve coverage while maintaining editorial independence and journalistic standards.

Simpson said high-profile regional speakers would contribute to discussions on the future of Pacific media, including researchers working on AI and its application in newsrooms.

Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is expected to deliver the keynote address on Wednesday, while Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica will also attend.

Other speakers include former Fiji President and Tui Macuata, Ratu Wiliame Katonivere, who will address climate change.

Established media figures
Established Simpson said many of the region’s established media figures including PINA president Kalafi Moala, Johnson Honimae, John Woods, Leilani Reklai, Katalina Tohi and Solomone Finau — continued to contribute to the fight for media freedom, independence and professional standards.

“Some of these names we’ve heard for many years, and still contributing, still fighting the cause of media freedom, media independence, and better standards to tell the stories of our people,” he said.

For the Fijian Media Association, Simpson said hosting the summit also carried significance after years of pressure on the country’s media sector.

“We’ve come through a long period of suppression and struggle and facing hostility. And this is perhaps a symbolic event where we can declare that we are back,” he said.

He urged regional delegates to use the summit for frank discussions on the direction of Pacific journalism.

“We really have to have honest discussions about what needs to be done and where the region needs to go,” Simpson said.

He said the summit’s focus on technology and connectivity should not come at the expense of the core principles of journalism.

“Using new technologies that we have, but essentially keeping to the basics of journalism — accuracy, fair and balanced,” he said.

Simpson said the discussions in Savusavu could help shape the direction of Pacific media for years to come.

“This is where we set the direction for the next, I would say, five to 10 years for Pacific media,” he said.

Pita Ligaiula is a journalist with Pacnews. Republished from Pacnews.

COMMENTARY: Andrey X Khrzhanovskiy answers some emerging criticisms.

• READ MORE: Gaza documentary ‘NAZA’ Sets US theatrical release through self-distribution model

I watched NAZA. (Unlike 99 percent of people expressing their very strong opinions).

So here are my takes, which will make a lot of you very angry.

1. “Is the film antisemitic blood libel against the IDF?”

No, it is literally a series of confessions by IDF war criminals themselves, so that claim is laughable.

2. “How can Yuval and Rachel betray their country?”

Our loyalty must be to justice and humanity, not to systems of power that privilege us. It is your duty to resist your country if your country is committing genocide.

3. “Is the film good?”

Yes. And the vast majority of you will learn something new about the mechanics of the Gaza genocide, even if you’ve been following it closely. And for the people who haven’t been following — who will watch it now because of the festival award — it may be absolutely eye opening.

Democracy Now! features Yuval’s speech.                   Video: Democracy Now!

4. “Is the film good for the justice movement?”

It’s very good for the Palestine justice movement that a film on the Gaza genocide is getting so much attention. It forces the mainstream to confront Israel’s crimes once again, which is especially important now when the attention is dying down because of the so-called “ceasefire”.

The activist scene is still very focused, but the mainstream attention is decreasing, and NAZA winning festivals around the world will do a great job returning the conversation to what matters.

5. “Why didn’t they release the evidence as articles instead of a film?”

They did, over the course of the past three years Yuval published some of the most valuable investigative journalism on the Gaza genocide in +972 Magazine. The fact that you all didn’t know about it is all the more evidence for why this film was needed to be made.

6. “Is the film beyond reproach?”

Every piece of art, journalism or activism must be subject to criticism. And from the activist standpoint there is only one metric that’s important — its material impact. Not the identity of the artists, not the form, and not even the content. Only the material impact.

7. “The film protects war criminals, instead of delivering them to international courts.”

Providing a anonymity to whistleblowers is an essential part of investigative journalism. I also have sources in the IDF and the settler movement that I keep anonymous. Getting 24 people charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) — and likely never prosecuted — is much less useful than getting their testimonies heard by the entire world.

8. “The film didn’t show anything new, all of this has been reported by Palestinian journalists.”

This is largely true, as stated by Yuval himself. Nonetheless, confessions of the perpetrators are adding to the body of evidence of the Gaza genocide, and confessions always hold more weight than accusations. For many, this may be THE tipping point, unfortunately.

9. “Why not just upload it to the internet instead of going to festivals?”

Social media videos, written articles, feature films and many other formats cannot replace one another. They work for different audiences and achieve different goals.

Festivals bring the film to an audience that wouldn’t watch it on the internet, and provides credibility to a very damning account of the genocide.

10. “Yuval Abraham is too Zionist/too anti-Zionist.”

Yuval’s politics is beside the point. You can disagree with someone and still find their work valuable.

A comprehensive pressure campaign at all levels is very important for the Palestine cause.

Andrey X Khrzhanovskiy is an independent journalist and human rights advocate working in the West Bank. Follow his on-the-ground reports about settler and IOF violence.

Julian Assange is officially back on X/Twitter, restoring to the world an important voice we were robbed of by the US empire’s years-long campaign to silence the WikiLeaks founder via lifelong imprisonment for forbidden acts of journalism.

Not everyone will remember it but there was a time when this was almost impossible to imagine. It seemed almost certain that this man was going to die in Belmarsh Prison or spend his remaining years in some hellhole in America.

Now whenever my nephew catches me or my husband expressing pessimism about something working out, he tells us “Hey. Assange is free now.” It’s become our family code for “Anything’s possible. Don’t give up hope.”

• LISTEN: Video reading by Tim Foley
• Other Caitlln Johnstone reports

Assange returns                                                 Video: Caitlin Johnstone

We should really try to appreciate this. Never let hope die. A better world is possible. Anything can be.

In other news, it’s good to see the world rejecting Ed Sheeran’s policy of feigned neutrality on the Gaza issue. “I don’t pick sides” is a fallacy when there’s a massive power imbalance and a clear aggressor, especially when your own country is partially responsible for what’s happening.

I’m back. https://t.co/2e58azeJkt

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) September 17, 2026

If your husband is abusing your child and you do nothing, you’re not a neutral party in that scenario, and when your kid grows up you’ll probably be blamed just as much as the father.

A modern military force hammering a giant concentration camp full of colonised people using high-tech weapons of mass murder with the help of your tax dollars is not a “war” that you get to be “neutral” towards. It’s a genocide, and you’re either for it or against it.

There is no comfortable third option where you get to avoid picking a side and also avoid looking like an asshole.

One of the most idiotic talking points you’ll see these days is that it’s bad to criticise Israel without also criticising Hamas. It’s like, what do you mean? You’re saying I can’t criticise a nuclear-armed high-tech military committing war crimes with the backing of my own country and its allies unless I also criticise a tiny group of besieged militants?

You’re telling me I can’t say anything about the abuses of an apartheid state whose supporters are relentlessly assaulting my right to free speech and eroding civil liberties throughout the Western world, unless I in the same breath also criticise a few thousand Palestinian resistance fighters who have done me no wrong? What the hell are you even talking about?

No I’m just going to criticise Israel, thank you very much. I am going to criticise the state whose genocidal atrocities are supported by the power structure under which I live and pay taxes, whose support network is systematically demolishing the rights of me and my countrymen. If you don’t like it, go screw yourself.

If you want to enrage an Israel apologist, tell them you won’t listen to the mountains upon mountains of verbiage they throw at you explaining why it’s actually fine to drop bombs on buildings full of children. pic.twitter.com/61JI50IozZ

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) September 15, 2026

I have a few more thoughts for today:
Firstly, I love it when I see Israel apologists whining about people responding to their screeds with “I ain’t reading all that. Free Palestine.” All hasbarists have is endless mountains of verbiage explaining why it’s fine and normal to drop military explosives on buildings full of children, so it enrages them when someone takes away their only weapon.

They don’t have truth and morality on their side, so all they have is words, words, words, words, words. Take that away from them and they’ve got nothing, and they know it.

Imagine for 1 second that you have it wrong and Jews are telling the truth. That the genocide libel is bs. That Hamas are terrorists. That you are being manipulated to desire the removal of Jews from society.

Do you understand if we’re right, that makes you the millions of…

— Jonah Platt (@JonahPlatt) September 16, 2026

And finally, new rule: if you deny that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza, then the onus is on you to provide a convincing explanation for why every human rights group on earth (including the Israeli ones) agrees it’s a genocide.

If you hold that there’s an antisemitic conspiracy between all human rights groups, then the burden of proof is on you to show that conspiracy taking place.

If you hold that there has been an Islamist conspiracy to infiltrate all human rights groups, then you need to provide proof of that conspiracy.

If you hold that there is no conspiracy and it’s just a coincidence that all human rights groups happen to think Israel is committing human rights abuses, then you need to provide a convincing argument why every institution of human rights experts coincidentally came to the same conclusion and are still incorrect.

You can’t just say “I disagree with their findings” or “That one group made an argument I find weak” or “It’s not a genocide because blah blah blah”. You need to address the unanimous consensus, because that’s part of the debate now.

Even flat earthers and climate deniers who claim all the experts are wrong at least try to provide arguments for why there’s a secret conspiracy to amplify faulty conclusions in the scientific community, but deniers of the Gaza genocide somehow seem to think they don’t need to address their dissent with the overwhelming consensus of experts in the relevant field.

You don’t get to do that, guys. That’s not a thing. If you’re claiming the experts are lying about one specific country, then you need to provide a detailed and believable explanation for why that might be.

I’ve yet to encounter a single genocide denier who can do this, online or otherwise. Not one.

PS: Claiming you can’t accuse Israel of genocide until the ICJ rules it a genocide is exactly the same as claiming you can’t say Charlie Kirk was murdered until his killer has been officially convicted of murder.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Thousands took part in today’s Greenpeace-led March for Nature in the heart of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Tāmaki Makaurau.

Critics of the coalition government’s controversial proposed Conservation Amendment Bill say this would allow selling off of conservation land, weaken environmental protections, and put short-term profit ahead of people and endanger the future of the planet.

“If Prime Minister Christopher Luxon wants a fight over conservation land, he has one,” said Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Dr Russel Norman, a former Green Party MP.

“This huge turnout today shows people are not prepared to stand by while a government tries to rewrite conservation law to make those places easier to exploit.”

Organisers of the rally — partnered by Forest and Bird — in Albert Park followed by a march down Queen Street say 35,000 people took part.

Placards and banners declared “Honour Te Tiriti [of Waitangi],”More hoot, less loot,” “Hands off conservation land”, “You can’t rehabilitate exploited land”, and “I’m $hane . . . bribe me!” in apparent reference to an unpopular minister.

Plenty of Palestinian flags were among the marchers. This rally coincided with the 155th consecutive week of protest over Israel’s genocide in the besieged Palestinian enclave of Gaza.

• Photographs: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report
  
• More images/videos

Greenpeace March for Nature

1 of 16

“If Luxon wants a fight over conservation land, he has one,” he said. “This huge turnout today shows people are not prepared to stand by, while a government tries to rewrite conservation law to make those places easier to exploit.”

Greenpeace was supported at the march by Forest and Bird.

“The message to every political party from the people of New Zealand is clear — if you stand up for nature, we will stand with you, but if you sell off our conservation land, weaken environmental protections or put short-term profit ahead of our future, we will not stand by and let it happen,” said Forest & Bird policy and advocacy group manager Richard Capie.

Greenpeace claimed about 35,000 people attended the protest, although police reported a maximum of 6000, with no incidents resulting.

This story was first published on

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in New York joined by Democracy Now! cohost Juan González in Chicago. Hi, Juan.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hi, Amy, and welcome to all of our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.

AMY GOODMAN: “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us by the end of the decade.” That was the warning last week from former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon that set off an escalating debate over how to regulate increasingly powerful AI systems.

• READ MORE: AI is creating new billionaires at a record pace
• Other AI reports

Coxon spoke to the BBC:

COXON: So it’s not at all an exaggeration to say that the people who were involved with both founding these companies and building the tech believe there is a possibility of human extinction.

And many of the people who are sort of deep in the weeds on actually coding the thing believe that there is like a greater than 10pc chance or even greater – some smaller, but they all have different numbers – for a probability that humans might die.

And they all keep this in their head on a daily basis while working on the technology.

AMY GOODMAN: Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei also called for the pace of development of artificial intelligence models to slow down. In an essay, he wrote that within six to 12 months a swarm of AI agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

He wrote, “The scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.” But President Trump has rejected growing calls for placing regulatory guardrails on the AI industry and has called concerns over AI a “hoax”.

On Monday, Trump called Jensen Huang, the CEO of the computer chip maker Nvidia, while Huang was speaking at an AI summit in Los Angeles. Huang put the president on speakerphone.

PRES. TRUMP: The data centers are great and they make people wealthy and they make states wealthy and it’s the oil of the next 20, 25 years. It’s bigger than the Internet.

And the AI, you know, much more so. And they are just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don’t want to see it happen.

And that could be political people; it could also be China. And we’re not going to let that happen. It’s a hoax. And [crosstalk]—

JENSEN HUANG [laughs] You’re right. We’re not going to let that happen, sir.

AUDIENCE: [applause]

PRES. TRUMP: No, we’re not going to let it happen. The robots are not going to be taking over the world.

AMY GOODMAN: As the debate over AI intensifies, the award-winning journalists and writers Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor have a new book out today that is connected to all of this. It is titled End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World.

It examines how wealthy elites, including tech CEOs, are preparing for the end of the world even as they contribute to growing inequality, political instability, wars and the climate crisis. They will join us in a minute but first, here is a short excerpt from a video that was released with the book.

ASTRA TAYLOR: End-times fascism is not a monolith. It’s a dangerous and fractious alliance of three main groups.

NARRATOR: Religious end-timers.

ROBERT JEFFRESS: From the very beginning it has been clear that god has a special plan and purpose for the nation of Israel.

NARRATOR: Tech end-timers.

SAM ALTMAN: You know, I think AI will probably like most likely sort of lead to the end of the world. But in the meantime there will be great companies created.

NARRATOR: Ethnonationalist end-timers.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: America is fighting with Israel for a common goal – to protect our future, to protect civilisation against these barbarians.

PERSON: That was a good take right there.

PERSON: Seig fucking Heil, let’s fucking go!

PERSON: You would prefer the human race to endure, right?

PERSON: Uh—

PERSON: You’re hesitant.

PERSON: Yeah, well, I—

PERSON: End-times fascists haven’t just given up on liberal democracy. They’ve given up on the possibility of a shared future for all of us.

PERSON: The most powerful people in the world –

PERSON: – are preparing for the end of the world –

PERSON:  – an end they themselves are both accelerating –

PERSON: – and profiting from.

ELON MUSK: [laughs]

PERSON: We have imagined Armageddon so many times it can almost feel inevitable. Except it’s not. So, which side are you on?

PERSON: The side of bunkering down, abandoning Earth and profiting from apocalypse? Or staying loyal to this planet and its people—

PERSON: Who are you aligned with? Who are you protecting?

PERSON: – and making life here better?

‘End Times Fascism’      Video: Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: A short video released in conjunction with the new book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World written by our guests in studio for the hour.

Naomi Klein, award-winning journalist, documentary filmmaker, best-selling author of a number of books including Doppelganger and No Logo and The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein is also an associate professor and co-director of the Centre for Climate Justice at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Astra Taylor is an award-winning writer, activist and documentary filmmaker, the co-founder of the Debt Collective and author of several books including The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart and The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age.

Thanks so much for spending the hour with us. Naomi, start off with a title, start off with End Times Fascism, why you chose this.

NAOMI KLEIN: First of all, thank you for having us here, Amy. It’s great to be launching the book on Democracy Now! It just came out this morning, as you said. And I think we have a long tradition of launching books together. We decided to call it End Times Fascism because we are trying to understand what is the same and what is different about our moment of far-right extremism.

We know that far-right parties with lineages to the fascists of the 20th century are rising to power around the world. We just saw a fateful election in a German state, the first time the far right has won an election since the Second World War. We’re seeing very disturbing polls in France, for instance.

And we’re seeing more and more open fascist expressions in the United States from very powerful people in government and in tech.

But we don’t believe that this is simply a rerun. We don’t believe that history repeats on a loop. We believe that we’re in something more like a sequel where the logics of fascism, which are the logics of dehumanisation, of othering, of racial supremacy and hierarchy, are now being applied in a time of global existential crisis. This is not news to Democracy Now! listeners and viewers that we live in a time of a climate breakdown and collapse.

We have tools like nuclear weapons, that were not known to Hitler and Mussolini, that have the ability to inflict apocalyptic levels of violence that were beyond their reach.

Fascism always emerges during times of systemic crises, and it actually emerges as a way to protect capitalism from systemic change. So if we think about 20th century fascism in Europe after the First World War, there was a rising socialist response to the wreckage of the First World War and then to the Great Depression.

And fascism rises up — we call it “capitalism threat response” or “capitalism with bared teeth” — to make sure all of that popular public anger is pivoted toward the scapegoat. In our time, as we see these global crises — that could lead to systemic change or there can be this what we are calling “end times fascist” response that says, “let it burn,” and now it’s a fight for who’s going to survive the future.

Now it’s about building — as you saw in that film that we were fortunate to work with a great team of filmmakers on — it’s about building the bunkers and the rocket ships and the escape hatches. For religious end-timers, it’s literally about the bunker in the sky; it’s about the idea of the rapture.

But that is almost like a template for these more secular stories that are also a kind of a rapture, but we call it in the book a “wealth rapture”. If you’ve got resources, you can rapture yourself away from the impacts of those threats that we are all in. So that’s why we call it End Times Fascism. It hasn’t won yet.

The reason we wrote the book is because people are fighting back. And we think if we are able to look at this very frightening reality with clear eyes, the more it is exposed to the light, the less popular it is because in fact those people cherish our one and only home and want to stay and want to make it better.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Naomi, how is this different, for example, if in the 1950s and 1960s when at the height of the Cold War there were Americans, especially upper-class Americans, building bomb shelters, convinced that there was going to be a nuclear war, and the rest of the population eventually began to organise in an anti-nuclear movement that peaked in the 1980s and that led really to capitalism being forced to restrain itself to some degree in terms of arms control treaties?

Why is this different than back then?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, Juan, I guess it’s different because the people we’re calling end-times fascists are systematically dismantling that precise international infrastructure. One of the things that all those three factions all agree on — whether it’s the religious fundamentalists, the tech extremists that we heard from in that video, or the ethnonationalists — they don’t agree on everything but they all agree they want to get rid of the United Nations.

They all believe that that is the sort of antichrist of their story. Sometimes they literally call it the antichrist. And that chapter that you are describing, which we write about in the book, Juan — and I would actually love to bring Astra into the conversation because she went pretty deep into this research on the history of bunkering in the United States and how people shifted the tide, because we actually think that’s a really inspiring story that we need to know better.

Can I bring in Astra, my incredible co-author?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Sure.

ASTRA TAYLOR: Thank you so much. Again, thanks for having us. Yeah, it is — very quickly, in the 1950s, the government policy was to encourage people to build their own bomb shelters in their backyard, and that was the response to the nuclear threat. Only around 1 percent, 2 percent of households did that, in part because people revolted at the idea of protecting themselves and letting their neighbors perish.

And there was a massive debate in magazines like TIME magazine, LIFE magazine that was around the idea of “gunning thy neighbor”. People said, “We don’t want to do that. We don’t want to be hiding in a hole in the ground with guns pointing outwards and turning the people we care about away.”

That is part of the genesis of the movement for nuclear disarmament. It was ordinary people who put the right solution on the table, which is let’s get rid of nuclear bombs; let’s not turn on each other and bunker down. There’s a lesson in that for today.

NAOMI KLEIN: It’s so interesting because what they understood at the time is like either you bunker — either you just protect you and yours — or you get at the root cause of the crisis and you say, “Actually, we can’t live with these weapons.” Right? It’s just—”It’s too dangerous.”

As you both know, the nuclear disarmament movement had tremendous successes. In many ways, we argue in the book that it was a victim of its own success because many people in the disarmament movement believed that they had won so many victories that now the people in charge were just going to finish the job, because so many thousands of nuclear warheads were successfully disarmed that it seemed like there was a new era.

The majority of the stockpiles were disarmed but not enough, and now there is a rearming and AI is being embedded in the nuclear arsenal. Which is why at the end of the book we call for a triple disarmament movement.

In fact, Juan, we have something that you might be interested in — a new coinage in the book — which is “the Stephen Miller test”. Basically the argument that we’re making is that eventually, the most powerful tools, the most powerful weapons, will meet the worst people in the world, and if you don’t want those tools to find themselves in the hands of Stephen Miller, then the tools should not exist.

That applies to nuclear weapons. It applies to AI. It applies to the wealth concentration itself, which we believe should be now understood as a WMD. That this level of wealth that has accumulated at the top of our economy has itself become a weapon of mass destruction.

And so we need to be disarming the wealth bombs, the tech bombs, and of course, the bomb-bombs. Because we are now seeing that these very dangerous, completely immoral people who seem to have such a casual attitude — and we see this from Donald Trump’s most recent post, just a kind of shrug in the face of apocalypse — they will find — they exert a magnetic pull towards one another.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to follow-up and ask either one of you if you want to answer this, because I did read the book in the last couple of days and really found it to be tremendously well written. At the same time, though, there were some concerns I had. For instance, there is very little mention of the rise of a multipolar world, of how the rise of East Asia, especially, the shift of the world’s industrial working class to China, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, along with Brazil and Mexico — in the view of many, that is the single biggest impediment to US economic dominance, of the capitalist markets’ expansion.

And that’s also the biggest threat that many of these end-timers, as you label them, are concerned about. They are concerned about China, yet China and its impact on US hegemony and capitalism is not mentioned at all in the book.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think that the threat of China is really, really central to the unimpeded AI rollout. It’s really the only argument they have. We do write about that in the book, but you’re right, it’s not the central focus of the book. We are more focused on the United States and the way in particular this is being pushed through Latin America, because we think there — and Europe.

But the threat of the multipolar world I do think is central, because the only argument that Donald Trump really has in the face of the threats that are now being articulated from inside the house, from inside the companies, is “But China, but China; if we don’t build it, they will.”

It’s completely untrue that deregulated AI has to be built the way it’s being built or else China will build it. China is much more open to regulating these technologies, to rules within the multilateral system. It’s the US that has been blowing up these agreements.

And when the Doomsday Clock was reset this year, it was a really — I mean, it’s always pretty harrowing, but this year it was particularly so; they moved it forward four seconds — and described not just the threats, whether it was biological weapons, nuclear weapons, AI, but the way the US government under Donald Trump was going after all of the international agreements that governments like China had been a party to, and just saying, “We don’t need them.”

So I think it’s the tools and the dismantling of any attempt to constrain those tools.

ASTRA TAYLOR: It’s also about the narrative that the people in power are telling themselves. We’re tracking how there’s a certain embrace of apocalyptic narrative, of Armageddon, of the end times, that doesn’t — every government in the world doesn’t have that narrative, right? It’s something that’s very powerful in certain branches of the United States political class, in Israel, in parts of Latin America.

We’re not saying that it applies to every country around the entire world, and so that’s one reason that that isn’t — there are some very powerful international players that aren’t central to the thesis.

AMY GOODMAN: Astra and Naomi, you write about Peter Thiel, saying, “Today a staggering number of his former colleagues and acolytes occupy powerful positions in every part of the Trump Administration. The most consequential of them is JD Vance.” If you can explain, who is Peter Thiel? What does it mean to have his inner circle populating the inner circle of the United States?

And talk about all of these figures that are so much in the news now, that were standing behind President Trump during his inauguration, people who were opposed to him before, who took him off their platforms. We are talking about people like Jeff Bezos, people like Mark Zuckerberg and others.

ASTRA TAYLOR: Yes. Peter Thiel is a powerful billionaire and venture capitalist who has been in Silicon Valley for a long time. He is part of the PayPal mafia so he founded PayPal with David Sacks, who was Trump’s former AI and crypto czar. And also Elon Musk, of course, who is now the president of SpaceX; everybody will know him.

Peter Thiel is quite interesting because he has been on the far right very proudly for a long time since he was an undergraduate at Stanford when he and David Sacks actually wrote a book against political correctness. And he has been on the vanguard of being very much against democracy, very — quasi-libertarian but now just explicitly authoritarian — and has written things like “Democracy and freedom are incompatible.”

He was one of the first figures in Silicon Valley to come out for Trump in 2015.

And as we write in the book and, as you said, many of his protégés are now in positions of power and the most influential one is JD Vance. JD Vance has written about how his life changed when he saw Peter Thiel give a lecture. This lecture inspired Vance to go to Silicon Valley to become a venture capitalist — not a very illustrious one — and that’s where he met critical figures who would fund his political rise, including Thiel who gave what was a record-breaking donation of $15 million and kind of launched and made possible Vance’s bid to become a senator of Ohio.

And it was Peter Thiel who also brokered the meeting at Mar-a-Lago where Vance was able to apologise for calling Donald Trump “Hitler”. So Vance is of course one of those figures who used to be opposed —

AMY GOODMAN: Explain that? That Vance said —

ASTRA TAYLOR: Yeah, Vance was once — he was once for green energy. He was against Donald Trump who he said misleads people and offers empty promises like building a wall which won’t actually improve people’s lives. But he’s also quite an opportunist, and Peter Thiel brokered peace among those two, and now we know Vance as the VP.

J.D. Vance is also critical in our book because he is who helped bring together the AI industry and Donald Trump. We remember from Donald Trump’s first term that he was against Big Tech. He was railing against Big Tech all the time. Thanks to JD Vance who hosted a dinner at David Sacks’ house, Trump got on the AI train. It was a fundraiser but it was also a pitch session.

Vance’s Silicon Valley brethren told Donald Trump that AI would be good for the economy but it would be very good for the fossil fuel sector. And now we see that the Trump administration is all in on AI and not much else.

So when we look at the famous image of the second Trump inauguration and we see all those tech execs given their front seats and they’re lined up, our position is that it was the promise of generative AI eating the economy that actually turned them fascist and caused this incredible alliance with the Trump regime that we’re seeing.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, that alliance has served them incredibly well. It has produced the first trillionaire. It has produced companies that are claiming valuations roughly equivalent to the entire US economy. And what they wanted from Donald Trump was exactly what they got: a frontier.

You hear this phrase used all the time now — ”frontier AI” — but if you think about what a frontier is, a frontier is a Wild West. It has no rules. And what they were upset about under the last administration was that there were some, you know, not radical, very simple rules like you have to label deepfakes, guardrails against precisely the scenarios that they are now talking about in terms of integration with weapons systems, and the prospect of a rogue AI.

So all of this was on the table years ago. There were discussions at the United Nations.

It’s interesting that they’re always using China as the bogeyman of why they have to roll out AI without rules. China has many more rules regulating AI than the United States has,
including rules around not allowing children to have these like personal relationships with AI where there’s confusion about whether or not you are talking to a friend or a robot or a therapist or whatever it is.

First of all, that’s a lie, and that’s just the fact that people are not educated about what China is doing that is allowing people to fall for this line of, like, “Oh, no, if we don’t do it, China will.” They just simply don’t know how China is regulating this.

But one of the things I’ve been thinking about is — and we have to be aware of how active this push was for the frontier, because now of course these CEOs are all coming forward and saying “Please regulate us, we’ll regulate ourselves, we know we need to be regulated,” as if they weren’t the ones who not only demanded this Wild West frontier but bankrolled it and created the strategic alliance with Donald Trump so that he would deliver it to them.

And now they’re realising, “OK, maybe we’ve gone too far and have to look more credible.” And Donald Trump is going, “No way.”

Why is he saying, “No way”? Because he has tanked the entire US economy and the only thing he has going for him is the AI stock bubble, and he’s terrified of this bubble bursting all over him before the midterm elections or before the next presidential.

He also is very invested in it personally. He’s richer than he has ever been because of the rampant corruption of this administration, the money he has made from crypto but also many different ways that he and his family are invested in AI.

So that’s why he’s doing these frantic things like calling Jensen Huang on stage to say, “Don’t worry, we’re not going to do anything.”

But if you’ll allow me, I was really struck because there’s this myth that — these sort of parables of the technology slipping out of the hands of the men who built it, right? The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Frankenstein. Creating a monster right?

That’s the myth that they’re all telling. “Oh no, we’ve created this powerful monster. It’s out of our hands and now it’s going to destroy us.” I would argue that that myth really is coming true but the monster is not AI; it’s Donald Trump.

They created Donald Trump, he is their monster, he’s out of control and he just won’t stop. And they’re like, “Wait a minute, maybe it is going too fast.”

[MUSIC BREAK]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman with Juan González. We are spending the hour with Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor, co-authors of the new book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World. I want to go back to the video that was released in conjunction with the book.

NAOMI KLEIN: On a mountaintop in the dead of winter, a group of faithful men gathered an audience to share their vision. They had seen a gleaming city bathed in golden light.

The city would be filled with buildings so beautiful they would seem to float above the earth as if descended from heaven. Their vision already had a name.

PERSON: New Gaza.

JARED KUSHNER: So, we’ll see if these things work. They never usually work.

NAOMI KLEIN: The mountaintop in question was the resort town of Davos. The faithful men presenting their vision were US real estate moguls Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, this is a very exciting day. See, I’m a real estate person at heart and it’s all about location. Look at this beautiful piece of property.

PERSON: Let’s just plan for catastrophic success.

NAOMI KLEIN: Out of the horrors of a live-streamed genocide, an exclusive paradise was about to emerge fully formed.

PERSON: We’ve already started removing the rubble and doing some of the demolition.

AMY GOODMAN: Part of the video that was released with the book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World. It is by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor. I want to talk about Gaza right now. We are coming off — in Venice right now you have two Israeli filmmakers, Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham, who just came out with a film called NAZA and now members of the Israeli government are threatening to take away their citizenship, and it was based on the commentary of high-level Israeli officials, unnamed, talking about the killing in Gaza deliberately. Naomi Klein?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, and the use of AI to do so. I actually haven’t seen the film. I’m definitely looking to see it. But it underlines what we already know thanks to Palestinian journalists at huge personal cost in the documenting of a livestream genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: Over 250 of them killed in this last two years.

NAOMI KLEIN: And as we say in the film, this is the story that the Trump administration is telling, is that out of apocalypse there will be this paradise. There will be what they are calling “New Gaza”. We begin the book with it because it is such an extreme distillation of the story.

And I believe it’s the most dangerous story ever told. It’s a biblical story. It’s deeply encoded in our culture whether we’re religious or not. And the story is first comes the flood, first comes the apocalypse, first comes the mass death — and out of the mass death, the great cleansing, the fury of god, comes the golden city, the paradise, for the chosen few.

That story, which — it’s the story of the flood and the ark; it’s told in its most violent form in the book of Revelation — for people who believe in it literally, it has confused the difference between bad and good. It has kind of flipped the switch, where when we see the things in our world that should be warning us, telling us we need to act, we are in a time of crisis, it is an emergency — whether it’s climate disasters, whether it’s covid, that things are breaking down — that what is seen instead are signs.

“Oh, no, what it means is that we’re entering the end times.” And while that may be bad for many people, it’s actually very good for the chosen few.

That’s why we started with this myth of New Gza . . . there is no paradise that is coming out of the apocalypse in Gaza but that is the story that the Trump administration is telling. It’s a privatized paradise that they’re proposing to build. They are using this kind of biblical narrative but of course it’s all for profit because it’s the Trump administration. They want to build luxury condominiums over a mass grave. And you saw there that it’s a literal story.

We do think that the Board of Peace is significant in the sort of evolution of the privatisation of the state, the fact that the Trump Administration is not just attacking the United Nations and defunding the United Nations but trying to replace the United Nations with something called the Board of Peace, which Trump would be head of for life, that they would control — they would give themselves immunity.

This is part of what we mean by bunkering, by escaping. It’s like they see the state as a mine site. They see the United States as a place that they can extract from. Not just extract wealth and resources — and we’re watching them do that — but also extract other things that matter to them, like legal immunity. Right? I mean, the Board of Peace gives them that.

So that’s why we start with that. And it brings together these different parts of the coalition. Because there are religious extremists, both Christian Zionists and messianic Jews, who really do believe that Gaza, Iran — mean that the Messiah is coming. Like the more violent, the better.

And you’ve covered on the show officers in the US military lodging complaints that their officers are telling them that they should welcome apocalyptic levels of violence in Iran because it means that Jesus is returning.

But it’s not just the religious extremists. It’s also the secular versions of the story. We don’t think Trump believes in the biblical version of this story, but we do believe he believes in a kind of a wealth rapture. And when you see those AI-generated images of new Gaza and Trump sharing them, you can see how these stories have distorted his brain.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In the little time we have left, I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about the resistance movements, the people’s movements against this growing fascism, and also perhaps deal with some of the critiques of let’s say of Marxists like John Bellamy Foster, who basically insists that the fascist movement in the United States, the mass base of it is really the middle class, those people driven out by the Walmarts and the Targets from small businesses, and franchisees and others who have been driven down by the growth of these top-end monopoly capitalists and who have now turned to a fascist movement for their salvation.

ASTRA TAYLOR: To answer the second part first, fascism is always a movement of the injured powerful. It is a movement that creates vertical solidarity between political and corporate elites and people who are not the worst off but feel that they’ve lost status and directs their sense of insecurity downwards further towards vulnerable scapegoats — towards immigrants, towards trans kids, towards feminists — instead of upwards at the oligarchs and the politicians.

So that’s how we understand Elon Musk buying X or what was Twitter, right, is that it was a way for him to control a media ecosystem and help direct that rage downwards at the left and at the vulnerable instead of letting it be harnessed towards people like him.

So I think that that’s right, if fascism creates what we call a vertical solidarity to protect capitalism, to protect the status quo. That’s certainly true of fascism in the past and it’s certainly true today.

What we have to do to build the resistance is create that horizontal solidarity, to not scapegoat the vulnerable, to build our own coalition and find our own unusual bedfellows. I think you see that in the resistance to fascism that’s growing in the United States and around the world.

One thing — Naomi said this — the people we’re tracking — end-times fascism is not a coherent ideology necessarily. It’s not a monolith. It’s a fractious alliance of these three groups: the religious end timers, the tech accelerationists, the ethnonationalists.

But what they have in common is this sense that things are going to be increasingly unstable. We say that they’re both building their arks and they’re causing the floods. They’re accelerating collapse. They’ve decided to just bring it on and abandon this shared world in their various fantasies about bunker nation or ascending to heaven or the digital class.

So the resistance fundamentally needs to be grounded in a desire to stay here on Earth, to commit to this place. We describe them at one point in the book as traitors to creation. And we don’t use that word “traitors” lightly. We are saying they’re not traitors to the flag or the nation but actually to life on Earth, to our shared humanity, our shared planet.

And I think we see that commitment to what we call “hereness” in the book in the movement against data centers that is sweeping the nation, in the resistance to ICE where people are saying, “No, I’m going to defend my community, defend my neighbors” and people standing up and fighting for labour rights, which fascists are always attacking.

Fighting for the environment, fighting against detention centers.

And so we see the resistance growing all over the world, but I think that the data center revolt is the main one for us because it really draws new lines and shows people — is bringing people together who a year ago or a couple of years ago might have been fighting over culture war issues.

Now they’re saying, “Well, actually, we have a lot in common because there’s a class of people who actually want to replace us with robots. Maybe we should be on the side of humanity against the machines.”

NAOMI KLEIN: Including those small business people, Juan, who you were referring to. This is why it really is an opportunity to form those new alliances. Because Donald Trump has betrayed many of the people who did vote for him the first time. The trouble, of course, is that many powerful Democrats are also taking money from the large tech companies and so are not willing to harvest what has been called by a comedian in I believe it was Madison — ”the most bipartisan issue since beer” is the opposition to these tech companies.

But in order to gain political advantage from that huge bipartisan issue, you have to be willing to go against your donors or not take their money in the first place.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Naomi, the business model of these AI fascists, if they were to be able to prevail, throw millions of people out of work, how will they make their money? Because obviously Henry Ford, back in the days of the early monopoly capitalism, believed you had to give workers a living wage so they could consume the products that you produced.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I’m not sure it’s all that thought through. I think that they think they’re mainly going to be selling products to other businesses in the short term. But this is why, Juan, it is a bubble, and it is a process of extraction, and the bubble is rigged to explode all over working people and their pensions right now.

ASTRA TAYLOR: Yeah, I think they also think that they’ll make a lot of money hooking up with the government and the military. There is a quote from Alex Karp — who is a colleague of Peter Thiel, CEO of Palantir — and he said — we quote him in the book saying, “If these tech companies think they’re going to take everybody’s jobs and then not work with the military, they are” — I’m going to change what he said and say — ”they are foolish.”

What he’s saying is essentially if you’re planning to build a technology that causes a job apocalypse, you are also going to have to align with the state and help build the mechanisms to police and control and contain the masses of dispossessed human beings.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to end with the end of your book: “We didn’t choose to be born into a fight quite so fateful but we have reached a choice point. We can either follow end-times fascists into oblivion or we can commit to building the unruly, boundary-crossing movement they so deeply fear, one that wrests away their weapons, holds them accountable for their crimes, and defends the paradise of here.”

Those are the words of Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor, co-authors of the new book out this week, End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World.

The original content of this programme and article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

Two months out from New Zealand’s general election, and we have yet to see new policy from any of the seven main political parties on media and communication.

Only the Greens have a media policy on their website — and it is effectively a repeat of the 2023 policy that was heavy on high-minded rhetoric but very light on functional detail. No party has yet presented voters with practical initiatives that take account of the significant shifts in the media industry since the last election.

Admittedly, this is not the sort of policy that will sway voters, but manifestos are more than vote-grabbers. They represent commitments by each party to use their best endeavours during the coming Parliamentary term to give effect to what they say they will do in the interests of the public good.

• READ MORE: Other Gavin Ellis articles on media

Unless there is a sudden avalanche of media policy promises, the signal the parties are sending is that, in this area of public policy, they plan to do very little.

I do not believe our politicians are unaware of the precarious state of journalism in this country. They have been lobbied by every media organisation and left in no doubt that the cuts that have kept newsrooms in operation are not sustainable in even the medium term.

The have been warned we will see the loss of significant news publications and news broadcasts within the term of the next government unless there is a reset. The playing field needs to be levelled to overcome the pernicious effects of uncontrolled foreign digital players in our media market.

Those effects are not only financial. They include significant civic, social and cultural consequences. We have already suffered damage caused by years of political inaction and ineffectiveness, but believe me, worse will come unless significant change is forthcoming.

Comfortable with less scrutiny
One of my worries is that, irrespective of high-minded utterances about the importance of journalism to democracy, most politicians are comfortable with less scrutiny of their activities by journalists than with an enhanced ability to speak truth to power.

Too many politicians, and the functionaries who spread their messages, mistakenly believe that their responsibility to keeping the public informed is met by speaking directly to constituents through social media and email lists, and that news media are no longer needed.

They are mistaken because scrutiny is the missing element in that interpretation of their social contract. Scrutiny includes ferreting out those matters of public interest that politicians would prefer you do not see or hear.

There is also a prevailing view that commercial news media are creatures of the marketplace and should, like any other business, stand or fall on the basis of their ability to sell goods or services.

Under the model prevailing when they were created, that is a valid viewpoint. However, that model is broken and has been dysfunctional long enough for some parts of it to become almost irretrievable.

Some will say that is the nature of the marketplace — ever changing and requiring nimble business practices to keep pace. It is only to be expected that some businesses will fail because they do not (or cannot) adapt.

Again, that is a valid viewpoint. But it is one that does not recognise two things. The first is the civic and social roles that news media play in a society that requires diverse and independent sources of information to properly function. The second is the inequity of a marketplace in which foreign players can plunder content with impunity and avoid the taxes and regulations that burden domestic media.

Untouchable foreign players
Beyond the marketplace are the social harms that are undeniably caused by those apparently untouchable foreign players and the as-yet-unquantifiable effects of their use of artificial intelligence.

The present government’s introduction (not passage) of legislation to introduce an Australian model under-16 ban on social media appears to be a calculated pre-election move, rather than an earnest attempt to deal with the problem (see below).

That Bill may look as if we are catching up with other countries on media policy, but the reality is that we have been left far behind. Inaction and widespread political indifference could see an incoming government face a firestorm of compounding consequences.

There are eight areas that all political parties need to address. I would like to think they could reach consensus on most of them.

The first is to create an enforceable environment that will allow all news organisations to negotiate financial compensation from foreign digital platforms for the use of content. That use would include search and social media plus large language models and other artificial intelligence assets.

The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill that has lain dormant in Parliament throughout the term of the present government should be resurrected, updated to bring its provisions in line with those of Australia, and extended to account for developments in artificial intelligence.

The second is to enforce the provisions of the OECD profit shifting framework to impose a tax on revenue that is currently moved offshore in the form of service payments. The resulting impost, which would be in addition to the money negotiated by news organisations, should be used to finance non-profit local and iwi news initiatives.

Sustaining local newsrooms
The third is the adoption of policies to help sustain local newsrooms. Two initiatives should be considered. Firstly, the State of California’s Community Newsroom Employment and Workforce Sustainability Act which will provide refundable tax credits to local newsrooms for each journalist they employ.

Such measures could be used to help sustain local and iwi news outlets. The Californian legislation, which passed the Senate and Assembly by overwhelming majorities and is awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature, extends eligibility to print, broadcast, digital, nonprofit, and independent family-owned news outlets. It is regarded as a blueprint for other states to follow.

Secondly, there is a British initiative that allows local authority rates relief on local news premises. The virtue of policies such as these is that they are effectively revenue neutral. Without the help, the newsrooms would not exist.

The fourth policy relates to public media. The amalgamation of Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand should be resurrected in light of TVNZ’s increasingly problematic advertising revenue base and the need to affect cost savings in both organisations.

The funding system for both organisations, together with Whakaata Māori and Iwi Radio, should be reviewed and consideration given to triennial funding.

The fifth policy should be a comprehensive review of the future of terrestrial broadcasting and the consequences of moves to digital-only delivery. Its deliberations should include possible disenfranchising of the elderly and poor; the impact on Māori broadcasting; the impact on TVNZ news services that could arise in a move to video streaming on demand; and the consequential uses of radio spectrum.

The sixth policy should be an urgent review of the harmful effects of social media that would include, but not be limited to, the effects on those under the age of 16. The proposed ban is based on that currently enacted in Australia, which has been been ineffective. Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, last month issued the results of a study that found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite the ban.

Platform operators as publishers
The review should consider deeming social media platform operators to be publishers (on the basis that their algorithms and AI tools manipulate content and determine audiences) and liable for infringements of law and regulation.

The seventh policy initiative should be a comprehensive review of media regulation and the development of an independent framework for complaint and adjudication. The review should embrace not only local media but also foreign-controlled digital platforms with New Zealand user bases over a certain size. Pending the adoption of findings from the review, existing regulatory bodies (state and industry-led) should remain in place.

Finally, any policies relating to artificial intelligence should make specific reference to news media, the integrity of news content, and intellectual property rights. It should include measures to limit the spread of disinformation, the verification and validation of legitimate news content produced by journalists, and the identification of AI-generated content.

Our political parties — and the public — need to understand the consequences of failing to deal effectively with what will become increasingly existential issues for journalism. Perhaps their starting point should be a general enquiry into the viability of New Zealand journalism and our media infrastructure, even if it tells them what some of us already know.

Israel is holding 37 Palestinian journalists in its prisons, including 19 under administrative detention without charge or trial, says the Palestinian Prisoner Society.

The nongovernmental advocacy group said all 37 journalists were detained following the start of the Gaza genocide in October 2023.

It said Israel continues to target Palestinian journalists through arrests, prison sentences, solitary confinement and prosecution over their work and freedom of expression.

• READ MORE: West Bank: RSF condemns Israeli army over escalating violence against Palestinian journalists
• Other Palestinian journalist reports

Among the latest detainees are journalists Muath Ammarna and Sabri Jibrin, who were arrested last Thursday after Israeli forces raided their homes in Bethlehem in the southern West Bank.

The group said Ammarna had been repeatedly targeted by Israeli authorities and was now being detained for the third time over his journalistic work.

It also cited the case of journalist and writer Mahmoud Fatafta, who was sentenced to 48 months in prison over what Israel described as “incitement,” one of the harshest sentences issued in such cases, according to the statement.

The society said Israeli authorities increasingly use “incitement” charges against journalists, alongside administrative detention based on what authorities describe as “secret files”.

Administrative detention
Nineteen journalists from the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are currently held under administrative detention, accounting for 51 percent of all detained journalists, it added.

The group also highlighted the case of journalist Bushra al-Tawil, 33, who was transferred from Damon Prison in northern Israel to solitary confinement at Ramla Prison in central Israel.

It accused Israeli authorities of intensifying isolation and other restrictive measures against female Palestinian prisoners, alongside food deprivation, denial of medical treatment and poor sanitation conditions.

The society said detained journalists faced the same conditions as other Palestinian prisoners, including hunger, medical neglect, torture, abuse, solitary confinement and denial of basic rights.

Journalists are also targeted through killings, enforced disappearances and direct attacks while carrying out their work, it added, describing this as part of a systematic policy aimed at restricting Palestinian reporting and documentation of Israeli crimes and violations.

The occupied West Bank has seen daily Israeli army raids and escalating attacks by occupiers since the start of the Gaza genocide in October 2023.

The attacks have included killings, arrests, demolitions, attacks on homes, vehicles and mosques, destruction of agricultural land, restrictions on farmers, displacement of Palestinians and expansion of illegal settlements.

​​​​​​​On Thursday, the Palestinian Prisoner Society said Israeli forces detained more than 100 Palestinians across the West Bank over the previous week, bringing the number of West Bank detainees since October 2023 to more than 25,000, in addition to thousands detained from Gaza.

Republished from Anadolu Ajansi.

COMMENTARY: By Andrew Brown

The section 18C case Zionist Federation of Australia’s CEO Alon Cassuto brought against high profile Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis in the Federal Court has been discontinued with no order over costs.

There is no finding that Kostakidis breached Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act. No apology has been ordered. No corrective notice will be published.

There was no judgment. What Mary Kostakidis got instead was a short consent order noting that the man who sued her had decided not to go on.

• READ MORE: Australian Zionists drop case against ‘truth’ journalist Mary Kostakidis
• Other Mary Kostakidis reports

The ZFA calls the matter “resolved”. Cassuto filed the case. Kostakidis spent two years preparing to fight it. Then Cassuto dropped it. The person who walked out of the courtroom was the one who chose to walk into it.

The complaint concerned two posts in which Kostakidis shared and commented on a speech by the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Cassuto said the material was “racially offensive”.

Mary denied endorsing anything and argued that a journalist has to be able to report what the people fighting a war are saying.

She is a former prime time weeknight SBS World News Australia presenter and was the face of SBS over two decades. Her journalism spans geopolitical issues, democracy and press freedom.

Kostakidis told Michael West Media, “This is a win for every Australian who values our democratic right to freedom of political expression.”

Zionist zealotry has had to beat a retreat from what was going to be a highly damaging trial.

Lawfare
Cassuto says he got what he wanted because Mary Kostakidis had already issued a qualified apology. He leaves out the timing. She made that apology before he went to the Federal Court.

He called it insincere and sued anyway. Two years on, he points to the same apology as his reason for stopping. That is a man looking for the exit.

Call it what it was. This was “lawfare”. The court process was the weapon, and the target was wider than one journalist.

Every editor and journalist with something to say about Israel was meant to be watching.

From the outside, each move looks separate. A complaint here. A referral there. A story in a friendly newspaper, then a writ. Put them side by side, and you see a structure built to make criticism of Israel expensive enough that most people decide it is not worth the trouble.

The letters are polite. The threat underneath is not. Legal bills keep arriving, and behind them the possibility of losing everything.

A case like this does not need to succeed to do its job. Once defending your own words puts your house at risk, the process is the punishment.

Defence won
Kostakidis’s defence put it plainly: the case was designed to discredit her and to frighten others into shutting up. “I have spent two years doing nothing but preparing my defence in a case aimed at silencing me,” she wrote.

For an ordinary Australian, she said, that could have meant losing their home.

Each new demand ate into her time and her savings. She could have gone quiet. Instead, she kept publishing and

kept her eyes on Gaza while most of the Australian media looked away.

Ordinary people chipped in to fund her defence. Her lawyers and her husband stayed beside her. But the name on the writ was hers, and so was the house. She did not fold.

The ZFA’s parting statement threw in fresh accusations and described her commentary as repugnant. None of it was ever tested. It reads less like the words of a winner than a door slammed on the way out.

The brutality and effectiveness of the Zionist cancelation of people’s livelihoods and opportunities for criticising the conduct of the State they worship. Their own conduct is responsible for their reputation. The response to the reputation: ‘Antisemitic tope!!!’ “Blood… https://t.co/u68vBi4Y9G

— Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) September 11, 2026

The moral high ground is Mary Kostakidis’s
There is a deeper problem for the lobby, and no writ will fix it. It is impossible to stand on a hill of infant bones and claim the moral high ground. The army of pedants and lawyers trying to trauma-clean the crime scene is doomed to fail. Resentment rises with every scrub.

Will the Zionist lobby ever learn?

Legal attack dogs bark loudly, and often that is all it takes. Then someone stands still and says, fine, put your evidence in front of a judge. The barking stops.

“The purpose of journalism is to get to the truth, fearlessly, and to hold power to account,” Mary Kostakidis wrote, calling the outcome “a win for press freedom, which has prevailed”.

She also thanked Jewish and Israeli people who have opposed the destruction of Gaza, saying:

Our common humanity trumps any form of tribalism.

The determination to erase Palestinian voices.
‘We Never Paid Him a Dime’: Palestine Chronicle Editor, Lawyer Respond to Lawsuit over Slain Gaza Journalist – Palestine Chronicle https://t.co/DQs3sUGaYN

— Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) September 12, 2026

Standing with Jewish Australians
Mary Kostakidis did not beat Jewish Australians. She beat an organised lobby whose power rests on making criticism of Israel personally costly. A great many Jewish Australians stand with Palestinians and refuse to have their identity yoked to the conduct of a foreign government.

Small wins matter because of what they do to the next person. A journalist sees that someone survived and files the story. An activist feels less alone. Fear moves through a community quickly. So does nerve.

None of this makes Mary Kostakidis infallible. Heroism has never required that. It requires knowing the cost and standing there anyway.

Lawfare is a muzzle made of good manners. Mary Kostakidis has torn a hole in it.

Martin Luther King Jr once famously quoted 19th-century abolitionist minister Theodore Parker: “The arc of the moral universe is long but bends toward justice.”

It does not bend on its own. It bends because people like Mary Kostakidis lean their whole weight on it.

Andrew Brown is a Sydney businessman in the health products sector, former Deputy Mayor of Mosman and a Palestine peace activist. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished by Asia Pacific Report and Pacific Media Watch with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/12/pacific-remembering-september-11-25-years-on/ Sat, 12 Sep 2026 06:16:07 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133442 By Susana Suisuiki of RNZ Pacific

The 9/11 attacks on the United States claimed thousands of lives, stunned the world, and triggered responses that continue to shape global politics, security, and public life today.

A series of coordinated attacks in the United States killed almost 3000 people, with planes hijacked and crashing in Pennsylvania, the Pentagon in Washington DC, and most prominently, the World Trade Center in New York City.

While the world watched in horror at the unfolding events, the memories of 9/11 are etched in the minds of those who survived or witnessed the attacks. That day is especially personal for Samoan Papali’i Mele Maualaivao who was living in Brooklyn at the time.

• READ MORE: How 9/11 permanently reshaped US and global security
• ‘Everything changed’: The human cost of 25 years of US wars
• Freedom of speech: From 9/11 to Fiji coups, a shocking and devastating tragedy — David Robie
• Other 9/11 reports

Papali’i, who is now living in Samoa and championing women through her work with United Nations Women, still vividly recalls one thing above all — the smell.

Speaking to Pacific Waves Papali’i said she first saw the smoke billowing from one of the Twin Towers on television that morning, believing a helicopter had crashed into the building. However, the situation became more devastating when both towers had collapsed, sending a vast cloud of ash and debris that engulfed the streets of New York.

The debris reached Brooklyn, right through the neighbourhood and onto the home Papali’i lived in.

“I remember seeing it raining down in my house, out around my house,” she said.

Incinerated remains
“So, you would see little bits of paper that were obviously from offices, ash and there was just the smell of like incineration. At the time, we didn’t realise that we were smelling, you know, the incinerated remains of everybody who’d been trapped in that building.”

Papali’i said in the days after the attacks, the weight of the tragedy started to set in and she had set off to donate blood at the Red Cross but was told that no bodies had yet been pulled from the wreckage. New York became a surreal landscape of profound grief, thick dust and heightened security.

The aftermath of September 11 dominated news coverage, with Papali’i recalling seeing people interviewed on television making desperate appeals for information about their missing loved ones.

“This is before social media was really big right. So on the news every day, there’d be somebody being interviewed saying, ‘have you seen my mother?’ ‘have you seen my father?’ ‘have you seen my brother?’ ‘have you seen my sister?’ and there were people putting up posters up everywhere of relatives in hopes that some way or some how they were still alive.”

Sadly, Papali’i knew of two individuals who died in the building and said the loss of lives had affected everybody even if they had not personally lost a close family member.

Twenty-five years later, Papali’i has not visited the memorial site despite making trips to New York since and said she doesn’t know if she’ll ever stop by as she feels the space is meant for families of those who died.

The events surrounding 9/11 has given Papali’i a greater appreciation of community and service which has continued on in her work in Samoa.

Sense of unity
Living in a city of millions where people usually kept to themselves, the tragedy created an unexpected sense of unity. Papali’i said she now recognises the bravery of first responders, firefighters, police officers and other emergency workers who put themselves in dangerous situations to save others.

Her hope is that remembering the loss brought on by 9/11 will encourage people to be kinder instead of using it as fuel to hate.

“I hope people realise that these moments, while they can be really scary and horrific and because of social media, you have so many more images of what’s occurred. I hope it causes one to be kinder in just your everyday life.”

Mele’s experience was one of the Pacific connections to the attacks.

Two New Zealanders were among those killed — Auckland-born environmental lawyer Alan Beaven, who was aboard Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania, and US-born John Lozowsky, a dual New Zealand citizen who worked in New Zealand during the 1990s, died in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Their names are among the nearly 3000 people remembered at the 9/11 Memorial in New York.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/12/australian-zionists-drop-case-against-truth-journalist-kostakidis/ Fri, 11 Sep 2026 12:33:57 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133434 The Zionist Federation of Australia has withdrawn its case of “racial hatred” against Australian journalist Mary Kostakidis, who called it a victory for free speech, reports Consortium News.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Joe Lauria

After a two-year legal battle to punish a prominent Australian journalist for her public criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) has withdrawn its case.

“This is a win for every Australian who values our democratic right to freedom of political expression,” Kostakidis said on X. “Zionist zealotry has had to beat a retreat from what was going to be a highly damaging trial.

“The purpose of journalism is to get to the truth — fearlessly — and to hold power to account. This is a win for press freedom, which has prevailed.“

Kostakidis, who anchored the SBS national news for nearly 20 years, was a high-profile target for the Zionist Federation in its quest to silence outrage over Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

Alon Cassuto, the ZFA chief executive who brought the case against Kostakidis, claimed on X that he withdrew it on Thursday to deprive her of a platform. He wrote:

“I do not intend to spend another year taking Ms Kostakidis’ repugnant commentary from the dark corners of the internet and giving it a Federal Court platform in her pursuit of martyrdom. My job here is done.”

The majority of his statement was a continued attack on the journalist. He claimed that the action he brought against Kostakidis was satisfied by an apology she had issued. But that was two years ago and he pursued his case against her nonetheless.

What he did not mention is a recent series of court decisions in Australia by judges who upheld the right to criticise Zionism, which appears to have weakened his chances of winning.

Kostakidis had also won approval for full discovery of ZFA communications.

In claiming victory, Kostakidis wrote:

“Watching a people live stream their own genocide while the international community responsible for creating this mess offers the victims sympathy and the perpetrators bombs, diplomatic cover and impunity, has been disgusting.

“Thank you to the Jewish and Israeli people all over the world raging against this in recognition our common humanity trumps any form of tribalism.

“Australia must stop disregarding the Orders of the International Court of Justice which were clear: we are obliged under international law to take meaningful action to prevent genocide in Palestine and to do all in our power to bring about an end to apartheid.

“Hypocrisy, double standards and a lack of courage are aiding the destruction of a framework intended to protect against the worst excesses of state power.”

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London.

Breaking: Zionists legal proceedings against me have been withdrawn after a 2 year battle.

This is a win for every Australian who values our democratic right to freedom of political expression. Zionist zealotry has had to beat a retreat from what was going to be a highly…

— Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) September 10, 2026

In citizen responses to this article published by Consortium News:

Anthony Kevin (September 11, 2026):

Whatever Cassuto’s rationalisations for their withdrawal, the Australian Zionist cause is bound to suffer big reputational damage over this. I am sure Joe Lauria is right that they ended the case because after the recent decision by NSW Supreme Judge Fagan, they were going to find it a hard case to sustain.

Especially as Zionist Israel keeps on humiliating and exploiting Australian governments and elites.

Mary was looking more and more like Joan of Arc. And the Zionists more and more like Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition.

Graeme D (September 11, 2026):
Mary stood where no Australian legacy MSM dared stand. Sycophants one and all, so ready to bend.

She showed courage and a dedication to telling the truth about a genocide when Australian legacy outlets banned journalists from using that word, even after the ICC unequivocally declared that a “plausible genocide” was being perpetrated.

Mary stood where most MPs feared to stand.

As Hunter S. Thompson — another fearless journalist — wrote, “anyone who goes to caught takes a wolf by the ears.”

Mary did this, and is one of the few to “win” at probably a heavy personal cost.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/10/australia-snubs-torres-strait-in-melanesian-spearhead-group-bid/ Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:56:01 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133368 By Stefan Armbruster and Jennifer Enosa for the Torres News

Australia is seeking observer status at the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) but has not committed to giving a role to Torres Strait Islanders, its own Melanesian population.

Responding to questions from the Torres News at the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting (PIFLM) in Palau last week, Minister for Pacific Island Affairs Pat Conroy confirmed the federal government was applying.

“We’re obviously keen to make that happen, because we see value in having the people of Australia as an observer through the Australian government at the Melanesian Spearhead Group,” Conroy told a press conference in Palau.

• READ MORE: Pacific Islands Forum: Is Australia out of touch with the Pacific and climate?
• West Papua: The Pacific’s new test of Indonesia’s sovereignty narrative
  
• The Pacific’s cocaine highway: will Australia’s $600m deal really help?
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

The MSG was founded in 1986 with the primary purpose of supporting decolonisation and self-determination for Melanesian people.

Its current membership includes the governments of Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), representing the Kanak independence movement of the French overseas territory of New Caledonia.

The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), which is seeking independence from Indonesia, holds observer status but has previously sought full membership.

On the sidelines of the PIF leaders meeting, newly appointed MSG Director-General Dr Anna Naupa told the Torres News the Pacific sub-regional group was preparing for a mid-term review of its 25-year 2038 Prosperity for All strategy.

Engaging with ‘Melanesian brothers and sisters’
“All our Indigenous people, wherever we are within our vast Melanesian communities, should certainly be part of conversations about anything to do with our Melanesia and this is something that we hope to pursue when we come to review the plan,” Dr Naupa said.

Asked if the Torres Strait could apply for observer status, she responded that it could be considered.

“The MSG in its structure is around states and the FLNKS, the movement, and recognition of different types of observers and associate members, but that does not preclude us from engaging with our Melanesian brothers and sisters more broadly,” she said.

Since the 1936 Maritime Strike, Torres Strait Islanders have sought various forms of self-governance and autonomy, including calls in the 1980s to cede from Australia due to “neglect” of their people and region.

Australia has engaged with the MSG in recent years but not with or through its Torres Strait Islander citizens.

“I can’t comment about the past but what I can say is that because of our attention to our Indigenous Melanesian peoples, that is the preference,” she said.

In 2025, Conroy was a guest at the 23rd MSG Leaders’ Summit held in Fiji, the first time an Australian minister has attended their meeting.

Non-commital on ‘greater voice’
He would not say if he supported Torres Strait Islanders having a greater voice in the Pacific or a seat at the MSG table.

“Obviously, there’s a process that is going through where the Melanesian Spearhead Group considers whether Australia would be an observer at the MSG,” he said.

MSG has flagged that it will also review Indonesia’s associate membership in 2027 if it does not enable a visit by the UN Human Rights Commissioner to investigate abuses in its Papuan provinces.

Australia has in recent years faced criticism from UN human rights bodies for some states blocking visits to prisons to investigate conditions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander detainees.

Stefan Armbruster is also the news development lead of Pasifika TV. Jennifer Enosa is a reporter for Radio 4WM and TIMA (Torres Strait Media Association). This article is republished from Torres News with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/10/maori-delegations-israel-trip-under-scrutiny-over-funding-and-itinerary/ Thu, 10 Sep 2026 02:19:14 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133351 Te Ao Māori News

A delegation of Māori leaders visiting Israel under the banner of “business and innovation” faces public criticism over its timing and purpose, while questions remain about how the trip was organised and the full extent of its funding, itinerary and engagement with Palestinian organisations.

The visit comes as New Zealand criticises the Israeli government’s actions in the occupied West Bank but stops short of joining international moves to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements.

Northland Regional Council chair Pita Tipene is among those who have visited Israel in recent days. The trip is taking place against the backdrop of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, escalating Israeli settlement activity and settler violence in the West Bank.

• READ MORE:  Labour would prioritise recognition of Palestine, sanctions on Israel
• Peters’ ‘hot air’ over Israeli settlement trade ban rules out of step with world
• Palestine Forum condemns NZ for talk, no ‘meaningful action’ over illegal Israeli settlements
• Indigenizing Zionism: Narrative claims deployed by the Indigenous Coalition for Israel to evade settler-colonial characterization — Arama Rata
• Other Gaza reports

In September 2025, a United Nations Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel has rejected that finding.

Former delegate says Israeli ministry funded the visit
Te Ao Māori News understands prospective delegation members were told the visit would focus on “business and innovation”.

Riki Manarangi, who travelled to Israel as part of a Māori delegation in November 2025, said he heard “through the grapevine” that another delegation was planned for 2026 and volunteered to recommend potential participants.

“I wasn’t formally approached or asked to organise anything,” he said.

“I reached out to a few people I thought would be a good fit and asked if they’d be keen to be considered. Some went, and some declined.”

Manarangi said he approached several people he believed would suit the delegation’s business and innovation focus but was not responsible for deciding who would participate.

He said Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs organised and funded the visit.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs over there are the ones who organise and fund it,” he said. “They cover basics … transport, accommodation, and kai.”

Asked who helped coordinate the current visit, Manarangi described Yifat Goddard as “like the programme lead” and said she was unpaid.

Goddard, an Israeli-New Zealander, also proposed the November 2025 Māori delegation that Manarangi joined, according to an account published by the “Indigenous Embassy” Jerusalem. Te Ao Māori News has asked Goddard for comment and has not yet received a response.

The Indigenous Embassy Jerusalem said it had no involvement in the current delegation and had not been approached to help organise, recruit for, fund or facilitate it. It said it learned of the visit second-hand and through social media.

MFAT notified after delegation was underway
New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it had no involvement in the visit.

“The Israeli government advised MFAT it was hosting the group once the visit was underway,” a spokesperson said.

MFAT did not say which arm of the Israeli government contacted it, what “hosting” involved or whether it was given information about the delegation’s funding.

Te Ao Māori News has requested further information under the Official Information Act, including correspondence about the visit and details of when and how MFAT was notified.

The Israeli Embassy’s initial response did not confirm who initiated or funded the delegation, what costs the Israeli government covered or how participants were selected.

It also did not identify which Israeli government officials or organisations the group was meeting or say whether the itinerary included engagement with Palestinians or Palestinian organisations.

Instead, the Embassy said it was pleased delegates had been able to visit Israel and “see the country for themselves, rather than relying solely on the picture presented through the media”.

It said delegations travelled throughout Israel, met Jewish, Arab, Druze and Bedouin Israelis, and were free to hear a range of views.

“Israel is a democratic country. Visitors are free to ask the questions they wish, to say whatever they want, and to make up their own minds,” it said.

Te Ao Māori News has since asked the Embassy to confirm Manarangi’s account, including Goddard’s role, whether international flights were covered and which Israeli government body administered the funding. It has not yet responded to that follow-up.

The New Zealand Israel Innovation Hub declined to confirm whether it was involved in the current visit.

It described the delegation as a “tremendous success”, saying that the assessment was based on social media posts and second-hand feedback. The hub said the visit had inspired plans for three Māori Innovation and Technology Delegations in 2027.

The first would focus on Northland Māori communities and educational outcomes. The hub also invited a representative from Whakaata Māori to consider joining one of its future delegations.

Pita Tipene says he will respond after returning to Aotearoa
Tipene declined an interview while overseas, saying he had received requests from several media organisations.

“I’ve responded by saying that I’ll speak my truth when I set foot home,” he told Te Ao Māori News.

Tipene has, however, responded publicly to criticism of his presence in Israel.

“It’s horrible and gut-wrenching, and it must stop!” he wrote.

“I am not pro-Israel — I am pro-peace and humanity, as the killing and destruction is happening across national boundaries here in Gaza and in other nations.

“I’m not here to judge, but I’m not immune to the gravity of what’s happening here either.”

Northland Regional Council said it had no involvement in the visit.

Chief executive Jonathan Gibbard said Tipene was travelling in a personal, non-council capacity and the council had not funded, organised or endorsed the trip.

Gibbard said the travel was not related to council business.

Other current delegates approached by Te Ao Māori News have not responded to requests for comment.

An invitation some Māori leaders declined
Some invited Māori leaders declined to participate. Te Ao Māori News understands concerns were raised during planning about the trip’s funding, its political context and whether delegates would have opportunities to hear directly from Palestinian communities.

Manarangi said prospective delegates who raised concerns were offered meetings with representatives of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and encouraged to participate. He said nobody was excluded because of concerns about Israel or Palestine, and those who did not travel had chosen to withdraw.

“There are plenty of people over there who are openly critical of the Israeli government, no different to here in Aotearoa; that’s just what living in a democracy looks like,” Manarangi said.

Te Ao Māori News continues to seek responses from others involved in facilitating the visit.

NZ condemns settlement expansion but does not join import-ban push

Questions about the delegation come as the United Kingdom, France and Canada move to ban imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The three countries were among 12 that issued a joint statement warning that unprecedented settlement expansion and settler violence were rapidly undermining the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Israel responded with retaliatory measures against the UK, including ordering the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem, which serves Palestinians.

New Zealand did not sign the statement and said it was not in a position to introduce an import ban before the election.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters issued a “standalone” statement on Wednesday saying New Zealand was “deeply concerned by the deteriorating situation in the West Bank”.

“There has been a marked escalation in Israel’s actions, jeopardising the prospect of a durable peace,” Peters said.

“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are a violation of international law. Expanding settlements undermines prospects for a two-state solution to the longstanding conflict.”

“New Zealand strongly opposes actions that advance annexation or threaten the forcible displacement of Palestinians,” he said.

“Such measures are incompatible with international law and risk perpetuating the cycle of violence and insecurity.”

A spokesperson for Peters said New Zealand had not traditionally used trade measures to address foreign-policy issues. Introducing an import ban would require a full policy process that could not be completed before the election.

New Zealand had previously imposed travel bans on 38 people over extremist settlement activity, including two Israeli ministers, with the latest three bans announced in June.

New Zealand had earlier joined an international statement specifically opposing the Israeli Government’s E1 settlement plan, warning it would divide the West Bank and further undermine the possibility of a two-state solution.

Israel faces international legal scrutiny over Gaza conduct
Israel’s conduct in Gaza is also under scrutiny before two international courts.

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

The ICC found reasonable grounds to believe they bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.

The warrants are not findings of guilt, and neither man has been tried or convicted by the ICC. Israel has rejected the court’s jurisdiction and denies the allegations against Netanyahu and Gallant.

Separately, South Africa’s genocide case against Israel remains before the International Court of Justice. The court has not issued a final judgment determining whether Israel committed genocide.

The full funding arrangements, selection process and itinerary for the current delegation remain unconfirmed. It is also unclear how the proposed 2027 delegations would be funded, structured or opened to participants.

Republished from Te Ao Māori News by Pacific Media Watch.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/10/rabuka-calls-on-fijians-to-use-freedom-of-expression-responsibly/ Wed, 09 Sep 2026 21:29:13 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133329 By Rashika Kumar in Suva

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka is calling on Fijians to use their freedom of expression responsibly, stressing that people can disagree strongly and hold each other to account without bullying, humiliating, or deliberately hurting one another.

In a statement, Rabuka said Fijians no longer needed to fear speaking their minds.

He said people were free to express their views, debate the issues that mattered to them, and say what they believed without looking over their shoulder, adding that this was democracy.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji media freedom reports

Rabuka said when his coalition government repealed the Media Industry Development Act (MIDA) in 2023, fulfilling a commitment they had made to the people of Fiji, this was the kind of country they wanted to restore, where people could speak freely and journalists could report without the threat of MIDA hanging over them.

He said there was a time when many people did not feel that freedom.

The Prime Minister said he had lived through different chapters of our country’s history, and he had also had to reflect on his own part in that history.

As a former Fiji military lieutenant-colonel, he led Fiji’s first two coups in 1987 and he co-authored the book Rabuka: No Other Way with Eddie Dean and Stan Ritova.

Rabuka said with the passing of the years, he had come to understand more deeply that democracy was not simply about winning an election but it was also about accepting criticism when in power and protecting the right of people to disagree.

He added that when his coalition came into government, they could have kept MIDA — and politically, perhaps that might have made life easier for them — but it would not have been right for Fiji or the legacy they wanted to leave behind.

Republished from Fijivillage News with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/09/palestine-forum-condemns-nz-for-talk-no-meaningful-action-over-illegal-israeli-settlements/ Wed, 09 Sep 2026 05:07:34 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133258 Asia Pacific Report

The Palestine Forum of New Zealand has called on the New Zealand government to follow France, the UK, Canada and nine other countries to impose restrictions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Twelve countries have now announced measures targeting trade connected to Israeli settlements, signalling growing international concern over the continued expansion of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

However, both Australia and New Zealand failed to join the 12 countries in their ban.

• READ MORE: NZ joins call to end Israeli settlement expansion, but not import ban
• UK, France, Canada to ban imports from Israeli settlements — NZ critical but stops short of joining
• UK bans goods from Israeli West Bank settlements in ‘comprehensive reset’: What that really means
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

“Where is New Zealand?” asked Maher Nazza, chair of the Palestine Forum, “Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded for decades, involving the transfer of Israeli civilians into occupied territory and the development of homes, businesses and infrastructure on land claimed by Palestinians.

“Settlement activity is not simply a political issue. It has significant economic dimensions. Goods produced in settlements enter international markets, while businesses and institutions can become connected to, and benefit from, settlement activity.”

Maher said in a statement New Zealand should not be importing or supporting an economic system that contributed to the entrenchment of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

“If the government is serious about international law, human rights and Palestinian self-determination, it must move from statements to action.”

Palestine Forum of New Zealand has called on the government to:

• Ban imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank;
• Prevent New Zealand companies and institutions from supporting or profiting from settlement activity;
• Review government procurement, investment and trade relationships linked to settlements; and
• Join international efforts to impose meaningful economic measures against the settlement enterprise.

Israel furious over new UK sanctions          Video: Novara Media

Nazzal said the question for the New Zealand government was straightforward: “If France, the United Kingdom, Canada and other governments are prepared to take action, why isn’t New Zealand?

“New Zealand should not wait for others to act.”

He said that if 12 countries could take action, New Zealand could too.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters said in a statement the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories were a violation of international law and expanding those settlements undermined prospects for a two-state solution to the longstanding conflict.

“New Zealand strongly condemns violence by settlers against Palestinian civilians and calls for accountability for those responsible.”

The UK has announced sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements and says Palestinians face ‘ethnic cleansing’ in parts of the occupied West Bank. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese calls it a ‘seismic shift’ after years of UK ‘complicity’, but says it is only the beginning. pic.twitter.com/b4Vh9e2vhx

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) September 8, 2026

In Australia, independent Senator David Pocock said it was really disappointing Australia had not joined the UK, France, Canada and others in expanding sanctions on the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

“The UK PM was clear: this is about the unacceptable actions of the Israeli government, not the Israeli people and about refusing to just stand by and watch the horrors being perpetrated against Palestinians,” he said.

“Australia should show the same courage and stand for international law, Palestinian rights and a secure future for both peoples.”

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese praised the UK  government for announcing the sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements and saying Palestinians faced “ethnic cleansing” in parts of the occupied West Bank.

She described it as a “seismic shift” after years of UK “complicity”, but added it was only the beginning.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/08/debt-in-the-pacific-systemic-and-current-threats-to-regional-economic-sovereignty/ Tue, 08 Sep 2026 01:30:38 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133215 ANALYSIS: By Antonia Bhagwan in Suva

The Pacific may have moved beyond the worst of the covid-19 pandemic, but its economic consequences continue to weigh on governments across the region.

Once again, countries are facing rising debt levels. In its 2026 Pacific Economic Update, the World Bank linked the current financial landscape to slower economic growth, narrowing fiscal space, climate disasters, high dependence on imported fuel, and an uncertain global economy.

According to Joey Tau, coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), the region’s current debt problem must be understood historically and structurally.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific economics reports

“Over the past two decades, both internal and external developments have challenged the economic structures of Pacific Island states,” says Tau.

The region operates within a history of colonisation and has long been characterised as a group of “underdeveloped” small island states “faced with economic challenges”.

“It is under these conditions that debt has been something inherited from our colonisers, and we continue to struggle with.”

Public debt obligations
“Many Pacific Island countries continue to face challenges in meeting their debt obligations,” says PANG deputy coordinator Adam Wolfenden.

The issue of public debt in the region is a serious concern, with “real-world implications” for the diversion of public funds away from other essential services. The issue should not be reduced to simply “debt-trap diplomacy”.

According to Wolfenden, the terminology and implication that only certain donors are using funds for influence can distract from deeper questions about how borrowing is used to develop economies.

It can also distract from how debt obligations impact on public spending and economic sovereignty.

The region’s debt picture is mixed. The World Bank reports that average public debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratios declined modestly in 2025, with the average falling by 1.8 percentage points.

Between 2023 and 2025, the number of countries assessed at high risk of overall debt distress fell from five to three. However, four countries remain at high risk under the broader debt vulnerability analysis.

Fiji remains a notable example. Public debt stood at around 79 percent of GDP in 2025, the highest among the 11 countries covered in the report. While this is below its pandemic peak, the World Bank notes that progress towards stabilising the country’s debt has stalled, exposing deeper questions about Fiji’s economic make-up and need for diversification.

Public debt ratio doubled
“Meanwhile, Solomon Islands public debt-to-GDP ratio has nearly doubled, increasing by approximately 14 percentage points since 2022 to reach 30 percent of GDP in 2025. Ongoing elevated fuel costs will continue to further strain government spending and government deficits.

As some Pacific countries move away from grant-only financing towards a greater share of concessional borrowing, the World Bank says maintaining debt sustainability will become more difficult.

The World Bank projects public debt to rise in 2026–2027 as fiscal deficits widen and growth moderates.

For countries with limited financial buffers, concessional financing from multilateral institutions may become the primary avenue for covering financing gaps, despite the additional debt burden that will accompany this.

“The geopolitical competition in the Pacific has not necessarily led to greater access to resources for the region; rather, there is a global shrinking in the grants available, shifting more countries into lending financing,” says Wolfenden.

“This results in increased pressure on Pacific economies and political positioning.” At the same time, he argues that development finance cannot be separated from strategic interests.

“Infrastructure investments are often associated with, or facilitate access to, raw materials in the region,” Wolfenden says.

“This can result in financing infrastructure that has a distinct dual-use, providing the donor government with more power over the loan recipient.

“Donors may differ in the mechanisms for providing funds, but there is a shared understanding that debt creates opportunities for influencing the region.”

To illustrate, Wolfenden mentions that Australia’s development assistance is shifting to “securitisation”, compared to how the United States’ is withdrawing from the region while continuing to weaponise its trade policy.

Such approaches “further undermine the Pacific.”

Who Benefits?

“Borrowing is important, but are we borrowing for the sake of actual tangible development?” asks Tau.

“As small island developing states, are we put in a position that encourages ongoing borrowing, so it becomes a habit where your economy is dependent rather than looking at other options?

“It all comes down to the priorities and plan behind the borrowing,” he says. Tau argues that instead of allowing external interests to determine national spending priorities, fiscal planning should “equate to human development, ensuring that infrastructure services are not just accessible to its urban centres, but basic services reach its rural majority.

“Citizenry budgeting is necessary to establish whether public resources are being directed towards what communities actually need rather than depending on what a government chooses.

“It needs to be people informing priorities.”

Regional responses
Climate change continues to damage infrastructure and place additional pressure on public finances. In Tonga, for example, the economic impact of climate-induced events is disproportionately large, with the annual average loss estimated at TOP 178 million ($US 77 million), or 18.2 percent of GDP.

That is more than the total education and health budgets combined. This indicates that Tonga cannot fully absorb such losses on a yearly basis by itself.

“As the region continues to go through climate-induced impacts on infrastructure, what is the regional approach around ensuring that the Pacific doesn’t get into a debt spiral?” Tau asks.

It is especially challenging for Pacific governments facing growing spending needs while grant financing declines. The World Bank recommends credible fiscal frameworks, stronger debt and cash management, improved revenue collection, better project selection and procurement, and more disciplined borrowing.

However, these blanket suggestions are not always suitable in the Pacific context. The World Bank also warns that climate adaptation, resilient infrastructure, water, energy, transport, and public services will require substantial financing.

This creates a difficult balance. While grants are preferred, borrowing may be necessary to establish the infrastructure needed for economic growth potential. However, borrowing can leave governments more exposed to future crises, with excessive debt obligations undermining spending on other components of a growing economy, such as health, education, and targeted supports.

The World Bank therefore points to integrating disaster-risk financing and climate adaptation into fiscal planning. For Tau, however, the response also needs to extend beyond national fiscal planning to regional mechanisms that can help countries absorb financial shocks caused by climate change.

“We will incur unprecedented or unprojected expenditure, and we have to be prepared for it,” he says.

“We have to create an environment and facilities that, one, address this issue, but also sustain the region.”

Sovereignty and looking ahead
Ultimately, the Pacific’s debt challenge is a question of economic sovereignty. It asks whether Pacific governments have the space to determine their own development priorities and fund them without interference.

Wolfenden highlights the need for “greater economic and energy sovereignty in the region” in the face of inherited debt, global uncertainty, an erratic United States administration, the global fuel crisis, and climate change.

Tau similarly warns that the region’s sovereignty, including its ownership of state-owned enterprises, resources, access to resources and islands, is at risk if development priorities are not focused on long-term wellbeing.

“Fiscal policies need to project the realities of the economic status of a country. That means ensuring the wellbeing of its people first and foremost,” he says.

Antonia Bhagwan is a final-year student journalist who recently completed an internship with the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) as part of The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism programme. Published in collaboration with Asia Pacific Report.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/08/west-papuan-group-urges-jakarta-to-put-words-into-action-on-un-visit/ Mon, 07 Sep 2026 22:46:50 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133206 By Johnny Blades of RNZ Pacific

A leading West Papua pro-independence group has questioned Indonesia’s assertion that a proposed visit by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to West Papua is “on track”.

The West Papua National Committee (KNPB) is urging Indonesia to put its words into action on the proposed visit with a clear date, genuine access and meaningful engagement.

This comes after Melanesian countries last week urged Jakarta to facilitate the long-requested visit or have Indonesia’s status as an associate member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group reviewed.

• READ MORE: West Papua: The Pacific’s new test of Indonesia’s sovereignty narrative — Ali Mirin
• UN human rights commissioner visit to West Papua on track, says Indonesia
• Other West Papua reports

A request for the visit was made by Pacific Islands Forum countries back in 2019, but it has still not gone ahead, despite ongoing armed conflict and human rights violations in Indonesian-ruled Papua region, known internationally as West Papua.

In the intervening years, frustration has built up among the Melanesian countries in particular that Indonesia has not yet allowed the visit to take place.

In response to last week’s statement from the MSG, the Indonesian government told RNZ Pacific that the visit was on track, without elaborating on details.

“We are always in constructive discussion on the issues deemed important by other members of the MSG, and we can also confirm that the said proposed visit is on the right path,” an Indonesian spokesperson said.

Concrete, verifiable action
The KNPB’s international spokesperson, Victor Yeimo, said that for the Papuan people, Indonesia’s statement about the visit being on track must now translate into concrete, verifiable action.

“If the visit is genuinely on track, we respectfully ask: What is the timeline? What practical arrangements are being made? And when will the High Commissioner be able to visit West Papua and engage directly with the Papuan people?” he asked.

“The question is whether the United Nations’ highest human rights official will now be given meaningful and independent access to assess the wider human rights situation.”

Yeimo said that in Papua the High Commissioner should be allowed to engage freely with Indigenous communities, victims of human rights violations, displaced persons, civil society, churches, human rights defenders and other affected communities.

“Such engagement should take place without intimidation, surveillance or reprisals, and without restricting who communities are able to speak with or what concerns they are able to raise.

“The Papuan people do not ask the international community simply to accept our narrative. Nor do we ask it simply to accept Jakarta’s narrative,” Yeimo said.

“We ask the United Nations to come, listen directly and assess the situation for itself. That is the purpose of an independent human rights assessment.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/07/maori-and-pacific-soldiers-final-resting-place-in-gaza-dont-forget-their-story/ Mon, 07 Sep 2026 11:15:18 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133193 COMMENTARY: By Maher Nazzal of the Palestine Forum of New Zealand

There is a deeply painful connection between Aotearoa New Zealand and the Gaza War Cemetery that deserves to be remembered.

Long before the current destruction of Gaza, New Zealand soldiers fought and died in the Palestine campaign of the First World War. Some never made it home. Their final resting place is Gaza.

Among those buried at the Gaza War Cemetery are Private Kamati and Private Tutavake, two soldiers associated with the New Zealand Māori Pioneer Battalion’s Rarotongan contingent. New Zealand historical reporting has described them as members of the Māori Battalion.

• READ MORE: Other Gaza war graves desecration reports

They are not simply names on a distant memorial.

They were young men from the Pacific who travelled thousands of kilometres from their homes to serve in a war that brought them to Palestine. They became part of the history of Aotearoa, the Pacific and the Middle East — and Gaza became their final resting place.

Today, that cemetery itself has been caught up in another war.

A cemetery caught in the destruction of Gaza
The Gaza War Cemetery contains more than 3000 Commonwealth graves from the First World War, together with graves from the Second World War and other conflicts. The New Zealand War Graves Project records 32 New Zealand casualties at the cemetery, including Kamati and Tutavake.

In February 2026, reports emerged that sections of the cemetery had been bulldozed and damaged.

The New Zealand Herald reported that the destroyed section contained 20 New Zealand and two Rarotongan soldiers. Satellite imagery showed parts of the cemetery’s previously green grounds turned into churned earth.

The damage was serious enough for the New Zealand government to publicly express its concern.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said New Zealand was “deeply concerned” about damage to the Gaza War Cemetery and the nearby Deir el-Balah War Cemetery, describing them as the final resting places of New Zealanders who died in the two world wars.

New Zealand’s ambassador to Israel raised the matter directly with the Israeli government, conveying New Zealand’s expectation that the graves of New Zealand, Pacific and Commonwealth service personnel be treated with the utmost respect.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has committed to restoring the cemeteries when it is safe and practical to do so.

Their story is bigger than a cemetery
There is something profoundly symbolic about this.

These Pacific soldiers left their islands and travelled to a part of the world they had never known. They fought and died in Palestine more than a century ago.

Their graves subsequently became part of Gaza’s landscape.

For generations, the cemetery was cared for by Palestinian caretakers. New Zealanders visiting Gaza on Anzac Day came to remember their countrymen. A 2014 New Zealand Herald account described the cemetery as a place where New Zealanders came to honour the fallen.

And then Gaza became a battlefield again.

The people living around the cemetery today are experiencing a war of their own — while the men buried beneath the ground have, once again, been caught in the violence of a conflict in Palestine.

That is the tragedy of Gaza’s war graves.

Aotearoa should remember them
For New Zealanders, this should not be an abstract international story.

The men buried there were part of our history.

They represented New Zealand and the Pacific at a time when Māori and Pacific soldiers made enormous sacrifices during the First World War.

The story of Kamati and Tutavake also reminds us that the history of New Zealand’s military service is not exclusively a European story. It includes Māori, Cook Islanders and other Pacific peoples whose contribution and sacrifice helped shape the history of Aotearoa.

Their graves in Gaza are physical links between Aotearoa, the Pacific and Palestine.

And that makes their treatment today especially painful.

Whatever one’s position on the present conflict, the principle should be straightforward:

Respect for the war graves
War graves must be respected. The dead should not become casualties of the wars of the living.

More than a century after these soldiers died, their final resting place should be a place of peace.

Kamati and Tutavake deserve to be remembered not only as soldiers who died in Palestine, but as Pacific men whose lives became part of the shared history of Aotearoa, the Pacific and Gaza.

Their names remain.

Their graves remain.

And their story should not be forgotten.

Maher Nazzal is chair of the Palestine Forum of New Zealand.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/07/student-newspaper-wins-lawsuit-against-trumps-crackdown-on-pro-palestine-speech/ Sun, 06 Sep 2026 23:30:39 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133164 Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: A federal judge has ruled the Trump administration has violated the constitutional rights of international students in seeking to deport them for their pro-Palestinian activism and criticism of Israel.

In her ruling, US District Judge Noël Wise wrote, “In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticise the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength. That strength is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”

The lawsuit was filed by The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University, which claimed some of its writers on student visas declined to cover pro-Palestinian protests or report on topics related to Israel, fearing deportation.

Student journalists also requested their published articles on such topics be removed from the paper’s website.

The case raises broader questions about the climate of fear and political repression facing international students during the Trump administration. One of the most striking examples is Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University.

Last year, masked plainclothes immigration agents snatched Öztürk off the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. A year earlier, she had co-written an opinion piece for the Tufts student newspaper, The Tufts Daily, critical of the university’s response to campus protests over Gaza and the school’s failure to uphold student Senate resolutions on Palestine.

Tufts University later stated the op-ed did not violate university policy, that no complaints had been filed about it, and that Rümeysa Öztürk had been in good academic and immigration standing.

Nonetheless, her student visa was canceled, and she spent more than six weeks in an ICE jail in Louisiana. An immigration court eventually ruled in Rümeysa’s favor, saying the government failed to meet its burden of proof to deport her.

However, the message from the Trump administration to international students across the nation remained clear: Their ordinarily protected free political expression could now potentially cost them their immigration status and their freedom.

Well, for more, we’re joined by two guests who successfully challenged the Trump administration in court. Here in New York City, George Porteous is with us, editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily. And in Moorestown, New Jersey, Will Creeley, legal director of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented The Stanford Daily in court.

George and Will, we welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with you, George Porteous. You are a rising senior —

GEORGE PORTEOUS: Senior, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: — at Stanford. You’re the editor-in-chief of the paper. Talk about why you brought this suit. What were the student reporters saying to you, the international students?

GEORGE PORTEOUS: Thank you for having me.

And what we were hearing from the noncitizens in our newsroom and from noncitizens across campus — current students, former students, alumni — was that they were genuinely frightened because of what they saw in the headlines, what they saw happen to Rümeysa Öztürk.

They were understandably frightened that if they reported the news, even if they weren’t writing an op-ed, even if they were just covering a protest or a vigil, if they put their name on a byline, they were frightened that they were going to lose their visa.

And so, what we said is, we can’t function as a newspaper if we don’t have these voices included in our newspaper. So, we filed suit, and last week the judge gave us a favorable ruling.

Stanford Daily student press wins free speech lawsuit.    Video: Democracy Now!

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, George, what was the initial response of the Stanford administration to your lawsuit? Did they — did they support your efforts?

GEORGE PORTEOUS: You know, the administration has remained relatively silent about this suit. We still haven’t heard any response from them since this decision. And we’re an independent organisation, so this was a suit filed by The Stanford Daily on our own, independently. And that’s really why we were in this case, not really because of the university.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what has this all taught you in terms of the ability of folks to stand up and defend the First Amendment?

GEORGE PORTEOUS: Well, I think what it’s shown me is that it really has to begin locally, because we were dealing with a problem inside of our newsroom with our peers, and this was about solidarity, and also just the practical need to continue doing our jobs and to continue reporting the news.

So, it’s shown me that it really does begin with everyday people. It begins with students, too. Students, I think, have enormous power to stand up to what this administration has done in terms of civil liberties and constitutional rights. And we have real power, is what this ruling has shown us.

AMY GOODMAN: And are other students who have previously said they’re not going to cover a protest — are they willing to now? Has this made a difference, changed the climate in your newsroom?

GEORGE PORTEOUS: You know, it’s still, I think, too early to see. But I’m hopeful that this ruling, because it’s a very strong legal precedent, will carve out more room for noncitizens to feel that they can participate in democracy on campus.

AMY GOODMAN: Will Creeley, you are legal director at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Talk about why you approached The Stanford Daily, why this is such a significant decision.

WILL CREELEY: Well, it’s an honour to be here, Amy and Juan.

And I’m so proud listening to George now expound upon the importance of folks like George and his predecessor, Greta, standing up for First Amendment rights. It’s extremely important. When you see Rümeysa Öztürk in prison orange from a detention center in Louisiana for co-authoring an op-ed, you know something has gone terribly wrong.

With this administration, again and again, the chill is the point. These actions that they’re taking, these wanton violations of the First Amendment, are designed to get folks like George and his colleagues at The Stanford Daily to feel scared, to think twice, to ask that their names not appear on news reporting or opinion pieces.

That’s flatly un-American.

So, it was extremely important to us to fight back. And we’re so grateful for the bravery of The Stanford Daily folks and our Jane Doe colleague — Jane Doe plaintiff, who was a member of Students for Justice in Palestine and was no longer going to protest or flying a Palestinian flag or wearing shirts that expressed her political opinions.

She self-censored because of what the administration was doing. That’s a First Amendment violation every day of the week. It’s flatly un-American. And that’s why we’re very proud of last week’s victory.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Will, some members of the Trump administration responded. Stephen Miller posted on X, “A district court judge says America must admit and keep foreigners who hate America and hate Americans. Court-ordered civilisational suicide. It will not stand.”

Your response? And also the issue that you —

WILL CREELEY: Yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: If you could talk a little bit about the due process question you raised?

WILL CREELEY: Stephen Miller has got it exactly backwards. In the year 1800, Thomas Jefferson, in his inaugural address, made clear that in this country we protect the First Amendment rights of even those who call for the dissolution of this country, responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts.

We have a long history in this country of protecting that speech. That’s what makes this country special. We have to live those values. It’s Stephen Miller who’s un-American here, not folks who are expressing their political opinions.

The United States is supposed to be where folks from around the world, folks like Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, Mahmoud Khalil, can come and learn about what it means to be able to speak out without fear of a midnight knock on the door or being whisked away by masked federal agents.

We’re going to continue fighting for those fundamental American rights, no matter who’s in office.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to be talking about people being whisked away by federal agents in a moment when we go to Danbury, Connecticut. I want to thank you both for being with us, and just ask you, as you go into your senior year, George: What are you majoring in?

GEORGE PORTEOUS: I’m a history major.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what have you learned?

GEORGE PORTEOUS: Well, history repeats itself. And I think what we’ve seen is this administration has a clear agenda. They’re trying to instill fear on campuses. And they’ve done lasting damage. I mean, this lawsuit is a victory, but a lot of damage has already been done.

So, I think what I’ve learned is that we have a responsibility, especially as students. We have an opportunity to continue standing up for our peers, because when the most vulnerable among us is afraid to speak, we should all be deeply concerned.

AMY GOODMAN: George Porteous, editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily. Will Creeley, legal director at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Republished from Democracy Now! under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

]]>