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: 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.

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.

By Stephanie Tran

The Labor Government has joined with the Coalition to vote against a Greens amendment which would have stripped deductible gift recipient status from Australian organisations found to be supporting an illegal occupation by funding Israeli settlements and organisations linked to the IDF.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi introduced the amendment in the Senate this week, arguing that Australian taxpayers should not subsidise organisations whose funds support illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Genocide is a war crime. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime.

“But in this country, you can send money to fund those war crimes, and you’ll receive a tax deduction,” Faruqi told the Senate.

• READ MORE: Other Australian charities and genocide reports

Both Labor and the Coalition opposed the amendment.

Faruqi referenced investigations by Michael West Media which revealed that Australian charities registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) were hosting fundraisers linked to the IDF and Israeli settlements in the West Bank while benefiting from Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status.

“These charities are helping to bankroll the genocide in Gaza by channelling funds to organisations linked to the IDF and to violent illegal settlements off the back of Australian taxpayer money.”

The proposed amendment would have amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide that an entity would not be entitled to DGR endorsement if it had supported an “illegal occupation”.

Last month, the UK Charity Commission launched an investigation into charities in England and Wales donating funds to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.

ACNC rules ‘don’t extend to … international law’
Faruqi said the amendment was necessary because the existing regulatory framework did not adequately address conduct that breached international law.

“By maintaining DGR status for these supposed charities, the government says that this violence is okay. That is what this government is doing. That these murders are okay. That this ethnic cleansing is okay,” she said.

“How can supporting ethnic cleansing, settler occupation, and murdering Palestinians be ensuring the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas? It cannot, and the ACNC has not been able to answer these questions.”

When she previously moved the amendment in March, Labor senator Anthony Chisholm told the Senate that the ACNC’s external conduct standards did not extend to conduct under international law.

Faruqi said that meant charities could continue to fund activities that are unlawful under international law while retaining their tax concessions.

“Labor is more than happy for those who participate in, sustain, and fund the illegal occupation of the West Bank, an occupation that Labor itself has recognised as illegal, yet it gets a tax deduction,” she said.

Labor Senator Tim Ayres said, “charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met”.

However, Ayres reiterated the government’s previous position that “the external conduct standards don’t extend to conduct under international law.”

Subsidising illegal occupation
Faruqi challenged Ayres over whether the ACNC was investigating specific organisations identified in the MWM investigations.

She cited the Chai Charitable Foundation, which received more than $19 million in tax-deductible donations in 2025 and had hosted campaigns for organisations that publicly stated they provided direct support to IDF soldiers.

She also referred to reporting by MWM which revealed that the Foundation had hosted fundraising campaigns linked to settlements in Tekoa and Hebron in the West Bank.

Faruqi also cited investigations into United Israel Appeal Australia, which reported $50 million in revenue in 2024, and funded the Lone Immigrant Soldier programme, which provides support to immigrants serving in the IDF. The organisation has also funded settlement-related activities in the West Bank.

“Minister, do you know if the ACNC is investigating these organisations?” Faruqi asked.

Ayres heads off allegations
Ayres responded that “the ACNC is an independent regulator and it’s accountable for the work that it does on an independent basis”.

When Faruqi pressed him on whether he should know whether the organisations were receiving tax deductions and whether the allegations demonstrated that existing safeguards were insufficient, Ayres said he could not respond to questions about individual organisations.

Faruqi challenged the government over the external conduct standard requiring charities operating overseas to take reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people.

Palestinians living under occupation, displacement, and genocide

“are clearly vulnerable people. Australians are deeply distressed that tax-deductible donations may be supporting organisations connected to the very forces and settlements harming them,” she said.

“Minister, why won’t the government listen to those concerns and support this amendment, so that it can be crystal clear that Australian tax concessions cannot be used to subsidise what your own government recognises as an illegal occupation? What is the problem here?”

Ayres said the government’s “approach in relation to the broader question has been very clear”.

“I don’t really understand the relationship that you’re trying to draw between the purposes of this piece of legislation, which is about DGR status and a whole range of things,” he said.

Escalating settler violence
The amendment comes as violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank has escalated, with two Palestinian teenagers murdered last week by Israeli troops.

Sixteen-year-old Khalil Abu Alia and 19-year-old Omar al-Nassan were killed in the Palestinian village of al-Mughayyir after settlers entered the village under police and military escort.

Abu Alia, who was about to begin year 11, was shot in the neck while standing on the doorstep of his home. Al-Nassan, who had recently graduated from the same school, was also shot and died before reaching hospital.

The two teenagers were among five students from the same school killed in Israeli attacks this year. The other victims included a 17-year-old Palestinian youth footballer and two 14-year-olds.

At the same time, Israeli forces demolished the homes of 12 Palestinian families in Khirbet al-Taban in the South Hebron Hills, leaving all 70 residents homeless, including 28 children, according to Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem.

The organisation said the community was the 66th Palestinian community to have been wiped out since October 2023.

“These are whole worlds and lives extinguished in evil, depraved, and violent attacks that have become part of everyday life for Palestinians,” Faruqi said.

Coalition, Nats, Labor, One Nation — same deal
The Coalition also opposed the amendment.

Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie accused Faruqi of conflating support for the IDF with criminal conduct and criticised what she described as

abhorrent anti-Semitic comments.

“Listening to Senator Faruqi, it would seem that supporting the IDF or the families of the IDF is somehow now a crime in Australia,” McKenzie said.

She said the Coalition would not support the amendment and “look forward to voting no as soon as possible”.

Faruqi, meanwhile, argued that the amendment was about preventing Australian tax concessions from supporting activities Australia itself recognises as unlawful.

“The International Court of Justice, in 2024, called on parties, states such as Australia, to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of illegal situations created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories,” she said.

“Labor allows Australian charities to funnel money to support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, violence, and occupation.”

She accused Labor of hypocrisy

over its position on Palestinian statehood and Israeli settlement expansion.

“It is completely disingenuous for the government to say it supports a Palestinian state while effectively subsidising its destruction,” Faruqi said.

“Supporting these heinous crimes deserves a criminal investigation, not a tax deduction.”

“Labor says they mourn the death of Zomi Frankcom, but in the same breath, they hand tax benefits to those who support the murderers.”

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

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/09/labour-would-prioritise-recognition-of-palestine-sanctions-on-israel/ Wed, 09 Sep 2026 11:27:11 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133311 By Russell Palmer of RNZ

Labour is calling the government’s stance on Israel an “embarrassment” to the country, and says it is failing to meet its responsibilities under the Genocide Convention.

Britain, France and Canada are set to ban imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, with British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband saying Israel is turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

However, New Zealand has not followed suit, with Foreign Minister Winston Peters saying New Zealand has not traditionally used trade measures to address foreign policy issues.

• READ MORE: 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
• 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

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said that if Labour was in government, New Zealand would be joining the sanctions against Israel.

He said the government’s position on Gaza had also been “weak for the last three years” and it was failing to fulfill its responsibilities as a signatory to the international protocol against genocide.

“The current government’s position on Israel is an embarrassment to the country,” he said.

“We should be sanctioning Israel along with like-minded countries like the UK, Canada, and France. These are our friends who are now saying that what Israel is doing is wrong and they should be sanctioned for it.”

He said Labour would also be formally recognising Palestine.

“New Zealand’s missing in action when it comes to taking a principled stance on what’s happening in Gaza. There is an unfolding genocide happening.”

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister said the foreign minister’s statement was the government’s position.

‘There is an inconsistency in what we’re saying’, says academic
Waikato University law professor Alexander Gillespie said the government was wrong not to join the trade sanctions, saying there was an inconsistency in New Zealand’s approach.

“The Europeans have it right. New Zealand’s response is that we don’t like blanket bans, and that with the 38 settlers that we’ve got travel bans on, that that’s a targeted approach,” he said.

He said when it came to Russia and Ukraine, it was justifiable to do so with an International Court of Justice opinion to support it, and New Zealand did use trade to influence foreign policy.

“So there is an inconsistency in what we’re saying right now.”

He said imposing sanctions on Israel would take “a considerable amount of work” but “if they want to do it, they can do it”.

“You’ve just seen that with 12 other countries that have joined together to do it, but where New Zealand’s positioned itself is with Australia where we’ve decided not to do that right now, and there will be political reasons for that.

“Partly it’s got to do with the non-recognition of Palestine, because if you recognise Palestine, you ultimately agree to the self-determination of the Palestinian people, and that would mean you’ve got to do more against illegal annexation than other countries.”

He said New Zealand had good rhetoric around supporting a two-state solution but the measures taken against Israel were “nowhere near as strong as … other countries”.

He pushed back on the suggestion that imposing sanctions could escalate the situation for those in the Palestinian Territories, saying “I don’t think you could escalate the situation much more than where it is now”.

Where it might get complicated was if US President Donald Trump decided to back Israel and introduce further trade tariffs against countries sanctioning the occupied territories.

‘Remember what happened last time’, says ACT
ACT leader David Seymour noted while the government was concerned about settlements that breached international law, New Zealand was “a trading nation — we don’t generally use trade bans to make political points”.

He said the conflict in the Middle East “changes at such a rate of knots I don’t think anyone really knows where it’ll be at next week”.

“We’ve got eight weeks before the next election, but it does remind me that just before the last election, we saw that absolutely barbaric and disgraceful attack by terrorists of innocent people at a music festival, and if we’re going to talk about the run-up to the election, sometimes we should remember what happened last time.”

Govt ‘just find excuses not to do something’, say Greens
The Greens’ Foreign Affairs spokesperson Teanau Tuiono said the government’s statement was weak, and trade sanctions would be a good step forward.

“What has our government done? Nothing. All it does is follow what the US does, and as Israel’s strongest ally as well, and we don’t hear anything from this government as well.

“There was an opportunity for the government to do something meaningful when other like-minded countries were recognising the state of Palestine, and this government dipped even though the official advice to the Minister for Foreign Affairs was to recognise the state of Palestine — and he didn’t.

“It’s a weak statement. It’s a pattern of behaviour of weak non-action from the government, and it’s disappointing.”

Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has had a member’s bill in the ballot since December 2024, and has been pleading for support on it from across the aisle — which would see it skip the biscuit tin ballot — for well over a year.

With Labour promising its support, Swarbrick a year ago was punished by Parliament’s Speaker for a week after saying if they could find “six of 68 government MPs with a spine we can stand on the right side of history”.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/09/rsf-slams-outrageous-failure-to-bring-justice-9-years-after-killing-of-maltese-journalist-daphne-caruana-galizia/ Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:51:35 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133282 Pacific Media Watch

Angered by the lack of full justice nearly a decade after the assassination of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has demanded the government take measures to protect journalists and media freedom.

On 2 September 2026, the Criminal Court in Valletta found Yorgen Fenech, the Maltese businessman linked to both the mafia and politicians, not guilty of “complicity” and “criminal association” in the killing of Galizia.

Almost nine years after the crime — Galizia was killed by a bomb planted in her car — after two months of trial and eight hours of deliberation, the jury at Valletta’s Criminal Court Fenech not guilty of the two charges he was facing: complicity and criminal association in the assassination of the investigative journalist.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Media Watch reports

Eight out of nine jurors voted not guilty on both accounts; at least six votes were needed to convict him. The trial, which RSF attended, started on July 1.

“We are beyond outraged. The verdict means that almost nine years since the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Maltese authorities have failed to identify and convict the mastermind,” said Pavol Szalai, director, of the RSF Prague Bureau, in a statement.

“We stand in solidarity with the journalist’s family, which first suffered from Daphne’s loss and then painfully fought for justice only to learn that the man charged with ordering the assassination has been judged not guilty.

“Full justice must be served and Maltese authorities must implement the long overdue measures protecting journalists and media freedom — the absence of these measures contributed to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder, as concluded by the public inquiry into the crime five years ago.”

Investigation into corruption
The journalist was murdered on 16 October 2017 when her car exploded near her home in the town of Bidnija.

According to court testimony by her son, journalist Matthew Caruana Galizia, Daphne Caruana Galizia’s last days were dedicated to their joint investigation into alleged corruption in the Electrogas project, the construction of a power plant fuelled by natural gas.

Prosecutors accused Yorgen Fenech, one of Electrogas’ key shareholders and a businessman linked to both mafia and politicians, of ordering Daphne Caruana Galizia’s killing based on evidence and testimony by Melvin Theuma, who confessed to being a middleman in the murder.

Five men were convicted after Theuma received a pardon in 2019 in exchange for information about the killing.

In 2022, Malta’s Criminal Court found brothers Alfred and George Degiorgio guilty of installing and detonating the bomb in Daphne Caruana Galizia’s vehicle. The third perpetrator, Vincent Muscat, negotiated a reduced sentence in 2021 in exchange for his testimony, which contributed to the 2025 conviction of Robert Agius and Jamie Vella for supplying the explosives.

The public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia, which featured RSF’s testimony, said in its 2021 report that the state must “shoulder responsibility” for the crime.

The Maltese authorities have, however, systematically failed to enact most of the report’s recommendations.

Malta ranks 67th out of 180 countries and territories in the 2026 RSF World Press Freedom Index, the fifth worst among the 27 European Union member states.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

]]> 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/2026/09/09/nz-joins-call-to-end-israeli-settlement-expansion-but-not-import-ban/ Tue, 08 Sep 2026 23:07:22 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133244 RNZ News

Foreign Minister Winston Peters says New Zealand joins its international partners calling on Israel to end the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, but has stopped short of joining Britain, France and Canada in banning Israeli imports.

A spokesperson for the minister said New Zealand did not traditionally use trade measures to address foreign policy issues.

Peters issued a standalone statement on the matter, following the news from the UK overnight.

• READ MORE: 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

He said 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 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.”

‘End settlements expansion’ call
Peters joined international partners in calling on the government of Israel to “end the expansion of settlements, prevent and address settler violence, and refrain from actions that further undermine the prospects for peace.”

New Zealand is 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.

Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are a violation of international…

— Winston Peters (@NewZealandMFA) September 8, 2026

But he also said New Zealand “strongly opposes actions that advance annexation or threaten the forcible displacement of Palestinians.”

“Such measures are incompatible with international law and risk perpetuating the cycle of violence and insecurity.”

A spokesperson for the minister said the UK-led statement referenced a “future trade ban on settlement goods.”

“New Zealand has not traditionally used trade measures to address foreign policy issues.

“They are different from sanctions. To do so would be complex and require a full policy process. We are not in a position to do that ahead of the election.”

The spokesperson said New Zealand had consistently raised concerns about settlements and settler violence for years, placing travel bans on 38 Israeli settlers and two Israeli ministers, the most recent of which were announced in June.

“This is a clear signal that this violence is unacceptable.”

This story was first published on

]]> 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/solidarity-group-condemns-surge-in-anti-palestine-violence-in-nz/ Tue, 08 Sep 2026 01:00:36 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133227 Asia Pacific Report

A national pro-Palestine solidarity movement has condemned a spate of “radicalised” tyre slashing vandalism and other violent attacks by Israeli supporters.

The most recent pro-Israel vandalism is in Christchurch and Wellington alongside a violent attack on a supporter in Auckland, the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) says in a statement.

In Christchurch, a prominent Palestine supporter had a car tyre slashed in his driveway. In Wellington, another supporter of Palestinian rights had a solidarity sticker scraped off their car and a swastika scrawled on the vehicle, the statement said.

• READ MORE: Eight-year-old Gaza girl killed by Israel on first day of school
• Other PSNA protest reports

Earlier in the year, a New Plymouth couple had their car tyres slashed outside their property and graffiti attacks on five separate occasions. Police could not find the perpetrator.

Other Palestine supporters had their tyres slashed in Raglan. In this case, the details of the offender, a prominent Auckland businessman in the pro-Israel lobby, were provided to police who “refused to prosecute”, the statement said.

At the same time, Israelis, including serving Israeli Defence Force personnel, and former Israelis, have physically attacked people at demonstrations, including outside the Israeli Embassy in Wellington.

PSNA national spokesperson Rinad Tamimi said these violent acts would be “described as terrorism” if they had been carried out against the Israeli lobby in New Zealand.

‘Lead to accident, death’
“A flat tyre can lead to an accident and death or injury. Lives have been put at risk,” she said.

“There is no question who the targets are — it’s the supporters of Palestinian rights protesting against a genocide.”

Tamimi blamed what she called “radicalised Zionists”.

“They are likely to believe in the most extreme demands and threats made from within the Israeli government. They feel they are entitled to assault people who call out Israeli terror.”

Tamimi said she did not know if any of the 50 New Zealanders who had served in the IDF (Israeli military) might be responsible for any of the attacks in New Zealand.

“But we do know that threats are coming more frequently from New Zealand fans of Israel. It seems they are frustrated that Israel is at last being revealed for the genocidal and apartheid state that it is, and they want to take it out on someone.”

Tamimi said PSNA had met senior police earlier this year to express its concerns.

“We also wanted to raise these attacks and threats against us with the Human Rights Commissioner, Stephen Rainbow,” she said.

“But we have just been informed that Dr Rainbow is too busy and other commissioners are not available till late October”

The PSNA statement said there was a “disturbing pattern of official disinterest” in sharp contrast with their energy and action when the pro-Israel lobby is attacked.

]]> 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/west-papua-the-pacifics-new-test-of-indonesias-sovereignty-narrative/ Sun, 06 Sep 2026 23:40:10 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133151 ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin

The 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ Meeting in Koror, Palau, last week has pushed West Papua back to the centre of Pacific diplomacy.

At an Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) caucus held on the margins of the Forum, leaders reaffirmed their longstanding call for the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to visit the West Papuan provinces.

They urged Jakarta to facilitate the visit before 31 December 2026, the end of Indonesia’s term as president of the UN Human Rights Council.

• READ MORE: UN human rights commissioner visit to West Papua on track, says Indonesia
• Other West Papua reports

Crucially, the MSG said that if the requested steps were not undertaken, Indonesia’s associate member status would be reviewed at the 2027 MSG Summit.

The question is whether Jakarta is willing to allow independent international observers to see, hear, and assess conditions in West Papua?

Sovereignty cannot be the end of the conversation
For decades, Indonesia has relied heavily on sovereignty and territorial integrity when responding to international criticism of West Papua.

Jakarta maintains that Papua is an integral part of Indonesia and that its political status was settled through the international arrangements culminating in the 1969 Act of Free Choice.

From this perspective, calls for international intervention can be portrayed as challenges to Indonesia’s territorial integrity and interference in its domestic affairs.

But sovereignty and accountability are not mutually exclusive. Recognition of territorial sovereignty does not eliminate a state’s responsibility for human rights. Nor does it prevent international organisations from seeking access to investigate allegations of abuses.

The unresolved legacy of 1969
Indonesia’s sovereignty argument also rests heavily on history. Under the 1962 New York Agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands, administration of West New Guinea was temporarily transferred to the United Nations before being transferred to Indonesia.

The agreement envisaged an act of self-determination before the end of 1969.

Rather than a territory-wide referendum involving universal and direct participation by the adult population, the process involved representative councils. UN records state that 1026 members of the enlarged representative councils were asked to express the population’s choice, and all chose continued association with Indonesia.

The UN General Assembly subsequently adopted Resolution 2504, taking note of the Secretary-General’s report and the agreement concerning West New Guinea.

The dispute, therefore, is not whether the 1969 process occurred. It clearly did. The deeper question is whether it represented a genuinely free expression of the political will of West Papuans.

This historical disagreement remains politically powerful because the competing narratives have never been reconciled.

For Jakarta, 1969 closed the question of sovereignty. For many West Papuans, it remains evidence that their political aspirations were never freely tested.

But contemporary Pacific diplomacy should not become trapped entirely in this historical dispute. Even if one accepts Indonesia’s present sovereignty over Papua, contemporary human rights questions remain legitimate.

Indonesia’s anti-colonial rhetoric
There is also an uncomfortable contradiction in Indonesia’s international rhetoric.

Indonesia has historically presented itself as an anti-colonial state and a supporter of the principle that peoples should be free from colonial domination.

At the UN Pacific Regional Seminar on Decolonisation in Bali in 2023, then-Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi stated that “independence is the inalienable right of all nations” and argued that colonialism must be abolished.

Indonesia’s response is that West Papua is not a colonial territory and that its political status was settled through an internationally recognised process.

That is a legitimate position for Indonesia to defend. But the political question remains: if self-determination is a universal principle, how should it be applied when Indigenous Papuans continue to challenge the political circumstances under which integration occurred?

Jakarta’s ‘right path’ needs a destination
Indonesia has responded by insisting that the proposed UN visit is progressing and is “on the right path.” Yet the phrase raises more questions than it answers.

What does “the right path” actually mean?

When will the visit occur?

Will UN officials have freedom of movement?

Will they be able to speak privately with Indigenous communities?

Will they meet civil-society organisations, church leaders, victims, local officials and political representatives?

Will they be able to visit areas affected by military operations and displacement?

And will their findings be published without political interference?

These are not unreasonable demands. They are the minimum conditions necessary for an assessment to have credibility.

If Jakarta is confident that conditions in Papua have improved, an independent UN assessment could actually strengthen Indonesia’s position.

Transparency is not necessarily a threat to sovereignty. In fact, it can reinforce legitimacy.

Why the MSG decision matters
The MSG is uniquely placed in this debate because West Papua is not merely a distant foreign policy issue for Melanesian governments.

West Papuans are Indigenous Melanesians, and the MSG was established to strengthen political, economic, and cultural cooperation among Melanesian peoples.

Indonesia’s associate membership has therefore always contained a political tension.

Jakarta seeks recognition and legitimacy within an organisation representing Melanesian interests, while some MSG members continue to raise concerns about the rights and welfare of Indigenous Melanesians inside Indonesia.

The organisation has not abandoned dialogue. Fiji has made clear that engagement with Jakarta remains necessary. But dialogue without measurable outcomes risks becoming a diplomatic holding pattern.

The proposed OHCHR visit provides a practical benchmark. The MSG has effectively placed a deadline on the issue. That changes the diplomatic calculation. Jakarta is no longer responding only to general statements of concern; it is responding to a specific request accompanied by a potential institutional consequence.

The Pacific is testing itself
Pacific governments increasingly speak of a regional order grounded in Indigenous rights, human security, climate justice and self-determination. They insist that Pacific priorities should not simply be dictated by larger external powers.

West Papua therefore presents a difficult consistency test. At the same time, Pacific diplomacy must avoid reducing every disagreement with Indonesia to a confrontation over sovereignty. Indonesia is too important to the region for that approach to be strategically sustainable.

The better approach is precisely what the MSG appears to be attempting: engagement combined with accountability.

A new phase in the West Papua debate
The significance of Koror is therefore not that the Pacific has suddenly endorsed West Papuan independence. Nor has the MSG decided to remove Indonesia. What has changed is the political language.

The debate is shifting from the binary question of “Indonesia or independence” towards the more immediate question of “sovereignty and accountability”.

That shift creates political space for Pacific governments to demand transparency without having to settle the final status question first. It also places greater responsibility on Jakarta.

Indonesia has spent decades defending its sovereignty over West Papua. It now has an opportunity to demonstrate that sovereignty is compatible with transparency.

The coming months will determine whether the Koror decision becomes another diplomatic statement or a genuine turning point.

For West Papuans, this is not merely a diplomatic dispute. It concerns whether their experiences can be independently heard and investigated.

For the MSG, it is a test of whether Melanesian solidarity has practical meaning.

For the Pacific Islands Forum, it is a test of whether its principles apply consistently.

For Indonesia, it is a test of whether sovereignty can coexist with scrutiny.

And for the United Nations, it is a test of whether international human rights mechanisms can gain meaningful access to one of the Pacific’s most enduring political disputes.

Indonesia’s sovereignty may be internationally recognised, but sovereignty should never become a shield against legitimate human rights scrutiny.

Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star Mountains region of Papua New Guinea. He holds a Master of Arts in International Relations from Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia.

]]> 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.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/07/west-papua-activist-calls-on-pacific-leaders-to-pressure-indonesia-over-un-visit/ Sun, 06 Sep 2026 23:20:05 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133174 By Susana Suisuiki of RNZ Pacific

For 20 years, West Papuan activist Paula Makabory has not set foot in her ancestral homeland. Her family still lives in West Papua, but she has not seen them since she left in 2006.

Speaking to RNZ Pacific Waves from Melbourne, Makabory said she did not know what would happen if she attempted to return.

As Pacific leaders push Jakarta to allow a long-awaited United Nations Human Rights Commissioner visit to West Papua, Makabory, who is an executive member of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), said the leaders needed to apply more pressure on Indonesia.

• READ MORE: West Papua: The Pacific’s new test of Indonesia’s sovereignty narrative
• UN human rights commissioner visit to West Papua on track, says Indonesia
• Other West Papua reports

In 2019, Pacific leaders requested that Indonesia allow a team from the UN Human Rights Office to visit West Papua to conduct an independent investigation into the alleged human rights abuses in the region.

Seven years later, the request for the visit has been unfruitful.

But this year during the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Palau, the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) stated that if Indonesia did not allow the visit to happen, they would review its associate membership status in their 2027 summit.

In a statement sent to RNZ Pacific, a spokesperson for the Indonesian embassy in New Zealand said there had been no discussion of a review on its membership within the MSG. They also stated that the UN visit was “on track”.

Makabory said she would believe the visit was happening when Indonesia made good on its commitment.

“I think it’s going to be great news if it comes to action for real, because it has been a couple of years that Indonesia is still not talking or even inviting the United Nations human rights commissioner, or her office to visit West Papua to conduct an independent investigation,” she said.

Makabory said the prime ministers of Fiji and Papua New Guinea needed to negotiate a firm timeline with Indonesia for the visit, otherwise Indonesia would “never open the door”.

Melanesians ‘need to stand up strong’
Makabory said the situation in West Papua was worsening, with humanitarian and environmental concerns at a crisis point.

According to Makabory, there are more than 125,000 Indigenous Papuans who are internally displaced across multiple regencies, including Nduga, Intan Jaya, Puncak, Yahukimo, Pegunungan Bintang, Jayawijaya, Maybrat, Teluk Bintuni, Yapen Islands and Tambrauw. The displacements, she said, was the result of military operations, aerial bombings and armed conflicts.

There are more than 80,000 Indonesian security forces operating in West Papua who Makabory alleges are responsible for extrajudicial executions, civilian shootings and disrupting peaceful protests.

Makabory also raised concerns about the expansion of the Merauke food estate and mining operations, saying they are destroying Indigenous land and contributing to deforestation and environmental damage.

In addition to the UN human rights office, Indonesia needs to allow other international groups, such as humanitarians and foreign journalists, to enter, Makabory said.

She added that this could only happen if the MSG used its influence with Indonesia rather than signing deals.

“I think the MSG countries or leaders as guardians of our region, they need to stand up strong. They need to see that West Papua belongs to Melanesia, and they need to protect their own kind.”

A review of Indonesia’s associate membership in 2027 on the condition that no visit would happen was not strong enough, according to Makabory. She said the MSG should take it a step further and suspend Indonesia.

Despite being barred from returning to West Papua, Makabory told Pacific Waves it is her homeland and nothing compares to it. She said she believes that the spirit of the Melanesian brotherhood and Pacific islanders will lead to a path that will “save West Papua”.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/07/social-media-misinformation-biggest-hurdle-for-journalists-says-mcpngs-belinda-kora/ Sun, 06 Sep 2026 19:30:11 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133185 By Lomanai Kenny in Port Moresby

Misinformation on social media is the biggest challenge for journalists, says Belinda Kora, secretary of the Media Council of Papua New Guinea (MCPNG) and founder of Women in Media (WIM).

She gave her address at the closing ceremony of an Election Integrity Workshop for media last week.

The week-long programme was hosted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in partnership with the European Union (EU) and MCPNG on August 31-September 4.

• READ MORE: Other PNG media reports

She cautioned that Facebook posts were often unreliable and urged reporters to verify content before publication.

“Always make sure that whatever you have, go back to your newsroom and share it with your colleagues before publishing,” Kora said.

To illustrate, she pointed to a viral post about a giant cabbage being sold for more that 100 kina (NZ$38) at Eliseo Shopping Centre. Many online users dismissed it as artificial intelligence (AI), but she confirmed its authenticity after checking.

“Get used to verifying and then put it in your [social media] account and say, ‘I verified this’. Doing this will help because there is a lot of misinformation,” she told journalists at the workshop.

Importance of networking
Kora also stressed the importance of networking, highlighting the women-in-media WhatsApp group that has more than 300 members nationwide.

“It’s a good place to share experiences, or if you need contacts for news stories across the country, you can always ask in the group and they will be happy to help,” she advised.

The Media Council of Papua New Guinea, established more than 20 years ago, does not interfere with editorial decisions but provides guidance, training, and support to journalists.

The workshop was designed to strengthen ethical and objective reporting ahead of the 2027 elections.

At its conclusion, 10 media representatives received certificates of participation, equipping them to share the knowledge with colleagues and uphold ethical standards in their reporting during the election period.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/05/palestine-protesters-renew-dont-buy-israeli-pledge-demand-nz-sanction-israel/ Sat, 05 Sep 2026 11:08:25 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133124 Asia Pacific Report

Pro-Palestine activists made strong pleas for stronger boycotts of Israeli products today and again demanded that the New Zealand government sanction Tel Aviv over its Gaza genocide.

In the 153rd week of continuous protests, the activists themed the global BDS – boycott-divestment-sanctions — campaign with local targets such as the Auckland Council and other investment funds.

Speakers included activists Leeann Wahanui-Peters, Neil Scott, Kathy Ross, Achmat Esau and Anna Lee.

• READ MORE: Israel must protect West Bank’s Palestinians amid settler pogroms, says US envoy
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) campaigner Neil Scott gave a blistering indictment of the current coalition government’s weak response to what he called Israeli crimes against humanity.

He also called on the government to end the “visa free” policy for anybody who is in the Israeli military.

“That’s [those] in the current military, or the military reserves — and they are in reserves until the age of 40,” he said. “These people should not be coming to Aotearoa when they are in a genocidal terrorist entity for the Israeli Defence Forces [IDF].

“That should be ended,” Scott added, and he was greeted with loud cheers and applause.

Compared with South Africa
Speakers also compared the BDS campaign with the successful anti-apartheid campaigns against white minority-ruled South Africa in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Now South Africa is spearheading the legal fight against Israel in the world’s top judiciary, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in The Hague. Last week it filed a new legal dossier highlighting the genocidal state’s non-compliance with binding provisional measures.

Another PSNA activist, Anna Lee, also called on protesters to support the BDS movement and do all they could to “damage the Israeli Zionist regime and its ability to continue the genocide”.

“We can financially damage the Israeli economy just as we did when there was an international boycott on apartheid South Africa,” she said.

“We need to target goods, services and any investments that aid the Zionist economy and assist it to do ‘business as usual’ with its apartheid and murderous activities.”

Lee reminded the crowd that boycotts did work.

“They were very successful in hitting the apartheid regime in South Africa and they are already damaging the Israeli economy.

“In fact, they are so successful that Israeli-sponsored Zionist groups in the USA are pressuring Republican state governments to persecute any state employee or contractor who admits to taking part in the boycott of Israel.”

Israeli regime ‘hurting’
The Israeli regime was “hurting” which was why it was working hard on small nations around the world to get more economic collaboration.

“This is why very recently the NZ Israeli Innovation Hub sales promotion was held here in Tāmaki Makaurau [Auckland].

“This shameful event was aimed at increasing NZ economic collaboration with Israeli companies. And it was attended by officials from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).”

Lee said the boycott movement did not just include Israeli-owned companies but included international businesses which had invested in Israel to take advantage of financial incentives and the opportunity to “profit from exploitation of the Palestinian workers in the ‘occupied territories’”.

“It’s not hard to identify these companies today. We can’t rely on the ‘made in’ labels on the packages because these businesses, like the Zionists, are devious.

“But we do have phone apps like ‘No Thanks’ which you can install on your phone.”

Lee said all people needed to do was “scan the barcode” and they would immediately get an answer.

“If the product is on the boycott list you can then make one more ‘click’ and read why. If it is OK the app will say so.”

The app was developed by a Palestinian software engineer from Gaza — “and it is a powerful tool to use to hit the Zionist regime and support Palestinian freedom”.

Activists from the PSNA and other Palestinian solidarity groups around New Zealand held meetings this week to plan actions for the Global March for Palestine on October 10. New Zealand will be the first country in the world to kick off that march.

Support groups include Banners for Palestine, the Palestine Car Convoy, and Stand With Palestine Waiheke Group.

The Auckland event is scheduled to start at 2pm in Te Komititanga Square/Britomart on that day and march up Queen Street to Albert Park.

Also, a solidarity “kite day” event at Coyle Park, Point Chevalier, is planned for next Saturday after the 2pm CBD rally.

Nobody ready to push back
Meanwhile, a prominent Israeli peace activist has warned that no one in Israel’s government was prepared to push back against the extremist policies of far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Alon-Lee Green, co-director and founder of the Palestinian-Jewish activist group Standing Together, told Al Jazeera that Israeli politicians were “all fighting against each other over who is more extreme and who is winning more of the right-wing voters”.

Many opposition figures would not represent a departure from current anti-Palestine policies, the activist said, but instead sought to contest “the right wing in power over the question of who’s more right wing”.

Ben-Gvir was “trying to promise us that with more death, and more blood, and more abuse”, Israeli Jews will gain security, Green added.

“He’s lying. We will only get more violence out of it,” he said.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/05/shane-te-pou-matua-pita-tipene-i-wish-you-werent-in-israel-right-now/ Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:35:48 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133088 OPEN LETTER IN THE DAILY BLOG: By Shane te Pou

Tēnā koe, Te Rangatira

Matua Pita Tipene, I’ve met you several times over the years and have always respected you. You have struck me as thoughtful, considered and serious about rangatiratanga with a genuine concern for the people you serve. I have seen you as an island of calmness surrounded by a sea of madness.

That is why I struggle with the fact that you are in Israel right now.

I know you have said that you want to see for yourself what is happening rather than rely only on the media. I also know that you have spoken about paying homage to our tūpuna of the 28th Māori Battalion who fought and died in that part of the world.

• READ MORE: US rejects Israeli suggestions of removing Palestinians from Gaza
• Israeli police kill Palestinian in Jerusalem as army blocks aid for Qusra
• Other Gaza genocide reports

But I have to be honest, Pita: I do not understand either of those reasons for being there at this particular moment. Whatever the intention, I struggle to see how travelling to Israel now is the right thing to do, given what is happening in Gaza.

This is not an ordinary time to visit Israel. A humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in real time.

Hamas must be condemned. I condemn the attacks of October 7, the killing of Israeli civilians and the taking of hostages. Nothing justifies those actions. But condemning Hamas does not require us to suspend our moral judgment about Israel’s response.

Nothing that happened on October 7 justifies the killing of Palestinian civilians, the destruction of homes and essential infrastructure, the displacement of communities or the denial of basic necessities.

I’m not really a stats man but here is one that we must collectively mourn upon nearly 22,000 Palestinian children killed from October 7th 2023 to February 2026.

By God’s mercy alone, the death threat has slowed down but hear this Matua since your arrival in Israel 12 children have died

As Māori, our history should make us particularly sensitive to what happens when a powerful state exercises authority over another people. We know dispossession, the loss of whenua and the experience of having our history contested or told by those with greater political and military power.

That is why I think about Ngāti Hine. Your people have a proud history of standing with those seeking self-determination — from Ireland and South Africa to Kanaky.

Nelson Mandela understood that principle clearly. He recognised that South Africa’s freedom was incomplete without the freedom of Palestinians. His position was not a rejection of Jewish people or Israel’s security; it was a recognition that opposition to oppression must be applied consistently.

Many Māori see something familiar in the Palestinian experience. That does not mean supporting Hamas, excusing the killing of Israeli civilians or disregarding the safety of Jewish people. We can condemn all of those things while still insisting that Palestinian lives and rights matter equally.

Pita, you have copped a lot of online abuse. I understand people’s outrage, but I’m not going to add to it. I believe you are a reasonable person, and I believe these are issues we should be able to sit down and talk through. I would much rather have that conversation than contribute to the abuse being directed at you.

But I also think you need to be prepared for what happens when you come home. Your absence and your actions have upset a lot of people, including people within your own community, and many will be deeply disappointed.

People will also want to know whether the trip was privately funded and, if so, by whom. The reality is that, as a leader, you face a great level of scrutiny.

Seeing for yourself matters. But so does what we do with what we see.

For me, the principle is simple: nothing justifies the killing of civilians, wherever they live and whoever they are. Palestinian lives are not worth less than Israeli lives, and the security of one people cannot be built on the suffering of another.

You have always seemed to me to be a thoughtful man, Pita. That is why I hope you will reflect deeply on what you have seen, what you have heard and what our whakapapa asks of us.

Shane te Pou is a political commentator and Māori broadcaster and he writes a political analysis column for The Daily Blog. This article is republished from TDB with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/04/un-human-rights-commissioner-visit-to-west-papua-on-track-says-indonesia/ Fri, 04 Sep 2026 06:55:42 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133076 By Johnny Blades of RNZ Pacific

Indonesia’s government has indicated that a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to West Papua is on track.

This comes as Melanesian Sperarhead Group (MSG) countries agreed to push Jakarta to facilitate the visit, after years of apparent inaction.

A request for the visit was made by Pacific Islands Forum countries back in 2019, but it has still not gone ahead, despite ongoing human rights violations in Papua.

• READ MORE: Melanesian countries to review Indonesia’s status at MSG if no action on West Papua visit
• West Papuan leader calls on Pacific Forum to ‘break its silence’ and denounce Indonesian military violence
• Other West Papua reports

A statement issued by MSG states from this week’s Pacific Forum leaders meeting in Palau appeared to reflect frustrations that the visit has still not been facilitated.

The statement said that if a visit by the UN Commissioner’s office was not facilitated by Indonesia in order for a report on human rights issues in West Papua to be produced by their next summit in 2027, then Indonesia’s associate member status in the MSG will be reviewed.

The full members of the MSG are: Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia’s FLNKS Kanak Movement. The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has observer status at the MSG, and Indonesia has associate member status.

‘Constructive discussion’
In a response to RNZ Pacific following the statement, a spokesperson from Indonesia’s Embassy in New Zealand said there was “no discussion to review our membership within the MSG”.

“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.

“As you may have [been] aware that on July 2025, we already facilitate[d] a visit from UN Special Rapporteur [for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert Kwokow] to Papua,” the spokesperson said.

“We can agree that this shows good intention from the government of the Republic of Indonesia to the advancement of prosperity of all Indonesians.”

Ongoing conflict in Papua
The long-running conflict between the West Papua Liberation Army and Indonesian military forces in Papua has escalated in recent months, causing mass displacement of some Papua village communities in the region around Highland Papua province.

In the latest reported violence, human rights workers told RNZ Pacific that four members of the Liberation Army had been arrested and killed by Indonesian forces in Yahukimo Regency in recent days, and another member seriously injured, while six civilians were also arrested during the incident.

The spokesperson for the embassy said that during the 62nd Session of the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner assessed “that force must not be used to pursue territorial claims or political demands”.

“The sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, and non-interference remain the foundation of the international order; respect for international law and the principles of UN Charter is non-negotiable.”

The spokesperson said Indonesia supports “a cooperative and non-confrontational approach to human rights issues, based on mutual respect and national ownership”.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/04/two-small-pacific-islands-creating-one-big-stink-with-france-over-ownership/ Thu, 03 Sep 2026 19:39:25 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133063 SPECIAL REPORT: By Ben Bohane

Amid an escalating sovereignty and maritime boundary dispute with France, Vanuatu has now filed an “application” at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against France.

Vanuatu is seeking international recognition of sovereignty over two small islands in its far south.

The islands are known on charts by their European names Matthew and Hunter islands, but in Vanuatu they are called Umaenupne and Umaeneg with claims of long standing cultural and religious ties to the islands.

• READ MORE: Umaenupne and Umaeneg – isles of the Resting God — Ben Bohane
• Other Ben Bohane articles

From the early 1900s Vanuatu was jointly administered by France and the UK under a condominium regime.

In 1962, Australian planter and aviation pioneer Bob Paul, along with his aviator friend Henri Martinet applied to the Joint Court of New Hebrides to claim the islands, but their claim was rejected when France claimed the islands as part of New Caledonia.

Vanuatu has initiated proceedings at the ICJ following the collapse of negotiations between the two countries in Paris in July, and decades of unsuccessful attempts over the years since Vanuatu’s independence in 1980.

President Emmanuel Macron had offered to resolve the dispute when he visited Vanuatu in 2023 and meetings have since taken place in Port Vila last November and in Paris this past July. But the negotiations failed to deliver an agreed outcome.

Legal precedent risk
French analysts are concerned about the legal precedent of conceding the islands to Vanuatu, worried it will re-energise similar territorial disputes France has with other nations over remote islands, such as Clipperton atoll, which Mexico wants back.

The French rightwing have also applied pressure to the issue, with Marie Le Pen warning after the meeting in Port Vila last November that the two islands were “not [Macron’s] to give away.”

The ICJ is the world’s highest judicial body, and could provide a final, legal determination on the dispute. Vanuatu is banking on France supporting their application for a ruling.

At the most recent Davos meeting in January, President Macron affirmed France’s commitment to international law and even warned against a world in which “the law of the strongest” prevails.

Vanuatu’s Prime Minister Jotham Napat told The Sydney Morning Herald:

“Umaenupne (Matthew) and Umaeneg (Hunter) Islands have always belonged, and will always belong, to the people of Vanuatu. Vanuatu is a strong supporter of the international rules-based order and of the peaceful resolution of disputes through international law.

“Seeking recognition of Vanuatu’s sovereignty over these islands is not an act of confrontation; it is an exercise of our rights through the legal processes of that international order. It is about addressing an unresolved colonial legacy with dignity, determination and confidence in international law.”

Sovereignty dispute
Stephen Webb, an Australian lawyer acting for the Vanuatu government — who also acted for Timor-Leste in its maritime boundary dispute with Australia — said:

“This is fundamentally a legal dispute over sovereignty, and the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, specifically established to resolve disputes between States in accordance with international law. For Vanuatu, bringing this matter before the ICJ is about finding a definitive, peaceful and legally binding resolution.”

In recent years, Vanuatu won global support for leading the initiative for an advisory opinion from the ICJ clarifying obligations and consequences of causing harm to the climate.

This initiative was endorsed unanimously by the UN General Assembly, including by France who co-sponsored the resolution.

With the ICJ confirming receipt of Vanuatu’s application, attention turns to France’s response. The court can only determine the dispute with France’s acceptance, so France now needs to decide whether it will submit the questions of sovereignty over the islands to judicial determination.

China outright rejected the ICJ’s decision in favour of the Philippines in its 2016 case against China’s claims over the South China Sea.

Given France’s vocal championing of international law, it may be more difficult for France to take the same position.

Pacific decolonisation
If France rejects Vanuatu’s case, it also risks putting itself offside with a Pacific region committed to decolonisation and further unrest in New Caledonia.

Indigenous Kanak chiefs in New Caledonia, including the leader of the pro-independence FLNKS movement Christian Tein, have all backed Vanuatu’s claims, stating Kanaks never had links to the two islands and they belong to Vanuatu.

Kanak chiefs have told Vanuatu’s leaders that when New Caledonia becomes independent, it will return the two islands to Vanuatu.

The coming months will reveal whether this dispute has any chance of being resolved before the world’s highest court.

Ben Bohane is Vanuatu-based Australian journalist and policy analyst who has reported the Pacific for nearly 30 years. This article was first published by The Sydney Morning Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/04/nepali-times-not-if-but-when-next/ Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:31:10 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133040 EDITORIAL: Nepali Times

No one could have predicted this disaster would happen when it did, but we all knew it would happen one day.

As this paper went to press last Thursday afternoon, the unimaginable scale of the Central Nepal flood catastrophe was becoming apparent. With every notice about a bank branch that lost all its staff, a police station without a single survivor, buses full of Janai Purnima pilgrims swept away, and phone calls to this office from Indian families asking to locate their loved ones — we have had to come to terms with the tragically high cost in human lives.

Not since the 2015 earthquake has Nepal seen a disaster of this magnitude. In terms of economic damage to infrastructure and property, it is the worst in this country’s history. Remote sensing has enabled us to pinpoint the location of the avalanche on the north face of Langtang in Nepal that blocked the Lhende Khola which flows into the Trisuli in Nepal and which burst last Wednesday morning just before 9 am.

• READ MORE: Rescue efforts continue as Nepal-China flood death toll surpasses 1270
• Temporary burial for flood victims in Nepal
• Nepal-Tibet floods: What happened, what caused them and who is missing?
• Other Nepal-China flood reports

The debris flow at Timure on the border was nearly 80m high, and as the flood raced downstream it swept everything in its path. It spared nothing.

No one could have predicted this disaster would happen when it did. But anyone could have said it was bound to happen one day. In this newspaper, we ourselves have frequently reminded policy makers about the need to prepare for floods unleashed by extreme weather, glacial lake outburst floods, and transboundary climate calamities.

We said that after the Barun Khola flood of 2017, after the Melamchi disaster of 2021, and after the Teesta flood in Sikkim that swept away a $1 billion dam, we wrote in this space about lessons for Nepal’s own hydroelectric plants on the Arun, Marsyangdi and Trisuli. And the Bhote Kosi flood on July 8 last year was another alarm bell.

Strategy for survival
Arguing that this is not a problem we created, that we need to be compensated for historical carbon emissions, is for speeches at UN climate summits. There is no money coming for Loss and Damage. We are in this on our own, we have to craft our own strategy for survival.

This was not a “natural” disaster. Nothing about it was natural — not the glacier melting due to greenhouse gas buildup due to fossil fuel burning, not the location of expensive hydropower plants on trans-Himalayan rivers, not designing highways to follow rivers, not the settlements that have grown around them, not the corruption and greed, not the poor governance.

Our ancestors knew not to live next to Himalayan rivers. Nepal’s townships used to be located along high ridgelines, and floodplains were only used to grow food or grind grain. Bridges were temporary, and designed to be rebuilt after monsoon floods washed them away.

Economic desperation, outmigration from rural areas and proximity to roads have pushed people to settle along river banks — despite full knowledge of the risks. Hazard mapping of settlements along river banks enforced by local governments could have saved many lives last week.

Early warning will be of no help if homes are located right next to rivers flowing down from the world’s youngest and most seismically-active mountain range, now feeling the full impact of the climate crisis.

We have repeated this ad nauseum after every disaster: let us not put all our eggs in one basket. Instead of taking huge loans to invest in cascades of expensive hydroelectric plants on trans-Himalayan rivers, Nepal should opt for smaller projects across the country and spread the risk.

In one fell swoop on Wednesday morning, Nepal lost 440MW from 12 hydroelectric plants — 10 percent of the country’s total generation capacity. Transmission lines and substations located along the river corridor were destroyed.

A culture of fatalism can explain the lack of interest in preparedness for disaster that we know will happen, and with greater frequency in future. But that is no excuse. Even if previous governments ignored this, Nepal’s new administration with its technocrats and PhDs must take measures to address seismic and climate co-hazards.

Winston Churchill once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” This disaster also offers the chance for Prime Minister Balendra Shah and his government to demonstrate a proactive approach in search, rescue, rehabilitation and a preparedness strategy for the future.

We should not need a disaster to remind us to be prepared. By then it is too late for many people, as it tragically was this week. We failed to learn our lessons once again. This period of national mourning calls for Nepalis to be united, to show the same spirit of compassion and generosity that we saw in 2015.

Sonia Awale, editor of the Nepali Times. First published on 27 August 2026 and republished under Creative Commons.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/03/minerals-military-strategy-draw-the-eye-of-trump-to-isolated-atoll-and-its-230-people/ Thu, 03 Sep 2026 06:13:57 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133018 ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Milne

Isolation has been a challenge for the people of the atoll of Tongareva, 1300km north of the Cook Islands capital on Rarotonga.

Distance has made it difficult for the 230 residents to get supplies, or to travel for school and work. There are no scheduled flights; a ship visits every two months.

But isolation hasn’t been their greatest enemy; arguably, it’s engagement with the outside world that’s done them more harm. Ever since the crew of a passing English sailing ship, the Lady Penrhyn, dubbed the island Penrhyn in 1788, the people have suffered the colonial ambitions of distant empires.

• READ MORE: Pacific Islands Forum: Should outside nations be allowed at the leaders’ summit?
• US expected to announce major fuel security deal at Pacific Islands Forum
• Pacific leaders urged to be united behind 2050 climate action vision
• US pushes critical minerals agenda in Cook Islands with Penrhyn ‘lifeline’
• Other PIF reports

Missionaries brought new rules suppressing the language and faith and traditional cultural practices. Sailors brought disease that harmed the people and the plants.

An imported coconut blight led to a catastrophic famine that nearly depopulated the island.

The grimmest tragedy was in the 1860s, when London Missionary Society pastors sold 472 islanders for about five silver dollars a head, as slaves to Peru.

They boarded the Spanish and Peruvian ships with a promise of good pay and a safe return. It was a lie. Most died in exile.

Considering history
Islanders will be quietly considering that history, after news this week that the United States and New Zealand governments will invest $102 million in building a new deepwater port on the atoll, potentially providing a staging post for overseas naval vessels.

This is not new; the atoll was home to a US base in the Second World War. American GIs built port infrastructure and a 3000m crushed coral airstrip there.

It became a stopping point for the big Catalina flying boats; stripped hulks of American bombers still sit on the atoll as physical scars of the war. Children grew up who never knew their fathers — an emotional scar of the war.

There has long been talk — some supportive, some opposed — of a deepwater port in Tongareva’s big 233 sq km lagoon, reportedly 90m at its deepest point. Rarotonga businessman Charles Pitt argued in 2009 that the Americans should build commercial interests there, to give them a strategic position between China’s interests to the west in Sāmoa, and French Polynesia to the east.

Pitt warned that Chinese fishing interests were planning to open a business on Penrhyn — and it was always that potential for Chinese involvement that motivated the greatest concern in US-aligned countries.

In 2018, when I was editing the Sunday Star-Times, we reported on the front page that Cook Islands and Niue had “blindsided” NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters by signing up to China’s belt and road infrastructure lending scheme, and that there was talk of Beijing financing a deepwater port on Penrhyn.

It was a possibility that some in the islands would have welcomed, as I discovered when our family moved to the Cooks the following year. Henry Puna, the long-serving PM, told me the US had picked up and gone at the end of the war, and never really returned.

China had been “very present” in the Pacific.

America’s return ‘welcome’
“Unfortunately for a long time, America has not been,” Puna mused. “We would welcome America’s return.”

This all explains why US-aligned Winston Peters (on his return as foreign minister) reacted so angrily last year to Puna’s protegé and successor, Mark Brown, going to Beijing to sign a strategic partnership with China.

Accusing Brown and his officials of a lack of transparency, Peters cut $30 million core development support to the Cook Islands government, impacting on some basic health, education and tourism services.

Now, things have changed. The Cooks government had told me they would welcome America’s return. Well, this week they got it.

The announcement of the construction of a new port on Tongareva has been welcomed by the atoll’s MP, Vaine Wichman, who told the Cook Islands News it’s a “landmark investment”.

“Over 80 years after the wartime presence of US forces in Penrhyn, this investment is both historically symbolic and economically transformative,” she says. “Penrhyn was once part of the Pacific’s strategic defence network, and today this partnership reaffirms this.”

It comes just a week after the arrival of a new $5 million government-procured interisland passenger and cargo vessel, offering the hope of better, safer, more secure connectivity to all the remote outer islands.

A Peters ‘triumph’
Some see this as a political triumph for the mercurial Peters in the final weeks of his term as foreign minister; after playing hardball, he dragged the Cooks away from the influence of Beijing.

Others see it as a power play by Mark Brown, who has won the interest and investment of the world’s most powerful nation.

Most of all, none can ignore the opportunity this offers the Trump Administration — the strategic chance to be able to dock and stage operations from the centre of the vast Pacific basin. And ensuring China can’t.

Moreover, back in February, I reported that MFAT Chief Executive Bede Corry and his diplomats had discussed critical minerals developments with both the US and the Cook Islands. That’s now borne fruit for the White House.

Because this week’s deal opens the door (or the channel) to the $1 billion US-owned American Ocean Minerals Corp and Odyssey Marine Exploration, which agreed to merge this year.

And to Cook Islands Investment Corp’s new partnership with US firm Wetstone to fund offshore mineral exploration. It gives US firms first dibs on what I’ve described as the most lucrative treasure trove of undersea critical minerals in the EEZ of any country in the world.

Yet amid the political back-slapping, some Tongareva locals sound a note of caution. On the atoll’s Facebook group, administrator Ula Tini warns the US and China are readying for conflict — and the atoll has now been drawn into it.

Tongareva ‘been here before’
“Tongareva has been here before,” he says. “Our ancestors witnessed aircraft, military personnel and major infrastructure arriving on an island that much of the world probably knew very little about.”

Isolation, he agrees, has been one of the atoll’s biggest challenges. This port could help.

“But our people should still ask the hard questions… Could the facilities have future strategic or defence uses? How many jobs and business opportunities will actually go to Tongarevans? What environmental protections will be put in place for our lagoon, reef and marine resources?”

Tini wants his children and grandchildren to inherit more than a new port. That means ensuring that this time, the small community engages with the world on its own terms.

“What is Tongareva’s place in the future of the Pacific — and are we ready for it?”

Jonathan Milne is managing editor of Newsroom and a former editor of the Cook Islands News. This analysis was first published by Newsroom and is republished with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/03/israel-ready-to-forcibly-remove-gaza-population-but-awaiting-us-approval/ Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:56:07 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133010

Asia Pacific Report

Israel has plans ready to forcibly remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip but is waiting for the United States to figure out where to take them, the Defence Minister has boasted, reports The New Arab and news agencies.

Forced displacement of civilians in occupied territory is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

“There is no real solution for Gaza in the end without this migration,” Defence Minister Israel Katz told a conference hosted by Israeli news site Ynet and newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

• READ MORE: Israel still wants to remove Palestinians from Gaza, defence minister says
• Other Gaza reports

The Israeli government “is organised and prepared to get them out — by sea, by air, by every way possible,” he said.

The US embassy referred requests for comment to the State Department in Washington.

US President Donald Trump, at the start of his second term, stunned much of the world by publicly calling for all two million Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip.

Trump claimed a plan of developing the Mediterranean territory, devastated by Israeli bombardment since the October 2023, into a luxury resort destination.

Strong pushback
Trump walked back the idea following strong pushback, including from Egypt, the only country other than Israel to neighbour Gaza.

The proposal was also condemned by Palestinians themselves, for whom any effort to force them off their land represents how the “Nakba”, or catastrophe; their forced mass displacement by Zionist forces in 1948, is ongoing.

Announcing a supposed ceasefire in October, Trump laid out 20 points for the territory that included no forced displacement.

Katz, known for his xenophobic and horrific remarks, said that Trump had only “frozen” the idea as he looked for countries to take in Palestinians, as Egypt was not an option.

“The plan hasn’t been cancelled; it is being discussed all the time, even now, and I think there is no other solution for everyone’s good,” he said.

“But for it to happen, we need the US. When will we get their approval? Whenever it becomes clear that Hamas is not meeting its obligations” under the ceasefire, he said.

Katz, without citing his source, claimed 80 percent of people in Gaza wanted to leave but that Hamas was preventing them.

ICC arrest warrants
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Katz’s predecessor Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israeli attacks have already internally displaced the vast majority of Gaza’s people since October 2023.

Israel’s genocidal war has since killing 73,470 in Gaza, with more than 1400 since the alleged “ceasefire” in October 2025.

ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook

The British state rigged the trial of Tony Greenstein, a secular Jewish socialist and peace activist, to get him locked up for as much as 14 years — supposedly for “inviting support for Hamas”.

Fearful that the judge would punish his barrister for delivering a closing speech that properly defended him, Greenstein instead spoke directly to the jury.

For half an hour, he picked apart sham charges relating to three social media posts and a blog article he wrote against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

• READ MORE: Other Gaza genocide reports

In doing so, he exposed the proceedings as a political show trial — one of a growing number, designed to silence opposition both to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and to the British state’s complicity in it.

In summing up, Judge Sarah Plaschkes said she had considered referring Greenstein for contempt of court. But instead she dismissed his eloquent, damning address to the jury as a “rambling speech delivered by an old man”.

At that point, presumably, she had no idea what impact Greenstein’s words would have on the jury.

In a stinging rebuke to the judge, the jury members unanimously acquitted him after just two hours of deliberation. As it turned out, it was not Greenstein on trial; it was British justice.

Hearing all the facts
Once given a chance to hear all the facts, not just the ones curated by the Crown, the jury accepted Greenstein’s arguments, including his accusation that the judiciary were readily conniving in the growing authoritarianism unleashed by the UK state’s complicity in genocide.

Which may explain why Greenstein’s landmark victory in a case with huge implications for free speech — and the right to speak out on the British state’s partnership in Israel’s genocide — was almost entirely ignored by the establishment media.

Had the jury found against him, you can be sure that same media would have covered the matter extensively, playing its part in sending a message to audiences that they should keep their heads down and avoid showing any solidarity with the Palestinian people or risk sharing Greenstein’s fate.

His acquittal, and the British state’s humiliation, was not a message the state — or the billionaire-owned media — wanted publicised.

What Greenstein’s closing speech managed to do was introduce something the British state and its judiciary have been carefully trying to strip out of the current wave of show trials of anti-genocide activists: important context.

Greenstein had to dismiss his barrister for the closing speech because, had the barrister spoken to the jury as Greenstein himself did, he would have most likely shared the fate of another distinguished lawyer, Rajiv Menon KC.

Menon is facing contempt of court proceedings over his masterful closing speech in the trial of six Palestine Action defendants, who were charged with multiple and serious crimes over their efforts to destroy killer-drones produced at a factory in Bristol operated by Israel’s biggest arms maker, Elbit Systems.

Refusal to convict
As a result of Menon’s speech — you can read the most important passages here — the jury refused to convict any of the defendants of any of the offences for which the state had put them on trial.

The judge in that case, Jeremy Johnson, was so eager to make an example of Menon — and intimidate other lawyers so they would be dissuaded from giving other Palestine solidarity activists a proper defence — that he managed to abuse the established legal procedure specifically designed for contempt of court referrals.

The Court of Appeal had to overturn his decision, though it allowed him to reapply for contempt proceedings against Menon, this time using the proper channels. Johnson did so.

The point is that judges like Johnson and Plaschkes — faithful servants not of justice but of the British state — know that no jury will convict activists trying to to stop a genocide if it is framed in those terms. So these judges must rig these trials to keep the jury as ignorant as possible of the relevant context: that the British state is persecuting peace activists for embarrassing it over its collusion in genocide.

That fact was, once again, only too evident during Greenstein’s trial.

Plaschkes was angry throughout the proceedings at Greenstein’s efforts to introduce context to the case. For the prosecution to succeed, she needed the jury to ignore many relevant things about Greenstein’s supposedly “Hamas-supporting” comment about a “ghetto uprising” in Gaza:

• the context that the one-day breakout from Gaza on 7 October 2023 was a direct response to Israel’s preceding 16-year blockade of Gaza, denying its 2.3 million-strong population the essentials of life and turning the enclave effectively into a concentration camp;
• the context that, following the October 2023 breakout, Israel immediately launched a genocidal campaign of destruction against the enclave’s infrastructure and its civilian population;
• the context that, as a secular socialist, Greenstein has been a long-time critic of Hamas, as proven by a stream of articles he has written over more than a decade and that he cited to the jury;
• the context that, as the son of Holocaust survivors, he is deeply opposed to one people systematically oppressing another – all the more so given that Jewish Zionists have exploited their people’s historic victimhood to justify Israel committing contemporary crimes against Palestinians;
• the context of international law, which states that a people under occupation, the Palestinians, have a right to resist their oppression by Israel, including through the use of violence;
• the context that Greenstein had not even mentioned Hamas in posts that were the focus of the trial, or indicated any support for it – only his support for the right in law for Palestinians to resist Israeli crimes;
• the context that the British government proscribed the political wing of Hamas under the UK’s terrorism laws only in 2021, not based any new “terror” behaviour – in fact, four years earlier Hamas had rewritten its charter, showing a strong willingness to make concessions to Israel. No, the purpose of proscription was specifically to advance Israel’s goal of intimidating popular, international solidarity with the people of Gaza;
• the context that, in prosecuting Greenstein, the British government is destroying the very basis of the right to free speech, all to advance the interests of the demonstrably genocidal state of Israel;
• the context that the British state is not some dispassionate arbiter of justice in these prosecutions: it is aggressively colluding in Israel’s crimes. Its huge conflict of interest in silencing critics is the elephant in the room.

Greenstein told the jury:

Your [verdict] will not stay in this room. If these three posts are terrorism, then the word has a new meaning for everyone in this country. Every student who shares an article. Every pensioner who retweets the wrong opinion. Every writer, every blogger, every one of your neighbours with a social media account and a view about a war.

Can it really be the law of England that any of them – that any of you – will be condemned to 14 years of prison for a tweet? You have the power, today, to answer that question. Whatever your answer is, it will be remembered long after this trial is forgotten.

Masterclass speech
The whole speech is a masterclass in how to speak over the head of a complicit judiciary and prick the conscience of people who still have a moral backbone. I recommend you read it in full here.

The British government desperately wanted the scalp of a Jewish activist to show that no one is safe from the state’s long arm of persecution. It failed, which should be cause for relief and celebration among every person who opposes authoritarianism.

The defeats being handed to the British state by juries who hear the actual evidence are adding to the pressures on officials to find new ways to bypass the ancient right of trial by jury.

The government of Keir Starmer was determined to establish the precedent of scrapping jury trials. Faced with the unpopularity of such a move, his successor Andy Burnham has sounded hesitant about advancing the measure. But pledges he made while seeking the Labour leadership — and prime ministership — are proving to be worth little now that he is in office.

Meanwhile, courtier-judges like Johnson are finding ways to get around the reluctance of juries to convict anti-genocide activists of serious crimes.

Juries that convict activists of a relatively minor charge of criminal damage for smashing up killer-drones, assuming the defendants will get a few months in prison, are learning that they are thereby handing judges in these trials unlimited powers, in violation of the most basic principles of justice.

After the verdict, judges like Johnson are choosing to rewrite the charge sheet, adding retrospectively what they are bogusly calling a “terrorism connection”. That means they can sentence the defendants as “terrorists”, leading to far longer jail sentences and destroying the defendants’ lives in perpetuity.

Mark of a justice system
This is the mark of a justice system that no longer cares about evidence, fairness or jury verdicts. It cares only about visible punishment, about spreading terror through the courtroom.

We can fight back. Juries appear to be growing increasingly wary of these highly politicised trials the British state is staging to exonerate itself of its criminal activities and lock up its critics. As judges increasingly abuse the justice system to get the jail sentences demanded by the state, juries are likely to become much less willing to serve as an alibi for state repression.

This is no longer a struggle simply for the Palestinian people’s survival. It is a struggle for ourselves, for our right to have a voice, to have some say in how our societies are run and for whose benefit. It is a struggle to keep the forces of darkness at bay a little while longer.

And it is a battle none of us can afford to lose.

Jonathan Cook is a writer, journalist and self-appointed media critic and author of many books about Palestine. Winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. This article is republished from the author’s Substack with permission.

COMMENTARY: By Shamikh Badra

The killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom in Gaza in April 2024 has not gone away as an issue in Australia. Six of her World Central Kitchen colleagues were also killed in the attack.

Last week, the IDF said it would not pursue a criminal investigation or take additional measures against anyone involved in the incident.

This, despite originally sacking the commander who ordered it, Colonel Nochi Mendel. In an October 2025 interview, Colonel Mendel said he did not mean to kill any of the WCK employees, but said: “I’m not sorry for what I did.”

• READ MORE: Other Gaza, Palestine reports

His comments sit awkwardly with the IDF’s earlier description of the attack as a “grave mistake” caused by misidentification.

That makes the accountability question harder to avoid.

The convoy’s movements had been coordinated with the Israeli military and the vehicles carried World Central Kitchen markings. This was not one strike. Three vehicles were hit in three separate strikes over four minutes.

Mendel also said he had been watching a continuous live drone feed as the convoy moved.

Not about ‘mistakes’
It is no longer enough to reduce the case to a question of whether mistakes were made. Seven humanitarian workers were killed.

The commander who ordered the attack has acknowledged that he did so. Yet the criminal process has been closed without an independent process establishing responsibility.

There was a lot of anger after the WCK deaths, particularly over how aid workers could be killed while doing their job. For the Australian government, it also raised a difficult question: how should those responsible be held to account?

Humanitarian workers are protected by international law, but when they are killed, accountability can be hard to secure. Australia decided to take that problem beyond Zomi’s case.

In September 2025, it joined eight other countries in launching the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel. The government said the initiative was launched in Zomi’s honour.

It now has the support of 125 countries, bringing governments together around the protection of humanitarian workers and the need for accountability when they are harmed.

What now?
That decision puts Australia in a difficult position. Frankcom’s death helped give momentum to an international commitment against impunity.

Now her case is testing how much that commitment means in practice.

This case exposes the accountability gap. Australia has been successful in winning international support for a principle. The harder task is deciding what to do when that principle is tested, and the political choices become more difficult.

The problem is not a lack of law. Humanitarian workers already have protection under international law. The Declaration did not create those rules. It is also not a court and cannot prosecute anyone.

Its importance lies in the problem it tries to address. Rules may exist, yet accountability can still fail. That is why the Declaration deals not only with protection but also with justice and accountability.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong made that connection herself. In April, two years after Zomi’s death, she said that honouring Frankcom’s legacy meant turning commitment into action.

Those words have a different weight now. Australia is no longer talking only about how the system should work in future cases. It is dealing with the case that helped drive its own initiative.

The issue cannot end with a debate over whether the military investigation was adequate. Australia also has to decide what follows from its own judgment that the process fell short.

Who is responsible?
One question is what went wrong? Another is who was responsible?

An investigation can identify failures. It can recommend new procedures or training. Officers can be removed from their positions. These steps may be necessary, but they do not by themselves establish responsibility for the deaths.

That distinction is important in the Frankcom case.

Why was the convoy struck three times? Why has Australia still not received the drone audio it requested? Why was the convoy attacked inside a humanitarian fire control zone?

There are also questions about the role of a senior brigade officer who had earlier signed a letter calling for restrictions on aid entering Gaza.

Australia has also rejected the idea that dismissing two officers and reprimanding three others amounts to enough accountability for seven deaths. Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong has said that the government does not have confidence in the Israeli Military Advocate-General’s process.

The issue, then, is not simply whether the Israeli military admitted that serious failures occurred. It is whether there has been a credible process for establishing responsibility.

International norms
Acknowledging failure and delivering accountability are not the same thing. The case also raises a broader question about how international norms work.

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink have written about the way international norms develop. An idea first gains support. More states adopt it. Over time, it can become part of what governments are expected to do. The Declaration has made real progress on that front.

Australia and its partners promoted it, and other governments joined. That is a diplomatic achievement. It matters that so many governments have accepted the principle. However,

support is not implementation.

Governments can agree that humanitarian workers should be protected. They can agree that attacks on them should not go unpunished. The harder part begins when they face an actual case and have to decide what they are prepared to do about it. That is when political cost matters.

The international system has many rules and declarations. Governments often agree on principles without much difficulty. The real weakness appears after a breach, when those governments have to decide whether the principle they supported will affect their own actions.

The countries behind the Declaration appear to recognise this problem. The Group of Friends for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel was created with implementation in mind.

At an expert meeting in June, governments and humanitarian organisations discussed how political commitments could lead to stronger protection on the ground.

Australian actions
Australia has taken several steps since Israel announced its decision. Wong summoned the Israeli ambassador. She said Israel’s response fell far short of the accountability Australia expected. The government has continued to seek evidence and answers.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the decision an outrage. He also said an independent investigation was one option that should be considered.

Australia then joined Canada and the United Kingdom in a statement on 21 August. The three governments called the decision not to pursue a criminal investigation “shameful”. They said the victims and their families deserved justice and accountability.

The difficult part is what comes next. There is already discussion about an independent investigation. Australia could continue pressing for evidence. International legal processes, sanctions, diplomatic pressure and joint action with other governments have also been raised.

Each option needs to be considered on its own merits. The answer should not be an automatic punishment, and Australia should not decide in advance who is criminally guilty.

A political judgement cannot replace a credible legal process.

But Australia can insist that there should be a process capable of establishing responsibility in an independent and credible way. If that cannot be achieved, it then has to consider what further legal or diplomatic steps are justified. That is the point at which the Declaration starts to matter in a practical sense.

Australia-Israel relations
Australia’s relationship with Israel makes the issue more difficult. It also makes the test more important. It is easy for governments to support a principle when little is at stake. The situation changes when applying that principle can affect relations with a partner or ally.

If accountability is demanded firmly from states that are easy to pressure, but approached differently when a close partner is involved, the idea that the principle is universal becomes weaker.

That does not mean governments have no other interests. Of course they do.

Diplomacy involves competing interests and difficult choices.

But international norms are meant to place limits on those choices. A principle has little force if it applies only when there is no political cost.

Frankcom’s Australian citizenship also raises another issue. The Australian government has a particular responsibility to her family. But the Declaration launched in her honour was never meant to protect Australians alone.

Most humanitarian workers in conflict zones are local. They often face the greatest risks. When they are killed, they may also have far less political power behind them.

Frankcom’s legacy
Frankcom’s legacy should not be a higher standard of accountability only when the victim carries an Australian passport. The point of the Declaration is much wider than that.

The same standard should matter when the victim is a Palestinian aid worker. It should matter for a Sudanese or Ukrainian aid worker. It should matter in conflicts that attract far less international attention.

If protection is meant to be universal,

nationality cannot determine the seriousness of the response.

Australia has already achieved something important. A case involving one of its citizens helped produce an international commitment that now has the support of 125 countries.

What happens next will tell us more about the strength of that commitment. Zomi Frankcom’s death helped Australia ask the world to make accountability more than a promise. Her case now asks Australia to show what that promise means.

New Zealand signed an international letter criticising Israel which foreshadows sanctions but a pro-Palestine advocacy group has rapped the government over its “haphazard” and “mixed messages” West Asia policy.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) cited a “hint of future economic sanctions” against Israel in a statement of concern issued jointly by New Zealand, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Canada just over a week ago.

However, New Zealand did not put its name to another second and stronger statement of condemnation against Israel constructing the highly strategic E1 illegal settlement on the Occupied West Bank.

• READ MORE: ‘Not sorry’ – will international pressure mean justice for Zomi Frankcom?
• PSNA slams NZ’s ‘uncaring’ lack of signature on global Israeli settlements censure
• Why Israeli tenders for illegal E1 West Bank settlement prompted outrage
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

The second statement was issued at the same time, and had been signed by 22 Western countries.

All the countries who signed the second letter, except New Zealand and Germany, also signed the first one.

PSNA spokesperson Rinad Tamimi said in a statement that ether New Zealand was deliberately identifying and aligning with Germany — which is Israel’s third largest arms supplier — or “outsourcing” its foreign policy,

“More likely, it’s National outsourcing its foreign policy to New Zealand First, whose leader is blatantly pro-Israel. That haphazard arrangement results in mixed and ambiguous messages for the world and for New Zealanders,” Tamimi said.

Warning over tenders
She said there was a suggestion of economic sanctions in the second statement which did have New Zealand’s signature.

The statement stated “businesses should not consider bidding for construction tenders.

“They should be aware of legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of involving themselves in various breaches of international law.”

Tamimi said this warning was presumably to local companies in each country. It was a notice that the governments of the signatory countries could bring legal proceedings or amend legislation to thwart these companies.

“If governments follow this through, this is hugely important for investment funds in New Zealand which operate under Acts of Parliament, such as the Super Fund, ACC and KiwiSavers,” she said.

“The Super Fund lost a court case earlier this year, due to its attempts to keep investing in companies profiting from Israeli West Bank settlements. The writing is on the wall for other investors in Israel.

“Investment in genocide and apartheid Israel is neither a prudent nor moral choice for anyone.”

Pacific Islands Forum leaders are being urged to strengthen regional unity and ensure the Forum remains firmly Pacific-led as member countries work to deliver the goals of the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.

Outgoing Forum Chair Solomon Islands and incoming Chair Palau, at the opening ceremony of the 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting, both emphasised that collective action — particularly on climate change, ocean protection and economic resilience — will be critical to turning regional commitments into tangible results for Pacific communities.

Speaking on behalf of Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale, Foreign Minister Rick Hou described the Forum chairmanship as a responsibility shared among members rather than belonging to a single country.

• READ MORE: US pushes critical minerals agenda in Cook Islands with Penrhyn ‘lifeline’
• Peters blasts Solomon Islands cabinet ministers for move against PM Wale
• Solomon Islands ‘dangles over the edge of political instability’ as three ministers quit
• Missing leaders won’t derail Pacific Islands Forum outcomes, says secretariat
• Vanuatu Special Envoy calls for PIF to ‘reopen’ issue of Pacific access to West Papua
• Solomon Islands PM Wale rushes home from Palau after confidence challenge launched
• Other PIF reports
• Other West Papua reports

“In our Pacific way, the chair is rather like a paddle passed from hand to hand — no one owns it,” Hou said, describing how each country took its turn before passing responsibility to the next.

He said the achievements during Solomon Islands’ chairmanship were the result of collective regional effort, including the establishment of the Pacific Resilience Facility, endorsement of the Blue Pacific Ocean of Peace Declaration and progress on regional labor mobility.

“These were not achievements of one chair or one country. They were the work of the Forum family,” Hou said.

Hou said Solomon Islands had sought to maintain that collective approach during its tenure, including through the Forum Troika’s work on regional architecture, the Suva Agreement, capitalisation of the Pacific Resilience Facility and preparations for the next UN climate conference.

He also stressed the importance of protecting the Forum as the region’s political home amid growing strategic competition.

Political home for ‘honesty’
“At such moments, the Forum must remain the political home where Pacific leaders speak honestly, listen carefully, and decide our own course,” Hou said.

Accepting the chairmanship for Palau, President Surangel Whipps Jr also called for members to work as a single Pacific family while recognising their different national circumstances.

“Not separate delegations working in parallel, but one Pacific family moving together,” Whipps said.

He said the collective aspirations of the region and the vision set out in the 2050 Strategy depended on solidarity among Forum members.

“The achievement of our collective aspirations and our leaders’ vision for 2050 rests on our unity and solidarity as a Forum family,” Whipps said.

Whipps said unity did not mean that countries must have identical interests or positions. Instead, it required members to listen to one another, maintain trust and find common ground through constructive dialogue.

The Palau president placed climate change at the centre of the Forum’s collective agenda, calling it the greatest threat to Pacific peoples’ security and well-being.

Unified target push
He urged the region to maintain a unified push to keep the 1.5-degree Celsius temperature target within reach, improve access to climate finance and recognize the ocean as part of the climate solution.

Whipps also linked climate action with economic security, pointing to the vulnerability created by high fuel, freight and food costs and dependence on imported diesel. A regional shift toward renewable energy, he said, could strengthen both climate resilience and Pacific economic sovereignty.

Whipps also emphasised the need for sustainable ocean management, resilient food systems and financing that matches the scale of the challenges facing Pacific island countries.

The transition from Solomon Islands to Palau places the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and its members at the centre of continuing that collective work.

Both leaders stressed that outside partners remain welcome but should support, rather than determine, Pacific priorities.

For the Forum, the challenge now is to translate the 2050 Strategy from a shared vision into coordinated action — ensuring that climate commitments, ocean stewardship and economic resilience deliver measurable benefits for Pacific people.

Republished from the Island Times.

The Free Palestine Party was presented at a solidarity rally at the weekend as the new political group contesting the New Zealand general election in November.

But the plea was “don’t vote for us” — instead, use the party as a platform pressure the government to honour its obligations under international law over Palestine.

Organised by the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), the rally — staged on the 152nd consecutive week since Israel launched its genocide on the besieged Gaza enclave in October 2023 — activist Anna Lee “unofficially” explained the party’s stance.

• READ MORE: New Zealand’s Free Palestine Party aims to turn solidarity movement into political force
• Palestine Free From the River to the Sea Party
• Global March for Palestine

embed code
In an interview with Türkiye’s Anadolu news agency in July, party leader Paul Hopkinson declared: “The Palestinian issue has disappeared from public space. We will make sure that the Palestinian issue is front and centre in this election.”

Formally registered as a NZ political party on August 5, Free Palestine states on its website that it is “committed to justice, international law, and a democratic state with equal rights for all citizens”.

“My understanding is we don’t want you to vote for the Palestine Free from the River to the Sea Party,” said Lee, a PSNA organiser and a party member.

“The aim is to change public opinion and put sustained parliamentary pressure on the New Zealand government to uphold its obligations under international law with respect to Palestine.”

The party is centred on the Nakba — “the catastrophe”, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine — as the historical root of the ongoing crisis, directly challenging Western narratives that deny or minimise Palestinian evictions.

Anna Lee outlined the party’s aims — building a broad, democratic party that unites supporters of Palestine from all traditions, allowing different ideas and perspectives to be discussed in an environment of tolerance and respect.

It also seeks to pressure the NZ government to support the prosecution of war crimes and genocide, uphold UN resolutions, and exercise its independent voice in international forums.

The idea is to build links in solidarity with all those resisting inequality and injustice around the world, recognising that Palestinian liberation is bound up with the broader struggle against imperialism.

Lee also stressed the party’s founding principles. The first two are as follows and the full list is here.

• A just peace in Palestine depends upon the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the dismantling of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel, recognising that the further partitioning of Palestine in order to create the so-called Two State Solution would only lead to further injustice and suffering.
• Acceptance of the primacy of international law and the United Nations resolutions as the basis for the ending of military occupation and all forms of ethnic discrimination in Israel.

The PSNA invited nine political parties and independent candidates to its “Make genocide an election issue” rally and public forum last Saturday in Auckland.

However, none of the three government coalition parties responded, nor did the fast-growing Opportunities Party (TOP).

Four opposition parties — Free Palestine Party, Green Party, Labour Party, Te Pāti Māori, and Dr Timoti Te Moke (independent candidate for Māngere) — agreed to take part.

Free Palestine Party seeks electoral voice in New Zealand    Video: Anadolu

Their presentations were reported by Asia Pacific Report here.

PSNA’s Neil Scott summarised a few of the government’s “positive” steps:

• Condemned illegal settlements: The government has stated Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate international law
• Sanctioned 3 extremist settlers: Travel bans were imposed on Itamar Yehuda Levi, Harel David Libi, and Eliav Libi for violence and expanding illegal settlements
• Supported two-state solution: Officially backs a negotiated two-state outcome (but does not recognise Palestine?)
• Called for ceasefire: Peters has publicly called for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian access to Gaza
• Voted for UN resolution: NZ voted for a UN resolution demanding Israel end its unlawful presence in occupied Palestinian territory within 12 months.

But Scott also read out a long list of NZ government “negatives”:

• The coalition government had the chance to recognise Palestine alongside Australia, the UK, and Canada — but it refused. The government said recognition was a matter of “when, not if,’ but then chose not to act.
• Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s bill to sanction Israel has been blocked by this coalition government — denied even a first reading.
• Does not support the South African government’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
• Refuses to ban NZ holiday visas for members of the IDF: ”New Zealand’s Working Holiday Scheme arrangement with Israel was agreed to in 2010 in the spirit of promoting closer cooperation between Israel and New Zealand. We are not looking to alter this arrangement currently.”
• PSNA raised concerns with Judith Collins in November 2024 re Rocket Lab complicity in the war on Gaza. She refused to investigate.
• New Zealand continues joint military drills with Israel under RIMPAC – NZDF sent the largest contingent in a decade to RIMPAC 2026, alongside Israel and US.
• Under current coalition Holocaust education passed to become part of the NZ curriculum.

“PSNA supports including Holocaust education in the compulsory curriculum,” said Scott.

“But this education must be delivered in the broader context of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the other components of customary international law.

“It is simply not appropriate for the curriculum to centre genocide of Europeans while bypassing the numerous genocides of people of colour throughout colonial history, including in Aotearoa New Zealand, and up to the present day.”

PSNA – along with other groups – is now organising its part in a major Hīkoi for Palestine: International Day of Action on October 10. New Zealand will be the first country in the world participating in this event for the people of Palestine.

An exiled West Papuan leader living in Australia is calling on Oceania leaders at the Pacific Island Forum meeting in Palau this week to condemn growing military violence in the Indonesian-ruled Melanesian region.

Paula Makabory, an executive member of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), has also appealed to Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders to do the same and to call for an immediate end to the violence in civilian areas and to address the environment crisis in West Papua.

Her call is being supported by several Pacific-based organisations.

• READ MORE: Vanuatu special envoy calls for PIF to ‘reopen’ issue of Pacific access to West Papua
• Missing leaders won’t derail Pacific Islands Forum outcomes, says secretariat
• Other PIF reports
• Other West Papua reports

“The letter sent today to Pacific leaders calls for immediate action because the humanitarian situation has reached a critical juncture, underscored by devastating casualties reported in recent weeks,” Makabory said in a statement.

She cited the following recent incidents as examples of many since mid-2025 until now which showed an escalation of extrajudicial killings and the use of drones and land mines by the Indonesian military in civilian areas:

• Thursday, 18 June 2026: A drone strike in Intan Jaya. At about 1pm local time, an elderly Papuan woman was killed, and two other women were severely injured in an attack involving explosive materials deployed by Indonesian military drones. Local sources indicate an alarming escalation in military tactics, including the use of unmanned aerial vehicles and landmines placed along civilian footpaths.
• Wednesday, 17 June 2026: A fatal shooting in Dekai, Yahukimo. At 4.05 pm local time, a young Papuan man was shot and killed in Yahukimo Regency, Papua Pegunungan. Eyewitness accounts from the victim’s family directly implicated members of the Indonesian Marine Task Force.
• Thursday, 2 July 2026: American pilot Nicholas F. Gosselin of Associated Mission Aviation (AMA) was killed after landing in Yahukimo. The West Papua Liberation Army (TPNPB) claimed responsibility, alleging the aircraft was supporting Indonesian military operations, while Indonesian authorities claimed it was conducting a civilian humanitarian mission.

‘Urgent need for international monitoring’
“Regardless of the competing accounts, this tragic [pilot] incident demonstrates the urgent need for independent international monitoring, transparent investigations, and renewed efforts to de-escalate the conflict and promote human rights,” Makabory said,

“Under the internationally recognised doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the global community — and neighbouring sovereign states in particular — has a duty to step in when a state fails to protect its population from systematic human rights violations.”

She said the continuous deployment of heavy tactical forces had turned residential areas into active conflict zones, where indigenous Papuans were treated with inherent suspicion and lethal force.

There had been 24 extrajudicial killings so far during 2026.

“Severe human rights violations are rarely met with independent investigations or genuine justice, leaving civilian populations entirely defenceless and more than 125,00 people displaced and homeless in the Highlands,” she said.

Makabory said the Indigenous people of West Papua were an integral part of the Melanesian family.

“Their ongoing suffering directly weakens the security and solidarity of the entire Pacific region,” she said.

Collective diplomatic action
Makabory urged Pacific Island Forum leaders to “break the silence” and take collective diplomatic action by issuing a formal condemnation of recent killings in Intan Jaya and Yahukimo, issue a collective call an immediate cessation of military operations in civilian areas, and demand unimpeded United Nations access to investigate human rights abuses.

She also called for condemnation of drone strikes, the establishment of a humanitarian corridor for aid for displaced people in the Highlands, a moratorium on mega projects in West Papua and an independent evaluation of Special Autonomy in terms of pathways to indigenous West Papuan self-determination.

“The report also calls on the PIF leadership to challenge the crushing of peaceful dissent and the widespread destruction of Indigenous land with resulting acceleration of deforestation and regional climate change risks.”

Catherine Delahunty, spokesperson for West Papua Action Aotearoa (WPAA), said the New Zealand and Australian governments were “failing in their critical leadership roles” by their silence on all of these issues.

“The Pacific Islands Forum has called or years for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to be granted immediate, unrestricted access to West Papua to conduct an independent investigation, but this has been ignored and the PIF needs to ensure Indonesia can’t expect status at Pacific meetings while ignoring the PIF requests,” she said.

Makabory said the PIF Special Envoys, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape, needed to negotiate a firm timeline for a UN fact-finding mission with Indonesia.

“The PIF and MSG must bring the West Papuan human rights crisis and land crisis to the forefront of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and relevant international human rights forums to ensure global oversight,” she said.

“The survival of our Melanesian brothers and sisters depends on leaders who are willing to champion human rights and regional stability over political convenience.”

The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) should revisit a proposal for an independent regional delegation to visit West Papua and assess reported human rights concerns, says Vanuatu Special Envoy on Decolonisation and Maritime Boundaries Delimitation Joe Natuman.

With the 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting (PIFLM) opening today, Natuman said Pacific leaders would have an opportunity to reconsider the issue and determine how the region could respond to continuing concerns about human rights and the wellbeing of the people of West Papua.

Natuman, a former prime minister, said the Forum had previously proposed sending a delegation to West Papua to assess the human rights situation directly.

• READ MORE: Solomon Islands PM Wale rushes home from Palau after confidence challenge launched
• Other PIF reports
• Other West Papua reports

However, he said the Forum had written to the Indonesian government regarding the proposed visit but had not received a response.

Natuman said direct access remained important if Pacific leaders were to develop a clearer understanding of the situation and consider reports of human rights concerns raised at regional and international levels.

The proposed visit could provide a fact-finding mechanism for Pacific countries, allowing representatives to engage with relevant stakeholders and assess conditions before reporting their findings to the Forum.

Natuman said the issue also extended to the participation of West Papuan representatives in regional and international forums, where he claimed their involvement had faced obstacles.

Similar challenges
He pointed to similar challenges within the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) and said there would be no West Papuan delegation attending the upcoming PIF.

Natuman also referred to discussions surrounding West Papua at United Nations human rights mechanisms in Geneva, arguing that Indonesia’s position within international institutions had presented additional challenges for those seeking greater access to the territory.

With the Forum meeting in Palau, Natuman said Pacific leaders should reconsider West Papua.

Republished from the Vanuatu Daily Post with permission.

Palestine Action activists accused of vandalising a Scottish golf course owned by United States President Donald Trump have been accused of “terrorism” offences, reports Al Jazeera.

The potential use of “terror-scale” sentencing was reported by The Guardian and The New York Times on Friday.

The seven activists, who spray-painted messages in support of Gaza and dug up turf at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Ayrshire last year, have been charged with malicious damage “having a terrorist connection,” the newspapers reported.

• READ MORE: Palestine Action activists will not be sentenced as terrorists, judge rules
• Other Palestine Action reports

An initial hearing on the cases is due to open at the High Court in Glasgow on Monday.

The charges stem from a March 8, 2025, protest targeting the resort over Trump’s stance on Gaza. Activists from the British group sprayed red paint across the clubhouse, damaged turf and sprinklers, applied weedkiller to the greens, and painted “Gaza is not 4 sale” across the property.

All seven defendants were charged under ordinary criminal law for malicious property damage. However, the prosecution’s 16-page indictment asserts the acts were “aggravated by reason of having a terrorist connection”.

Palestine Action has been locked in a legal battle with the United Kingdom since the British government proscribed it as a “terrorist” group last year.

‘Protests to save lives’
Cofounder Huda Ammori said that the charges against those involved in the protest at Turnberry made it clear that prosecutors were trying to appease Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“We used direct action protests to save lives — the opposite of terrorism — by disrupting the flow of arms being used to murder Palestinians,” she said in a statement.

“By hitting the profits of arms companies and by daring to spray paint on the golf course owned by the demagogue who has enabled Netanyahu’s crimes, we made powerful enemies. The British government chose to appease them by criminalising us as ‘terrorists’,” she added.

Earlier this week, the United States imposed sanctions on Palestine Action and the pro-Palestine international movement Masar Badil, as the administration of President Donald Trump intensifies a global crackdown on critics of Israel.

The US Department of the Treasury also imposed financial penalties on Wednesday against Autistici Inventati, an Italian group that provides digital services to left-wing organisations, including pro-Palestine groups.

John McDonnell, a Labour member of the British parliament and former shadow chancellor of the exchequer, criticised the potential “terror” link in the charges.

“The news that the protesters who allegedly sprayed red paint on Trump’s golf course could face terrorist sentencing, coupled with Trump himself now announcing that he is following Britain’s lead by proscribing Palestine Action as a ‘terrorist’ group, is profoundly embarrassing for Britain,” he said.

“Andy Burnham has inherited this mess from the previous government.

“This must be the wake-up call to drop this absurdly authoritarian ban, before Starmer’s blueprint is adopted by repressive governments around the world to criminalise protest and suppress political dissent.”

According to the rights group Defend our Juries, more than 3500 people — many over the age of 60 — have been arrested for expressing support for Palestine Action after it was proscribed by politicians in July 2025, placing it on the same legal footing as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

The far-left clampdown Rubio announced in Washington last month is manifesting as an anti-Palestine solidarity witch hunt hiding behind the language of counter-terrorism.

— CAGE International (@CAGEintl) August 28, 2026

US ‘anti-Palestine witch hunt’, says rights group
Meanwhile, the human rights organisation Cage International has condemned the US move to designate Palestine Action as a “terror” group, saying Washington is using the “language of counter-terrorism” as a cover to go after people using “lawful direct action” to protest against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

“Palestine Action has now been proscribed as a terrorist organisation on both sides of the Atlantic — first by Britain in 2025, now by Washington,” said Cage International in a statement.

“What unites them is the shared logic that disrupting the supply chain of arms for a genocide passes the ever expanding threshold for terrorism.”

The campaign leaves “no legitimate channel through which Palestinians or their allies are permitted to act”, added the statement.

Anas Mustapha, head of advocacy at Cage, said the US and UK sanctions were part of a “full-spectrum crackdown on Palestine solidarity globally”.

“The UK and US are upending centuries of hard won rights to protect a genocidal state they’re both complicit with,” said Mustapha.

More than 450 University of Sydney (USyd) alumni and current staff have signed a letter calling for a mass meeting to discuss the university’s ties to Israel amid concerns of a crackdown on free speech.

The letter, submitted to Chancellor David Thodey on Tuesday, accused the university of “failing to respond meaningfully to the ongoing genocide in Gaza” which it said “represents a profound moral failure”.

The signatories — among them recipients of Australian AM and OAM honours, a former deputy vice-chancellor and two politicians — are calling for a meeting of Convocation, a body comprising alumni, staff and members of the university’s governing Senate.

• READ MORE: Other university freedom of expression reports

As well as the university’s institutional ties to Israel, the letter noted “an accelerating erosion of freedom of expression” as a crisis warranting a Convocation meeting.

“We want to give voice to the disquiet among staff and alumni and force the university to take this issue seriously. They can’t keep sweeping an ongoing genocide under the rug,” Dr David Brophy, senior lecturer in history, told Deepcut News.

Two weeks to reply
Convocation meetings are common in universities as a means for alumni and staff to provide input into the institution’s governance. The University of Western Australia and University of New England are among those that hold regular Convocation meetings.

The University of Sydney (Amendment Act) Rule 1999 requires Convocation to “hold at least 1 meeting in each year”. The last meeting it held, however, was over three decades ago.

“Convocation is not a relic of a bygone age: meetings were held as recently as the 1990s,” the letter read.

According to the university’s governing document, the chancellor has 14 days from the request to give notice of a meeting — or until September 8. If granted, the meeting is to be held within 28 days of the request — or by September 22.

“Our chancellor is considering the request to summon a meeting of Convocation sent on Tuesday as required under relevant university rules,” a USyd spokesperson told Deepcut.

‘Suppression of dissent’
Campus atmosphere has remained tense since an anti-genocide student encampment was removed in 2024.

That same year, USyd management upgraded its CCTV system, installed additional cameras and introduced restrictions on students setting up stalls.

University staff also report being “unfairly accused of antisemitism for protesting Israel’s actions in Palestine”, according to a statement from the letter’s organisers.

The statement claims there has been a “suppression of dissent in the wake of the 2024 pro-Palestine encampment”.

When asked about the allegations, the USyd spokesperson said, “We remain strongly committed to academic freedom and freedom of speech balanced alongside our obligations to ensure the safety and well-being of our whole community.”

Many seem unconvinced. Jenny Leong, the state Greens MP for Newtown and a signatory to the letter as a former USyd Senate fellow, warned the university’s reputation was at risk.

“The student experience, beyond the classroom, was something that used to be valued by the university, so now to see policies and practices that crack down on the rights of freedom of speech, association and assembly, as well as attempting to silence pro-Palestinian and anti-genocide actions, is cause for serious concern,” she told Deepcut.

Refusal to cut Israeli ties
A key demand of the student encampment was for USyd to cut institutional ties to Israel, in line with several European universities that have taken such a step.

In February 2025, USyd ended an exchange programme with the Bezalel Academy of Arts in Israel but insisted that “recent advocacy against this student exchange had nothing to do with the university’s decision”.

“Our ties with Israeli and other institutions remain in place because we are committed to academic freedom, freedom of speech, and human rights as the university’s central pillars,” a USyd statement read at the time.

USyd’s approach to Israel contrasts with its decision in June this year to boycott “any research collaboration” with Russia in response to its war in Ukraine.

“The fact that the University recently decided to impose a ban on collaboration with Russia shows that the university is capable of firm measures in response to war crimes,” Brophy said.

Antisemitism definition condemned
The letter’s organisers drew attention to a significant NSW Supreme Court ruling this month that found criticism of Israel or Zionism did not constitute antisemitism.

Justice Desmond Fagan was particularly scathing of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel and Zionism and is favoured by the pro-Israel lobby.

Universities Australia’s 39 members, including USyd, adopted a definition of antisemitism that drew on IHRA but was more explicit.

“… criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel … Substituting the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic,” it reads.

The definition was roundly condemned for its implications for free speech, with the Jewish Council of Australia calling it “a dangerous and politicised definition of antisemitism which threatens academic freedom”.

USyd, however, told a NSW parliamentary committee in July 2025 that it had included the controversial definition “as part of the Supplementary Resources to its Anti-Racism Statement” and “does not currently propose to amend the definition”.

That decision, however, is feeding the current backlash.

“There is no place for the IHRA definition of antisemitism on campuses or in any of our public institutions,” Leong said.

“Criticism of the criminal actions of the Israeli government and the IDF, amounting to apartheid and genocide against the Palestinian people, should never be conflated with antisemitism,” she added.

“This conflation is wrong not only because it protects Israel from legitimate criticism, but also because it falsely identifies Jewish identity with the state of Israel — which is in itself an antisemitic trope.”

Republished from Deepcut News under Creative Commons.

It has been six months since the United States and Israel launched their coordinated military campaign against Iran on February 28. The war is easily cast as the latest turn in the long antagonism between Washington and Tehran, but that frame misses its immediate context.

Its real context is the aftermath of October 7, 2023: Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza that followed spread across the region, wore down Iran’s network of allies, and pulled Israel and Iran into increasing confrontation, culminating in the 12-day war of June 2025 and the US-Israel campaign launched last February.

The bilateral track only sharpened this trajectory. Nearly eight years before the current war, Trump’s first administration launched “maximum pressure” aimed at driving Iran’s oil exports to zero.

• READ MORE: Iran to draft conditions to open Hormuz following mediator requests
• Other War on Iran reports

When it failed to force political change, economic coercion eventually gave way to military force. Six months on, the campaign has come full circle, back to economic pressure applied with greater force. Economics, then war, then economics again.

At the 100-day mark, Tehran could plausibly present the outcome as a victory of survival: Its adversaries had failed to topple the system, and by its own measure that was what mattered.

Six months on, that claim is harder to sustain because the pressure has shifted to the terrain on which Iran has always been weakest. The question is no longer whether Iran can survive military attack, but whether it can withstand an economic siege with no sign of lifting.

A leadership hollowed out at the top
The most visible change is at the summit. After the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening strike, his son Mojtaba was appointed just more than a week later, a succession Tehran presented as proof of continuity and cohesion.

But six months on, he has yet to make a verified public appearance. His portrait is carried through city squares and at mourning ceremonies, and decrees are issued in his name, while rumours about his condition persist.

A leadership that once drew its authority from the visible presence of a single figure now rests, in part, on an absence.

The state has also had to rebuild its command structure in the middle of the war. The opening strike killed IRGC commander Mohammad Pakpour and armed forces chief-of-staff Abdolrahim Mousavi, while other senior commanders were slain in the weeks that followed.

On August 10, decrees issued in Mojtaba’s name formalised a new military leadership, including Ahmad Vahidi as IRGC chief and Ali Abdollahi as chief-of-staff.

The appointments appear to favour loyalty and continuity over change and were widely read as a signal that Tehran did not intend to soften its posture. The deeper significance is simpler: A state still rebuilding its high command in the sixth month of a war is not doing so from a position of strength.

From maximum pressure to ‘Economic Outcast’
The clearest sign that the war has returned to its economic origins is the campaign Washington has intensified since suspending strikes in early August. US officials had already branded the broader effort “Economic Fury”; on August 24, the Treasury launched Operation Economic Outcast, an expanded campaign aimed at severing Iran’s remaining financial links with the outside world.

Its instruments are familiar from the pre-war “maximum pressure” era but are being applied more aggressively: Secondary sanctions on those moving Iranian oil, measures against its “shadow fleet” and financial networks, and greater enforcement of international sanctions.

Iran’s oil exports, near 1.8 million barrels a day before the war, have fallen to below half a million; inflation is approaching 90 percent, with food prices more than double what they were a year ago.

Yet the siege lands on an economy whose troubles were never solely the work of sanctions.

Iran had long failed to insulate itself from an architecture built over decades, from US sanctions dating to the 1980s to United Nations Security Council resolutions since 2006.

Neither the 25-year, $400 billion partnership with China nor the strategic treaty signed with Russia in early 2025 delivered the stability Tehran sought. Before the war, Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian had acknowledged that sanctions alone could not account for the depth of the crisis and that governance bore its share.

The economic weapon works in part because the state it targets was already structurally exposed.

That pressure is now enforced at sea. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation on February 28 and, six months on, it has not reopened; the naval blockade that followed has fused with the closure into a single chokehold on Iran’s trade.

Diverging narratives in Tehran
That structural exposure is forcing a longstanding divergence into the open. For years, Iran’s leadership has explained its crises through two competing narratives: One, advanced by the political leadership, acknowledging failures of economic governance; the other, promoted by the security establishment, attributing unrest to external enemies.

Under the pressure of the siege, that divergence has sharpened into a disagreement over the war itself. President Pezeshkian, who signed the June memorandum with Washington, has spoken with growing candour about an economy giving way, saying this month that Iran’s difficulties have “multiplied several times over” as revenue has fallen.

On August 21, he argued that it would be “better to end [the war] today, while we are in a position of strength”, even as his government prepared Iranians for painful increases in fuel prices.

Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has put the danger more bluntly: “No matter how much military power we have, if the people are hungry and there is no financial circulation, economic growth, or national production, we will not endure.”

Yet he remains tied to the security establishment’s logic, insisting diplomacy carries weight only when backed by readiness for war and casting Washington’s economic turn as an admission of military failure.

That Iran’s two most senior civilian figures now say publicly that hunger, not bombardment, is the greatest threat marks a shift from the confident rhetoric of the war’s first months. It has not settled the argument over who is responsible, only raised its stakes.

Six months on, Iran’s leadership still measures the war by the standard it set at the outset: The system has not fallen, and everything else it considers recoverable. By that measure, survival remains a form of victory.

Pressure now falls on household
But the pressure now falls on the household and the market, where it is harder to answer with the language of resistance. The divide between a president urging an end to the war and a security establishment determined to outlast it is no longer concealed.

The war has also produced the terms of its own possible end. The closed strait and the blockade have become the centre of gravity for diplomacy. Reopening the strait and lifting the blockade are the levers each side holds over the other and the most plausible opening for negotiations that could bring the conflict to a close.

This leaves Iran with a difficult choice. To negotiate a settlement on terms Washington would accept risks provoking the internal fracture the hardliners fear; to hold out risks a bleeding economy and a winter that will test the state’s capacity to provide.

The war has also reinforced, within parts of the leadership, the conviction that only a nuclear capability could have deterred the initial attack, making any lasting settlement harder to reach.

Beneath these immediate pressures lies a more enduring pattern. The confrontation between Washington and Tehran has always been, at its core, a contest shaped by what the political elites of the two countries believe about each other and about the risks of dealing with each other.

On the Iranian side, US hostility has repeatedly deepened divisions within the political elite rather than compelling agreement, reinforcing its reluctance to make bold decisions about negotiating with the US.

Pressure intended to force Tehran’s hand has instead hardened the hesitation it sought to break, compounding Iran’s political and economic strains.

Six months into this war, that pattern is again on display: the campaign has come full circle to the economic weapon it began with, the Iranian elite is more divided, and the bold decision a settlement would require remains as distant as ever.

There is little sign that this cycle will end soon.

Professor Mahjoob Zweiri is an academic and senior political analyst specialising in Iran and Middle East politics. This article was first published by Al Jazeera and republished under Creative Commons.

COMMENTARY: By Andrew Brown

On Sunday morning, before the sun is over Sydney Heads, up to 40 current and former soldiers of the Israel “Defence” Forces (IDF) will jog across the Sydney Harbour Bridge with numbers pinned to their chests and a cheer squad waiting at the Opera House.

On Thursday night in Perth, a stage will be empty.

Bassem Youssef will not be on it. Home Affairs wanted an FBI clearance and a criminal record from Egypt, whose generals forced him into exile in 2014. His passport had lapsed.

Cairo took its time. The tour is gone.

Youssef performed here in 2023 and 2015 without a police certificate. He did not change. The lobby did.

In June, Peter Wertheim of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry told The Sydney Morning Herald his organisation had gone to Home Affairs to have Youssef kept out.

His stated principle was that anyone with a record of “debased generalisations about entire national or religious communities” should never be granted a visa. Hold that sentence. We will come back to it.

Home Affairs will not say what it did with Wertheim’s request. The paperwork did the job a refusal would have done, and no minister had to sign it.

Now the IDF runners in the Sydney Marathon.

Their trip is paid for by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council and the Zionist Council of NSW, which calls them a “peace delegation”. They run for the Israeli charity Shalva, and Shalva has published their profiles.

IDF war crimes suspects
Meet First Lieutenant Roy Oryon. Shalva’s profile says he served as deputy commander of Company B, 13th Battalion, Golani Brigade, through what Israel calls the Swords of Iron War.

He led his men on October 7. Company B lost 18 soldiers that day and he wears 18 flowers tattooed on his skin for them.

The profile does not say where Company B went next. Golani’s 13th Battalion went into Gaza. It is the brigade whose reconnaissance battalion, before dawn on 23 March 2025, fired on a convoy of ambulances outside Rafah for more than five minutes, killed 15 medics and rescue workers, then bulldozed the bodies and the crushed vehicles into the sand for eight days.

The IDF’s own inquiry admitted its deputy commander fired on the convoy himself and filed a false report. He was sacked. Nobody was charged.

Meet Oryan Omer. His LinkedIn lists five years in Israeli Military Intelligence to 2020.

Meet Yael Zafarti. Her LinkedIn shows six years in Unit 8200, Israel’s signals intelligence arm, and the title Head of Cyber Security Analysis from April 2024 to January 2026.

Unit 8200 is the unit that +972 Magazine and The Guardian identified as the builder of the artificial intelligence systems that generated Gaza’s kill lists. It is also the unit a Western security source told Reuters helped develop the booby-trapped pagers that exploded across Lebanon on 17-18 September 2024, blinding and maiming more than 3000 people and killing at least 37, two of them children.

Zafarti was running cyber analysis for the unit at the time. She now works as a product manager in Tel Aviv.

These are the people the Zionist Council of NSW is inviting Sydney to applaud over drinks.

IDF soldiers, including Golani Brigade ex-Gaza, to compete in Sydney Marathon#whatsthescam #auspol https://t.co/MDISUlp8nT

— Michael West (@MichaelWestBiz) August 25, 2026

Tony Burke MIA
The International Court of Justice found the genocide case against Israel plausible in January 2024. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister.

In September 2025, the UN Commission of Inquiry, with Australian barrister Chris Sidoti on the panel, found Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Sidoti has said Israeli personnel who served there should be interrogated wherever they land.

They are landing here. And nobody is asking them anything.

Section 501 of the Migration Act says a person fails the character test where there is reason to conclude they were involved in genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime. No conviction is required. Families for Palestine put that section to Tony Burke on Tuesday.

He has not replied.

His department has the mechanism. In December 2024, two Israeli siblings were sent a 13-page military service form asking whether they had abused detainees or taken part in war crimes. Home Affairs called it routine. So here is the question.

The question
Was that routine form sent to 40 soldiers arriving together, with a sponsor, a promoter and a Facebook page? If yes, say so.

If no, explain why a comedian needed clearances from two governments to tell jokes, while a Golani lieutenant needed nothing but a bib.

Burke is not squeamish about the power. He cancelled Simcha Rothman’s visa a year ago and refused Ayelet Shaked and Hillel Fuld. Each time, the lobby howled that Jews were being punished for opinions.

Now go back to Wertheim’s sentence.

Debased generalisations about entire national communities. He wrote it on behalf of an organisation that has spent two years defending an army whose commanders are wanted by the ICC and whose conduct a UN inquiry has called genocide.

He asked the government to ban a comedian for words. His movement is importing a Golani officer and a Unit 8200 department head for a party.

That is not a double standard. It is a single standard, applied with total consistency.

Israelis are protected. Their critics are processed.

The runners cross the Bridge at dawn. Youssef will reapply from Los Angeles. MWM has asked Home Affairs whether any of the delegation was sent the military service form and whether AIJAC or the ECAJ lobbied for them.

We will print the answer. We are not expecting one.

A Thai protest group submitted a letter outside the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok this week, urging Israeli tourists and residents in Thailand to respect the country’s laws, customs and culture.

Tae Achiwa, a leader of the Thai Mai Thon — “Thais Won’t Tolerate It” — group, delivered the protest letter on Monday following complaints from residents in several tourist destinations, including Phuket, Koh Samui, Koh Phangan and Pai.

The group said it had received complaints alleging intimidation, harassment and disputes involving Israeli nationals, including conflicts related to businesses and property.

• READ MORE: Thai vendor confronts Israeli tourists, raises Palestinian flag
• Other Israeli tourist protests

The letter stressed that the group did not intend to generalise about Israeli people, saying anyone found to have violated Thai law should be investigated and prosecuted through the legal process.

Embassy staff did not accept the letter directly and instead instructed the group’s representatives to leave it outside the embassy building. The representatives then placed the document there as requested.

Speaking to reporters, Tae said the group’s action was peaceful and was focused on complaints from Thai residents rather than the Israeli war on Palestine.

“We came peacefully. I’m not here to call for ‘Free Palestine.’ Your war is your war,” he said.

“Today I’m here because Thai people are suffering from tourists who come into the country, and you are not urging your tourists to behave. That’s all.”

The group said it hoped Israeli visitors and residents would respect Thai laws and local communities while authorities handle any alleged offences through established legal procedures.

Republished from Khaosod English.

Last week, JWire reported that my book, How to Sell a Genocide: The Media’s Complicity in the Destruction of Gaza, had been “removed” from the Waverley public library in Sydney, Australia.

In covering the ban, some Australian media allowed pro-Israel propagandists to casually libel me as antisemitic, a false charge that is completely divorced from the content of the book, which is nuanced and fair and takes on universal themes of human dignity and opposition to colonialism and racism.

My first instinct was to merely post on social media about the banning, noting how absurd and racist the book ban defenders’ logic was, and move on with my life.

• READ MORE: How to Sell a Genocide has been removed from a library near Bondi – but libraries represent freedom of thought
• Waverley Council removes controversial Gaza book after Bondi survivor speaks out
• Other Israeli censorship reports

After all, my book is not the story — nor, if it were, would this be a particular interesting one. On the list of free speech suppressions and libel in the past three years over Palestine, this wouldn’t crack the top 10,000.

But news of the ban was subsequently picked up by The Guardian Australia, The Independent in the UK and the largest newspaper in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald. And given how poor the coverage of the banning has been, namely by the latter two outlets, I thought this episode could be a good object lesson in how the smearing of Palestine and its defenders operates in mainstream Anglosphere media.

The fact that you can sling around libel without evidence in the largest newspapers in Australia gives us a window into how discussion of basic Palestinian rights is shut down using the most sectarian framing possible.

Let’s break down three tropes featured in the coverage of my book banning that I also detail in the book itself. Forgive me if this is meta — and a touch self-indulgent — but there’s a reason there are striking similarities, and it’s because the Israel lobby and its aggressive PR apparatus more or less use the same script for every act of smearing, censoring, and intimidation.

So they’re worth taking this opportunity to unpack.

1. Feigned credulity: Taking pro-Israel crybully organisations at their word, rounding up to the most sectarian framing possible, and flattening Jewish identity and Zionist ideological activity.

The Independent and Sydney Morning Herald largely embrace the pro-Israel lobby’s framing that the removal of my book was prompted entirely by, or at least largely by, a “complaint from a Bondi attack survivor”. The Independent’s Stuti Mishra would adopt this framing in its headline: “Australian library pulls book on Gaza from shelves after complaint from Bondi attack survivor,” the article announces.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Melanie Kembrey would also accept this framing at face value in her reporting, writing that, “the move follows a report by Jewish news service JWire last week that a survivor of the Bondi Beach massacre had posted on Facebook that she was distressed to see the book displayed on the new-release ‘What’s Hot’ shelf of Waverley Library.”

What’s important to emphasise here is: we have no way of knowing that this is what caused, or even sparked, the removal of the book. This is just an assertion made by those seeking to ban it.

JWire reported, citing an alleged Facebook comment by the survivor in question, that her complaint is what prompted the book’s removal. But The Guardian reports that they were “unable to locate the Facebook post” in question.

More importantly, both Sydney Morning Herald and The Independent seemingly contradict, or at least undermine, this simplistic narrative, by mentioning elsewhere in their articles that, as The Independent noted, the library council “has received multiple complaints about [the book]”.

So was the book banned because a Bondi attack survivor complained, or was it due to the “multiple complaints”? Or was it both? If it was both, do we know which came first: the Bondi survivor complaint or the “multiple” other complaints from, presumably, unrelated parties?

The timeline is important because it suggests a fairly bog standard pro-Israel propaganda technique of front-loading censorship — and other oppressive and illiberal actions — in the most sympathetic and humane language possible. Obviously, “Pro-Israel Organisations Successfully Ban Book on Gaza” hits differently than “Library pulls book on Gaza from shelves after complaint from Bondi attack survivor.”

After all, what kind of heartless monster would want to upset a Bondi attack survivor?

Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive officer of the pro-Israel lobbying organisation ECAJ, was eager to praise my book’s removal from the library, telling The Sydney Morning Herald, “A book of this sort has no place on the shelves of a library, especially one within minutes of where Australians were slaughtered in large part due to the dehumanisation of Jews precisely through this sort of libel.

“I commend the individual who spotted the book, herself a survivor of the massacre, and acted to have it removed.”

Was Ryvchin one of the other “multiple” parties that demanded my book be removed? If so, was it prior to the aforementioned Bondi survivor’s complaint? Did The Herald inquire about his involvement in the campaign to remove the book? Did The Herald ask him to specify examples or provide any evidence of me “dehumanising” Jewish people, a false and libelous accusation?

They did not. He is simply presented as a neutral observer with no involvement in the censorship campaign.

I sent a request for comment to the Waverley library last week, to try and pin down the timeline of the “complaints”. They replied this morning but ignored the question, instead objecting to my use of the word “ban” but not denying it was, indeed, banned.

“Contrary to some media reporting,” the library’s manager informed me via email, “the council has not ‘banned’ the book. It remains a part of our collection; however, it is currently unable to be borrowed pending completion of a review.”

Ah, ok, it wasn’t banned, it’s just “currently unavailable to be borrowed”. Well never mind then. Hopefully this “review” goes my way! A group of organisers in Australia have started a petition calling on the library to restore the book and “protect the public’s right to read”.

But, again, it’s important to make clear that my book being “removed” from one public library isn’t the story. The story is that this is only one part of a broader censorship and bully regime that is rapidly escalating in the West.

This story comes in the context of a massive crackdown on Free Speech in Australia, in particular, which is overwhelmingly targeting pro-Palestine speech and being done in the name of “combating antisemitism”. As Jacob Mchangama and Samantha Barbas noted for MSNOW in January, “what began as a moment of national mourning [in the wake of the Bondi attack] has rapidly turned into one of the most sweeping expansions of hate speech laws and protest restriction powers in the country’s modern history.

Intended as an urgent response to antisemitism, new federal and state measures threaten to reach far beyond violence or direct incitement — reshaping how speech, protest and political dissent are regulated in the wake of terrorism.”

As I detail in said book, namely Chapter 8, “‘Antisemitism’ show trials and the smearing of campus protests,” framing suppression of Israel-critical speech in terms of sensitivity, anti-racism, and “fighting hate” is a textbook pro-Israel bully tactic.

Using liberalism against itself is a consistent and well-documented strategy from Zionist organisations to delegitimise, stigmatise, and brand as hateful those who are meaningfully critical of Israel and its regime of violence against Palestinians.

It’s useful here to distinguish The Guardian’s coverage from that of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Independent. The Guardian’s framing was mostly sceptical and fair. They sought comment from me, my publisher, and other critics of the book ban, and did not overly indulge the “Bondi survivor”.

I should also note that Sydney Morning Herald’s Kembrey did reach out to me for comment, but did so at 12:41 am central time and published her article a couple hours later. So alas, not being awake in the middle of the night costs me an original comment in The Herald. Though I doubt it would have mattered much in the overall credulous and uncritical orientation of the article.

The framing of the ban on my book as the ah shucks, entirely organic result of a “Bondi survivor,” without any interrogation of the source of these “multiple” other complaints, is doing 90 percent of the heavy lifting for the Zionist censorship lobby that was eager to not only praise the decision in the pages of The Sydney Morning Herald, but frame it in purely sectarian terms. That Sydney Morning Herald and The Independent ran with the simplistic and manipulative “Bondi survivor complained” framing, without an ounce of scepticism, shows how these Israel advocacy organisations score major PR victories before the text of the article or any reporting is even done.

2. Reducing claims of genocide in Gaza to a fringe, subjective opinion by a “self-described radical publisher” while omitting it is the overwhelming consensus of human rights and humanitarian organizations, as well as genocide scholars.

The reduction of mainstream opposition to Israel as an unserious or fringe position — while ignoring how widespread and obvious it is outside the corridors of beltway elite circles — is a trope I detailed in Chapter 9 of my book specially under the section, “The Atlantic And The Importance Of Policing Seriousness.”

All three articles framed the fact that Israel committed genocide in Gaza as a mere opinion of mine, without noting it is the broad consensus in the humanitarian and human rights world, as well as that of scholars tasked with studying and determining such matters.

While all three quoted me making this point, they did not report on the fact of this consensus. This isn’t just a vague feeling from a partisan leftwing media critic — it’s the majority academic assessment. They ought to have noted, as I detailed in my unpublished full comment to The Guardian, that genocide in Gaza is the determination of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, as well as Omer Bartov, Israeli-American professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University; Amos Goldberg, Israeli professor in the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Raz Segal, Israeli historian and associate professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies and endowed professor in the Study of Modern Genocide at Stockton University, among dozens of other prominent Israeli and American scholars.

Instead of mentioning any of these liberal validators, that would have shown how fringe the book ban advocates’ position is and how mainstream my headline was, it is presented as a mere claim by the book’s author and we are then served up pat denials from Israel.

“Israel has repeatedly denied committing genocide in Gaza,” notes The Independent (though it does link to an article detailing UN’s claims of genocide). The Guardian writes that “Israel has repeatedly denied that it has committed genocide in Gaza” without highlighting the major humanitarian and human rights groups arguing otherwise.

The fact of Israel committing genocide in Gaza is overwhelming consensus among those tasked with documenting and determining such matters. Presenting this objective reality as my opinion, without citing the underlying evidence supporting it, is playing into the idea the “genocide” label is a fringe or emotionally charged label when it is anything but.

3. Casually conflating Palestine solidarity with antisemitism and ISIS-inspired violence.

The whole point of focusing on the Bondi survivor complainant is, of course, to conflate solidarity with Palestine with the Bondi attack, which was an ISIS-inspired massacre last December that killed 15 Australians (14 of whom were Jewish) and had absolutely zero to do with Palestine, Palestinians, or Gaza.

Indeed, the only major player in Palestine with significant links to ISIS is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who Israeli outlet Haaretz reported last year has been arming ISIS-linked gangs in Gaza to undermine Hamas and steal aid, a fact publicly confirmed by Netanyahu’s former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Despite it having no factual basis, conflation of Palestinian militants, civil society and advocacy with “ISIS,” as I note in Chapter 1 of my book, “‘40 beheaded babies,’ the ISIS-ification of Hamas, and how to prime the American public for revenge,” was crucial to propagandising Western audiences and using the blunt instrument of Islamophobia to build sympathy for the cause of open-ended Israeli violence.

None of the above outlets felt it necessary to note that there has been no proven link between the Bondi Attack and Palestine solidarity. The Australian government has spent millions attempting to find such a connection, but alas has come up empty.

Why should pro-Israel advocates be permitted to casually make such a conflation without any reporters noting these two things are wholly unrelated? Why is this conflation of ISIS and Palestine solidarity permitted to be repeated without any attempt to correct this misconception? Perceptions on the part of a handful of motivated actors is not sufficient reason to indulge their delusions.

Nevertheless, racist conspiracy theories conflating Gaza advocacy with violence inspired by a movement and cause that has zero to do with Palestinians, and is largely backed by Israel’s regional allies, is permitted without any pushback because these two things, in the Western, orientalist mind, feel vaguely related.

These are subtle interventions by the above outlets and, as I mention, far from the biggest crimes in Western media related to Palestine. I am not a free speech martyr, as some have alleged, nor do I seek to be. But I think it is useful to note how, when reporting on the banning of a book about media propaganda, we saw at least three of the very tropes detailed in the book being banned.

These subtle framings, while seemingly minor in isolation, add up. They go, before one even notices, from lazy tropes, credulous reporting, and racist assumptions to a narrative, a story. Just like that, the banning of a perfectly sober, rigorous, and nuanced book is framed as a small act of kindness for a terrorism victim.

And the author, who went out of his way to be nonsectarian, to examine universal humanitarian themes, and to highlight Jewish anti-Zionist activism, is accused of horrific dehumanisation in Sydney’s largest newspaper without any pushback or deeper reporting.

The overt suppression of free speech in Australia is another major escalation, and embracing this grimy, misleading, and libelous framing without much thought or scepticism — as The Independent and Sydney Morning Herald did — is yet another example of Western media’s role in selling genocide.

Adam Johnson is a media analyst and co-host of the podcast Citations Needed. His writing has been featured in The Nation, In These Times, The Intercept, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle. Republished from the substack The Column under Creative Commons.

Some years ago when I headed the Pacific Media Centre that I founded at Auckland University of Technology, we ran a postgraduate internship programme at the China Daily in Beijing.

It was part of a professional development exposure platform that also included Jakarta in Indonesia and the Manila in the Philippines, along with several media and university journalism campus outlets in the Pacific, including the University of the South Pacific.

There was nothing else comparable at other journalism programmes in New Zealand, and now there are no opportunities of this kind after the closure of the PMC in 2021.

• READ MORE: China’s growing grip on the Solomon Islands’ fragile media sector
• New Zealanders’ Perceptions of Asia 2026
• Other reports on China and media in the Pacific

But there was some eyebrow raising about our collaboration over China Daily’s soft diplomacy role at the heart of Chinese media as part of its growing outreach into the Pacific along with the global Belt and Road development policy.

Linked to our Asia Pacific journalism studies course with support by the Asia NZ Foundation, these three-month internships provided a good insight into how Chinese media operated for New Zealand journalists graduating with an eye on an Asia-Pacific media future.

“Advanced studies in comparative journalism and media globalisation” and the “political economy” of the countries studied were important parts of our course.

A glimpse of how some media operate outside of the Western bubble.

‘Polishers’ of reports
The journalistic role that the students faced while they were at the China Daily were initially of a subeditorial or copy-editing nature — they were called “polishers” of English-language reports. But as time when on, the opportunities grew, including reporting assignments, feature writing, and broadcasting.

On exchange, we also hosted professional journalists from the China Daily on our journalism papers. Overall the collaborative experience was positive. But the stakes are much higher now.

The China Daily was founded as an English daily in 1981 and although it is owned and published by the Chinese Communist Party’s Publicity Department — the “Propaganda Department” — it is not an “official mouthpiece” of the CCP establishment.

In 2011, it celebrated 30 years of publishing during our collaboration.

China Daily has usually enjoyed a more “liberal” face than most other Chinese state media.

For example, coverage of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre was generally sympathetic to the student protests and at least one account claims that some of its journalists joined in the demonstrations. Also, the paper’s coverage of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2002-2004 was more fact-driven and balanced than the “official” state media.

China Daily has also published sponsored inserts in such global newspapers as The New York Times and Wall Street Journal in the US and Le Figaro in France.

Massive operation
Published out of a large headquarters in Chaoyang district, it is a massive operation by New Zealand standards, publishing the best part of a million copies daily, two-thirds of the copies via special editions reaching at least 150 countries.

But the most visible face of the newspaper in New Zealand and the Pacific these days is online at the China Daily website.

China Daily has often framed its Pacific outreach through official editorials, youth forums and diplomatic rebuttals. It publicises green energy ties, criticises “foreign alarmism regarding regional expansion”, and argues that organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum must back the one-China policy.

As the Chinese media outreach into the Pacific has been growing in recent years, the rivalry between Beijing, Washington and Canberra has been ratcheted up with accusations of “editorial interference and influence” in some countries, such as Kiribati and Solomon Islands, at least until the change of government in Honiara in May when Matthew Wale ousted the pro-China leadership in a general election.

In an in-depth report just two months before the election, the Paris-based media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders warned that since Honiara had established diplomatic relations with China in 2019 the Pacific country had become a “strategic arena for Beijing’s influence”.

“By capitalising on the economic fragility of the local media sector, China has stepped up conditional funding, editorial partnerships and influence programmes to disseminate its narratives,” RSF said, calling on the Solomon Islands’ government to make the viability and independence of the media sector a priority.

Outreach invitation
The China Daily has stepped up its outreach initiatives in the Pacific lately as evidenced by an email to me four days ago inviting me to write an op-ed for the publication’s Opinion section. And the deadline is tomorrow.

Signed by an editor of the newspaper’s Opinion Department, the invitation said: “In early September, a high-level forum on media cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region will be held, bringing together senior media professionals and experts to discuss how the region’s media can better foster dialogue, trust and mutual understanding.

“We would be honoured to invite you to contribute an opinion article of around 800 words for publication in China Daily.”

The invitation continued:

“As a reference, we have outlined several possible directions:
1. In the age of AI, how can Asia-Pacific media rebuild public trust?
2. From ‘reporting Asia’ to ‘telling Asia’s stories’: Can Asia-Pacific media move beyond Western narrative frameworks?
3. From “information competition” to media cooperation: How can Asia-Pacific media promote greater mutual understanding across the region?

These topics are only suggestions. We would be delighted if you chose to write on another angle that better reflects your current research or interests.

“Rather than opening with abstract concepts or institutional frameworks, we encourage authors to begin with something timely and tangible: a recent news event, a real-world development, or an everyday experience that readers immediately recognise.

‘Drawing in’ readers
“Once readers are drawn in, the article can naturally expand to explain the broader policy, economic, technological or geopolitical forces behind it. In our experience, this narrative structure makes complex issues far more engaging for a broad international audience.

“The strongest pieces usually build around one central argument, moving from the concrete to the conceptual, from the familiar to the unfamiliar, and from today’s headline to its longer-term implications.

“We particularly value articles that combine the immediacy of current events with original analysis, clear storytelling and practical insights, rather than offering a comprehensive survey of every aspect of the topic.

“In addition to the written article, we would also be delighted if you could record a short video commentary of around one minute.

“A simple self-recorded video using a mobile phone would be perfectly fine. A vertical format with a clean and quiet background would be ideal; there is no need for professional filming or editing, as our team will handle the post-production.”

The invitation continued in the same vein.

Concluding, the email said: “As our production schedule is quite tight, we would greatly appreciate it if you could send us both the article and the video by August 25, 2026.”

My reply? You are reading it right here on Asia Pacific Report.

COMMENTARY: By Andrew Brown

Justice Desmond Fagan’s Supreme Court decision in the State of New South Wales v Farhat wrecks the architecture designed by Antisemitism Special Envoy Jillian Segal, adopted by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and enforced across Australia.

Australians have been instructed that hostility towards Israel is hostility towards Jews. The lobby never won that argument. It changed the dictionary instead.

Albanese supplied the imprimatur. NSW Premier Chris Minns supplied the muscle. David Crisafulli criminalised protest slogans. Peter Malinauskas carried the doctrine into the South Australian Parliament.

• READ MORE: NSW ‘seeking urgent advice’ on controversial court ruling that found anti-Israel vandalism was not antisemitic
• A judgment that challenges the IHRA definition of antisemitism
• Other Australia antisemitism reports

Different parties. Different states. The same obedient genuflection.

The vandal who wasn’t an antisemite
Mohommed Farhat was a vandal for hire. He caused more than $110,000 in damage, torched a vehicle and painted “Fuk Israel” across Woollahra.

Justice Fagan found Farhat was recruited and did not know what some slogans meant. Yet the State wanted him branded an antisemite and shackled with 55 terrorism supervision restrictions.

Fagan refused. His judgment is an autopsy of how propaganda becomes administrative fact. Police, prosecutors, the Crown Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions repeated an unexamined claim until repetition replaced proof.

The label was false and “injustice to the defendant” followed.

Then he turned to the definition. The IHRA formulation promoted by Segal and embraced by Canberra was, he found, “verbose and imprecise” and “detached from the reality of common usage”.

Promoting it sought to change the settled meaning of “a word that has been in use in the English language for 150 years” and to “graft” onto the community’s abhorrence of antisemitism ”a parasitic rejection of protest against Israel”.

Fagan cited Pew polling showing 74 percent of Australians unfavourable towards Israel, rising to 79 percent this year, and inferred a “humanitarian reaction to Israel’s genocide of the Gazans”.

A definition that tars four in five Australians is not detecting hatred.

It is outlawing majority opinion.

Antisemitism, Fagan said, is simply “hostility to Jews for their Jewishness”. It is real, repugnant and must be confronted. Israel is a foreign state. Zionism is a political ideology. Neither is entitled to immunity from condemnation.

Protecting Jewish Australians is essential. Protecting a foreign government from criticism is not.

The lobbyist who wrote the law
Segal became Special Envoy after leading the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, whose published mission includes defending Israel, encouraging Zionism and lobbying governments for positions favourable to Israel.

The referee was recruited from one team’s front office.

She may hold those views. She may not launder them through the Commonwealth and receive them back as law.

Albanese outsourced the dictionary to a protagonist, then adopted her every recommendation despite warnings from Jewish and civil liberties groups that it would punish lawful advocacy for Palestine.

Not consultation. Capitulation, formalised in a press release.

The government’s response commits the Commonwealth, states and territories to implementing Segal’s programme. National machinery of compliance, and the premiers queued up to install it.

Minns, Crisafulli, Malinauskas
Minns expanded police powers and created new speech offences. Crisafulli criminalised two protest slogans, with two years in prison where words might reasonably cause somebody to feel menaced, harassed or offended.

Offended. The decay of liberal democracy, compressed into one word.

Malinauskas backed IHRA through the South Australian Parliament, then pressed Adelaide Writers’ Week to dump Palestinian Australian writer Randa Abdel-Fattah. David Gonski, whose name once meant needs based schooling, now fronts an Antisemitism Education Taskforce with Segal at his side.

The Australian Public Service Commission says IHRA applies in federal workplaces. AHPRA adopted it across 16 professions and more than 960,000 practitioners. A reference tool held over a doctor’s registration is not a dictionary but a threat to a livelihood.

Fear is the cheapest police force ever deployed.

Executive policy cannot rewrite ordinary language. A circular cannot create law. Parliament never enacted IHRA, so the court gave it no force. Not a High Court ruling, but a preview.

Eighteen police, one shirt
I have been the test case.

On 3 November 2024, NSW Police arrested me at Bondi for wearing “Fuck Israel, Fuck Zionism”. I threatened nobody and damaged nothing. I was handcuffed, held six hours, fingerprinted and DNA tested by force over my objection.

Three charges followed, with bail conditions that ran more than a year. At one point I was banned from the eastern suburbs. My home in Surry Hills sat 400 metres from the boundary. One wrong walk meant arrest and up to 12 months in a cell awaiting a hearing.

For a shirt.

All three charges collapsed in December 2025 once my lawyers raised the implied freedom of political communication.

On April 6 this year, as many as 18 officers surrounded me at Bondi over the same shirt, among them Odin squad taskforce officers and two senior officers from area command. Overhead, a drone and a helicopter. On standby, an ambulance and two caged wagons.

Odin is a tactical unit for crowd management, high visibility policing and high risk operations. The high risk operation that morning was a shirt. I took it off. They arrested the shirt. A penalty notice arrived a week later.

Fagan has not decided my remaining matter, but he has demolished its pretence. He found the sprayed “Fuk Israel” was “crude political expression of contempt” for a foreign state, not hatred of Jews. If those words stayed political when painted during a crime spree, they cannot become Jew hatred worn peacefully on cotton.

The obscenity was never the shirt. It was the state power assembled around it.

Segal supplied the language. Albanese supplied the authority. Gonski took the classroom, AHPRA the professions, Minns the handcuffs, Crisafulli the statute book, Malinauskas the Parliament and the festival stage.

Justice Fagan supplied something none of them could survive: the law.

• Editor’s Note: the NSW Government is considering appealing Justice Fagan’s decision.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned and highlighted recent attacks and obstructions committed by the Israeli military against Palestinian journalists reporting from the occupied West Bank.

In a statement, RSF says this targeted violence is aimed at preventing media professionals from doing their jobs.

It also condemned the documented violence by extremist Jewish settlers against the Palestinian population.

• READ MORE:  The Gaza doctrine – Israeli ‘journacide’ and the muted NZ media response
• Other Palestinian journalist reports

“RSF condemns the Israeli army’s attacks on journalists and calls on Israel’s allied governments to pressure the country’s authorities to put an end to these actions,” said Martin Roux, head of RSF’s Crisis Desk.

“Amidst documented violence by extremist Jewish settlers against the Palestinian population in the occupied West Bank, Israeli soldiers are targeting journalists, thereby preventing information from emerging from this territory, which is increasingly cut off from the rest of the world.

Against the backdrop of intensified repression of Palestinian journalists since 7 October 2023, RSF has documented key incidents over the past three months:

11 May: Violence at Qalandiya camp
Israeli armed forces targeted a group of journalists with tear gas and stun grenades while they were covering a raid on the Qalandiya camp, located between East Jerusalem and the West Bank, both territories under Israeli occupation. The attack specifically targeted a crew from the Qatari channel Al Araby.

16 May: Access to Jenin camp barred
Israeli armed forces barred journalists from entering the Jenin camp in the northern occupied West Bank while military and demolition operations were underway. According to reporters on the scene, Israeli soldiers had sealed off the area.

27 May: Journalist prevented from visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound
Saif Al-Qawasmi, a 25-year-old freelance journalist who works for the Qatari news channel Al Jazeera Mubasher, among others, was detained by police while heading to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem on assignment. He was subsequently questioned about his work by law enforcement and Israeli intelligence for several hours. He was banned from accessing the site (initially for one week, and later for six months) on arbitrary grounds. This punitive access ban is frequently used by Israeli authorities against Palestinian journalists, a practice that predates the crackdown following 7 October 2023.

7 June: Live fire in Balata camp
A group of journalists went to the Balata camp, east of Nablus, to cover a large-scale raid by the Israeli army. Among them were Majdi Mohammed Shteih, a photographer for the US news agency Associated Press, and freelance journalist Sidqi Ayoub Rayyan, who works for the news site Noon Post. According to their accounts to RSF, the Israeli army fired stun grenades in their direction and then opened fire while they were attempting to cover the military operation.

16 June: Targeted attacks in Nablus and Deir Abu Mashaal
In the early hours of the night, while protecting a convoy of extremist Jewish settlers (not necessarily Israeli citizens) who had illegally entered Palestinian territory en route to Joseph’s Tomb, east of Nablus, the Israeli army forced out about 10 journalists reporting in the area (including crews from the Qatari channel Al Jazeera and the Jordanian channel Roya News) using stun grenades, thereby preventing media coverage of the event.

That same day, Motassem Saqf Al-Hayt, a correspondent for the independent news site Quds News Network, was injured after the Israeli army fired tear gas grenades while he was reporting from Deir Abu Mashaal, a village west of Ramallah where other settlers were attempting to establish an outpost.

22 July: Haaretz team obstructed south of Nablus
The Israeli army blocked a vehicle belonging to a team from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz south of Nablus. Soldiers claimed that the move was intended to prevent clashes with settlers established in the area.

On 10 August, the same Haaretz team was blocked and attacked by other settlers near a neighbouring village. This time, Israeli soldiers present at the scene refused to intervene and to protect the journalists, according to accounts.

19 journalists detained
Alongside these attacks against Palestinian journalists covering events, the number of journalist arrests in the occupied West Bank has surged since 7 October 2023. Of the 19 Palestinian journalists from the West Bank detained by Israeli authorities, 15 were arrested after that date.

Most recently, on the morning of 12 August 2026, Israeli armed forces arrested freelance journalist Mohammed Awad, who has notably contributed video work to Agence France-Presse (AFP) and the Qatari channel Al Jazeera, at his home in the village of Beitunia, west of Ramallah, on charges of “terrorism”. When contacted by RSF, the army had not, as of this writing, provided information to substantiate this accusation.

Foreign journalists also targeted
This crackdown on local journalists is compounded by obstacles facing international press correspondents. French journalist Alice Froussard, a contributor to Radio France Internationale (RFI), was deported upon her arrival at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport on June 10. This followed entry bans issued against journalists Queralt Castillo, Khadija Toufik, and Alessandro Stefanelli.

RSF, with the support of its Palestinian partner Watan Academy, continues its commitment to journalist safety. In August, the organisation conducted Hostile Environment Awareness Training (HEAT), tailored to the local context, for 20 Palestinian journalists.

• Read the full report at Reporters Without Borders.

COMMENTARY: By Andrew Brown

NSW Police examined the Community Security Group (CSG) proposal and warned the Premier it would fracture the state. Chris Minns is doing it anyway.

He is backing armed members of a private organisation formed to protect one community patrolling public events. He calls it a trial. In public, it would resemble an armed Jewish police force.

Apply one test. Imagine armed private guards, trained overseas on a foreign government’s money, patrolling Eid prayers at Lakemba. How many minutes does that proposal survive?

READ MORE:

It would be denounced as sectarian militia building and killed before lunch.

Favouritism with a firearms licence
And that rejection would be correct. A privilege unthinkable for any other community is not security policy. It is favouritism with a firearms licence, the state deciding whose fear earns guns and whose fear earns batons.

The GSG is not legally a police force and would not acquire general police powers. That, precisely, is the problem. Minns proposes putting armed private guards into public space without the command, accountability, discipline or universal duty owed by NSW Police.

CSG operates under the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, combining security professionals and volunteers to protect Jewish life, institutions and events. Its licensed guards already carry firearms at approved Jewish schools and synagogues.

Extending that into public gatherings crosses the line between guarding private premises and wielding armed power among the public.

Pistol apartheid opposed by police
NSW Police Deputy Commissioner David Hudson was unambiguous. Protecting every member of the community is the job of police. Granting one part of society exceptional armed privileges, he warned, would appear favouritism, fracture tenuous relationships and create friction between groups.

Police Association president Kevin Morton was even more blunt. Only NSW Police are charged with protecting the people of NSW. If one private organisation is allowed to arm in public, where does it stop?

Minns’s answer is: wherever the lobby demands.

Minns joined AIJAC’s inaugural Rambam Israel Fellowship in 2003, later celebrated as a “strong friend” by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. He entrenched Operation Shelter and rushed through protest restrictions later unanimously struck down by the Court of Appeal.

The double standard already played out on Sydney’s streets. Before peaceful protesters gathered to oppose Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Minns restricted protest, declared the visit a major event and mobilised more than 3000 police shifts, 500 at the demonstration.

His police kettled, punched, pepper sprayed and dragged protesters. They sprayed Muslims as they knelt in prayer.

They broke a 69-year-old woman’s back in four places.

Human Rights Watch found apparent excessive force. The LECC is investigating. Michael West Media understands civil claims are being prepared, with taxpayers facing potentially enormous damages.

The community whose worshippers his police pepper sprayed would never be handed its own armed guards. The community whose lobby cultivated the Premier for two decades is offered them.

That is not equal citizenship. It is a hierarchy, and Minns built it.

What of proper process?
A former Sydney CSG volunteer and Army officer lost his security clearance after a tribunal upheld ASIO’s assessment that he placed loyalty to Israel above Australia and was vulnerable to exploitation by Israeli intelligence.

His CSG training in Israel, financed by the Israeli government, involved tactical planning and firearms.

That case does not implicate every CSG member. It makes blind political trust grotesquely irresponsible. A competent government would examine the group’s governance, overseas training, intelligence links and command before expanding its armed reach. Minns asked for none of it.

Then the operational nightmare. Police responding to an attack could confront multiple armed private guards. Who commands them? How do police tell defenders from attackers in seconds?

Who answers when a bystander dies?

Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell questioned the fantasy that guns create safety.

Australia rejected that fantasy after Port Arthur.

NSW already has 250 armed response officers. If a Jewish event faces a credible armed threat, deploy them.

Jewish Australians deserve the full protection of the state, as every Australian does. What they do not need is a Premier handing them guns no other community would ever be allowed, and the isolation that comes with them.

Minns is not protecting equality. He is letting lobby power decide who may carry arms in public and who gets batons for praying.

This is political capture wearing a gun belt.

ANJALI KAMAT: This is Democracy Now!, I’m Anjali Kamat.

We turn to the occupied West Bank, where Israeli settlers are continuing to lay siege on homes in the village of Qusra, south of Nablus. The siege has attracted international attention, in part because one of the homes is owned by a Palestinian American.

The US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, surprised many when he recently described the siege as a, “horrific act of terror” being committed by, “Israeli terrorists”.

Loui Ridi, who lives in Ohio, spoke to Reuters before he flew from the United States to the West Bank to protect his home there.

• READ MORE: Qusra is where Israel’s lies about settler violence hit a wall
• Palestinian victims of Israeli settler attacks face battle for justice
• Qusra siege by Israeli settler ‘terrorists’ in West Bank persists despite global outcry
• Other occupied West Bank reports

LOUI RIDI: I have a lot of emotion in Qusra. I was born and raised in Qusra. My mother, 83 years old, still in Qusra, my sisters, my brothers, my nieces, my nephews, my cousins, my friends.

ANJALI KAMAT: Shortly after Loui Ridi landed at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel, he received a video showing Israeli soldiers shaking the hands of the Israeli settlers laying siege to his home.

LOUI RIDI: When I landed, my brother sent me this video. That’s terrifying. That just happened like an hour ago. And they’re near the soldierS. They’re shaking hands with the soldiers. That’s just happening today.

I’m going to stay in this house tonight. So, I’m terrified. I’m asking the US officials, the embassy, to provide me protection and to remove the settlers permanently from our village and my area.

ANJALI KAMAT: Then, after Loui Ridi arrived back in the village of Qusra and reunited with his brother and other relatives, he raised an American flag on the roof of his home.

LOUI RIDI: I came here to be present with him. I left my luxury home in America. I left my luxury vehicles in America. I left my wife, my two daughters. I left my business and decided to be here at my home to protect it from the settlers [trying] to steal it, and raising the American flag to send the message to the American Embassy and the US officials that I am currently under siege and I need a protection.

ANJALI KAMAT: Despite Loui Ridi’s return, settlers have continued to confront the family. In this video, a settler is seen approaching and harassing Ridi on his own property.

SETTLER: [speaking Hebrew]

LOUI RIDI: You are a terrorist settler. You know that?

SETTLER: [speaking Hebrew]

LOUI RIDI: You are a terrorist settler. It’s garbage.

You know what that means? You stink. You stink. Move. Move. Don’t touch me.

SETTLER: [speaking Hebrew]

LOUI RIDI: Don’t touch me.

SETTLER: [speaking Hebrew]

LOUI RIDI: Terrorist. You are a terrorist.

ANJALI KAMAT: We go now to Qusra, where we’re joined by Loui Ridi.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Loui. Thank you so much for joining us. How are you doing right now? Describe the scene. Do you still have settlers coming into your property?

LOUI RIDI: Thank you for having me.

Day four in Qusra
Yes, this is my fourth day here in Qusra, in my house, that is still under siege by the IDF and the settlers. The settlers still manage every day to pass by my house. And the IDF are present and not doing anything to them.

They’re not arresting them whatsoever.

ANJALI KAMAT: Your reaction, Loui, to the comments by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee describing the settlers as “Israeli terrorists”?

LOUI RIDI: Well, again, I appreciate Mike Huckabee condemned it, called them terrorists. But I’ve been in contact with the embassy, that nothing has been done on the ground. And actually, I asked the US Embassy to send me a team to see themselves what’s going on here in my own house, so [they] can see what’s going on.

ANJALI KAMAT: And what kind of protection have you got?

LOUI RIDI: None. I’m not getting no protection here. I’m still [in] fear for my life. I still fear for my family’s life here. The IDF not even making it better here. They’re not allowing us to leave the house. They’re not allowing anyone to come to my house freely. If we need to bring food, we have to do coordination through the mayor of Qusra, and then he has to call the Palestinian Authority, and then they have to call the Israeli authority. It takes hours, if not days.

ANJALI KAMAT: Loui, this area of Qusra has been under siege for months, and your home specifically for at least a week, if not longer. And you’ve had — when you reach out to the US Embassy, I mean, you have the ambassador to Israel speaking out about this. You are an — what are they saying in response when you reach out for help? You have an American flag on your home.

Meet Loui Ridi – the Palestinian American returns home      Video: Democracy Now!

Under attack since January
LOUI RIDI: That’s right. This house has been under attack by Israeli settlers since January this year. It’s been under siege for 13 days. We have reached the US member of Congress local office. I have reached multiple times the US Embassy that I need help. Yes, I raised the American flag to send my message to the American people and to the government of the United States that there is an American under siege by the Israeli settlers, needs help.

ANJALI KAMAT: I want to bring into the conversation Oren Ziv in Tel Aviv. He’s a reporter and photographer for +972 Magazine and the independent Israeli local news site Local Call. His most recent article is headlined “Qusra is where Israel’s lies about settler violence hit a wall.”

Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about what are these lies? What did you see in Qusra?

OREN ZIV: Yeah, thank you for having me.

I’ve been to Qusra twice in the recent week. First, a week ago on Friday, with — a group of activists [who] tried to march to Ridi’s house to bring food and water and medicine, and were blocked by the Israeli army and border police, the same army and police who allow for months the settlers to attack, to murder there, to injure. Israeli human rights activists were severely injured there a few months ago. Houses were attacked and vandalised.

Amir Odeh, a young Palestinian, was shot there during the war against Iran. And this is all happening, of course, with the active support of the army and the police. So, the first time, I was there on Friday, and we were blocked as journalists, also the activists that were coming bringing the food.

And the police and the army just let the activists leave the food near a few meters from the house. And later, local MK, parliament member, Ofer Cassif managed to bring it in.

Authorities do nothing
And the second time, I actually managed to go in, after waiting for a long time outside and talking to the army. And what I could see is the same reality that Loui is describing. Despite all the international attention, the media attention, the Americans speaking about it, the Israeli army and authorities are doing barely nothing to control the situation.

The house is still under siege. Settlers are roaming around. And, you know, myself as a journalist and many people are asking: Does the army — does the army [not] want to do anything, or under the political current situation in Israel, they can’t do anything? They don’t control the situation in the West Bank.

And, you know, I think it’s a hard question, but either way, the situation on the ground is that the house is under siege. You know, the army cannot deal with the 20, 30, 40 settlers that are acting violently, attacking this property and others.

And I think this is happening because of, of course, the support from the Israeli extreme government, but because of the perception that any settler, 10 years old, 15 years old, 20 years old, can do anything that he wants in the West Bank, putting up outposts, putting a siege, killing, attacking, going to all these tours or trips and harassing Palestinians.

And soldiers are just not – they don’t think about the option to put a limit to that. And even though that the chief-of-staff talks about it and the commander of the West Bank, and I think the story gained a lot of attention because it shows the current situation of the Israeli army, that they cannot deal with five or 10 settlers.

But this kind of perception that settlers can do whatever they want and the army just has to support it is very, very strong.

ANJALI KAMAT: Oren, can you talk about this argument that, you know, Bibi Netanyahu is making, also, to some extent, Mike Huckabee, US ambassador to Israel, that there’s some sort of distinction between the settlers here — I believe Mike Huckabee called them “unsettlers” — and the vast majority of other settlers? And there also seems to be a distinction, you know, so, sort of “good settlers” and “bad settlers”.

‘Group of troubled youth’
OREN ZIV: Exactly. This is something Netanyahu — so, Netanyahu doesn’t give interviews to local media. He talks in American media. And when he’s asked about this, he always says, “This is a group of troubled youth.”

You know, sometimes he says 70, 150. But it’s very, very clear: They can act like this because of the active support from the Israeli government that gives them weapons, gives them ATVs, like the ones they raided Ridi’s house in Qusra and other houses, because of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, the establishment of more and more outposts that are kind of front bases for these terror attacks.

And they could not stay one day without the active support of the police that is completely controlled by Ben-Gvir, by the army that is controlled by the settlers and by the extreme government.

We did a story a few months ago about how the settlers, after — since October 7, they managed to ethnically cleanse dozens of Palestinian communities in Area C, mostly farming and herding communities. They just moved on.

And they say it openly, to Area — they say it openly, to Area A, to Area B of the West Bank, besieging houses, villages and town, and taking them over. And according to our investigation a few months ago, they already took over tens of thousands of hectares inside Area B and A that, according to the Oslo Accord and even according to official Israel, are under Palestinian control.

So, all this is happening with — like, this example, it’s happening in hundreds of other locations in the West Bank. The thing is, here — because even next to Abu Ridi’s house, in Jalud, the same tactic from the same violent outpost happened a month ago, that the Tubasi family was forced out.

‘Brave family’ slowed settlers
And the only difference here is that this brave family managed to slow down the process a bit with their decision not to leave, even [though] they had barely any food and water, with the violent attacks, the fact they’re under siege. They insisted on staying. He came from the US and managed to get media attention, including mainstream media, even local mainstream media, that have barely covered [the issue].

ANJALI KAMAT: Oren, I just want to go back to Loui Ridi, the Palestinian American whose home in Qusra is under siege by settlers. Loui, why did you return from Ohio to your home in Qusra?

LOUI RIDI: Well, I’d been watching all the attacks on my house, on my brother and his son, on the — live [feed] on my security cameras. I couldn’t sleep anymore. I have to stay up all night. And the situation became dangerous way when they completely blocked him off from food on August 9.

And I was talking to my brother, and I told him, “You know what? I’m going to come, and I will do whatever it takes to provide you food and supplies and end the siege, and trying to protect you.”

ANJALI KAMAT: Loui Ridi, thank you for joining us. We will continue to follow the settler siege on your home in Qusra. Thank you also to Oren Ziv of +972 Magazine. We will link to your new piece, “Qusra is where Israel’s lies about settler violence hit a wall.”

Republished from Democracy Now! under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

Still drawing international censure for his genocidal call to kill dozens of Gazans daily, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has faced fresh condemnation after visiting the construction site of a gallows where Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis are set to be hanged to death, with select Israelis gathering as spectators.

Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right Jewish Power party, posted a video to social media in which he gloats about the construction of gallows, which is being built in an undisclosed location in central Israel.

“I promised to worsen the conditions of terrorists in prisons — we kept it,” Ben-Gvir says in the video. “I promised to pass the Death Penalty for Terrorists law — we did.

• READ MORE: Israel builds execution chamber for Palestinians convicted of murder
• Other Israeli execution reports

“And now the death row and hanging facility are also starting to take shape.”

The law to which Ben-Gvir referred was passed in March by the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, and took effect the following month. The legislation changes the rules governing Israeli military courts in the illegally occupied West Bank so that the death penalty effectively applies only to Palestinians who kill Israelis.

Far-right Knesset members, including Ben-Gvir, wore noose-shaped lapel pins to show their support for the legislation.

Ben-Gvir also handed out sweets to Knesset colleagues after the bill passed its first reading.

WATCH: National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir announce expansion of newly approved death row facilities, including observation booths.

‘Terrorists deserve only one thing – death by hanging’ pic.twitter.com/MRKJoSVD9q

— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) August 18, 2026

Viewing booths
Ben-Gvir said the execution site would include viewing booths where victims’ families could watch executions, describing this as something customary in various countries and specifically citing the United States as an example.

“Terrorists deserve only one thing — death by hanging,” said Ben-Gvir, who in 2007 was convicted by an Israeli court of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organisation, whose leader he has openly honoured.

Abdullah al-Zaghari, head of the Palestinian Prisoner Society, urged “effective international action” in response to Ben-Gvir’s comments. Al-Zaghari told Anadolu news agency that the minister’s visit to the gallows site was part of the “continued determination of the Israeli occupation system” to codify incitement against Palestinians.

Leftist Israeli Knesset lawmaker Ofer Cassif excoriated Ben-Gvir’s actions.

“This criminal thug — a sympathiser of murderers of Palestinians, a supporter of terror, and a pathological racist — is also hopelessly infantile,” Cassif told The New Arab. “Soon we will oust him from the government, and next, throw him behind bars.”

European Parliament Vice-President Pina Picierno accused Ben-Gvir of staging “a horrific spectacle that turns the death penalty into a show”.

The liberal US pro-Israel group J Street asked on X, “Are we supposed to believe, as some in the Jewish establishment would like us to, that Ben-Gvir’s words somehow tell us nothing about the country he helps govern?”

Jewish extremists excluded
“He is Israel’s National Security Minister, and he is now celebrating a facility built to execute Palestinians while Jewish extremists are excluded from the law,” the group added.

“As the old saying goes: When someone tells you who they are, believe them. When a government gives someone this much power, we have to reckon honestly with the agenda they are pushing.”

Ben-Gvir — who is under sanctions and banned from countries including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank — was still being denounced on Wednesday for advocating the daily mass killing of Palestinians, including civilians, in Gaza amid a nearly three-year war that United Nations experts, human rights groups, a South Africa-led case currently before the International Court of Justice, and many others call a genocide.

Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, said on Wednesday — which was World Humanitarian Day — that Ben-Gvir’s “remarks are appalling, they’re outrageous, they’re dehumanising, they’re dangerous, and we condemn them unequivocally.”

A spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Wednesday in Berlin that Merz “strongly condemns Minister Ben-Gvir’s inhumane statements, which violate international law — they are unacceptable.”

“As the occupying power, Israel must treat Palestinians with dignity, protect their property, and ensure public administration and humanitarian aid,” the spokesperson added.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called Ben-Gvir’s remarks “unbearable and inhumane,” adding that “further sanctions could be imposed, and all options are on the table.”

In the United States, actor and activist Mark Ruffalo said Thursday on Bluesky that “Ben-Gvir is a bloodthirsty psychopath, war criminal, and one of Israel’s beloved genocidal leaders.”

“America and the world should be sanctioning, divesting, and boycotting Israel in every way until this apartheid regime falls,” he added.

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams. This article was first published by Common Dreams and is republished under Creative Commons.