INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon and Stephanie Tran

A Zionist doctor has claimed that the Australian health regulator CEO Justin Untersteiner “was forced into a massive capitulation with IHRA”.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) recently introduced the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism which puts healthcare workers at risk for criticising Israel.

The Zionist doctor, psychiatrist Dr Doron Samuell, alleges that he was part of a campaign that “exerted intolerable political pressure” on AHPRA to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

• READ MORE: Antisemitic, really? Jewish leader speaks out on Australia’s Royal Commission hypocrisy
• Saige England: Call out the Zionist hypocrisy – genociders are settler colonialists on steroids
• Antisemitism envoy Segal slams ABC, SBS ‘Israel bias’, wants to vet media
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

Resisted IHRA for two years
AHPRA, which regulates the conduct of 900,000 Australian healthcare workers, had resisted pressure to adopt the IHRA definition for two years.

However, on June 17, the health regulator shifted its position unexpectedly and without consultation when CEO Justin Untersteiner issued a joint statement with the federal government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, announcing the adoption of the definition and that Segal’s guidance handbook would be used as a tool in handling complaints.

Thousands of health care workers, and many organisations including the Australian Nurses and Midwifery Federation, NSW Civil Liberties Council and Medical Association for Prevention of War have called for AHPRA to reverse its decision and continue to rely on its existing framework in dealing with complaints of racism, including antisemitism.

In response, Israel’s Foreign Ministry pressured the Australian government to “confront antisemitism in healthcare” in a post on X on Sunday.

This investigation paints a deeply troubling picture and should serve as a wake-up call.

We call upon The Australian government to confront antisemitism forcefully.

Every reluctance, every excuse, and every failure to act sends extremists the same message: they can keep pushing…

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) July 12, 2026

AHPRA subjected to ‘intolerable pressure’ from Israel lobby
The “intolerable pressure” claims were made by “Aba Shesh”, a social media pseudonym linked to the Facebook account used by Dr Doron Samuell, a member of the Australian Zionist Healthcare Alliance (AZHA).

Dr Samuell’s comments were made in response to a post on “Jews of Melbourne” (JOM) Facebook page drawing members’ attention to a Civil Liberties Defence Centre (CLDC) webinar presented by its chairperson, lawyer Nick Hanna. The webinar was an educational briefing for healthcare workers on the implications of AHPRA’s adoption of the IHRA definition .

A member of the Jews Of Melbourne group predicted there would be

lots of “antisemitism” at the webinar which members could monitor and report to AHPRA.

In response, “Aba Shesh” described Untersteiner as an “unthinking bureaucrat” who “repeatedly minimised the problem until his hand was forced”.

Samuell lamented that Untersteiner “said the right things and even visited a shule but AHPRA sat on their hands, receiving vexatious complaints for two years until we exerted intolerable political pressure on them to act.”

Samuell stated that Untersteiner “was forced into a massive capitulation with IHRA”.

Last year, Samuell claimed he was responsible for the cancellation of a staff forum on Children and War at the Royal Children’s Hospital.

Michael West Media sent detailed questions to Untersteiner and provided him with an opportunity to respond to the comments. Instead of specific answers, AHPRA provided us with a general statement. AHPRA’s full response is below.

MWM also contacted Samuell for comment, he did not provide a response.

APHRA CEO ‘under pressure’
Several healthcare professionals who opposed the change said they met with senior AHPRA officials, including Untersteiner, earlier this year to argue against adopting the IHRA definition.

One doctor, who requested anonymity because of concerns of professional repercussions, said senior leadership were presented with medical evidence of the genocide and concerns that the IHRA definition would be used to silence doctors.

“As well as presenting the overwhelming amount of medical evidence of genocide and the silencing of healthcare workers as an apparatus of genocide, we also focused on the concern of the IHRA definition being used to silence doctors who openly support human rights,” they said.

Jerusalem Definition preferred
The doctor said they proposed the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism as an alternate definition.

“We provided an alternative definition on antisemitism, the Jerusalem Definition, should it be necessary to single out one group for a separate definition on discrimination.”

The doctor said Untersteiner told them he had publicly rejected the IHRA definition and discussed pressure the regulator was facing from Israel lobby groups.

“Untersteiner said he has publicly rejected the IHRA definition but when pressed to provide this in writing later, AHPRA did not,” the doctor said.

“[Untersteiner] also expressed some of the personal stress he was under due to the Zionist groups and in particular from doctors like Doron Samuell. It appeared to be genuine and heartfelt.”

MWM put those claims to Untersteiner, who declined to comment.

The doctor expressed concern that AHPRA’s decision to adopt IHRA would encourage vexatious complaints against practitioners, an anxiety shared by thousands of other healthcare workers.

“AHPRA’s statement on the IHRA definition will embolden the Zionists to ramp up their vexatious complaint campaign,” they said.

Path to capitulation
Samuell told the Facebook group that “with my pressure, the Minister issued a directive for Justin to remedy the situation and gave him 6 months to do it” yet, “when he reported back 7+ months later, he was still refusing to define antisemitism”.

In September 2025, health ministers directed APHRA to provide a six monthly report on “Improving the health practitioner response to racism and discrimination, including antisemitism”. AHPRA established a Racism and Discrimination Committee to provide an action plan.

Minister for Health Mark Butler did not respond to questions on the matter.

In February 2026, Untersteiner was pressured by Senator Andrew Bragg in Senate Estimates to adopt the IHRA definition.

“I’m wondering why you haven’t decided to adopt a clear definition of antisemitism. We’ve just had a religious massacre in Australia where antisemitism was a key driver. So I’m wondering why you haven’t adopted one,” Senator Bragg asked.

In response, Untersteiner said the issue was a “live discussion”. However, “the vast majority of practitioners do the right thing and they comply with our codes of conduct” and “in the very few cases where they don’t, we do believe that we’ve got the tools to be able to deal with that effectively.”

The Segal meetings
When pressed further to explain why he had not adopted the IHRA definition, Untersteiner said he had been meeting with Jillian Segal “on a regular basis”.

“I’ve been meeting with the special envoy on a regular basis. I think we’ve been able to work quite well together,” Untersteiner told the Committee.

On 13 April 2026, AHPRA’s Race and Discrimination Committee submitted its report responding to the Ministerial directive. In his posts, Samuell objected to the composition of the committee because it

included a Jewish person who had been critical of Israel.

The report stated that “the National Code of Conduct sets out clear expectations that registered health practitioners will deliver care that is culturally safe and free from discriminatory behaviours.” There was an action plan for strengthening AHPRA’s anti-racism approach but no mention of the IHRA definition.

On April 24, Special Envoy Segal released the Understanding Antisemitism in Australia handbook.

On May 1, the Health Ministers accepted AHPRA’s report and it was published on AHPRA’s website.

APHRA’s usual practice is to publish communiques on its Board meetings shortly after they occur. Communiques have not been published for the May and June meetings.

Call for Untersteiner sacking
AHPRA declined to supply us with copies of those communiques so it is unclear whether the Board approved the use of the IHRA definition in these meetings.

On May 6, Samuell expressed his frustration with AHPRA in a podcast episode published by “The Israel Connexion”.

During the interview, Samuell said that AZHA had called for Untersteiner’s sacking in its submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

“AHPRA has dropped the ball. Now we’re making a submission to the Royal Commission, calling on the Health Minister to sack Justin Untersteiner for the role that he has played in this,” he said.

‘Antagonistic to Israel’
“We’ve outlined in our submission a large number of failures. For example, there are governance problems in AHPRA. There are board members in AHPRA who are on the public record as being antagonistic to Israel,” Samuell said.

“I know from their own staff, many of whom have been in private communications with me, that they are not taking this matter seriously at all. They’ve breached their social contract with us. [Untersteiner] is not the person that can fix this situation.”

Samuell told Israel Connexion that AZHA had encouraged “practitioners and patients in the health sector to make submissions to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism through [AZHA] website” and was “synthesising the submissions into a discussion paper for the Royal Commission” by applying the IHRA definition.

The result is a “whole of sector submission” developed by applying “social theories about what is going on and what should happen to remedy it.”

MWM is not asserting that any of the public allegations against AHPRA are true. In the absence of responses from AHRPA or Samuell on these matters, we are reporting them in the interests of transparency.

Zionist Healthcare Alliance attacks on AHPRA
Samuell is one of several Zionist health workers who represent the Australian Zionist Healthcare Alliance (AZHA).

The AZHA was launched in October last year. It describes itself as “Australia’s first dedicated Zionist healthcare advocacy organisation”.

AZHA’s most vocal member is public affairs officer Sharon Stoliar who helped found AZHA last year.

Ten days after the IHRA definition announcement, on June 27, Stoliar was featured in a major report by The Australian titled “How did hospitals become the front line in the antisemitic onslaught?”.

The report accused AHPRA of ignoring an “unprecedented explosion of antisemitism” and said Australian health care workers were amplifying anti-Jewish hate speech” and deliberating neglecting or harming Jewish patients.

Royal Commission hearsay
Stoliar told The Australian that she hoped to give evidence at the Royal Commission.

Stoliar is quoted describing an incident in which a woman in a Sydney hospital was “left to lie in a pool of blood with no pain relief” while her baby screamed in its cot alongside hers.

She has also claimed that an antisemitic health care worker caused a Jewish person to have a “forced abortion”.

No evidence is provided to support these hearsay claims which Stoliar has repeated in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12.

The Australian article has taken on a life of its own being regurgitated in various forms in Australian and Israeli media. The Channel 12 broadcast was reposted on Facebook and Instagram by the Zionist Federation of Australia.

Collectively these posts have triggered a large amount of hate against Australian health workers and precipitated the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs tweet this week.

AHPRA’s response
Rather than responding to our questions, AHPRA supplied MWM with a statement similar to one it has sent to thousands of healthcare workers who signed letters expressing opposition to its adoption of the IHRA definition.

AHPRA appears keen to allay the concerns of its registered health care workers. It emphasises that ”there is no place for racism or discrimination in healthcare”, and that it will deal with complaints on an individual basis. An AHPRA spokesperson provided the following explanation for the sudden change:

“Ahpra had initially not adopted the IHRA definition, as we felt there was insufficient clarity between legitimate commentary and debate regarding the policies and actions of the state of Israel and its elected leaders, and antisemitism. However, the Special Envoy on Antisemitism’s handbook is designed to support use of the definition by distinguishing ‘between antisemitism and legitimate political debate, including on the topic of Israel’.

“It is on that basis that Ahpra will use the IHRA definition as a reference tool where relevant, supported by the ASECA handbook, when considering regulatory responses. As a reference tool, the definition is not legally binding. There are no changes to the National Codes or the guidance that supports them.”

AHPRA’s explanation is surprising. The handbook itself exacerbates concerns with the IHRA definition. For example, Segal’s examples suggest that it is antisemitic to say that Israel is a “racist project” or that Israel is “committing genocide”, views that are widely held by numerous international law experts and humanitarian organisations.

The Gaza genocide continues
Daily, the genocide continues. Israel has murdered thousands of healthcare workers in Gaza and devastated its healthcare system.

Last week, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel demanded that Israel release Gaza paediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya who has been imprisoned without charge and tortured by Israel for over 18 months.

Australian health care workers are mobilising and have formed a new national coalition. Yesterday, the Australian Healthcare Alliance 4 Palestine, encompassing hundreds of thousands of registered doctors, nurses and dentists, wrote a letter to AHPRA asking it to “provide full transparency regarding the governance, consultation and decision-making processes” that led to the decision to adopt the IHRA definition.

The Alliance said that health practitioners have “an ethical responsibility to advocate for our patients, our colleagues and the healthcare system” and called on AHPRA to rescind its decision.

Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.

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 was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

On October 9, 2023, just after the State of Israel began its ongoing genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip, Sarah Cotte, a French-Ethiopian student at SOAS (the School of Oriental and African Studies) in London gave a speech at a rally organised by the SOAS Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! Society.

Her speech was “expressing support for the right of Palestinians to armed resistance against occupation and ethnic cleansing by the Israeli state”, as the Defend the SOAS 2 website explains.

The speech was filmed on a phone and shared online, and, in response, the vicious and vindictive pro-Israeli lobbying group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), scouring the internet for dissent, shared the video and tagged the Metropolitan Police.

• READ MORE: How were the Filton 4 sentenced for terrorism when they weren’t convicted of terrorism?
• Other Palestine protest reports

This led, in January 2024, to Sarah being arrested in a dawn raid on her home, on the basis that she had committed a crime under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act for “inviting support for a proscribed organisation”, which is punishable by a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

It took another 13 months for the Metropolitan Police to formally charge Sarah, and, on the same day, another SOAS student was also arrested on suspicion of an offence under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act, although they have not been charged.

Together, however, they are known as “the SOAS 2″.

On June 22, two years and nine months since Sarah made her speech, her trial began at the Old Bailey, with the prosecution alleging that her speech on October 9, 2023 “intentionally or recklessly” encouraged support for Hamas.

Disgraceful broadened proscription
Crucially, although the military wing of Hamas was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the UK government in 2001 (ignoring the fact that it is a legitimate resistance movement to illegal occupation and oppression), it was not until December 2021 that then-foreign secretary Priti Patel, an ardent Zionist, broadened the proscription to encompass the whole of Hamas, which, disgracefully, enabled an entire civilian government, and everyone who worked for it, to be regarded as terrorists.

In her closing remarks after the week-long trial, the defence barrister, Margo Munro Kerr, “reminded the jury that Ms Cotte’s speech was completely legal and that protecting solidarity with Palestine is ‘an absolute necessity in a democratic society’”, as the Morning Star described it.

A spokesperson for Defend the SOAS 2 told the newspaper, “This trial has never been about justice; it is about intimidation. The Terrorism Act 2000 is being deployed by a Zionist-supporting Labour government precisely as it was intended: to systematically criminalise anti-imperialists and silence solidarity with liberation movements.

“While Israeli war criminals enter Britain fresh from committing genocide in Gaza without a glance from the police, a young woman is dragged through the courts for speaking the truth.

“Sarah did not break under the prosecution’s pressure, and neither will we.”

On July 8, after failing to reach a verdict, the jury was dismissed, and a retrial was scheduled for September 14.

Sarah told Socialist Worker that, as the newspaper described it, her trial was “part of a broader crackdown on the Palestine movement and our civil liberties”.

‘Repressing’ Palestine movement
As she described it, “The state has no choice but to repress the Palestine movement”, because it “has politicised so many young people in the past two years.”

As the Morning Star added, she “explained the state has a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, it is targeting direct actionists such as the Filton 25 activists and the Brize Norton 6, but it is also trying to criminalise activists for speaking out against genocide.”

Speaking outside the court, Sarah told supporters, “We know that we are on the side of justice. We are on the side of liberation. We are on the side of people who fight back, people who strive for a better world, people who want to build a different system.

“The British state is on the side of terrorism, it’s on the side of apartheid, it’s on the side of colonialism, it’s on the side of imperialism.”

As with the case of Moog 4 — activists facing a retrial for direct action against an arms factory supplying weapons for the genocide, after the jury failed to reach a verdict — and as happened most prominently with the Filton 6, activists who took direct action against an Elbit Systems facility in Bristol in August 2024, and were acquitted of the main charge against them in February this year, the government, with the support of complicit lawyers and judges, refuses to accept defeat.

When jurors are unable to convict, or choose not to, on the basis of their consciences, the government keeps hammering away until it gets the result that it wants; in the case of the Filton 6, notoriously, that meant securing a conviction by the jury on lesser charges at the retrial, followed by the judge grafting a “terrorism connection” onto their conviction at the sentencing phase.

This is not justice, and it is to be hoped that it will backfire, with jurors becoming ever more wary of convicting defendants at all, as they recognise that they are not being allowed to exercise their fundamental rights to take decisions based on the merits of the cases before them, but are being manipulated in a toxic politically-biased charade, which is about defending a foreign country committing a genocide, and defending the rights of its arms companies to contribute to, and profit from that genocide.

The activists have true justice on their side; their opponents have only complicity in the most monstrous crimes of our lifetimes.

George Speight — a former coup frontman in Fiji — is calling on the perpetrators of the country’s past political upheavals to confess.

The ex-convict also described the idea of a common identity for the country’s citizens as “flawed” and said iTaukei (Indigenous) views must not be ignored.

Speight made the comments in a submission to Fiji’s Constitutional Review Commission this week, after spending 24 years in a maximum-security jail for treason following the racist 2000 coup.

• READ MORE:  Fiji 2000 coup leader George Speight granted presidential pardon
• Fiji’s Jo Nata reflects on the 2000 coup: ‘We let the racism genie out of the bottle’
• Coup coup land: the press and the putsch in Fiji — David Robie
• FIJI: I was just PR consultant — Jo Nata
• USP 2000 coup student journalism archive
• Other George Speight coup reports

During his submission to the government-backed panel on Thursday, he slammed the 2013 Constitution and said the immunity provision should be removed.

“The clause is unfair… If you want redemption, you have to confess,” he said, adding that Fiji could not achieve genuine reconciliation without first acknowledging past wrongdoing.

Quoting from Proverbs, he said those who admitted their crimes would find mercy, while those who tried to hide would never prosper.

“I have served my time and I don’t feel any malice towards anyone,” he said.

Sweeping immunity
The sweeping immunity provisions have protected those involved in past military and political coups from criminal prosecution and civil liability.

Fiji has been rocked by four coups since gaining independence in 1970. The first two, in May and September 1987, were led by then-military lieutenant-colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, who is the current prime minister.

In 1999, Mahendra Chaudhry was sworn in as the country’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister, but the Labour Party leader’s election stoked racial tension in Fiji.

A year later, Speight led rebel soldiers from the military’s Counter-Revolutionary Warfare (CRW) Unit in an armed takeover of the then-coalition government. Chaudhry and his government were held hostage for 56 days.

The failed businessman pleaded guilty to treason after the unsuccessful coup and received the death penalty, which was later commuted to life imprisonment.

However, he was granted a presidential pardon and released from prison on 19 September 2024.

Indigenous views
Speight condemned the concept of a common name for the people, an issue that has sparked widespread debate in Fiji.

In April, the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), the apex indigenous body in Fiji, told the Commission that the term “Fijian” should be exclusively reserved for the iTaukei (indigenous) population.

The GCC’s proposal prompted a backlash from political parties, civil society groups and human rights organisations across the country.

Chaudhry, still the Fiji Labour Party leader, told RNZ Pacific Waves at the time that the GCC’s call was “racially divisive”.

“We [the Labour Party] are opposed to that idea and we’ve made it very clear that there can be only one nationality in the nation,” the veteran politician said.

However, Speight told the commission the idea was fundamentally wrong.

“I understand the principle behind it, I understand the reasoning behind it, but it’s flawed. It makes people second-guess something so special and so unique and God-given, their ethnic identity, unless we fix the justice element,” he said.

“All of the different ethnic groups in our country can’t live together very long, because it’s an unfair society.”

‘Uniqueness encouraged’
“The Bill of Rights is great, it covers everybody, no problem. But each ethnic group has its desire to continue with its uniqueness, and it must be encouraged, but not at the expense of the greater good,” he said.

Speight also told the CRC that iTaukei views, including those of the iTaukei Land Trust Board, should not be ignored.

“Those voices have to be heard, the process of hearing those voices and accommodating the issues brought up must never and forever going forward be labelled as racist anymore because they’re not, with respect.”

“Because iTaukei, when they get up and speak, it has been a common practice to label it all as racist, and that’s not the case. No one should feel threatened, no one should feel edited, no one should feel uncertain, because level heads will prevail,” Speight said.

“Those that push the agenda that iTaukei issues are not good for the future of this country and should not be addressed specifically, I ask that they reconsider and work together with the iTaukei community.”

Speight also told the Commission that although the government-appointed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a “necessary arm of the process of moving forward”, he had chosen not to appear before it.

‘Doesn’t have teeth’
“I just feel that it doesn’t have the teeth or the mandate to go all the way to actually fix things… until [the immunity clause is removed], truth and reconciliation in my mind is premature,” he said.

“I’m grateful to be here, grateful for the opportunity of the good lord in heaven, and I’m grateful to the government today, that saw fit to release me.”

The Rabuka-led coalition government wants to amend the 2013 Constitution before the upcoming general elections, having set up the independent commission in March to consult widely on the issue.

This story was first published on

“Why is it that African teams and Middle Eastern teams have to answer for what their governments are doing but European teams don’t?” South African comedian Trevor Noah asked recently during a World Cup watch party.

He was reacting to the questions Western journalists had lobbed at Iranian players following their games. But the question goes far beyond Iran.

It speaks to a familiar hierarchy in global journalism: Some players are allowed to be athletes. Others are turned into ambassadors, defendants and moral exhibits.

• READ MORE: Iran’s heartbroken Team Melli exit World Cup amid silver lining of Mexican hospitality
• Iran bow out of World Cup: Late drama ends Team Melli’s knockout dream
• Iran’s Trojan Horse in US: Team Melli’s presence in WC
• Other FIFA World Cup reports

The World Cup is often sold as the place where football rises above politics. This has always been a canard. Politics, and hypocrisy, have always been part of the sport.

Teams have boycotted or been banned from the competition because of the policies of their governments. Russia is banned for its invasion of Ukraine. South Africa was eventually banned for apartheid.

Israel, however, gets to play in qualifiers despite occupying Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, bombing Iran, and despite findings by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UN experts that it is committing genocide in Gaza and maintaining a system of apartheid at home and in the occupied territories.

The United States, too, has never been banned despite its many wars of aggression.

Full of politics
Nor is the World Cup unique. International cultural and sporting competitions are full of politics and hypocrisies dressed up as principle. Just look at the controversies around Israel’s participation in Eurovision.

Noah’s question is an indictment of a journalism that likes to imagine itself as challenging power but often mirrors its assumptions. Much ink was spilled over the propriety of Russia and Qatar hosting the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, given the policies of those governments.

Yet there has been far less interrogation of the propriety of the US hosting this tournament while it attacks Iran and Venezuela, deports asylum seekers, and blocks or restricts the travel of tournament officials, players and fans.

The selective accountability that runs through the institutions — who is banned, who is allowed to host — runs through the press box too. So it should not surprise us that some political questions are reserved for some teams and not others.

Ahead of their match against Egypt in Seattle, branded locally as a “Pride Match”, Iran and Egypt were both asked about LGBTQ rights. A FIFA official even read a statement saying Iran wished to answer only questions about the game. Still, the media persisted. Egyptian officials also shielded their players from similar questions.

Again, the point is not that LGBTQ rights, war, repression, discrimination, apartheid or genocide are unimportant. They are profoundly important. Journalists should ask difficult questions. But difficult questions should not become a ritual reserved for some passports only.

American players are not routinely asked to account for US bombings, border policy, racism, police violence or support for Israel. English players are not habitually asked about British arms exports or colonial legacy. French players are not expected to answer for military interventions in Africa. German players are not pressed on Berlin’s crushing of pro-Palestinian protests.

Not a confession
And when European teams have been pulled into politics — the OneLove armbands and the German squad covering their mouths for a team photo at Qatar 2022, England taking a knee at Euro 2020 — it was a protest they chose to make, not a confession demanded of them before they were allowed to speak.

No reporter required them to denounce their governments as the price of discussing a match.

Western footballers are treated as individuals who happen to represent a country. Players from Iran, Egypt, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Senegal or Ghana are more easily turned into representatives of regimes.

For many players from the Global South, the tournament press conference becomes an ideological checkpoint. Before they are allowed to talk about tactics, injuries or the opposition’s midfield, they are asked to explain their governments, their societies, their religions, their laws and their wars.

Sound familiar?

Remember Palestinian interviewees being required to condemn Hamas at the start of any interview before they could speak of the genocide in Gaza? The purpose was not clarification. It was classification.

It established the moral hierarchy before the conversation could begin: Israel good, Hamas bad. Palestinian suffering could be heard only after passing through the checkpoint of Western approval.

World Cup pressers
The same logic is visible in these World Cup pressers. The Iranians must condemn Iran. The Egyptians must condemn Egypt. Africans must prove they understand the West’s moral vocabulary before they can be trusted to speak. But Americans will not be asked to condemn the United States, nor the English the UK.

This is the real answer to Noah’s question. The issue is not whether politics belongs in sport. It always has. The issue is who is made to carry politics, and who is allowed to simply play.

Western media is not merely asking questions. It is enforcing a story long carried by Western governments and institutions: the West is the measure of morality, and the rest of the world must constantly answer for itself.

Patrick Gathara is senior editor for inclusive storytelling at The New Humanitarian. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.

ANALYSIS: By Wendy Bacon

Sheina Gutnick, whose father Reuben Morrison was killed in the Bondi Massacre, was the first witness at the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. She shared her “lived experience” of antisemitism, including fears for her children’s future.

Gutnick is the public affairs officer for the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) in Australia, a role she took on in April.

In her statement in evidence at the Royal Commission, she describes CAM as undertaking “civic education, grassroots activism and policy advocacy to combat antisemitism”. She told the commission that her job includes monitoring hundreds of antisemitic comments, including on CAM’s websites.

• READ MORE: Other Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion reports

Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Zelie Heger SC, assured Gutnick that her recommendations and those of CAM would be taken seriously.

At the time she gave evidence, Gutnick and her CAM team had been campaigning with The Daily Telegraph (DT) for weeks to pressure City of Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore to cancel a council venue booking by Stop the War on Palestine (SWOP) for a discussion about a proposed ban on the slogan “Globalise the Intifada”.

CAM demanded Lord Mayor Moore cancel the group’s council booking. They falsely accused the group of being Hamas supporters who wanted to kill Jews, and linked them to the Bondi massacre.

Despite the pressure, Moore initially held firm in favour of the right to peaceful assembly and protest.

However, on the eve of her appearance at the Royal Commission, Gutnick and other victims of the Bondi terrorist attack published an open letter in the DT,

which increased the pressure on Moore.

They called the SWOP event a “hate-fest” that would encourage violence and “undermine the core Australian values of fairness, community and mateship”.

Early the following evening, Lord Mayor Moore caved and instructed council to cancel the booking. She explained her position in a media release that positioned antisemitism alongside Islamophobia and racism and stressed her support for protest and inclusivity.

She linked her backdown to her concern that holding the event in the early stages of the Royal Commission could contribute to “hostility and fear”. Moore blamed the media for its “discourse of division that has heightened tensions more than any small community event could”.

SWOP moved their meeting to an inner-city park.

CAM grassroots activists were also busy organising a rally with far-right activists in Inner Sydney to be held on May 5.

Combat Antisemitism Movement
CAM is a global movement based in the United States that claims to have 3.5 million supporters. It has close links with the Israeli state. Its CEO, Sascha Roytmann is based in Tel Aviv and was previously head of the New Media Desk at the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit of the IDF.

CAM’s Advisory Board chair is former Deputy PM of Israel, Natan Sharansky, who considers branding Israel as an apartheid state to be a “modern form of antisemitism rhetoric”.

The International Court of Justice and major international and Israeli human rights organisations have found that

Israel is an apartheid state.

Australia is just one of 60 countries where CAM uses tactics including social media, lobbying politicians and convening conferences to relentlessly pursue its goal of entrenching the IHRA definition of antisemitism into policy at all levels of government, including outlawing BDS campaigns.

CAM’s outreach officer is Trump supporter EJ Kemball, who is a far-right Christian and has substantial experience lobbying for Israel. He sees his mission as building CAM’s support among Christian Zionists. A security and intelligence expert, he was previously the director of US operations for the Israel Allies Foundation.

CAM Australia reflects this US pattern by forming a pro-Israel rightwing coalition with the Christian group Never Again is Now (NAIN). It aims to

discredit and dismantle the pro-Palestinian movement and promote a culture based on ‘Judeo-Christian’ values.

CAM and NAIN have worked together since 2024. Last year, NAIN partnered with CAM in its first national conference for Australian mayors in a luxury hotel on the Gold Coast.

Another conference is planned in Sydney for November. Their latest joint activity was a rally held the day after Gutnick gave her evidence. The context for the rally was Premier Chris Minns’ plan to ban the slogan “Globalise the Intifada”.

‘Judeo-Christian’ Sydney rally
Following Clover Moore’s backdown, CAM and Never Again were jubilant about their “win” but still had Moore in their sights. They moved their rally to City of Sydney land at Sydney Park. MWM was present at the gathering, attended by about 50 people and about 20 police. Regular early evening runners were surprised to find illuminated screens and a small crowd draped in Israeli and Australian flags in a shadowy corner of Sydney Park.

The key message was a nationalistic call to defend so-called “Judeo-Christian” values. Pro-Palestinian protesters, including Moore herself, were labelled as terrorism supporters. Speakers included militant pro-Israel activists and One Nation, anti-immigration and Islamophobic crusaders.

The MC was “Colesy”, a Pauline Hanson fan who is vehemently anti-immigration.

“Intifada comes for all of our families, our sons, and our daughters. Police, media, politicians, you can stop it tonight. Call it what it is. We’ve seen it in Bondi. We don’t need to see any more. It’s time to cancel it. Remove it. Get rid of the cancer, and let us live in peace,” he demanded.

“Trombone Tone”, an evangelical Christian and One Nation campaigner, set the tone with “Waltzing Matilda”. He blamed the Bondi massacre on importing a “bunch of Islamists … and now we’ve got this,” he said, pointing to a photoshopped image of protesters at the Opera House.

CAM was represented by Ofir Birenbaum, who first came to MWM’s notice as an organiser for astroturfing groups Better Council and Better Australia. He recently settled a case against the Cairo Takeaway cafe in Enmore, Sydney.

Birenbaum recounted his own youth in Israel, blaming violence and restrictions on Palestinian movements on the Intifada.

According to Birenbaum, the cancellation of the SWOP meeting was a win but only a start: “That’s what happened when we stopped asking for permission and started demanding accountability. And this is what happens when you finally stand up to bullies, because that’s what they are, nothing less.”

He then attacked Clover Moore, absurdly suggesting she had “taken the side” of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by joining the 2025 March on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Ali B and Michael Gensher
Never Again Is Now promoted Ali Beikzadeh (Ali B), an anti-Islam Royalist Iranian who continued the attack on Moore for “standing right next to a bloody portrait of Khamenei on the Harbour Bridge and having the audacity to suggest I’m proud of myself for attending the Harbour Bridge march.”

This was another lie, as Moore did not stand next to a portrait of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In fact, a photo was taken of a single placard of the Iranian Supreme Leader positioned behind Moore and other community leaders.

Ali B also threatened activists: “You know who you are …. if you continue with your ways, we will continue exposing you all one by one, and let me be absolutely clear about this. None of you deserves to be living in Australia, on Australian soil if you continue to entertain this nonsense …  Let’s cut the shit. Now, anybody who entertains this notion

they are directly to blame for what happened in Bondi.”

Another speaker was Michael Gensher, who is a director of the Australian branch of Stand with Us, which builds connections with Israel and fights antisemitism. Last year, he organised visits to Australian universities by Israel Defense Force (IDF) reservists who served during the war in Gaza, featuring “immersive experiences” to build “social cohesion”.

CAM and NAIN and their right-wing collaborators @aus4civilisation attracted thousands of likes across their social media platforms.

CAM CEO Sacha Roytman, who was monitoring the event in Tel Aviv, reported that the billboards were moved overnight to the Park where SWOP held its rally. His post falsely suggested that SWOP was calling for “murdering Jews in Australia.”

CAM has called on the City of Sydney to adopt the IHRA definition and review its hiring policies to prohibit any similar meetings in the future.

Meanwhile, it announced that, after conducting roundtables with politicians and community leaders, it has prepared a comprehensive submission to the Royal Commission supporting tough measures to quash activity perceived as antisemitic.

Its submission commits CAM to continuing to work with “interfaith partners and community leaders across Australia to advance genuine social cohesion”.

If the CAM rally at Sydney Park is anything to go by, social cohesion is not where it’s heading.

Throughout 2025, I served on Australia’s first parliamentary inquiry into society-wide antisemitism. When the Bondi terrorist atrocity occurred, we had yet to finalise a report, and I supported the decision to simply send our evidence to the Royal Commission.

A notable feature of our inquiry was the care taken to test evidence and contentions through robust questioning.

This included testing key witnesses vigorously as to the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, and on other key contentions and demands of Jewish representative groups of a Zionist perspective.

• READ MORE: Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

This didn’t please all the witnesses, for example, it led Lynda Ben-Menashe, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, to later publicly label me as “NSW’s Gaslighter-in-Chief”. This was for daring to even suggest that a wrongful conflation of Israel and the Australian Jewish community could be driving antisemitism.

In my limited observations so far of the Royal Commission, this degree of scrutiny seems not to be present, particularly when

witnesses have sought to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

The evidence in our inquiry made clear the absolute centrality in Zionist advocacy in Australia of this conflation, which is no new phenomenon, as former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban famously said of his work, “the chief task of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all”.

This conflation, however, seems to be worsening antisemitism.

Critising Israel not antisemitic
The Jewish Council of Australia spoke in their evidence of “a politicised and divisive discourse which seeks to label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, thereby increasing antisemitism by linking Jewish identities to the state of Israel and its human rights abuses”.

A central insight I took from the inquiry is that political leaders need to exercise restraint and responsibility in not treating the Jewish community as a monolith (itself an antisemitic trope), but also in how we respond to political demands from pro-Israel Jewish representative groups.

We should undoubtedly treat these groups as important voices and witnesses on antisemitism and recognise their right to lobby, but if we subcontract the development of policy to them,

counterproductive policies focused on criticism of Israel will inevitably be the result.

This has certainly been the case with the appointment of Jillian Segal, someone, as I put to her in our inquiry, with no obvious expertise on the core question of how to reduce racism across a community.

Long before Bondi, Segal played a central role in demanding the banning of pro-Palestine protests from the CBDs of major cities, and she undoubtedly contributed to the divisive and unconstitutional post-Bondi ban on protests.

I challenged Segal in the inquiry on whether this demand was actually pernicious, because such bans would be unconstitutional and calling for them created fear and suggested the Jewish community was deliberately not being protected. She unsurprisingly disagreed.

Shared understanding missing
Another topic at the inquiry was the importance of dialogue at a community level, building shared understanding between communities sitting on each side of the conflict.

I put to a number of witnesses that perhaps this should be a two-way street.

On the one hand, non-Jewish communities are gaining an understanding of Jewish history, why Israel is so important to so many Jewish people and why the tropes of antisemitism are false.

On the other, Jewish people gaining an understanding of Palestinian history, which perhaps might reduce perceptions of antisemitism arising from Palestinian activism.

Segal was asked in this regard whether, “there might be a role for education within the Jewish community about the history of the Palestinian people” and tartly responded, “education is always valuable, but the focus of the plan is protecting Australians from hate, not asking vulnerable communities to adjust their sensitivity to it”.

Similar evidence emerged from Joshua Kirsch, a Jewish community advocate, of whom I asked:

“Do you think there are ways to deepen community understanding on both ‘sides’, if I can use that term, such that there can be a greater alignment of understandings, or greater understanding of the perspective of the other? We’ve heard evidence about perceptions of antisemitism having a pernicious influence themselves, and people interpreting things in a genuine way as antisemitism that is not intended as antisemitism is intended, for example, things that Palestinians might say about their situation.”

He answered, “I think my priority as a Jewish person, and I think as a person who is involved with Jewish organisations, is not to educate Jewish people about why their feelings are not valid.”

Indeed, what became clear in the evidence was that many of the political demands of pro-Israel groups actively

prevent the development of some semblance of a shared understanding of history.

This came up directly in the inquiry when I questioned Waverley Mayor Will Nemesh, whose council has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which suggests that it is antisemitic to label Israel a “racist endeavour”.

“If you had a Palestinian resident who came to you and said, ‘I was expelled in 1967 from what is now Israel. I’ve been denied a right of return. I think Israel is a racist endeavour,’ is that resident an antisemite?”

Namesh replied, “There are strong views in terms of Israel and Palestine. What is crucial is understanding there are two peoples and both claim connection to the land. I think both are very valid”. 

It seemed to me that the IHRA definition could, in that public exchange, hardly be defended, because to do so would have been to directly and blatantly deny Palestinian history and identity to an absurd degree.

Yet inevitably, it will continue to be advocated for by many Jewish representative groups.

Zionist denials
In that vein, prominent Australian Zionist Alex Ryvchin attended the inquiry and directly denied that any ethnic cleansing had occurred during the formation of Israel.

A level of denialism, contradicted by the historical record, that is difficult to square with a dedicated commitment to inter-community dialogue. The evidence in our inquiry convinced me that ensuring our Jewish community is not conflated with Israel is central to dealing with growing antisemitism.

Callow future Australian political leaders might return from Israel impressed after free study tours, but the difficult, albeit obvious, truth is that Israel is an Apartheid state, founded on ethnic cleansing, a premeditated determination to create a Jewish super majority and then a denial of the right of return.

The world’s expert human rights organisations do not have this wrong.

These facts, the criminality of the destruction of Gaza and Israel’s increasingly expansionist tendencies, mean Israel will continue to attract a growing storm of criticism.

But Australia is a free society, and our Jewish community is allowed to be as supportive of Israel and Zionism as they wish. No other community in Australia is expected to distance itself from a country with which they identify, no matter how illiberal and criminal its government is, and it should never be demanded of any part of our Jewish community.

Ultimately, the only people responsible for the actions of the state of Israel are the officials of that state.

While most people will agree on this statement, the difficulty is found in how broader narratives and policies, including the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, impact across the community.

It is in this fiendishly difficult context that we look to Royal Commissioner Bell to chart a way out of the downward and divisive spiral we seem to be in.

She truly will need the wisdom of Solomon to unpick this knot of growing antisemitism in Australia.

ANALYSIS: By Stephanie Tran

The first block of public hearings for the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion began last week, focusing on the prevalence and key drivers of antisemitism in Australia.

Questions about representation and balance have already emerged, with critics arguing that the hearings are dominated by established, pro-Israel Jewish organisations, while progressive and non-Zionist voices remain marginal.

A number of peak Jewish bodies giving evidence, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, Jewish Community Council of Victoria, Zionist Federation of Australia, National Council of Jewish Women of Australia, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and the Dor Foundation, are being represented by the same barristers and solicitors, Arnold Bloch Leibler.

• READ MORE: Australian antisemitism or anti-Zionism?
• Other Stephanie Tran reports

In her opening remarks on Monday, Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell said she was “satisfied that these organisations represent the majority of Australian Jews”.

The hearings will also include evidence from senior community figures, with counsel assisting Zelie Heger noting that they will provide a “bird’s-eye overview” of antisemitism in Australia.

They include Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal and Jeremy Leibler, partner at Arnold Bloch Leibler and president of the Zionist Federation of Australia.

Conflating Jewish identity with Israel
Peter Wertheim, co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, told the Royal Commission on Tuesday that the pro-Palestine protests in the wake of October 7 were “shocking” and called the “endless repetition of the genocide charge” an attempt to “re-stigmatise Jews collectively”.

Commissioner Bell granted limited leave to the Jewish Council of Australia to examine expert witnesses on the IHRA definition and survey data relating to antisemitic attitudes, describing it as representing “a distinct but much smaller section of the Jewish community”.

That characterisation has been contested by some Jewish academics and advocates, who argue that the Jewish community is far more politically and ideologically diverse.

Antony Loewenstein, an independent journalist, filmmaker and author of The Palestine Laboratory, and an advisory committee member of the Jewish Council of Australia, said it was “highly questionable” whether the organisations appearing before the commission reflected the breadth of Jewish opinion in Australia.

“The Australian Jewish community is culturally, politically and religiously diverse, and

it’s highly questionable if the most pro-Netanyahu, pro-Israel lobby groups represent the majority of Jews in the country.”

Loewenstein criticised the tendency among these organisations to conflate Jewish identity with the actions of the Israeli state.

“Conflating Israel and Judaism, pursued by the so-called mainstream Jewish groups in Australia, is both historically inaccurate and dangerous, tying Jews to the actions of a genocidal Jewish state.”

Professor Linda Briskman, the Margaret Whitlam Chair of Social Work at Western Sydney University and also on the advisory committee of the Jewish Council of Australia, said her research into Jewish Australians critical of Israeli government policies pointed to a different picture from that presented by peak bodies.

Briskman co-authored Not in Our Name: Jewish Australians Speak Out, a report examining the experiences of Australian Jews who oppose Israeli policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

“What we’ve found is that opposition to Israel’s actions is grounded not in the rejection of Jewish identity but in deeply held ethical commitments rooted in Jewish traditions of justice,” she said.

She added that Jews expressing dissenting views often face “significant personal and social consequences”, and said that

antisemitism should be addressed alongside other forms of racism.

“We should be concerned about all forms of racism,” she said. “Racism against Jewish people shouldn’t be treated as the exception. We know that Islamophobia has risen greatly since October 7, but that doesn’t get nearly as much publicity or attention.”

Jewish Council of Australia
The Jewish Council of Australia, which represents Jewish Australians and supports Palestinian rights while opposing antisemitism and racism, was granted leave on Friday to cross-examine expert witnesses on the IHRA definition and data relating to antisemitism.

In a letter to supporters, executive director Sarah Schwartz said the group was seeking to raise funds to cover legal representation at the hearing.

“Pro-Israel legacy organisations, who receive significant public funding, have already formed a conglomerate and briefed a large team of barristers and lawyers,” she wrote.

Schwartz said the balance of representation would shape how the hearings are understood publicly, telling Michael West Media:

“If the only Jewish groups represented in these hearings are Israel-aligned, it will have a significant impact on the narrative.”

“Having us in the room will be the single most effective way we can ensure these hearings are not exploited to pursue a right-wing agenda and demonise Palestinians, Muslims, immigrants and those speaking out against Israel’s genocide.”

IHRA definition
The hearings will scrutinise the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

In opening remarks, Commissioner Bell acknowledged divisions within the Jewish community over the definition, noting concerns that it could be used to suppress criticism of Israel.

“The Jewish community is not monolithic, and there exist divisions of view amongst them about matters that include the politics of the Middle East,” she said.

“I’m conscious that some Jews and other members of the Australian community believe that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism can be weaponised in order to suppress criticism of Israel.”

However, Commissioner Bell defended its use, arguing that conduct must be assessed in context.

“I consider that some of the criticisms of the IHRA definition proceed on a misconception,” she said. “The examples of conduct under that working definition that may constitute antisemitism are just that.

“In every case, the question of whether the conduct is to be assessed as antisemitic is considered in its overall context.

“I expect the application of the IHRA definition will be fleshed out in the course of the evidence of witnesses in this first block of hearings by witnesses who have appropriate expertise.”

‘When anti-Zionism becomes antisemitism’
Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Richard Lancaster SC, said a key task for the inquiry “is to identify when anti-Zionism becomes antisemitism”.

He described Zionism as “the belief in the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral and biblical homeland of Israel”, which he said is a “core value” for many Australian Jews.

Lancaster said that some examples within the IHRA definition suggest that, depending on context, “it could be antisemitic to deny that right to self-determination,” attribute collective responsibility to Jews for the actions of the Israeli state, or express hatred on the basis of perceived loyalty to Israel.

“A further aspect of this is that current Australian political and social commentary undoubtedly displays many instances of very strongly expressed criticism of the polarising actions of Israel’s current government,” he added, stating that expert witnesses would be asked to help distinguish between legitimate political criticism and antisemitic rhetoric.

“One of the experts to be called is Dr Dave Rich, who is the director of policy at the Community Security Trust in London, as research fellow at the London Center for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism,” Lancaster said.

Rich “is a leading expert on left-wing antisemitism”. He has rejected the UN’s finding that Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza, stating that UN’s finding “has put the final nail in the coffin of Israel’s reputation, but it is as shoddy and partisan as every other attempt to pin the genocide label onto the Jewish State”.

In March, Rich delivered a keynote at a conference launching a new national approach to addressing antisemitism in Australian schools, developed by UNESCO and implemented by the Office of the Special Envoy on Combating Antisemitism.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Wendy Bacon in Sydney

While University of Sydney antisemitism adviser Dr Michael Abrahams-Sprod works in vice-chancellor Mark Scott’s office as its “resident expert” delivering training courses to stamp out what he sees as antisemitism, his close colleagues in the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism are embroiled in legal action against the university in the Federal Court.

They have accused the university of being liable for alleged racial vilification by its employees, Professor John Keane and linguist and vice-president of the USyd National Tertiary Education Union, Dr Nick Riemer, both of whom are pro-Palestinian.

The case will have significant implications for freedom of speech

and whether the law equates rejection of Israel’s genocide and anti-Zionism to antisemitism.

• READ MORE: Sydney Uni appoints antisemitism ‘lecturer’, forgets to tell anybody
• Other academic freedom and Zionism reports

Conflicts of interest and the 5A
Although Abrahams-Sprod is not a party to the case, he was a driving force behind complaints that led to the case, and letters that he signed are being used as evidence against the university.

Alongside its academics, the university is defending the action. So far its case depends on an interpretation of antisemitism that is in direct conflict with the views of 5A and Abrahams-Sprod, who is already teaching his courses for frontline administrative staff, some of whom deal with complaints against students and staff.

Three of five applicants in the court case are members of 5A. One is emeritus professor Suzanne Rutland, a longtime close colleague of Abrahams-Sprod. Rutland is on the board of Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A) of which Abrahams-Sprod was campus coordinator between November 2023 and February 26 2025, and remains a member.

She is also on the board of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Another complainant belongs to the pro-Israel Australian Jewish Association of Students, which Abrahams-Sprod assisted in making complaints.

According to 5A, anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

Its extreme views are revealed in parliamentary submissions, including one for the inquiry into measures to prohibit slogans that incite hatred, which was co-authored by Rutland.

Conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism
5A’s submission recommends prohibiting a wide range of slogans that are regularly used at pro-Palestinian protests. For example, it lists “Settlers, settlers go back home! Palestine is our home!” as a call for genocide of Israelis, and

accusations that Israel is causing ‘starvation’ in Gaza as a genocidal libel.

It supports a dangerous notion of “cumulative harm” that would see police trained to understand that protests or slogans that individually might appear lawful if repeated can become unlawful intimidation.

It recommends a new agency to operate a “centralised, anonymous complaints system to capture antisemitic incidents, chants, symbols, and patterns of conduct, including behaviour that may not individually meet prosecution thresholds.”

Its clear goal is to silence opposition to Israel’s genocide, apartheid and other war crimes.

In contrast to 5A’s views, USyd’s lawyers, led by Robert Dick SC have argued in the Federal Court that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. In fact, they have even relied on a letter to Overland journal signed by more than 50 Jewish academics and current  students, repudiating “the attempt by those making the complaint to conflate Zionism, a political ideology with Jewish and non-Jewish adherents, with Jewish identity.”

Campaign to silence critics of Israel
The complaints against Riemer and Keane were part of “concerted and coordinated efforts to silence critics of Israel across Australia’s university campuses and public squares, trammelling fundamental democratic rights of assembly, protest, expression, and dissent”, they wrote.

At the time when USyd’s submissions were filed last year, unbeknownst to staff, the university was already covering part of Abrahams-Sprod’s salary to work with Special Envoy Jillian Segal on a project developing antisemitism training.

Abraham-Sprod took up his new two-year position in the vice-chancellor’s office in January, although it was not approved by the Senate’s People, Culture and Safety Committee until late March.

Michael West Media asked the university:

“Did the Senate Committee discuss the issue of whether there could be a conflict of interest in appointing Abrahams-Sprod to work with the vice-chancellor on anti-semitism training?

“Does the university agree that there is a perceived conflict of interest? And if so, why did the university proceed with the appointment?”

In response to questions from MWM, a university spokesperson (we requested a name but were not given one) declined to disclose confidential committee discussions and stated:

“Dr Abrahams-Sprod will provide advice and perspectives rather than being involved in decision-making on issues relating to antisemitism, and so we don’t consider there to be a conflict of interest.

“His work will complement other university initiatives aimed at maintaining a civic environment that supports academic freedom and freedom of speech, while ensuring a safe and inclusive campus for all.”  

It would seem from this response that the university understands that there is a potential conflict but avoids it by separating “influence” from “decision making”.

Like all jobs, Abrahams-Sprod’s position will involve decision-making as well as influencing others’ decisions. The response undercuts the university’s description of Abrahams-Sprod as possessing “unique qualities” and being the “resident expert”.

Israel lobby’s long-term funding of Uni
Few, if any, Australian humanities departments have been so generously funded by private interests as USyd’s field of Hebrew, Biblical & Jewish Studies.

In part one yesterday, we reported that Abrahams-Sprod’s lectureship is funded by Roth family foundations, which include John, who is married to the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, and Charmaine and Stanley Roth, a leading Zionist fundraiser who died in January this year.

Further investigation reveals an astonishing integration of Hebrew, Biblical & Jewish Studies with the pro-Israel Zionist establishment of Sydney.

The department always partnered with the Jewish Higher Education Fund (JHEF), which is a registered charity. Stanley Roth was a trustee of JHEF since it was established in 1981.

The ACNC website lists the address of the charity as the Department at Sydney University, but its email contact is pwertheim@ecaj.com.au. Peter Wertheim is the co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

He has chaired the fund since 1997, along with many other duties, including chair of the Jewish Board of Deputies (1996-2000). and co-CEO of ECAJ (2009 -2026). The JHEF is one of the organisations that are supported by the Jewish Communal Appeal, of which Jillian Segal was recently elected a director.

In 2018/19, the department and JHEF produced a report in which it acknowledged that “it’s only due to [the fund’s] generosity that we can plan for the future growth and development …”. The report stressed the importance of the Department’s work in combatting “polemical attacks against Israel’s legitimacy as a nation state” and “falsification of Jewish history, including calls for the BDS” to maintain “integrity of discourse about Israel and the Jewish people.”

The report celebrated the department’s achievements in stitching Australia into the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and its definition of antisemitism.

The money flow
The funds flow as needed with JHEF making annual contributions of between $450,000 and $700,000 covering lectureships, casual teaching staff and administration costs, and links with Israeli universities.

The department thanked their donors “without which the department would have no future,” including the Pratt Foundation, the Roth Family and the Isaac and Susan Wakil family foundation. The Wakil Foundation is among the most generous donors in the history of USyd, providing more than $66 million for health buildings and scholarships, apart from smaller amounts contributed to Abraham-Sprod’s department.

MWM is not suggesting that there is anything wrong with private philanthropy, which is highly valued in the context of diminishing public funds.

Michael Abrahams-Sprod has a strong teaching record.

But is a person whose academic career has depended on some of Australia’s most powerful Zionists an appropriate choice for a “resident expert” tasked with embedding interpretations of antisemitism that the university itself argues threaten academic freedom?

Academic freedom at stake
NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Tim Roberts says, “Abrahams-Sprod’s appointment is another example of employment procedures being used across our community to silence political communication.

“By employing an advisor with such a ‘partisan perspective’, the university undermines community confidence that any conduct proceedings will be undertaken in good faith and without an apprehension of bias. This should be intolerable for any academic institution,” he said.

No one can deny that there is racism on campus, including Islamophobia, First Nations racism and antisemitism. Pro-Israeli students and staff are undeniably upset by pro-Palestinian activity. But 5A’s intentions are to silence pro-Palestinian activism.

In fact, some argue that nationalistic Zionism is itself a form of racism.

What about Arabic background staff and students who feel upset by USyd’s privileging the views of 5A academics about antisemitism before any anti-racism framework has been developed?

Abrahams-Sprod is training staff to exercise administrative power, which can have big consequences, although it is often hidden and very hard to challenge.

According to USyd, Abrahams-Sprod will “consult with all relevant communities and stakeholders in his work as special advisor”. But what does this mean when the courses are already underway without two big stakeholders — the Student Representative Council or the NTEU — even being consulted?

The SRC opposes the appointment. SRC vice-president and co-convenor of Students for Palestine, Shovan Bhattarai, says it will “entrench a trend towards more authoritarianism” against hundreds of students who are “supporting campaigns against the university’s complicity in genocide.”

Protests are still permitted but the university must be notified as soon as they are announced. Posters and banners are banned except in designated spaces. Anything less than full compliance can lead to disciplinary action, which students are forbidden to speak about publicly.

Censoring links to MWM and Overland stories
At an online staff “townhall” on March 2, there was more support for discussion about antisemitism training than any other topic. Afterwards, Honi Soit reported that Dr Riemer and historian Dr David Brophy, both members of University of Sydney Staff for Palestine, posted very brief comments and links on the staff internal platform.

Neither were informed when their posts were quickly removed. Riemer expressed his concern that the training could stigmatise Palestinian staff and students, and linked his post to this MWM story. Brophy published a link to an article he wrote for Overland journal.

They were found to have posted material “reasonably perceived as inflammatory or having the potential to incite others, including other users” — a finding which they vehemently reject as interfering with their academic freedom. Riemer’s complaint against this treatment was dismissed.

The university refused to identify the decision-makers.

A disturbing exercise of hidden power, but an undoubted win for the 5A approach and the Zionist funders.

• Part one of this series was republished from Michael West Media yesterday with permission, it is here.

By Wendy Bacon and Cathy Peters in Sydney

The person chosen for the role of Sydney University’s antisemitism chief is Michael Abrahams-Sprod, chair of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies. His role is to help roll out a training programme for “front-line” staff on issues facing the Jewish community, including antisemitism in “contemporary settings”.

University staff only learned about the appointment through a staff intranet notice earlier this month. A university spokesperson told Michael West Media that Abrahams-Sprod’s new position began on January 1, 2026 and continues until December 2027.

Asked to specify the date the position was approved and from whom the vice-chancellor sought advice, the spokesperson said it was approved on the recommendation of the USyd Senate People, Culture and Safety Committee on March 6, 2026.

• READ MORE: Pro-Zionism influence at universities

This was two months after Abrahams-Sprod started his special advisor job. He was previously campus coordinator of Sydney University’s branch of the pro-Israel Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism and works alongside the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal.

This MWM investigation can also reveal that even before his new appointment, Abrahams-Sprod was funded to work on anti-semitism issues by the University.

In 2025, he worked on a collaboration with the Special Antisemitism Envoy, Jillian Segal, and the Sydney Jewish Museum, developing an antisemitism awareness training programme funded by the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne.

Antisemitism training programme
In his new role, Abrahams-Sprod will co-deliver 12 sessions with the Sydney Jewish Museum to 120 USyd staff in key areas including Human Resources, Protective and Risk Services, the Student Affairs Unit and the Office of the Vice-Chancellor.

These key front-line staff administer policies, communicate with staff and students  staff and respond to complaints.

After completing the training of administrative staff, Abrahams-Sprod will advise on training for all staff within an “overarching anti-racism framework … to align with the expectations of the Australian Human Rights Commission”.

In response to MWM questions, a spokesperson said that Abrahams-Sprod’s appointment recognised “his unique skills and experience, ongoing work supporting our Jewish and broader community and his existing role as an academic leader at the University.”

He will “consult with relevant communities … on how to tackle antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and build a campus that’s safe and welcoming to all”.

Abrahams-Sprod’s appointment is a win for the pro-Israeli lobby.

Equally, it aims to silence other staff and students and deter protests in support of Palestine.

Claims of exceptionalism
Last week, USyd Staff for Palestine called on Mark Scott to reverse the Special Advisor appointment and abolish the role.

They accused the university of “exceptionalism” and drew attention to a recent Australian Human Rights Commission finding of high rates of racism experienced by students and staff from First Nations, African, Asian, Jewish, Māori, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Palestinian and Pasifika backgrounds.

In an open letter, they stated that “in creating a unique special advisor role for antisemitism, the university has signalled that racism against Jewish people is being uniquely prioritised above other forms of discrimination”.

Abrahams-Sprod will work across the university sector to fulfill requirements of Segal-appointed former conservative Australian Catholic University VC Greg Craven, who has been tasked to oversee her punitive universities Report Card initiative.

As reported in The Guardian, Craven accused universities of being a ”major factor in making antisemitism respectful” and referred to campus protesters as “mutant radical groups”. Government funding could be withheld from universities found to “facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism.”

Jillian Segal’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism makes sweeping claims about antisemitism in Australian universities, which have been strongly critiqued by the Australian Human Rights Institute.

The assessment will be based on the contentious IHRA definition of antisemitism. This definition is rejected by many Australian university staff and students, including Jews and students from Middle East backgrounds whose families deal with the daily horror of Israel’s genocide, violent occupation, bombings, denial of humanitarian aid and other war crimes.

Bowing to Zionist pressure
Abrahams-Sprod’s appointment can be seen as a response to continuous pressure from October 2023 onwards from Abrahams-Sprod and fellow Zionist staff members on senior university managers to discipline staff and students for pro-Palestinian advocacy. Zionist leaders described ($) Scott as

“arrogant and dismissive” at a meeting in April 2024.

Their anger against anti-Israel sentiment grew after a student encampment began that month.

Scott’s initial reaction was to maintain neutrality regarding the protest, assuring the university community that he understood the right of protesters to peacefully assemble and the right of free speech.

However, by July 2024, after the two-month Gaza encampment had disbanded, USyd launched into defensive action, introducing its new Campus Access Policy, which clamped down heavily on future student or staff protests and political speech.

This policy was strongly criticised, including by the university’s Law School, which published this open letter.

Bowing further to orchestrated pressure on Scott and the university, it then commissioned an external review by Bruce Hodgkinson AM SC about the university’s handling of claims of campus antisemitism in relation to the encampment. The External Review Report made 15 recommendations, including strengthening the restrictions on protests and the imposition of a New Civility Rule with strong penalties for breaching it.

In September 2024, a contrite Mark Scott apologised to Jewish students and staff at a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry for “failing them” in his handling of the encampment.

But key lobbyists, including Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Liebler, said Scott had lost credibility and continued to call for his resignation. Scott publicly promised ($) to fix the situation.

One of the ways to “fix” the situation appears to have been to

turn the coordinator of the Zionist complaints into a leader in his own office.

Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A)
When announcing Abrahams-Sprod’s appointment to all university staff earlier this month, Scott praised the “wealth of knowledge, experience and critical expertise” that Abrahams-Sprod brings to the new role. He did not mention his activities as the coordinator of the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A).

5A is a network of academics working to counter antisemitism in universities and medical institutions that was formed in November 2023. It claimed in its opening statement to the NSW Inquiry into Antisemitism that, “they [Jews] are hated because of their nation state, Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism disguised as wine but truly an old poison, rebottled, labelled with new academic terminologies that misrepresent and deceive.”

5A’s linking of Jewish identity with the state of Israel, its misrepresentation of anti-Zionism and the BDS movement are antisemitic strategies that the Israeli government has generated over many years to deflect and misconstrue focus on Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It claims that campuses post October 7, 2023, became “epicentres of antisemitic activism” and that this was rooted in “protests, university encampments and cancel culture.”

This puts it on a collision course with thousands of pro-Palestinian and human rights focussed staff and students.

In his role as coordinator, Abrahams-Sprod collated at least 100 complaints against fellow staff and students, many of whom he assisted. This puts him at the centre of the campaign to pressure Scott. According to 5A, the number of complaints emanating from USyd far exceeded the minuscule number submitted from the other four large universities in Sydney.

5A labelled campus protests as antisemitic because they “delegitimise the state of Israel”. Similarly, stating that Israel is an apartheid state or that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is also considered antisemitic, even though these are widely accepted findings of UN inquiries and international lawyers.

The Roth/Segal connection
Abrahams-Sprod is also connected to Jillian Segal through the funding of his own senior lectureship. Segal is married to property developer John Roth and was the sister-in-law of Stanley Roth, who died in January this year.

For more than 20 years, charitable foundations associated with the Roth family, along with several other philanthropists, have helped fund the discipline of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies.

In November 2024, the Roth family established the Roth Senior Lectureship in Jewish Civilisation, Education and Israel Studies to which Abrahams-Sprod was appointed. The university spokesperson said that the funders played no role in his selection.

In addition, the Roth family has provided funding to Youth Mental Health at the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Centre.

After his death, Stanley Roth was celebrated as one of Australia’s strongest supporters and most generous funders of Israel. The brothers also received widespread publicity as directors of Henroth Investments, which donated $50,000 to the far-right group Advance Australia in 2023/4.

Given Abrahams-Sprod’s highly partisan role, his appointment will only stoke division rather than build a safe and civil environment on campus. Staff for Palestine has accused the university management of being “hijacked by supporters of Israel”.

But VC Scott’s appointment has done more than signal his capitulation to the pro-Israel pressure and disdain for the pro-Palestinian supporters.

• As we will explore in part two tomorrow, it also raises conflict-of-interest issues for the university.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph is being acquired by a German-based media giant — and now its journalists are formally expected to support Israel.

The Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, has cleared the takeover by Axel Springer SE. Its CEO, Mathias Döpfner, has written to Telegraph staff “outlining his commitment” to the paper.

An employee at The Telegraph has sent me that letter. It is deeply revealing.

• READ MORE: Other Palestine and Iran media reports
• Owen Jones on Substack

Döpfner insists that the values of The Telegraph and the publishing house founded by late tycoon Axel Springer — dubbed “Germany’s Rupert Murdoch” — are aligned. They are, he says, “Freedom, free markets, individual freedom and freedom of speech”.

He goes further. Axel Springer, he explains, is “guided by a clear editorial compass.” Its employees are rooted in its “Essentials” — “core values to which we are firmly committed”.

There is, he adds, “no such thing as neutral journalism”: only journalism that is “pluralistic and surprising, fair, and fact-based.”

And yet, having invoked “freedom of speech” as a foundational principle, he insists these Essentials are not partisan — but rather “define a socio-political framework within which maximum journalistic freedom and intellectual independence can flourish.”

‘We support the right of Israel to exist’
Döpfner then sets out those ‘Essentials’:

1. We stand for freedom, freedom of expression, the rule of law, and democracy.
2. We support the right of Israel to exist and oppose all forms of antisemitism.
3. We advocate the transatlantic alliance between the United States and Europe.
4. We uphold the principles of a free-market economy.
5. We reject political and religious extremism, as well as all forms of discrimination.

Note where “we support the right of Israel to exist” sits: second.

‘Freedom’ — within limits
Döpfner emphasises that editorial independence will be protected, including from pressure by politicians, celebrities, or advertisers. “I value debate in the spirit of pluralism and freedom of expression,” he writes.

But the description of the Essentials is, frankly, Orwellian.

It is not reconcilable to argue that these tenets create the conditions for “maximum journalistic freedom” while simultaneously requiring adherence to a political position on a specific foreign state.

Out of 193 UN member states, only one is singled out in this way.

No state has a “right to exist” under international law. Peoples have a right to self-determination — a right denied, in this case, by Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and by subjecting its people to apartheid, colonisation and genocide.

A Telegraph journalist put it to me bluntly:

To be firmly told by our new parent company-to-be’s CEO that the second most important guiding principle is affirming the right of a country committing genocide and ethnic cleansing is more than a little concerning.

It also raises the question of how any reporting from the paper can be considered factual if that is our core principle.

As they note, this principle comes before any explicit rejection of discrimination.

What ‘Israel’s right to exist’ means in practice
In practice, the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” has been repeatedly deployed by Israel’s cheerleaders across the West to justify Israel’s crimes — from occupation and colonisation to apartheid and, now, mass destruction in Gaza.

It is also telling what is not said. The Essentials do not prohibit racism in general, despite later rejecting “all forms of discrimination”. There is no explicit rejection of Islamophobia, for example, or anti-Arab racism.

Instead, “oppose all forms of antisemitism” is fused directly with “support the right of Israel to exist”.

That conflation matters.

Because we know that defenders of Israel have repeatedly blurred the line between antisemitism and opposition to the actions of the Israeli state.

So how, exactly, might Axel Springer SE interpret “oppose all forms of antisemitism”?

‘Free Palestine’ is a ‘pro-Hamas topic’
There are very strong clues, let’s put it that way.

The late Axel Springer himself declared:

It is the task of our generation to stand firmly by Israel’s side, even if this causes difficulties for our policies elsewhere.

He further added:

The country does not need encouragement, but advocacy, wherever and whenever it can be provided – in the European Community, in the United Nations, in diplomatic relations, at work, in the family.

He described this as a “German duty”.

In June 2021, when employees complained about the Israeli flag being raised at company headquarters, Mathias Döpfner responded:

I think, and I’m being very frank with you, a person who has an issue with an Israeli flag being raised for one week here, after antisemitic demonstrations, should look for a new job.

He was referring to demonstrations against Israel’s assault on Gaza that May.

In October 2023, a Lebanese employee at Welt TV — part of the Axel Springer empire — was dismissed: he says it was after he challenged the outlet’s pro-Israel positions. Axel Springer SE refuse to comment on “individual personnel matters”.

In an internal email which was leaked that year, Döpfner reportedly summarised his political worldview with the phrase: “Zionism über alles” — “Zionism above all.”

He has penned repeated pro-Israel polemics. “Will we stand with Israel against the enemies of freedom despite the risks, or will we allow fear and opportunism to prevail?” he wrote in October 2023, demanding “massive, unstiting political, financial and military support”.

On a podcast for his employees, Döpfner claimed “a majority on Instagram, on other social media, and in particular on TikTok, took sides for the Hamas’ actions.” He argued that “an almost global wave of Anti-Semitism suddenly showed its ugly face”, which he described as a shock, despite knowing “that it is here and there, well hidden or presented in a politically correct manner as Anti-Zionism or “Woke-ism” or whatever.”

And he said something deeply revealing about TikTok:

“Concretely, more than 4 million posts until today have been published under the hashtag of #FreePalestine or other kind of pro-Hamas topics. And only 50,000 something, 53,000 posts basically standing by Israel.”

“Free Palestine”, he argued, was a “kind of pro-Hamas topic”.

Conflating antisemitism with critique of Israel
When Israel launched its first war on Iran last June, Döpfner declared it was “surprising that Israel is not being celebrated worldwide for its historic, extremely precise and necessary strike.” Instead, he claimed:

the public response is dominated by anti-Israel propaganda. The intelligence and precision of Israel’s actions are not admired but are instead used here and there to perpetuate blatantly antisemitic stereotypes. This attitude is characterised not only by racist undertones, but also by a strange self-forgetfulness.

In other words, he directly conflated critique of Israel’s war with antisemitism.

A few months ago, he quoted claims about atrocities committed on October 7th which included: “A first responder testified before the Knesset that he had seen the severed skulls of three children.” The claims that Israeli children were beheaded have been comprehensively debunked.

He went on to write that:

justified criticism of decisions made by an Israeli government is mixed with deep-rooted hatred of Jews and that, as a result, instead of an obvious global wave of compassion and solidarity, a global wave of cold-heartedness and increasingly aggressive anti-Semitism has emerged.

The piece further criticised the German government — Israel’s most loyal European defender — for “massively” restricting arms sales to Israel. Tellingly, he said that decision meant that “From now on, unconditional support for Israel’s right to exist is effectively subject to conditions.”

He described the recognition of Palestinian statehood “as a reward for the barbarism of October 7″.

Last October, Al Jazeera published an investigation into German tabloid Bild, a cornerstone of Axel Springer SE, headlined “The Story of Israel’s Propaganda Machine Specialising in Anti-Palestinian Incitement’.

Al Jazeera reported that the newspaper had suggested that a Palestinian journalist killed by Israel was a “terrorist”, denied famine in Gaza, and published a lengthy report it claimed had been found on the computer of late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. It transpired that the document was old, not authored by Sinwar, and had reportedly been leaked by Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.

The newspaper, reported Al Jazeera, had also “consistently demonised pro-Gaza demonstrators in Germany, labelling them as “mobs”, “Israel-haters”, and “anti-Semites”.

Israel’s supporters in the West have launched the biggest assault on free speech since the height of McCarthyism.

We can see where the Telegraph’s new owners stand on that.

Extracted and republished from Owen Jones’ article on his Battlelines substack. Read the full article here.

The Middle East is in flames. Britain is being dragged into an illegal war, the aims of which are entirely unclear, reports Richard Sanders of Double Down News.

“It’s a war of choice, and the man who chose it is Benjamin Netanyahu. Why, yet again, is the West dancing to Israel’s tune?

“I’ve made a number of videos exposing Israeli crimes. This one is different. It’s directed at conservatives and people generally who support the state of Israel.

• READ MORE: The End of Israel: The Ultimate Evidence — Richard Sanders
• Tehran vows to extract ‘heavy price’ for Israeli hits on two nuclear sites
• Other Israeli wars on Palestine and Iran reports

“I believe our indulgence of Israel is not just morally wrong. It’s against the interests of the US and the UK and ultimately against the interests of Israel itself.

“It is leading us all to disaster. Palestine is the place you come thundering, crashing into the buffers, the limits of the Western liberal moral imagination.

“The tragedy and complexity of Israel is that it’s both a product of the most unspeakable racism and a cause of it. Zionism was born from the suffering of Jewish people in Europe, culminating in the Holocaust, from a desire for a safe haven, a territory where Jews would for once be the hosts and not the eternal guests.

“It was framed as a return to a historic biblical homeland. and for its supporters. These two factors give it an entirely different complexion morally from other enterprises where predominantly European populations have settled far-flung parts of the world.

Dispossession and subjugation
“There’s no doubt that the Zionist dream has enormous emotional power. The problem, of course, is the other side of the equation, the people. It was inflicted upon the Palestinians whose experience of dispossession and subjugation was no different from that of countless other peoples subjected to European colonialism.

“In fact, arguably, it’s been considerably worse than many, precisely because of the licence and indulgence granted to the Israeli state.

“Let’s lay out the bold, indisputable facts. In 1948, more than 80 percent of the Palestinian population of what became Israel fled their homes. Now, if you want to believe this was not an act of deliberate ethnic cleansing, fine.

“What’s undeniable is that they were never allowed to return. In 1947, they were there. In 1949, they were not. The granting of the vote to that small fragment of the Palestinian population that remained provided a democratic fig leaf for the new state, one that was blown away once the Israelis occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967.

The End of Israel                                     Documentary: Double Down News

“There Palestinians have no right to vote for the political entity, the state of Israel that controls their lives. Jewish settlers, on the other hand, occupying the same territory do.

“Even in East Jerusalem, which as far as the Israeli government is concerned has been formally annexed to Israel, Palestinians cannot vote. Political rights depend upon ethnicity. That is not democracy.

“Israel is and has always been a state whose defining feature is that it’s structured to ensure the domination of one ethnicity over another. What else does the term a Jewish state mean?

‘Elephant in the room’
“This is the elephant in the room. the simple, blindingly obvious, undeniable fact that the Western political media class has decided that we must never mention or acknowledge, despite the fact that all of the world’s leading human rights organisations, including the Israeli NGO B’Tselem, have denounced Israel as an apartheid state.

“Now scour the history of the modern world. No people has ever resigned itself to being second class citizens in their own country. Spend just 10 minutes at a checkpoint in the West Bank and you get it.

“The disfiguring dehumanisation, the humiliation of elderly men and women forced to stand in the sun for hours waiting for 18-year-olds to search them.

“The brutalisation of young men in particular, the daily control of rage that is the lot of every Palestinian. It is simply emotionally, psychologically intolerable.”

• Watch the full Double Down News video

Roger Norman Fowler: 12 September 1948 – 21 February 2026

Roger Fowler, an activist legend of social justice solidarity movements from Bastion Point to resisting apartheid and racist rugby tours and freedom for Palestine, has died after a long illness. He was 77.

Described by some as a “true Tāne Toa”, his protest warrior courage and his commitment to a bicultural and cross-cultural vision for Aotearoa New Zealand, was perhaps best represented by his “Songs of Struggle and Solidarity” vinyl album launched last year.

The first of 14 tracks on the album produced by Banana Boat Records, was “We Are All Palestinians”, which has become an anthem for the Gaza solidarity movement for the past 124 weeks of protest against the Israeli genocide.

• READ MORE: Showing their aroha for the activist ‘power couple’ of Māngere East
• Honouring the people’s fight against hardship, repression and racism — Tony Fala
• Other Roger Fowler reports

Ironically, this was sung yet again by a group in Te Komititanga Square yesterday within hours of his death.

It was written by Fowler after the Viva Palestina solidarity convoy from London to Gaza in 2010.

Fowler led the Kia Ora Gaza team of six Kiwis who drove three of 135 aid-packed ambulances – funded by New Zealand donations — into the besieged enclave. This was followed later by two other land convoys and three Gaza Freedom Flotillas.

In April 2026, a massive new siege-breaking Sumud Flotilla to Gaza with 100 boats and carrying some 1000 activists is being planned.

Gaza solidarity rallies
In spite of failing health in recent months, Fowler was frequently seen at Gaza rallies, speaking and singing in his rousing voice.

Close comrade and friend, John Minto, co-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), paid tribute to his contribution in a statement today.

“Roger has been a legend of the solidarity movement for many decades as the founder and co-cordinator of Kia Ora Gaza which delivered aid to the besieged Gaza strip by land and by sea,” he said.

“He was a man of great integrity and character with passion for justice. He will remain a guiding light for the solidarity movement here.”

Co-chair Maher Nazzal presented Fowler an award for his contribution to Palestinian solidarity last September.

Another comrade from the 1990s onwards, Tony Fala, recalls his “dauntless courage, tireless optimism, boundless energy, and vast strategic capacity was profoundly inspiring.”

“Roger was one of the humblest and kindest people I have ever met. He could build coalitions and strengthen community bonds with ease. He sought what brought people together, not what kept them apart.

Belief in ordinary people
“He believed in ordinary people and possessed a deep, instinctive understanding of justice. He was strong yet carried no ego.”

Fala praised Fowler’s commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to Te Ao Māori community life, describing him as a “born oral historian”.

“He gave selflessly to every cause he committed himself to and would move mountains to achieve victory for the struggles he served.”

“We Are All Palestinians.”                              Video: Banana Boat Records

In the weeks before his death, he and his whanau were working hard to complete a history of the socialist Ponsonby People’s Union, “Struggle and Solidarity”, due to be published soon. Fowler met his future wife, Dr Lyn Doherty (Ngati Porou and Ngāpuhi), then while they were activists campaigning to stop landlords evicting tenants.

Based in the working-class suburb of Ponsonby, the union activists campaigned alongside the Polynesian Panthers and ACORD (Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination)  to defend civil liberties, fight slum landlord evictions, and oppose the Dawn Raids against Pacific Islands overstayers.

Fowler had seen the last proofs of the collaborative book before he died and was very happy.

Activist author Dean Parker once described Fowler as “the Great Helmsman of the legendary Ponsonby People’s Union, brave hero of so many struggles”.

Fowler had lived for almost four decades in Māngere East, a multicultural quarter of South Auckland.

He was manager of the Māngere East Community Learning Centre and an executive member of Out of School Care Network.

Impressive community tribute
In 1999, he was a recipient of the Queen’s Service Medal for his “public services” and the people of Māngere East paid an impressive tribute to him with a daytime concert last November.

One of his best remembered local campaigns was the community coalition in 2010 that saved Māngere East’s Postshop.

A one-time bus driver, Fowler strongly campaigned for public transport.

He was also involved with amateur theatre for several decades, including Auckland Light Opera, “The Aunties” children’s theatre and Manukau Performing Arts.

Fowler was a founding member of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign in the 1970s and he was part of the anti-apartheid movement for 15 years.

In 1969, along with a large group of activists — including Alan Robson, Pat Bolster and Graeme Whimp — he opened the first Resistance Bookshop in Queen Street and he was co-director for a time.

“The bookshop became a focus for radical political actors in Auckland in 1969 and the early 70s,” recalls Robson, now an academic at the University of Papua New Guinea.

‘He gave us hope’
Activist Del Abcede, a supporter of Kia Ora Gaza and the Palestine movement, recalls: “Roger did so much for social justice and humanity and yet he was so humble, gentle, kind and unassuming — one of a kind.

“I’ll always remember with fondness snippets of short but meaningful conversations with him.

“Memories of him will live forever — like a light at the end of the tunnel. He gave us hope.”

In fact, the whole whānau have inspired hope — his wife Dr Lyn Doherty (they were married at the Bastion Point protest), tamariki Tawera Fowler, Hone Fowler, Maia McGregor, Kahutia Fowler, and their mokopuna.

During his lifelong protests, Fowler was arrested and jailed four times and with colleagues he set up a free prison visiting service in 1972 for Paremoremo and Waikeria.

The last track on Fowler’s album is titled “The Final Song” but his music will be long remembered as the hallmark of the legacy and life of an extraordinary community and social justice activist.

• Roger Fowler’s life will be celebrated at Ngā Tapuwae Community Centre, 255 Buckland Road, Māngere, 10-2pm, Wednesday, February 25.

Known globally as one of America’s most prominent and inspiring civil rights leaders, Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr twice ran for US president. He has died at 84.

Throughout his lifetime, he fought to promote social justice, economic equality and political empowerment for marginalised communities — and worked hard to encourage voter uptake from the disillusioned and excluded.

Little wonder he was outspoken against the South African apartheid regime and on Palestine. His six children described their father as a “servant leader”.

• READ MORE: How Jesse Jackson helped empower US Arabs and lift up the Palestinian cause
• Rest in power, Jesse Jackson — he gave peace a chance — Tribute by The Nation
• House Speaker Mike Johnson denies request for Rev. Jesse Jackson to lie in honor in US Capitol
• Te Ao with Moana
• Other Jesse Jackson reports

When I think of Jesse Jackson, I recall the iconic image of him standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in 1968, moments before his mentor Reverend Martin Luther King was assassinated.

I visited the site over a year ago. Now transformed into the National Civil Rights Museum, it documents the Jim Crow era both men were born into; where segregation and racism was formally normalised.

The interactive display was both moving and disturbing. It was also hopeful; a reminder of people-power movements led by those shaped by a Baptist church culture that grew the most compelling orators.

I have a personal memory of meeting Jesse Jackson one special afternoon many years ago in New York, while travelling with Deirdre Nehua and Syd Jackson.

Fearless treaty activist
Syd, one of our most fearless unionists and treaty activists, passed away in 2007. Both men were intelligent, witty and passionately Kaupapa-driven; powerful speakers who used their gifts and life experience to build movements at home and beyond.

They marched and organised sit-ins. They spoke out when it wasn’t popular, put their hands up when others hesitated. They got off the fence and made a difference.

We were introduced by a mutual friend as “Māori activists from New Zealand”. A puzzled Jesse gazed at Uncle Syd.

“Where did you get that slave name from, my brother?”

Deirdre and I glanced at each other. Uncle Syd responded with a deft explanation that referred to his Welsh whakapapa and included the words both “rugby” and “colonisation”.

Afterwards, the three of us bounced around New York beaming. We’d met an inspirational leader and he now knew “Māori brothers and sisters at the bottom of the South Pacific” were in the same waka; fighting the good fight.

In the many tributes to Jesse Jackson, I noted the odd commentator described him as a “populist”. It’s a term that conjures up those who frame themselves as saviours by fomenting division and exploiting fear.

Inclusive and reformist
Yet Jesse was inclusive and a reformist. Their point was about how he built coalitions that brought African Americans, Latinos, unions, rainbow communities, poor whites and working class together to fight for basic human rights inside the existing system. It’s said he frequently used his platforms to highlight Native American and Indigenous-led causes.

This week The Washington Post noted how colleges in the US are dismantling affirmative action stategies designed to overcome restrictions on participation due to race or income. Back here, calls have been made for a referendum on electorates set up to specifically provide a voice for signatories to Te Tiriti, in a system not designed by or for them.

Next week, a champion who railed against inequality will be laid to rest in his beloved Chicago. For us in Aotearoa, it’s an opportunity to reflect on his coalition-building record in this era of division and truly look around; to understand who and what the real threat to our sense of nationhood truly is.

A man of faith and hope, Jesse Jackson’s words are as relevant now as they ever were. Words matter. So does his call to action.

“It’s time for us to turn to each other, not on each other.”

Moe mai ra e te Rangatira.

Moana Maniapoto MNZM is an Aotearoa New Zealand singer, songwriter and documentary maker, and presenter of Te Ao With Moana. This article was first published on the Te Ao FB page and is republished with permission.

ANALYSIS: By Nick Riemer

In December, the NSW Labor government gave itself the power to ban street marches for an indefinite period. We saw what that meant on February 9 as violent police charged, maced, beat and arrested protesters against Herzog’s visit.

In January, the federal ALP introduced new hate speech laws, which confer unprecedented discretion on the government to criminalise speech and groups to which it objects.

Now, in a further stride down its authoritarian road, the federal government is reported to be proceeding with plans for “political training” for Australian university staff.

• READ MORE: Palestinian education is being destroyed by Israel’s policy of withholding customs revenues from the Palestinian Authority
• Other Gaza and Australia reports

According to several recent reports, the federal government has agreed that “antisemitism training” will be a “key” area in which universities’ response to antisemitism will be assessed.

University employees will, apparently, be required to undergo indoctrination in the ideology of the pro-Israel lobby, which identifies Zionism and Judaism and treats critics of Israel as likely antisemites.

The training will involve “understanding of Jewish peoplehood, their attachment to Israel and identity beyond faith” — the characteristically unclear phrasing of the government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who is responsible for the “Antisemitism report card” plan.

The thought police
Compulsory training in a political ideology befits a police state, not a notional democracy — a status that NSW Premier Chris Minns, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the rest of the political establishment are undermining like none before them.

Amidst the uproar over Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit, the move has not had the discussion it deserves. Requiring university staff to undergo “training” in the ideology of Israeli apartheid is as unacceptable as it would have been to require training in that of South African apartheid or Hindu supremacism.

Compulsory training in any particular ideology — Zionism, fascism, liberalism — is a body blow against university independence.

Segal’s plan has been roundly criticised by the progressive side of politics, including by Jewish organisations, but has the support of the entire Zionist establishment and the major parties.

Stopping free inquiry
The plan was originally devised in mid-2025, but was put on hold after Segal was discredited by revelations of her family’s connections, through generous donations, with the far-right, anti-immigrant group Advance.

Now, the ALP appears to be implementing it. Under the obligatory cover of combating antisemitism, the training is clearly intended to further attack genocide opponents in higher education.

The measure shows a flagrant contempt for the basic role of universities in a supposedly liberal society — the necessary cliché that the campus is a place where controversial ideas can be expressed and discussed, no matter what powerful political actors they alienate.

Academic freedom is an ideal, not a reality, but it is still an essential principle of true intellectual work.

The extent to which it is observed is an indicator of the overall state of democracy in a country.

Little is currently known about how the antisemitism training will work in practice. Segal’s blueprint is — no doubt intentionally — extremely vague.

Regardless of the form it takes, the training is designed to elevate anti-Jewish hate above all other kinds of racism as especially deserving of redress — what other form of racism has its own training? — and to enforce Zionists’ chauvinistic insistence that they are the only Jews worthy of the name.

Both intentions are profoundly racist.

How the training will be assessed is also unclear. We have no knowledge of what the consequences would be for the many university staff who will refuse to participate in Zionist indoctrination. We also have no inkling of the size of the financial penalties against non-compliant universities that Segal, in full Trumpian mode, wants to apply.

According to Times Higher Education, they will be “significant”.

To the right of Trump
The current US administration has already mandated widespread student training designed to vilify Palestine solidarity as antisemitic. The Australian proposal of something similar for university staff puts Albanese and his government to the right of Trump.

The government has appointed Greg Craven, the former VC of the Australian Catholic University, as the political commissar responsible for the training and other elements of Segal’s “report card” process.

Craven has pooh-poohed the idea that cracking down on anti-Zionist speech could constitute any threat to civil liberties. The issue, he writes, is fundamentally one of “national defence”.

Albanese’s new hate speech laws, for example, are needed because our current legal and constitutional arrangements

are based on the assumption that our commonwealth faces no deadly external or internal threats.

Read that again. We are, Craven thinks, essentially at war. This means that we have to be the ones to suspend the basic democratic norms we love so much, because otherwise the jihadists will do it for us.

He sees pro-Palestinian critics of the hate speech laws as spreading “morally bankrupt intellectual effluent”.

“A couple of decades’ house arrest for Louise Adler,” he writes, is “appealing”. This is kind of right-wing trolling that, in 2026, equips someone to be entrusted by the ALP with the future of academic freedom in Australia.

University leaders can’t be trusted
Mass defiance of the training is the only feasible response. University authorities certainly cannot be trusted to push back. They have made it clear that they are perfectly willing to turn their institutions into Zionist propaganda mills.

Universities Australia welcomed Segal’s recommendations when they were first made in July; the supine Group of Eight has not raised a peep of protest against the political training proposal.

The training will, however, pose serious headaches for university managers. But, far from protesting, they might even welcome the opportunity to discipline Palestine-supporting staff, who are usually also at the forefront of union and other progressive campus activism.

Last year’s gratuitous purge of academics at Macquarie University disproportionately targeted Palestine supporters, union activists and women.

As decades of their imposition of cuts and austerity in the sector show, many vice-chancellors and their deputies are more than ready to sacrifice higher education wholesale, at any price. Their rewards are the prestige and salary that come with a career in senior university management.

In this year’s Australia Day honours, Professor Annamarie Jagose, the provost of the University of Sydney, was rewarded with an Order of Australia medal for “service to tertiary education”. She was far from the only university executive to get a gong.

Awarding this honour, at this moment, to the second-highest office holder at Sydney, which has led the way in its repression of anti-genocide activism, is not anodyne, and it is hard not to read it as a federal

reward for the university’s readiness to politically and ideologically serve the cause of genocide.

Police state on campus
Not content with feting Israel’s bomb-signing terrorist-in-chief, Albanese is also destroying the notional independence of the university system, imposing a political standard to which teaching and administrative staff must conform, and delivering campuses into the hands of a far-right lobby that is milking the 2025 atrocity at Bondi for all it is worth.

After Bondi, no authoritarian bridge seems too far for the ALP and Coalition. Crossing dangerous new frontiers in political repression will be the principal legacy of Anthony Albanese and his Labor colleagues.

Their reforms threaten to fundamentally alter the character of society, which will become more autocratic, more racist, less rational and less free.

Everyone who supports the reckless and bankrupt Labor Party is accountable.

During the genocide, universities have played the role of being a testing ground for repressive policies that were soon rolled out more widely.

Before the NSW government restricted street protests, Australian vice-chancellors restricted them on campus. The federal government’s hate speech laws were prefigured by crackdowns on anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian expression in universities.

Under their supposedly “liberal” leadership, campuses have consistently trialled the next features of the Australian police state. Once Zionist political training has become established in universities,

there is nothing to stop it from being rolled out more widely.

Nick Riemer is a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney and academic vice-president of the university’s National Tertiary Education Union branch. A long-time Palestine activist, he is the author of Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine. Available here. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is republished with permission.

Winston Peters has been accused of “pure racism” in Parliament by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who has called out National ministers for failing to combat or challenge it.

The Greens say Peters is scapegoating migrants, while ACT’s David Seymour — his own Cabinet colleague — says Peters is simply seeking attention.

The condemnation came following Parliament’s Question Time yesterday when the NZ First leader singled out a Green MP for his Rarotongan heritage.

• READ MORE: Hipkins accuses Peters of ‘pure racism’, slams ‘ugly side’ of politics

Green MP Teanau Tuiono had used the word “Aotearoa” to refer to New Zealand while asking questions about climate aid in the Pacific.

It prompted Peters to interrupt: “Why is [the minister] answering a question from someone who comes from Rarotonga to a country called New Zealand . . . ”

Speaker Gerry Brownlee cut him off to object to noise from other MPs in the debating chamber.

Hipkins then leapt to his feet: “Members in this House are equal. For a member of the House to stand up and question whether someone is entitled to ask a question because of their country of origin is pure racism, and you should’ve stopped him in the beginning.”

Brownlee said he did not hear Peters’ remark, but would review the transcription later.

Peters then completed his question, asking why somebody from Rarotonga had decided “without any consultation with the New Zealand people” to change the country’s name.

In response, Brownlee said that was “not an acceptable question at all”.

“I want that to be the last time that those sort of questions are directed so personally at members of this House,” Brownlee said.

Tuiono has both Māori and Cook Islands Māori heritage but was born in New Zealand.

Hipkins calls out ‘ugly side’ to politics
In a speech to Parliament shortly later, Hipkins decried an “ugly side to New Zealand politics”, calling out “outright race-baiting” and “direct racism” being expressed in the debating chamber.

“Attacks on our Chinese and Asian communities in New Zealand, attacks on our Indian communities in New Zealand, and just today, attacks on whether those who have Pasifika heritage are entitled to ask questions in this house.

“And what have we heard from the government side on those attacks? Absolutely nothing.”

Hipkins said National ministers needed to “combat and challenge that racism” during this year’s election campaign, saying it was “totally unacceptable” for them to “say nothing and do nothing”.

“They are quite happy to stand by while members of their own government attack our Chinese community, our Indian community, our Pasifika community, migrants to New Zealand who work damn hard and contribute to New Zealand, and it’s an absolute disgrace.”

Hipkins said government ministers should celebrate diversity and not cast aspersions on it.

Speaking to reporters later, Hipkins said Peters’ behaviour “had no place in government and Parliament” — but he still would not say whether Labour would be prepared to work with NZ First after the election.

“I’m going make judgements about those things closer to the election, but I’ll call out bad behaviour when I see it.”

Greens call Peters ‘Temu Trump’
Addressing reporters outside Parliament, Tuiono said Peters was using “culture wars” to distract from the real harm he was causing New Zealanders.

“Just like Trump, he’s not very good with geography,” he said. “He just needs to get an atlas. A bilingual one preferably.”

His Green colleague Ricardo Menéndez March said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had failed to show leadership by allowing Peters — “a Temu Trump” — to spread anti-migrant sentiment.

“It’s migrant scapegoating . . .  it’s emboldens people outside of these four walls who wish to cause harm on our migrant communities,” Menéndez March said.

Speaking afterwards, ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would never make such comments but would leave others to judge them for themselves.

“Do I like those comments? No. Would I make those comments? No. But I think if we all go on a 2019-style witch-hunt, we’re actually just fuelling it,” he said.

“If we all get ourselves in a lather, giving them the attention that they want, then that’s just as bad.”

‘Utter nonsense’ claim
In response, Peters told reporters Hipkins was talking “utter nonsense” and he did not care about Seymour’s views.

“How can somebody from another country who’s come to New Zealand decide to change my country’s name?” Peters said.

When told that Tuiono was actually born in New Zealand, Peters said, regardless, the Green MP claimed to be a “Cook Islander”.

“I would never go to the Cook Islands and start changing their name, would I?”

Peters said he was regularly being “literally mobbed” by New Zealanders on matters like the use of the word Aotearoa.

“I’m not indulging fools here. Let me tell you something: stand back and watch the polls go.”

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

A group of Australian Palestine supporters in the state of Victoria have been attacked as tensions continue over the right to protest against Israel’s genocide in Gaza in the wake of the Bondi massacre last month.

As Geelong and Victoria Southwest branch members of Independent Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) were packing up their “Peak Hour for Peace in Palestine” action — the first for the year on Friday — they were attacked.

A lone provocateur, on foot, snatched a Palestinian flag from one, ripping it and clipping the activists’ ear with the flagpole, before taunting and pushing another onto the road, before fleeing the scene.

• READ MORE: Palestinians in Gaza confront reality behind ceasefire’s second phase
  
• Hate crime laws may have unintended consequences – including chilling free speech
• Other pro-Palestinian protests

Police and an ambulance were called and an older activist was transported to hospital — they needed hip replacement surgery for a broken hip.

IPAN said the attack was “unprovoked”, given the network was “peacefully exercising their democratic, legal right to protest against the continuing genocide in Gaza”.

One IPAN member, who tried to retrieve the Palestine flag, told Green Left the attacker had called them “a bunch of terrorist bastards”.

IPAN Geelong and Victoria Southwest organiser Jaimie Jeffrey told GL that politicians and the media have whipped up a “blame game” that is “dangerously divisive”.

Blaming protest movement
“They have tried to blame the Palestine movement for the horrific Bondi massacre. This is outrageous, because the Palestine movement opposes violence, opposes all forms of racism, including antisemitism and is trying to stop a genocide.”

The group started a weekly action in April 2024 with three activists; it has now grown to a regular group of 15–20 activists flying Palestinian flags and holding signs opposing genocide and local weapons manufacturing that assists in arming Israel.

IPAN said that, before the cowardly attack, it had noticed “more supportive toots and less abuse than . . .  towards the end of last year”.

It said government and media spin about “hate speech” and “improving social cohesion” is “having the opposite effect”, by “tacitly encouraging violence against those of us campaigning to stop the genocide”.

“We have never let aggression from those who disagree with our views deter us from protesting the Israeli genocide of Palestinians or any other injustice,” IPAN said.

“We won’t be deterred after this latest incident. Because we are on the right side of history and our commitment is unshakeable.”

Tough hate speech law
Meanwhile, the Parliament in Canberra today passed the toughest federal hate speech laws in Australia’s history.

The Albanese government’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026 faces growing criticism over the risk of restricting the ability of ordinary Australians to protest.

Republished from Green Left.

The lives of children will always tell the past and future of any community. My colleague Estelle and I will never forget the day we met Ximena*.

Last month, I lived alongside the Aeta community of the Philippines, observed their daily lives and human rights issues in the area. Life was different here, a peaceful pace; with locals who loved and trusted us so much.

Aeta culture is the oldest continuous culture in the Philippines. The people come from an earlier migration than Austronesians. They are dark skinned, many have curly hair and they speak a different language to Tagalog.

• READ MORE: A Filipino tribe fights to stay as a ‘Smart City’ rises on a former US base
• Other Indigenous reports in the Philippines

Amid turkeys, fire ants and lizards, we’d notice Venus in the starry sky, as if watching over the village. Ximena was a teenage girl who would frequent the local convenience store and would help out around the village. She had a particular spirit which transcended language.

Ximena was dignified and thoughtful, there was something about her which made us think that she carried herself like a leader.

Do you remember what it was like to be 14 years old? It is formative, nostalgic, freeing and stressful all at the same time.

I remember what it was like being 14 — rock and roll Catholic school, friend group fights, the dawning feeling that your hometown and parents would not have all the answers you were seeking. Fourteen for many of us was the time which we would start to develop our own political crust and values which could shape us forever.

Unique insight
With Ximena, I knew that I would have a unique insight, to find out what it was like to be an Indigenous girl in the Philippines. On paper, things seemed to be going well for Ximena. She was a dance champion, athletics team member and honour roll student.

But nothing prepared us for the heartbreak to come.

Estelle and I bonded with Ximena with a conversation of things which dominate teenage life — pop culture idols and how much Ximena loved to study makeup skills online. Ximena loved Marian Rivera. It is not hard to see why. Marian is a skilled dancer, she played Marimar in the Filipino telenovela of the same name. This show is symbolic of the Filipina maiden, a poor but resilient and devoted woman who works hard for her happy ending.

As soon as I asked Ximena, “how is school?”, Ximena’s sunny expression faded, as if her confidence sank.

“Honestly, I don’t like it. I don’t have any friends there. Sometimes I just cry behind the school buildings because I can’t take it. My mom tells me not to worry, that bad people get what’s coming to them in the end. But it’s hard.

“People tell me at school that my family and I will go nowhere in life. I even had someone say, ‘I wish you wouldn’t even exist’. I see other Aeta kids but I try not to mingle with them because I already feel so different”.

Ximena tells us that the students’ comments come from people looking down on the poor in Philippine society. For example, she tells us a story of when she found a group chat where students had taken photos of her lunch, which was steamed taro and rice.

Typical meal
This is a typical meal in the Aeta world, but to the students, this was a desperate meal of the poor. They all laughed.

We were horrified to hear that Ximena found that a teacher was in this very group chat too.

On other days, students would throw her lunch away or tamper with it. My eyes start welling up and it’s Ximena who strokes my hair and gives me a hug. I respond by saying that I understand what it is like to feel put down and hurt, I also had difficult teenage experiences.

“High school is not forever sweetheart. People love and care for you. Keep that love alive. Believe in yourself and speak confidently.”

“Thank you Ate (an affectionate term for ‘big sis’). You’re cute. It’s hard to fight back and to know what to do. I just cry at the back of the school. I want to focus on what is good for me. I like learning at school and I want to focus on that.”

Estelle explains to Ximena, that it’s ok to feel hurt and that there are many ways to fight back; even just learning, being clear when people make you uncomfortable and being her same loving self is a form of staying strong in that situation.

That being said, Estelle and I did give a chuckle and cheer when Ximena said that one day, she was so sick of the bullying, that she said to her tormentors, “What the hell is your problem?! We’re both brown! Your skin darkens in the sun too!”.

Open racism
“It’s more fun in the Philippines”, the tourist taglines say, and we all know Filipinos for the soft power of happy go lucky and kind locals. This was shattered by Ximena’s stories of the town; which were dotted with experiences of open racism which reminded me of stories of how people  Riovera.

Randoms trying to instigate physical fights, people making a huge deal about your skin colour and hair texture and how people openly belittle you. For this reason, Ximena and other Aeta teens avoid walking around town on their own.

Does Filipino society accept Aeta people? For Ximena, she hoped so with her former friend group. That was until the day where they blackmailed her into smoking two packets of cigarettes in one go.

Ximena passed out and had to be rushed to hospital for severe nicotine poisoning. Due to her lack of oxygen and organ damage, her father was her blood transfusion donor.

Ximena’s father later passed away due his own health complications after this transfusion.

“After that, I vowed that I would do everything to take care of my family and to think about my studies and life most of all. I need to be around people who are good to me.” Ximena may not have friends at school anymore, but we were pleased to hear that Ximena was one in a friend group of 15 girls outside of her school in the neighbourhood, including non-Aeta girls who would stick up for Ximena.

In times like that, we always remember those who stood by us and those whom we stood with. Ximena remembers her new friends fondly. I think they will remember her too for what she has guided them to learn; the meaning of integrity as a friend.

Dreaming big
High school is also the time of part time jobs and a taste of independence. Ximena dreams big and makes those dreams come true. With her job as a nanny, she sends most of her money to her family, but I’m glad to know that she finds time to be a teen too.

She saved enough money for an iPhone, makeup and matching shoes and clothes for herself and her friends. We loved hearing that.

Life is more than grades too, what stays with us are the memories we have with friends and how we grew as people. This is stored in certain textures of pizza dough, nail polish shades, the music we listened to on commutes, mall perfume testers and the thrilling feeling of being about to choose and buy our own clothes.

For Ximena, these memories are stored in pink trainers, eyeliner, Budots electronic music and trying to figure out if a TikTok video is AI or not. But for Ximena, her part time job casts a shadow over her freedom.

“I nanny and help out at another house. The kids are naughty but the mother is kind. I like them but it’s not my real dream. My dream is to go to university and study English.”

Estelle notices a certain hesitation with Ximena. We learnt that while Ximena’s mother has since remarried and life continues nicely in their village home, Ximena’s mother is also having health problems.

Ximena tells us that it is somewhat inevitable that she will have to drop out of school later, to focus on working full time to support the family.

Special connection
Society debates about what it means to be Indigenous and what makes up the legal definitions of indigeneity, with all points being areas of controversy. These include being an originating group in an area, a history of violence, war or subjugation, cultural distinctiveness, a special connection to land, separate authority structures and/or realities of poverty.

But who wins from this controversy? And how do we adequately address the more urgent experiences of Aeta people? Ximena tells us of a time where she was hospitalised after 4 days of eating nothing but salt water. There was simply no food at home.

Aeta people have low school retention and literacy rates; due to adverse experiences at school, geographic barriers and poverty. This means that many Aeta are itinerant workers and are often exploited at work. Families are in cycles of poverty due to how prevalent discrimination is.

Despite everything, Ximena is hopeful that she could be the one to break free and guide her siblings too; Estelle and I felt that she was an articulate, loving and thoughtful girl with immense potential.

We all talk through what we all love, what gives us hope and what we like to work on outside of work and school. “My favourite subject is math. I like art too. But most of all, in my spare time, I write stories about my life.” We ask if she is comfortable to share one. It is a prayer about her family and how much she loves all of them.

Ximena was able to excel in her life despite all odds. It is like she has a guiding star with a compelling power. “When I’m exhausted, when my body wants to give up in a running race, I just close my eyes and think about my family. That makes me continue, and then, I win.”

* Name changed

Keeara Ofren is a law, politics and international relations graduate based in Aotearoa New Zealand. She writes a “cheeky, vibrant and provocative” blog at K For Kindling where this article was first published after a recent human rights exposure visit to the isolated Indigenous heartland of the Aeta people in Luzon, Philippines. Republished with permission.

More information and a call to action:
International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines
A global network of churches, trade unions, environmentalists and NGOs aiming to inform the world about the human rights situation in the Philippines. ICHRP carries out human rights fact finding, human rights education for communities and moral support for Philippine grassroots organisations.
https://ichrp.net/donate/

Karapatan
Karapatan is a Filipino human rights NGO alliance carrying out rights documentation and research as well as providing legal aid for communities facing human rights violations. Karapatan also provides engagement with international mechanisms for peace and reporting human rights issues in the Philippines.

Website: https://www.karapatan.org/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/karapatan/
Karapatan Central Luzon, an area where many Aeta communities are based: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555246921656

Michael Beltran
Filipino journalist active on Al Jazeera writing about the human rights situation in the Philippines, including of the Aeta people.
https://www.aljazeera.com/author/maykel-beltran

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally bowed to pressure from the Murdoch News Corp’s relentless media campaign and advocacy by political critics and victim’s families to announce a royal commission of inquiry into “antisemitism and social cohesion”.

The commission advocates were seeking his political downfall over last month’s Bondi Beach massacre that killed 15 people at a Jewish religious holiday of Hanukkah with complaints that he had “not done enough” against antisemitism.

One of the two allegedly ISIS-aligned terrorist gunmen was also killed at the scene of the tragedy and the other was wounded and arrested. He has been charged with 59 counts, including 15 charges of murder and committing a terrorist act.

• READ MORE: What is a royal commission? Could one into the Bondi attack create meaningful change?
• Australian PM backflips over royal commission into the Bondi shootings
• Israel’s propaganda machine endangers every Jew on the planet — including me —  Antony Loewenstein
• Mapping selective media coverage of the post-massacre discourse

Albanese held a press conference in Canberra yesterday and confirmed that former High Court justice Virginia Bell would lead the national inquiry.

While the royal commission has been mostly welcomed by survivors, victims’ families and Jewish community groups that have been lobbying for a national inquiry, some advocacy organisations have criticised the time it has taken before being called.

However, even more serious criticisms have emerged over the terms of reference and a widespread belief that the real objective is to mute criticism of Israel and its brutal policies of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Award-winning journalist and Lamestream co-host Osman Faruqi, for example, argues “this royal commission won’t give us answers to Bondi — it’s set up to protect Israel.”

“The terms of reference for the Royal Commission should put aside any doubt: this is an inquiry designed to castigate critics of Israel.”

In the media release yesterday that Albanese, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed the four main areas to be covered, they stated:

• Tackling antisemitism by investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and its key drivers in Australia, including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation.
• Making recommendations that will assist law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to tackle antisemitism, including through improvements to guidance and training within law enforcement, border control, immigration, and security agencies to respond to antisemitic conduct.
• Examining the circumstances surrounding the antisemitic Bondi terrorist attack on December 14, 2025.
• Making any other recommendations arising out of the inquiry for strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia.

Missing from the terms of reference is anything related to the rise of Islamophobia in Australia. The brief is far too narrowly framed compared with what many had hoped for.

The Australian Government has announced the establishment of a Royal Commission following the antisemitic Bondi terror attack. This devastating event deeply affected the victims, their families, the Jewish community, first responders and the broader Australian public.

The Royal… pic.twitter.com/kFQbrJh5IZ

— Australian Human Rights Commission (@AusHumanRights) January 9, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had cynically jumped in within hours of the Bondi shootings to lambast Albanese and connect the massacre to the massive protests against the Gaza genocide — including 300,000 on the Sydney Harbour Bridge — even though there was no evidence of this.

He blamed the deadly Bondi attack on Albanese, accusing the Australian prime minister of pouring “fuel on the antisemitism fire” by recognising a Palestinian state. (The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 UN member states, representing 81 percent of membership).

“You took no action. You let the disease spread and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today,” said Netanyahu, who is wanted on an International Criminal Court (ICJ) warrant to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israeli authorities have a pattern of blaming criticism of the Israeli government and military’s over its genocidal actions in Gaza for fuelling antisemitism.

Globally popular phrases such as ‘Globalise the intifada’, ‘From the river to the sea Palestine will be free’, and ‘Death to the IDF’ have frequently been targeted by Israeli officials and lobbyists seeking to shield their government’s atrocities.

Jewish-Australian author and journalist Antony Loewenstein, who wrote the 2023 bestselling book The Palestine Laboratory with powerful insights into Israel’s cruel military machine of repression against Palestinians, has been scathing in his television and newspaper commentaries, accusing Tel Aviv of “outrageous lies” that endangered Jews worldwide.

“Within hours of the horrific, antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney [last] month, the Israeli government and its proxies started pushing false narratives, outright lies and racism to a grieving nation,” he wrote in Middle East Eye.

“Netanyahu and senior Israeli ministers blamed an Australian government that ‘normalised boycotts against Jews’, recognised the state of Palestine this year, and refused to shut down pro-Palestine marches.

“Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy posted on X (formerly Twitter): ‘Jews around the world live in fear because we are being hunted. October 7 inspired millions around the world and launched a global war against Jews.’

“There was no logic or sense to this verbal onslaught at a time when the dead bodies were still warm on Bondi Beach. At that point, and still now, there’s no clear picture of the motives of the father and son accused in the slaughter of mostly Jews who had gathered to mark the first night of Hanukkah, although a link to Islamic State has been explored.

“It was an outrageous intervention from a disgraced Israeli government accused of committing genocide in Gaza — and yet too many in the Australian and global media treated Netanyahu and his cronies as credible commentators, deferring to their supposed wisdom.”

“Israel’s propaganda machine endangers every Jew on the planet – including me”

Opinion by Anthony Loewenstein https://t.co/eQP0rdHB5I

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) December 23, 2025

Indeed, what has been shocking for this New Zealand journalist holidaying in Australia for the past month — in Adelaide, South Australia — is the blatant way Israel has been  allowed to “shape” the public discourse and in the media. Remember, Netanyahu himself, has resisted a full Israeli inquiry into the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack, including his own alleged security failings, for more than two years.

One of the most recent cudgels being used to beat the Albanese Labor government was an open letter signed by 100+ “business leaders” supporting the royal commission call.

But what they wanted was a probe into the alleged “antisemitism” in Australia. What about the other forms of racism and harassment such an Islamophobia?

Signatories included billionaire businessman James Packer, News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller, and a whole bunch of banking and industry executives.

Mainstream media selective outrage.@Mondoweiss pic.twitter.com/9lgpNcpE1y

— Carlos Latuff (@LatuffCartoons) December 24, 2025

Editorials and cartoons in The Australian and other Murdoch media, such as The Advertiser in Adelaide, parroted each other in calling on Albanese to “serve the nation, not yourself.”

For almost four weeks none of the countless pages of articles canvassed other perspectives; to gain some balance it was necessary to turn to credible independent sources on social media. The job of the media is to serve the public interest, not themselves.

Take “serial inventor and entrepreneur” Jaqueline Outram posting on X for a counter view.

“More than 100 ‘business leaders’ signed a letter?

“Whoop-de-frickin-doo.

“Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched and will continue to march against genocide.

“Some capitalist opportunists signed a letter.

“Pfft …”

She added in a separate post, “Stop treating business leaders like they’re some kind of moral authority . . . Nobody cares what they think.”

More than 100 “business leaders” signed a letter?

Really? More than 100? Signed a letter?

Whoop-de-frickin-doo.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched, and will continue to march, against genocide.

Some capitalist opportunists signed a letter.

Pfft…#FreePalestine

— Jaqueline Outram (@JaquelineOutram) January 2, 2026

Commenting on the royal commission decision, prominent Brisbane journalist and media educator Kasun Ubayasiri questioned the “privileged” status of one section of the multicultural Australian society.

“So the government announces a royal commission on antisemitism when we have never had a Racism Royal Commission. Why the privileged status for one type of racism over others?”

The Jewish community in Australia numbers about 117,000 in a total population of 28  million – the ninth largest globally, and the biggest in the Indo-Pacific region. The Muslim community is about 815,000.

“More worryingly, the royal commission terms of reference seem problematic,” added Ubayasiri. “It makes no real attempt to untangle the morally repugnant antisemitism from anti-Zionism.

“The latter is easily defendable especially in its current format. The terms of reference particularly note the acceptance of the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism as a working definition, suggesting this distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is unlikely to be made by the royal commission.

“IHRA is already widely seen as chilling legitimate criticism of Israel. Arguably allowing the royal commission to draft its own definitional framing would have made more sense.”

Associate Professor Joseph Fernandez, a media law scholar and journalist, added: “Be very afraid of this exercise being hijacked to produce outcomes that will serve narrow and dubious interests — at the expense of the public interest generally, in a sound democracy.”

Apart from the royal commission issue, controversy has also blown up over an invitation by Albanese to the Israeli President, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, the first head of state born in Israel since its founding in 1948, to make an official visit. Mounting calls are being made to drop the invite over Herzog’s implication in incitement to genocide.

The move was welcomed by Jewish community groups and February was touted for a likely date. However, his visit would be certain to attract protests from pro-Palestinian groups condemning Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed at least 71,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.

Such a trip would require a heavy security commitment and the Labor Friends of Palestine, a party group supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, has appealed to Albanese to call off the invitation.

Other pro-Palestinian groups have called for an investigation into allegations of incitement to genocide.

Also, at least 50 writers and poets are reported to be withdrawing from the Adelaide Writers Festival — Australia’s largest free literary festival — on February 28-March 5 in protest over a cancellation of an invitation to a Palestinian author, lawyer and advocate, citing the Bondi massacre as the reason.

Miles Franklin winners Michelle de Kretser and Melissa Lucashenko declared they would boycott the event in protest over featured Randa Abdel-Fattah being cancelled.

Others, including journalism professor and former foreign correspondent Peter Greste who was jailed by the Egyptian government for the “crime of being a journalist”, have also pulled out.

“We do not help social cohesion by silencing voices,” Greste posted on X.

My statement in response to the racist decision to cancel me from Adelaide Writers’ Week. https://t.co/HktwrcWveT pic.twitter.com/EDqTOteA1S

— Randa Abdel-Fattah (@RandaAFattah) January 8, 2026

Dr Abdel-Fattah accused the Adelaide festival board of “blatant and shameless” anti-Palestinian racism and censorship, adding that the attempt to associate her with the Bondi massacre was “despicable”.

“The Adelaide Writers Festival Board has stripped me of my humanity and agency, reducing me to an object onto which others can project their racist fears and smears.”

She had been expected to discuss her novel Discipline, which raises ethical issues about whose voices are allowed to be heard.

What happened at New Zealand human rights campaigner John Minto’s home? Let me tell you.

Let me tell you that he wrote about it and Facebook took it down. Yep. Wrong after wrong.

Minto, national co-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) advocacy and protest group, has been arrested at least 23 times for standing against racism.

• READ MORE: Prominent activist targeted in ‘pathetic’ attack on property
• Facebook censorship on West Papua – then deafening silence
• Other reports on the Gaza genocide

A couple of nights ago two Palestinian flags were stolen from the Christchurch Ōtautahi home of John and his partner, Bronwen. “Nazi scum” was spray-painted in large letters on his footpath.

The sign “make poverty history” ripped off the fence and the Te Tiriti sign spray-painted.

But John, who has been a leader in New Zealand protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza which has killed at least 71,000 people since October 2023, has been unable to report this because Facebook removed his original post about this crime.

Why? Because white supremacists and their allies want to win this round, their complaints are supported by oppressive social media mechanisms.

Human rights are under threat. A genocide in Gaza is supported by our New Zealand government. Propaganda is rife. And the Treaty that represents partnership, that should uphold the rights of the tangata whenua is being pushed to the gutter.

And speaking of gutter. Here you see it.

People who feel entitled to storm private property and tear down signs that stand against extermination and exile.

Facebook is blocking shares about the details about the vandalism. Censorship! To thwart the censorship, share this commentary if you wish to share the truth and disempower those who want supreme power.

Saige England is an award-winning journalist and author of The Seasonwife, a novel exploring the brutal impacts of colonisation. She is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. Republished from a social media post with the author’s permission.

How shall we speak and act now?

For six years, Alternative Jewish Voices has spoken in an aspirational voice. This is intentional. Research shows, the voice that mobilises new political engagement is a voice of moral clarity which invites others to join the work of making a better world.

We ground our voice in facts, and today’s facts are shattering. We share the outrage that we hear. However, outrage alone does not make change. It has to be channeled forward into principled action.

• READ MORE: UN Security Council approves US plan for Gaza stabilisation force
• Other Gaza reports

Hope is resistance. AJV met last week to ask where we find that hope now, while grief and anger feel overwhelming.

With unprecedented Western permission and complicity, Israel’s genocide is ongoing. The IDF has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians and decimated the built environment of Gaza.

They are queueing up more of the same in the West Bank. The tonnage of IDF poisons will affect generations. Israel has killed 271 and injured 622 Palestinians since the ceasefire.

Gazan Palestinians are living in atrocious conditions as winter closes in. Israel is preventing UN agencies and NGOs from responding, despite the International Court of Justice’s October finding that Israel is obligated to provide for Gazan Palestinians and not to impede others from doing so.

Bombed half a dozen countries
Along the way, Israel has bombed half a dozen countries which are not at war with it.

The silence of governments like ours imagines this dystopia as a new baseline. They will settle for negotiating the speed of Israel’s new crimes against the survivors of Palestine.

We utterly reject their selective amnesia — but each time we call out our complicit government, we need to call them forward and judge them against something better.

We do that by placing the value of human life at the centre of our understanding. People have laboured for a century and a half to embed a rights-based vision of human dignity and equality.

Rights are not an opinion; rights are the basis of international law and institutions. That today’s governments spit on Palestinians’ rights does not invalidate Palestinians’ rights. It raises the stakes.

Now we must fight for the vision even as we wield it.

Our baseline is a world in which people flourish with their basic needs and dignity ensured. We protest the deficits from that standard. We judge Israel and its powerful accomplices against the standard of an accountable, just peace for all who live between the river and the sea.

Daily erosion of our democracy
Even as our allies have taken the step of recognising Palestine, Luxon, Seymour and Peters cosy up to Donald Trump. We are reeling from their daily erosion of our democracy.

Our government’s position on Palestine and the value it places on our own lives follow from a single agenda. This government is harming far more people than it is benefiting. We find hope in the work that brings together a majority for change.

While Palestine has become the cement of a broad global movement, Zionism is shifting. Israel used its years of Zionist-Jewish permission to consolidate new sources of support. It is no longer dependent upon Jewish social licence.

Christian Zionism, long the majority of Zionism, is now an insider shaping American policy. Israel dedicates new budgets to influencing American Christians.

Christian Zionist influence is now being unsettled in turn by the far Right, as Zionism attracts support from the eschatological, racist and fascist extremes. Trump’s MAGA world is grappling with the rise of more radical White racist nationalism. Those extremists are seeking narrative position and influence.

In Aotearoa, Israel’s deputy foreign minister has met with Christian nationalist Brian Tamaki and Alfred Ngaio. There are five rabbis in this country, while 130 Christian Zionist clergy wrote together of their representatives’ time with Winston Peters before Peters declined to recognise Palestine.

In order to lend effective support to the liberation of Palestine, our protest needs to target the evolving structures and financial flows of Aotearoa’s Zionism.

This does not relieve the Zionist-Jewish community of responsibility. Globally, Zionist-Jewish institutions have eagerly wrapped Israel’s violence in the guise of Jewish identity, in order to place Israel’s genocidal actions beyond challenge.

Peace of the graveyard
Aotearoa’s Zionist-Jewish spokespeople still imagine only the peace of the graveyard, after which there might be a nicer Zionism.

A significant segment of Liberal-Zionist Jews seems to have turned against the war — although not against Zionism. That speaks to some capacity for change despite the institutions.

We welcome every effort to end this genocide. However, as principled anti-Zionists our goal is greater than the cessation of firing. In our own community and in Palestine, we must change the conditions that give rise to genocide. We need to decolonise the Jewishness that taught us to stake our future on the oppression and slaughter of others. There is no nicer Zionism.

To realise a liberatory Jewishness, we need new institutions with genuinely new communal leadership. We work for a future without Jewish supremacy or exceptionalism. Two-thirds of Jewish New Yorkers aged 18-44 just voted for Mayor Mamdani in one such act of qualitative, visionary change.

We will not displace this toxic new Right power by emulating their perpetual outrage. That would only turn us into the thing we oppose.

Outrage alone leaves one numb with grief and alienation. It stokes the identity politics which deny that we can live together. It leads to the despair which hardens the status quo.

We will only displace this power with an aspirational, broadly based vision of something better. We learn from the long, great works of our time: the works of peace, Indigenous rights, the common cause of dignified life in the hardest places.

Tangled roots of colonisation
That quality of holistic movement has coalesced around Palestine. We have never heard so many people acknowledge that the change must reach to the tangled roots of colonisation, racism, capitalism and fascism.

AJV brings to this our Jewish inheritance which recognises that social, ecological and material justice are inextricable. Together we will place life and justice at the centre of the work that needs doing, here and there.

In this dark time, hope is resistance and these are our ways forward.

In outrage and in aroha, we are Alternative Jewish Voices of Aotearoa.

Marilyn Garson writes about Palestinian and Jewish dissent. This article was first published by Sh’ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices and is republished with permission. The original article can be read here.

EDWARD SAID MEMORIAL LECTURE: By Chris Hedges

Indonesian military forces have again bombed Kiwirok, the site of a massacre in 2021 that killed more than 300 West Papuan civilians, amid worsening violence, alleges a Papuan advocacy group.

“While President Prabowo talks about promoting peace in the Middle East, his military is trying to wipe out West Papua,” said United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) leader Benny Wenda.

“Evidence gathered by villagers in the Star Mountains shows the Indonesian military using Brazilian fighter jets to target houses, gardens, and cemeteries.”

• READ MORE: Documentary tells forgotten story of Indonesian military operations
• Other West Papua reports

He said in a statement the village had been destroyed and more civilians had become displaced in their own land, adding to more than 100,000 internal refugees.

The ULMWP website showed images from the attack.

Wenda said the bombing showed again “how the whole world is complicit in the genocide of my people”.

In 2021, Indonesia had used bombs and drones made in Serbia, China and France to kill civilians as revealed in the 2023 documentary Hostage Land: Why Papuan Guerrilla Fighters Keep Taking Hostages. 

“Now, it is Brazilian jets that children in Kiwirok see before their homes are destroyed,” Wenda said.

West Papua was being facing several “colonial tactics to crush our spirit and destroy our resistance”.

“What is happening in Kiwirok is happening in different ways across West Papua,” Wenda said. He cited:

• Riots and demos happening in Jayapura after a peaceful demonstration calling for the release Papuan political prisoners was violently crushed;
• Indonesia occupying churches in Intan Jaya in violation of international law as they deployed soldiers for a new military base;
• Indonesian military killing civilian Sadrak Yahome after anti-racism protests in Yalimo, which happenedfollowing Indonesian settlers racially abusing a Papuan student;
• Militarisation happening across the Highlands, with more than 50 villages having being occupied by the TNI [Indonesian military] since August;
• West Papuans being called “monkeys” by Indonesian settlers in Timika; and
• A 52-year-old man being killed by police during a protest against the transfer of political prisoners in Manokwari.

The documentary Hostage Land.                   Video: Paradise Broadcasting

“It isn’t a coincidence that this escalation is happening while Indonesia is increasing environmental destruction in West Papua, trying to steal our resources and rip apart our forest for profit and food security,” Wenda said.

“In Raja Ampat, Merauke, Intan Jaya, and Kiwirok, new plantations and mines are killing our people and land.”

Wenda appealed to Pacific leaders to stand for West Papua as “the rest of the world stands for Palestine”.

“The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) and Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) must respond to this escalation — Indonesia is spilling Pacific and Melanesian blood in West Papua.

“They must not bow to Indonesian chequebook diplomacy.”

Chances are, anyone whose family is dying of starvation would not be looking for New Zealand to have a prolonged debate over how they deserve to be defined.

Yet a delay in making even the symbolic gestures seems to be all that we have to offer, as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians continue to be systematically starved to death by Israel.

Could be wrong, but I doubt whether anyone in Gaza is waiting anxiously for news that New Zealand government has finally, finally come to the conclusion that Palestine deserves to be recognised as state.

READ MORE:

So far, 147 out of 193 UN member states reached that conclusion ahead of us. Some of the last holdouts — Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia — have already said they will do so next month.

So far, none of that diplomatic shuffling of the deck has stopped the Gaza genocide. Only significant economic and diplomatic sanctions and an extensive arms embargo (one that includes military-related software) can force Israel to cease and desist.

You don’t need to recognise statehood before taking those kind of steps. Last week, Germany — which does not recognise the state of Palestine — imposed a partial arms embargo on Israel that forbids sales of any weaponry that might be used to kill Palestinians in Gaza. Not much, but a start — given that (after the US) Germany has been the main foreign arms supplier to the IDF.

Meanwhile, the Luxon government has yet to make up its mind on Palestinian statehood. Our government repeatedly insists that this recognition is “complex.” Really? By saying so, we are embarrassing ourselves on the world stage.

Trying to appease Americans
While we still furrow our brows about Palestinian statehood, 76 percent of the UN’s member nations have already figured it out. Surely, our hesitation can’t be because we are as mentally challenged as we are claiming to be.

The more likely explanation is that we are trying to appease the Americans, in the hope of winning a trade concession. Our government must be gambling that an angry Donald Trump will punish Australia for its decision on Palestine, by lifting its tariff rate, thereby erasing the 5 percent advantage over us that Australian exporters currently enjoy.

By keeping our heads down on Palestine, we seem to be hoping we will win brownie points with Trump, at the expense of our ANZAC mates.

This isn’t mere conspiracy talk. Already, the Trump administration is putting pressure on France over its imminent decision to recognise Palestine statehood. A few days ago, Le Monde reported that the US ambassador to France, Charles Kushner — yes, Ivana Trump’s father-in-law — blundered into France’s domestic politics by writing a letter of complaint to French president Emmanuel Marcon.

In it, Kushner claimed that France wasn’t doing enough to combat anti-Semitism:

“Public statements haranguing Israel and gestures toward recognition of a Palestinian state embolden extremists, fuel violence, and endanger Jewish life in France,” [Kushner] wrote.

“In today’s world, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism – plain and simple.”

Breaking every civilised rule
Simple-minded is more like it. People who oppose the criminal atrocities being committed in Gaza (and on the West Bank) by the Zionist government of Israel are not doing so on the basis of racial prejudice. They’re doing so because Israel is breaking every rule of a civilised society.

Any number of UN conventions and international laws forbid the targeting of civilian populations, homes, schools, ambulances and hospitals . . . not to mention the deliberate killing of hundreds of medical staff, journalists, aid workers etc.

Not to mention imposing a famine on a captive population. Day after day, the genocide continues.

For Kushner to claim the global revulsion at Israel’s actions in Gaza is motivated by racism is revealing. To Israel’s apologists within Israel, and in the US (and New Zealand) only Israeli lives really matter.

Footnote: New Zealand continues to bang on about our support for the “two state” solution. Exactly where is the land on which Christopher Luxon thinks a viable Palestinian state can be built, and what makes him think Israel would ever allow it to happen?

Thirty years ago, Israeli settlement expansion fatally undermined the Oslo framework for a Palestinian state situated alongside Israel.

Since then, the fabled “two state solution” has become the tooth fairy of international politics. It gives politicians something to say when they have nothing to say.

Republished with permission from Gordon Campbell’s Werewolf column in partnership with Scoop.

The grim facts should speak for themselves. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has deliberately killed an unprecedented number of Palestinian journalists in Gaza.

Those brave individuals are smeared as Hamas operatives and terrorists by Israel and its supporters.

But the real story behind this, beyond just Western racism and dehumanisation towards Arab reporters who don’t work for the corporate media in London or New York, is an Israeli military strategy to deliberately (and falsely) link Gazan journalists to Hamas.

• READ MORE: Palestinian journalists treated like ‘robots’ by Western media, says Gaza reporter in wake of latest Israeli killings
• Photojournalist resigns from Reuters over its ‘betrayal of journalists’ in Gaza
• Other Israeli attacks on journalists reports

The outlet +972 Magazine explains the plan:

“The Israeli military has operated a special unit called the ‘Legitimization Cell,’ tasked with gathering intelligence from Gaza that can bolster Israel’s image in the international media, according to three intelligence sources who spoke to +972 Magazine and Local Call and confirmed the unit’s existence.

“Established after October 7, the unit sought information on Hamas’ use of schools and hospitals for military purposes, and on failed rocket launches by armed Palestinian groups that harmed civilians in the enclave.

“It has also been assigned to identify Gaza-based journalists it could portray as undercover Hamas operatives, in an effort to blunt growing global outrage over Israel’s killing of reporters — the latest of whom was Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif, killed in an Israeli airstrike this past week [august 10].

According to the sources, the Legitimisation Cell’s motivation was not security, but public relations. Driven by anger that Gaza-based reporters were “smearing [Israel’s] name in front of the world,” its members were eager to find a journalist they could link to Hamas and mark as a target, one source said.

As a journalist who has visited and reported in Gaza since 2009, here is a short film I made after my first trip, Palestinian journalists are some of the most heroic individuals on the planet. They have to navigate both Israeli attacks and threats and Western contempt for their craft.

I stand in solidarity with them. And so should you.

After the Israeli murder of Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif on August 10, I spoke to Al Jazeera English about him and Israel’s deadly campaign:

Antony Loewenstein speaking on Al Jazeera English on 11 August 2025.   Video: AJ

Antony Loewenstein interviewed by Al Jazeera on 11 August 2025.  Video: AJ

Republished from the Substack of Antony Lowenstein, author of The Palestine Laboratory,  with permission.

I unequivocally support Irish author Sally Rooney with all my heart and soul. The author risks imprisonment for donating funds from her books and the TV series based on Normal People to a Palestinian group.

Once again the United Kingdom tells Palestinians who they should support. Go figure.
In her opinion piece in The Irish Times last Saturday she said that:

“Activists who disrupt the flow of weapons to a genocidal regime may violate petty criminal statutes, but they uphold a far greater law and a more profound human imperative: to protect a people and culture from annihilation.”

Whenever the people resist or rebel they are deemed terrorists. That has been the case for indigenous people around the world from indigenous Americans to Indians in India to Aborigine and Māori, the Irish and the Scots, and the Welsh.

• READ MORE: Other Israeli war on Gaza reports
• Other Saige England reports at Asia Pacific Report

I went from being a “born-again” starry-eyed kibbutznik who believed in Zionism to a journalist who researched the facts and the hidden truths.

Those facts are revolting. Settler colonialism is revolting. Stealing homes is theft.

I kept in touch with some of my US-based Zionist kibbutznik mates. When I asked them to stop calling Palestinians animals, when I asked them not to say they had tails, when I asked them to stop the de-humanisation — the same de-humanisation that happened during the Nazi regime, they dumped me.

Zionism based on a myth
Jews who support genocide are antisemitic. They are also selfish and greedy. Zionists are the bully kids at school who take other kids toys and don’t want to share. They don’t play fair.

The notion of Zionism is based on a myth of the superiority of one group over another. It is religious nutterism and it is racism.

Empire is greed. Capitalism is greed. Settler colonialism involves extermination for those who resist giving up their land. Would you or I accept someone taking our homes, forcing us to leave our uneaten dinner on the table? Would you or I accept our kids being stolen, put in jail, raped, tortured.

The country was weird when I visited in 1982. It had just invaded Lebanon. Later that year it committed a genocide.

The Sabra and Shatila massacre was a mass murder of up to 3500 Palestinian refugees by Israel’s proxy militia, the Phalange, during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The horrific slaughter prompted outrage and condemnation around the world, with the UN General Assembly condemning it as “an act of genocide”.

I had been primed for sunshine and olives, but the country gave me a chill. The toymaker I worked with was a socialist and he told me I should feel sorry for the Palestinians.

It isn’t normal for a country to be ruled by the militia. Gun-toting soldiers roamed the streets. But you need to defend yourself when you steal.

Paranoia from guilt
Paranoia is a consequence of a persecutor who fails to recognise their guilt. It happens when you steal. The paranoia happens when you close doors. When you don’t welcome the other — whose home you stole.

In 2014, soldiers of the IDF — a mercenary macho army — were charged with raping their own colleagues. Now footage of the rape of Palestinian men are celebrated on national television in Israel in front of live audiences. Any decent person would be disgusted by this.

The army under this Zionist madness has committed — and continues to commit — the crimes it lied about Palestinians committing. And yes, the big fat liar has even admitted its own lies. The bully in the playground really doesn’t care now, it does not have to persuade the world it is right, because it is supported, it has the power.

This isn’t the warped Wild West where puritans invented the scalping of women and children — the sins of colonisers are many — this is happening now. We can stand for the might of racism or we can stand against racist policies and regimes. We can stand against apartheid and genocide.

Indigenous people must have the right to live in their homeland. Casting them onto designated land then invading that land is wrong.

When Israelis are kidnapped they are called hostages. When Palestinians are kidnapped they are called prisoners. It’s racist. It’s cruel. It’s revolting that anyone would support this travesty.

Far far more Palestinians were killed in the year leading up to October 7, 2023, than Israelis killed that day (and we know now that some of those Israelis were killed by their own army, Israel has admitted it lied over and again about the murder of babies and rapes).

Mercenary macho army
So who does murder and rape? The IDF. The proud mercenary macho army.

Once upon a time, a Palestinian kid who threw a stone got a bullet between the eyes. Now they get a bullet for carrying water, for going back to the homeground that has been bombed to smithereens. Snipers enjoy taking them down.

Drones operated by human beings who have no conscience follow children, follow journalists, follow nurses, follow someone in a wheelchair, and blow them to dust.

This is a game for the IDF. I’m sure some feel bad about it but they have to go along with it because they lose privileges if they do not. This sick army run by a sick state includes soldiers who hold dual US and Israeli citizenship.

Earlier this year I met a couple of IDF soldiers on holidays from genocide, breezily ordering their lattes in a local cafe. I tried to engage with them, to garner some sense of compassion but they used “them” and “they” to talk about Palestinians.

They lumped all Palestinians into a de-humanised mass worth killing. They blamed indigenous people who lived under a regime of apartheid and who are now being exterminated, for the genocide.

The woman was even worse than the man. She loathed me the minute she saw my badge supporting the Palestinian Solidarity Network of Aoteara. Hate spat from her eyes.

Madness.

De-brainwashing
I saw that the only prospect for them to change might be a de-brainwashing programme. Show them the real facts they were never given, show them real Palestinians instead of figments of their imagination.

It occurred to me that it really was very tempting to take them home and offer them a different narrative. I asked them if they would listen, and they said no. If I had forced them to come with me I would have been, you know, a hostage-taker.

Israel is evidence that the victim can become the persecutor when they scapegoat indigenous people as the villain, when they hound them for crime of a holocaust they did not commit.

And I get it, a little. My Irish and French Huguenot ancestors were persecuted. I have to face the sad horrid fact that those persecuted people took other people’s land in New Zealand. The victims became the persecutor.

Oh they can say they did not know but they did know. They just did not look too hard at the dispossession of indigenous people.

I wrote my book The Seasonwife at the ripe young age of 63 to reveal some of the suppressed truths about colonisation and about the greed of Empire — a system where the rich exploit the poor to help themselves. I will continue to write novels about suppressed truths.

And I call down my Jewish ancestors who hid their Jewishness to avoid persecution. I have experienced antisemitism.

Experienced cancelling
But I have experienced cancelling, not by my publisher I hasten to add, but I know agencies and publishers in my country who tell authors to shut up about this genocide, who call those who speak up anti-semitic.

I have been cancelled by Zionist authors. I don’t have a publisher like that but I know those who do, I know agencies who pressure authors to be silent.

I call on other authors to follow Rooney’s example and for pity’s sake stop referencing Hamas. Learn the truth.

Benjamin Netanyahu refused to deal with any other Palestinian representative. Palestinians have the right to choose their own representatives but they were denied that right.

What is a terrorist army? The IDF which has created killing field after killing field. Not just this genocide, but the genocide in Lebanon in 1982.

I have been protesting against the massacre of Palestinians since 2014 and I wish I had been more vocal earlier. I wish I had left the country when the Phalangists were killed. I did go back and report from the West Bank but I feel now, that I did not do enough. I was pressured — as Western writers are — to support the wrongdoer, the persecutor, not the victim.

I will never do that again.

Change with learning
I do believe that with learning we can change, we can work towards a different, fairer system — a system based on fairness not exploitation.

I stand alongside indigenous people everywhere.

So I say again, that I support Sally Rooney and any author who has the guts to stand up to the pressure of oppressive regimes that deny the rights of people to resist oppression.

I have spent a decade proudly standing with Palestinians and I will never stop. I believe they will be granted the right to return to their land. It is not anyone else’s right to grant that, really, the right of return for those who were forced out, and their descendants, is long overdue.

And their forced exile is recent. Biblical myths don’t stack up. Far too often they are stacked to make other people fall down.

Perhaps if we had all stood up more than 100,000 Palestinians would still be alive, a third of those children, would still be running around, their voices like bells instead of death calls.

I support Palestinians with all my heart and soul.

Saige England is an award-winning journalist and author of The Seasonwife, a novel exploring the brutal impacts of colonisation. She is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

The world’s most important hostage — must be released. The powerful Western countries have signalled that in the face of the genocide they may recognise the state of Palestine.

States need leaders. That’s why Marwan Barghouti – often dubbed the Palestinian Mandela — must be freed.

A former head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, Ephraim Halevy, agrees with calls by leaders from across the Middle East for Barghouti’s release: “Barghouti is popular with his people, he has a clear position, he speaks Hebrew well and can negotiate; all of which qualifies him to lead a new path.

• READ MORE: Israel steps up ground and air attacks as 8 more die of starvation in Gaza
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

“We have to be creative in dealing with the future in the West Bank as well and the rest of the territories, as there are millions of Palestinians, and transferring two million Palestinians from Gaza is unrealistic,” Halevy told Middle East Monitor.

States need leaders
The UK, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a baker’s dozen of Western-aligned states have signalled they may finally join humanity and recognise the right of Palestine to exist as a state.

They are doing so at a moment when the physical existence of the Palestinian people in Palestine is in peril due to the US-Israeli genocide.

If this is not simply another hollow, performative gesture, real things must happen: first and foremost the lifting of the siege and the ending of the man-made famine.

Simultaneously, Palestine needs a credible leadership to negotiate its future. Why call for recognition of a state when hundreds of the top leadership of that future state are held in cruel captivity?

These hostages seldom receive any attention — in contrast to the remaining 20 or so living hostages held by Hamas and other groups.

Who decides who represents Palestine?
In typical Western fashion the announcement of potentially recognising the Palestinian state comes with a swag of conditions — foremost that Hamas, the most popular movement in Palestine, the winner of the last free and fair elections in both the West Bank and Gaza, must not be part of any government.

OK, so, if the Palestinians bow to that condition, who will be the leaders of this state? Who has the standing with all the factions of the Palestinian polity?

Marwan Barghouti could be such a man. The geriatric and thoroughly discredited Mahmoud Abbas, unelected leader of the Palestinian Authority, is largely seen as a tool of the US and Israel.

More than 90 percent of Palestinians want him gone. In contrast, Barghouti is a revered figure, respected by all Palestinian organisations. He consistently polls as the most popular leader.

The Israelis have murdered many of the Palestinian leaders (along with targeted assassinations of hundreds of writers, professors, lawyers, doctors and other people crucial to state-building). They even killed the lead negotiator in the hostage release process.

It is vital that the West ensures Barghouti is protected from further mistreatment. It is also worth dismissing the lie that Israel has no Palestinian partner to negotiate with; Barghouti has the will and the attributes.

The blockage is actually Western complicity in ethnic cleansing, land stealing and the overall Greater Israel Project.

Barghouti: the most important political prisoner
During the past 23 years in Israeli prisons Barghouti has been beaten, tortured, sexually molested and had limbs broken, as documented by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. What hasn’t been broken is the spirit of the greatest living Palestinian — a symbol of his people’s “legendary steadfastness” and determination to win freedom from occupation.

As I wrote in 2024:

“Barghouti, the terrorist, rotting in jail. Barghouti, the indomitable leader who has not given up on peace. Barghouti, loved by ordinary people as ‘a man of the street’. Barghouti, supporter of the Oslo Accords. Barghouti, the 15 year-old youth leader standing beside Yasser Arafat.

“Barghouti, once a member of parliament and Fatah secretary-general. Barghouti, leader of Tanzim, a PLO military wing, choosing militancy after the betrayal of the Oslo promise by the Americans and Israelis became fully clear.

“Barghouti, a leader of the intifada that restored hope to a broken people. Barghouti, the scholar and thinker. Barghouti, the political strategist and unifier.”

Marwan is the most famous Palestinian prisoner but it should never be forgotten that the entire Palestinian people have been held in bondage for generations.

The West should force the Israelis to release Barghouti — and thousands of other hostages held by Israel. To do so publicly and successfully would be a powerful statement of future intentions.

The release of one man cannot, however, change the world: it will take a genuine course correction by the West to use their collective power to force the Israelis to abandon the endless killings, starvation, land thieving and other lawlessness in the Palestinian lands.

The West must stop posturing and start acting
If the Western states fail to quickly move to change facts on the ground, it will suggest that the whole exercise was only intended to achieve political cover for the pro-genocidal forces of the US and the other enablers like Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Netanyahu is driving both the Palestinians and Israel to destruction.

Ironically, the Palestinian Marwan Barghouti could save Israel from moral death and, simultaneously, the Palestinians from further physical destruction. He is a leader that the West and the Israelis, if they chose, could negotiate with.

As Alon Liel, formerly Israel’s most senior diplomat, said a couple of years ago: Barghouti is “the ultimate leader of the Palestinian people,” and “he is the only one who can extricate us from the quagmire we are in.”

One final point: negotiating with ‘terrorists’
The West has made it clear they believe Hamas are too monstrous, too terroristic to be involved in a peace process.

But the West is entirely comfortable with the racist, fascist, genocidal leaders of Israel remaining at the helm of their country. There is a reason for this and one the West needs to front up to: racism and contempt for the Palestinians as a people.

Barghouti and hundrds of other leaders have endured torture and worse without our side raising even an eyebrow. The recent skite videos posted by IDF soldiers committing rape-murder inside Sde Temein prison says it all — they rightly assumed their depraved criminality would be sanctioned by the state and silently tolerated by the West.

War crimes are fine and no barrier to leadership if these crimes are committed by regimes that we are deeply committed to. After all, as our leaders repeatedly tell us: we share values with the Israelis.

I’ll give the last word to Marwan Barghouti.

“Resistance is a holy right for the Palestinian people to face the Israeli occupation. Nobody should forget that the Palestinian people negotiated for 10 years and accepted difficult and humiliating agreements, and in the end didn’t get anything except authority over the people, and no authority over land, or sovereignty.”

It is time to change that and to stand with humanity. Free Marwan Barghouti!

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz

Groups that have declined to join the government-sponsored “harmony accord” signed yesterday by some Muslim and Jewish groups, say that the proposed new council is “misaligned” with its aims.

The signed accord was presented at Government House in Auckland.

About 70 people attended, including representatives of the New Zealand Jewish Council, His Highness the Aga Khan Council for Australia and New Zealand and the Jewish Community Security Group, reports RNZ News.

• READ MORE: ‘Gaza is not a religious issue’: Advocates split on government harmony accord
• Explainer – background to the decision over not joining the “harmony accord” (scroll down the page)

The initiative originated with government recognition that the consequences of Israel’s actions in Gaza are impacting on Jewish and Muslim communities in Aotearoa, as well as the wider community.

While agreeing with that statement of purpose, other Muslim and Jewish groups have chosen to decline the invitation, said some of the disagreeing groups in a joint statement.

They believe that the council, as formulated, is misaligned with its aims.

“Gaza is not a religious issue, and this has never been a conflict between our faiths,” Dr Abdul Monem, a co-founder of ICONZ said.

‘Horrifying humanitarian consequences’
“In Gaza we see a massive violation of international law with horrifying humanitarian consequences.

“We place Israel’s annihilating campaign against Gaza, the complicity of states and economies at the centre of our understanding — not religion.

“The first action to address the suffering in Gaza and ameliorate its effects here in Aotearoa must be government action. Our government needs to comply with international courts and act on this humanitarian calamity.

“That does not require a new council.”

The impetus for this initiative clearly linked international events with their local impacts, but the document does not mention Gaza among the council’s priorities, said the statement.

“Signatories are not required to acknowledge universal human rights, nor the courts which have ruled so decisively and created obligations for the New Zealand government. Social distress is disconnected from its immediate cause.”

The council was open to parties which did not recognise the role of international humanitarian law in Palestine, nor the full human and political rights of their fellow New Zealanders.

‘Overlooks humanitarian law’
Marilyn Garson, co-founder of Alternative Jewish Voices said: “It has broad implications to overlook our rights and international humanitarian law.

“As currently formulated, the council includes no direct Palestinian representation. That’s not good enough.

“How can there be credible discussion of Aotearoa’s ethnic safety — let alone advocacy for international action — without Palestinians?

“Law, human rights and the dignity of every person’s life are not opinions. They are human entitlements and global agreements to which Aotearoa has bound itself.

“No person in Aotearoa should have to enter a room — especially a council created under government auspices — knowing that their fundamental rights will not be upheld. No one should have to begin by asking for that which is theirs.”

The groups outside this new council said they wished to live in a harmonious society, but for them it was unclear why a new council of Jews and Muslims should represent the path to harmony.

“Advocacy that comes from faith can be a powerful force. We already work with numerous interfaith community initiatives, some formed at government initiative and waiting to really find their purpose,” said Dr Muhammad Sajjad Naqvi, president of ICONZ.

Addressing local threats
“Those existing channels include more of the parties needed to address local threats, including Christian nationalism like that of Destiny Church.

“Perhaps government should resource those rather than starting something new.”

The groups who declined to join the council said they had “warm and enduring relationships” with FIANZ and Dayenu, which would take seats at this council table.

“All of the groups share common goals, but not this path,” the statement said.

ICONZ is a national umbrella organisation for New Zealand Shia Muslims for a unified voice. It was established by Muslims who have been born in New Zealand or born to migrants who chose New Zealand to be their home.

Alternative Jewish Voices is a collective of Aotearoa Jews working for Jewish pluralism and anti-racism. It supports the work of Palestinians who seek liberation grounded in law and our equal human rights.

Nobody has a bad word to say about the French Resistance in the Second World War, right?  Who would criticise a group confronting fascism, right?

Yet this month the UK group Palestine Action has been proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation by their government for their non-violent direct action against UK-based industries supplying technology to fuel Israel’s destruction of the Palestinian people.

Are they terrorists or the very best of us in the West?

• READ MORE: Palestine Action: What has the group done, as it faces a ban?
• Other Israel’s Gaza genocide reports

Stéphane Hessel, a leading member of the French Resistance, survived time in Nazi concentration camps, including Buchenwald. After the war he was one of the co-authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), a pillar of international law to this day.

The Declaration affirms the inherent dignity and equal rights of all humans. In later years Hessel (d. 2013), who was Jewish, saw the treatment of the Palestinians as an affront to this and repeatedly called Israel out for crimes against humanity.

Hessel argued people needed to be outraged just as he and his fellow fighters had been during the war.

In 2010, he said: “Today, my strongest feeling of indignation is over Palestine, both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The starting point of my outrage was the appeal launched by courageous Israelis to the Diaspora: you, our older siblings, come and see where our leaders are taking this country and how they are forgetting the fundamental human values of Judaism.”

In his book Indignez-vous (Time for Outrage!) he called for a “peaceful insurrection” and pointed to some of the non-violent forms of protests Palestinians had used over the years.

“The Israeli authorities have described these marches as ‘nonviolent terrorism’. Not bad . . .  One would have to be Israeli to describe nonviolence as terrorism.”

How wrong Stéphane Hessel was on this point. The British Parliament has just proscribed Palestine Action as “terrorists” despite them having never attacked anyone, never used weapons, but only undertaken destruction of property linked to the arms industry.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on the New Zealand government to not follow Australia’s policy moves which would effectively criminalise the Palestine solidarity movement.

The Australian government has announced plans to implement recommendations from its anti-semitism envoy which PSNA says creates a “hierarchy of racism” with anti-semitism at the top, while Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism hardly feature.

At least some of the appalling anti-semitic attacks in Sydney have been bogus, said the PSNA in a statement.

• READ MORE: Church leaders, diplomats, condemn Israeli settler violence in West Bank
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

Co-chair John Minto said PSNA had no tolerance for anti-semitism in Aotearoa New Zealand, or anywhere else.

“But equally there should be no place for any other kind of racism, such as Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. Our government must speak out against all forms of discrimination and support all communities when racism rears its ugly head,” he said.

“Let’s not forget the murderous attacks on the Christchurch mosques.”

Minto said the Australian measures would “inevitably” be used to criminalise the Palestinian solidarity movement across the country.

Trump ‘demonising’ support
“We see it happening in the US, to attack and demonise support for Palestinian human rights by the Trump administration.  We see it orchestrated in the UK to shut down any speech which Prime Minister Starmer and the Israeli government don’t like.”

The PSNA statement said that it agreed with the Jewish Council of Australia which has warned the Australian government adopting these measures could result in

“undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms, inflaming community divisions, and entrenching selective approaches to racism that serve political agendas.”

Minto said the free speech restrictions in the US, UK and Australia had nothing to do with what people usually understand as anti-semitism.

“The drive comes from the Israeli government.  They see making anti-semitism charges as the most effective means of preventing anyone publicly pointing to the genocide its armed forces are perpetrating in Gaza,” he said.

“The definition of anti-semitism, usually inserted into codes of ethics or legislation, is from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.  The IHRA definition includes 11 examples.  Seven of the examples are about criticising Israel.”

“It’s quite clear the Israeli campaign is to distract the community from Israel’s horrendous war crimes, such as the round-the-clock mass killing and mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, and deflect calls for sanctions against Israel.

“Already we can see in both the UK and US, that people have been arrested for saying things about Israel which would not have been declared illegal if they’d said it about other countries, including their own.”

Worrying signs
Minto said there were already worrying signs that the New Zealand government, media and police were “falling into the trap”.

“Just over the past few weeks, there has been an unusually wide-ranging mainstream media focus on anti-semitism,” Minto said citing:

• At least one opinion article in the Stuff newspapers from NZ Jewish Council spokesperson Ben Kepes on anti-semitism in New Zealand
• A major interview in Stuff on anti-semitism with NZJC spokesperson Ben Kepes
• A New Zealand Herald opinion article from NZJC spokesperson Juliet Moses
• A New Zealand Herald podcast featuring Holocaust Foundation spokesperson Deborah Hart.  The Holocaust Foundation is partly funded by the Israeli Embassy.
• An enthusiastic 1News item on the latest appeal to the government to adopt similar measures here to those taken in Australia (TVNZ One News, 13 July 2025)
• Stories highlighting anti-semitic graffiti in Wellington — numerous reports along these lines
• Stuff newspapers highlighting the case of an assault on a visiting Israeli after an altercation in Christchurch with the accused held overnight, denied bail and the police claiming it was a “hate crime”

However, New Zealand politicians and media had been silent about:

• An attack which knocked a young Palestinian woman to the ground when she was using a microphone to speak during an Auckland march
• An attack where a Palestine supporter was kicked and knocked to the pavement outside the Israeli embassy in Wellington.  The accused was wearing an Israeli flag.  He was not held in custody and the Post newspaper has reported neither the arrest nor the resulting charge (this case is due in court July 15)
• An attack on a Palestine solidarity marshal in Christchurch who was punched in the face, in front of police, but no action taken.
• An attack in Christchurch when a Destiny Church member kicked a solidarity marshal in the chest (no action taken by police)
• Anti-Palestinian racist attacks on the home of a Palestine solidarity activist in New Plymouth.  One supporter has had their front fence spraypainted twice with pro-Israel graffiti and their car tyres slashed twice (4 tyres in total) and had vile defamatory material circulated in their neighbourhood. (Police say they cannot help)
• The frequent condemnation of anti-semitism by the previous Chief Human Rights Commissioner, but his refusal to condemn the deep-seated anti-Palestinian racism of the New Zealand Jewish Council and Israel Institute of New Zealand.
• The refusal of the Human Rights Commission to publicly correct false statements it published in The Post newspaper which claimed anti-semitism was increasing, when in fact the evidence it was using was that the rate of incidents had declined.

‘Silence on mass killings’
Minto said that in each of the cases above there would have been far more attention from politicians, the police and the media had the victims been Israeli supporters.

“Meanwhile, both our government and the New Zealand Jewish Council have refused to condemn Israel’s blatant war crimes.  There is silence on the mass killing, mass starvation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza,” he said.

“The Jewish Council and our government stand together and refuse to hold Israel’s racist apartheid regime to account in just about any way.

“This refusal to condemn what genocide scholars, including several Israeli genocide academics, have labelled as a ‘text-book case of genocide’, brings shame on both the New Zealand Jewish Council and the New Zealand government.”

“Adding to the clear perception of appalling bias on the part of our government, both the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs have met with New Zealand Jewish Council spokespeople over the war in Gaza.

“But both have refused to meet with representatives of Palestinian New Zealanders, or the huge number of Jewish supporters of the Palestine solidarity movement.”

Minto said New Zealand must “stand up and be counted against genocide” wherever it appeared and no matter who the victims were.

Immediately after killing Fernando Pereira and blowing up Greenpeace’s flagship the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour, several of the French agents went on a ski holiday in New Zealand’s South Island to celebrate.

Such was the contempt the French had for the Kiwis and the abilities of our police to pursue them.  How wrong they were.

To mark the 40th anniversary of the French terrorist attack Little Island Press has published a revised and updated edition of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, first released in 1986.

• READ MORE: Clark warns in new Pacific book renewed nuclear tensions pose ‘existential threat to humanity’
• Other Rainbow Warrior articles

A new prologue by former prime minister Helen Clark and a preface by Greenpeace’s Bunny McDiarmid, along with an extensive postscript which bring us up to the present day, underline why the past is not dead; it’s with us right now.

Written by David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report, who spent 11 weeks on the final voyage of the Warrior, the book is the most remarkable piece of history I have read this year and one of those rare books that has the power to expand your mind and make your blood boil at the same time. I thought I knew a fair bit about the momentous events surrounding the attack — until I read Eyes of Fire.

Heroes of our age
The book covers the history of Greenpeace action — from fighting the dumping of nuclear and other toxic waste in European waters, the Arctic and the Pacific, voyages to link besieged communities across the oceans, through to their epic struggles to halt whaling and save endangered marine colonies from predators.

The Rainbow Warrior’s very last voyage before the bombing was to evacuate the entire population of Rongelap atoll (about 320 people) in the Marshall Islands who had been exposed to US nuclear radiation for decades.

This article is the first of two in which I will explore themes that the book triggered for me.

Neither secret nor intelligent – the French secret intelligence service

Jean-Luc Kister was the DGSE (Direction-générale de la Sécurité extérieure) agent who placed the two bombs that ripped a massive hole in the hull of the Warrior on 10 July 1985. The ship quickly sank, trapping Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira inside.

Former colonel Kister was a member of a large team of elite agents sent to New Zealand. One had also infiltrated Greenpeace months before, some travelled through the country prior to the attack, drinking, rooting New Zealand women and leaving a trail of breadcrumbs that led all the way to the Palais de l’Élysée where François Mitterrand, Socialist President of France, had personally given the order to bomb the famous peace vessel.

Robie aptly calls the French mission “Blundergate”. The stupidity, howling incompetence and moronic lack of a sound strategic rationale behind the attack were only matched by the mendacity, the imperial hauteur and the racist contempt that lies at the heart of French policy in the Pacific to this very day.

Thinking the Kiwi police would be no match for their élan, their savoir-faire and their panache, some of the killers hit the ski slopes to celebrate “Mission Accompli”. Others fled to Norfolk Island aboard a yacht, the Ouvéa.

Tracked there by the New Zealand police it was only with the assistance of our friends and allies, the Australians, that the agents were able to escape. Within days they sank their yacht at sea during a rendezvous with a French nuclear submarine and were evenually able to return to France for medals and promotions.

Two of the agents, however, were not so lucky. As everyone my age will recall, Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart, were nabbed after a lightning fast operation by New Zealand police.

With friends and allies like these, who needs enemies?
We should recall that the French were our allies at the time. They decided, however, to stop the Rainbow Warrior from leading a flotilla of ships up to Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia where yet another round of nuclear tests were scheduled. In other words: they bombed a peace ship to keep testing bombs.

By 1995, France had detonated 193 nuclear bombs in the South Pacific.

David Robie sees the bombing as “a desperate attempt by one of the last colonial powers in the Pacific to hang on to the vestiges of empire by blowing up a peace ship so it could continue despoiling Pacific islands for the sake of an independent nuclear force”.

The US, UK and Australia cold-shouldered New Zealand through this period and uttered not a word of condemnation against the French. Within two years we were frog-marched out of the ANZUS alliance with Australia and the US because of our ground-breaking nuclear-free legislation.

It was a blessing and the dawn of a period in which New Zealanders had an intense sense of national pride — a far cry from today when New Zealand politicians are being referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for war crimes associated with the Gaza genocide.

The French State invented the term ‘terrorism’
I studied French History at university in France and did a paper called “La France à la veille de révolution” (France on the eve of revolution). One of the chilling cultural memories is of the period from September 1793 to July 1794, which was known as La Terreur.

At the time the French state literally coined the term “terrorisme” — with the blade of the guillotine dropping on neck after neck as the state tried to consolidate power through terror. But, as Robie points out, quoting law professor Roger S. Clark, we tend to use the term today to refer almost exclusively to non-state actors.

With the US and Israel gunning down starving civilians in Gaza every day, with wave after wave of terror attacks being committed inside Iran and across the Middle East by Mossad, the CIA and MI6, we should amend this erroneous habit.

The DGSE team who attached limpet mines to the Rainbow Warrior did so as psychopathic servants of the French State. Eyes of Fire: “At the time, Prime Minister David Lange described the Rainbow Warrior attack as ‘nothing more than a sordid act of international state-backed terrorism’.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am not “anti-French”. I lived for years in France, had a French girlfriend, studied French history, language and literature. I even had friends in Wellington who worked at the French Embassy.

Curiously when I lived next to Premier House, the official residence of the prime minister, my other next door neighbour was a French agent who specialised in surveillance. Our houses backed onto Premier House. Quelle coïncidence. To his mild consternation I’d greet him with “Salut, mon espion favori.” (Hello, my favourite spy).

What I despise is French colonialism, French racism, and what the French call magouillage. I don’t know a good English word for it . . .  it is a mix of shenanigans, duplicity, artful deception to achieve unscrupulous outcomes that can’t be publicly avowed. In brief: what the French attempted in Auckland in 1985.

Robie recounts in detail the lying, smokescreens and roadblocks that everyone from President Mitterrand through to junior officials put in the way of the New Zealand investigators. Mitterrand gave Prime Minister David Lange assurances that the culprits would be brought to justice. The French Embassy in Wellington claimed at the time: “In no way is France involved. The French government doesn’t deal with its opponents in such ways.”

It took years for the bombshell to explode that none other than Mitterrand himself had ordered the terrorist attack on New Zealand and Greenpeace!

We the people of the Pacific
We, the people of the Pacific, owe a debt to Greenpeace and all those who were part of the Rainbow Warrior, including author David Robie. We must remember the crime and call it by its name: state terrorism.

The French attempted to escape justice, deny involvement and then welched on the terms of the agreement negotiated with the help of the United Nations secretary-general.

A great way to honour the sacrifice of those who stood up for justice, who stood for peace and a nuclear-free Pacific, and who honoured our own national identity would be to buy David Robie’s excellent book.

I’ll give the last word to former Prime Minister Helen Clark:

“This is the time for New Zealand to link with the many small and middle powers across regions who have a vision for a world characterised by solidarity and peace and which can rise to the occasion to combat the existential challenges it faces — including of nuclear weapons, climate change, and artificial intelligence. If our independent foreign policy is to mean anything in the mid-2020s, it must be based on concerted diplomacy for peace and sustainable development.”

You cannot sink a rainbow.

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz

• Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, by David Robie. This article was first published by Solidarity website and is the first part of a two-part series.

Australian-Lebanese journalist and commentator Antoinette Lattouf’s unfair dismissal case win against the public broadcaster ABC in the Federal Court on Wednesday is a victory for all those who seek to tell the truth.

It is a breath of fresh air, after almost two years of lies and uncritical reporting about Israel’s genocide from the ABC and commercial media companies.

Lattouf was unfairly sacked in December 2023 for posting on her social media a Human Rights Watch report that detailed Israel’s deliberate starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.

• READ MORE: Other Antoinette Lattouf media freedom reports

Justice Darryl Rangiah found that Lattouf had been sacked for her political opinions, given no opportunity to respond to misconduct allegations and that the ABC breached its Enterprise Agreement and section 772 of the Fair Work Act.

The Federal Court also found that ABC executives — then-chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor, editor-in-chief David Anderson and board chair Ita Buttrose — had sacked Lattouf in response to a pro-Israel lobby pressure campaign.

The coordinated email campaign from Zionist groups accused Lattouf of being “antisemitic” for condemning Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

The judge awarded Lattouf A$70,000 in damages, based on findings that her sacking caused “great distress”, and more than $1 million in legal fees.

‘No Lebanese’ claim
Lattouf had alleged that her race or ethnicity had played a part in her sacking, which the ABC had initially responded to by claiming there was no such thing as a “Lebanese, Arab or Middle Eastern Race”, before backtracking.

The court found that this did not play a part in the decision to sack Lattouf.

The ABC’s own reporting of the ruling said “the ABC has damaged its reputation, and public perceptions around its ideals, integrity and independence”.

Outside the court, Lattouf said: “It is now June 2025 and Palestinian children are still being starved. We see their images every day, emaciated, skeletal, scavenging through the rubble for scraps.

“This unspeakable suffering is not accidental, it is engineered. Deliberately starving and killing children is a war crime.

“Today, the court has found that punishing someone for sharing facts about these war crimes is also illegal. I was punished for my political opinion.”

Palestine solidarity groups and democratic rights supporters have celebrated Lattouf’s victory.

An ‘eternal shame’
Palestine Action Group Sydney said: “It is to the eternal shame of our national broadcaster that it sacked a journalist because she opposed the genocide in Gaza.

“There should be a full inquiry into the systematic pro-Israel bias at the ABC, which for 21 months has acted as a propaganda wing of the Israeli military.”

Racial justice organisation Democracy in Colour said the ruling “exposes the systematic silencing taking place in Australian media institutions in regards to Palestine”.

Democracy in Colour chairperson Jamal Hakim said Lattouf was punished for “speaking truth to power”.

“When the ABC capitulated to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby . . .  they didn’t just betray Antoinette — they betrayed their own editorial standards and the Australian public who deserve to know the truth about Israel’s human rights abuses.”

Noura Mansour, national director for Democracy in Colour, said the ABC had been “consistently shutting down valid criticism of the state of Israel” and suppressing the voices of people of colour and Palestinians. She said the national broadcaster had “worked to manufacture consent for the Israeli-US backed genocide”.

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance chief executive Erin Madeley said: “Instead of defending its journalists, ABC management chose to appease powerful voices . . . they failed in their duty to push back against outside interference, racism and bullying.”

Win for ‘journalistic integrity’
Australian Greens leader Larissa Waters said the ruling was a win for “journalistic integrity and freedom of speech” and that “no one should be punished for speaking out about Gaza”.

Green Left editor Pip Hinman said the ruling was an “important victory for those who stand on the side of truth and justice”.

“It is more important than ever in an increasingly polarised world that journalists speak up and report the truth without fear of reprisal from the rich and powerful.

“Traditional and new media have the reach to shape public opinion. They have had a clear pro-Israel bias, despite international human rights agencies providing horrific data on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people around Australia continue to call for an end to the genocide in Gaza in protests every week. But the ABC and corporate media have largely ignored this movement of people from all walks of life. Disturbingly, the corporate media has gone along with some political leaders who claim this anti-war movement is antisemitic.

“As thousands continue to march every week for an end to the genocide in Gaza, the ABC and corporate media organisations have continued to push the lie that the Palestine solidarity movement, and indeed any criticism of Israel, is antisemitic.

“Green Left also hails those courageous mostly young journalists in Gaza, some 200 of whom have been killed by Israel since October 2023.

“Their livestreaming of Israel’s genocide cut through corporate media and political leaders’ lies and today makes it even harder for them to whitewash Israel’s crimes and Western complicity.

“Green Left congratulates Lattouf on her victory. We are proud to stand with the movement for justice and peace in Palestine, which played a part in her victory against the ABC management’s bias.”

Republished from Green Left Magazine with permission.

The US-Israeli attack against Iran will intensify the forces that are already destroying international law legacies and the UN system in the Middle East and most of the world, writes Rami Khouri.

Israel’s attacks on military, civilian, and infrastructural sites throughout Iran and the repeated Iranian retaliatory attacks against targets across Israel have rattled the existing power balance across the Middle East — but the grave consequences of this new war for the region and the world’s energy supplies and economies will only be clarified in the weeks ahead.

It is already clear that Israel’s surprise attack did not achieve a knock-out blow to Iran’s nuclear sector, its military assets, or its ruling regime, while Iran’s consecutive days of rocket and drone attacks suggest that this war could go on for weeks or longer.

The media and public political sphere are overloaded now with propaganda and wishful thinking from both sides, which makes it difficult to discern the war’s outcomes and impacts.

• READ MORE: Trump says US has bombed Iran’s Fordow, Isfahan, Natanz nuclear sites – and warns against retaliation
• Other Middle East reports

For now, we can only expect the fighting to persist for weeks or more, and for key installations in both countries to be attacked, like Israel’s Defence Ministry and Weitzman Institute were a few days ago, along with nuclear facilities, airports, military assets, and oil production facilities in Iran.

So, interested observers should remain humble and patient, as unfolding events factually clarify critical dimensions of this conflict that have long been dominated by propaganda, wishful thinking, muscle-flexing, strategic deception, and supra-nationalist ideological fantasies.

This is especially relevant because of the nature of the war that has already been revealed by the attacks of the past week, alongside military and political actions for and against the US-Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing aims in Palestine.

This round of US-Israel and Iran fighting has triggered global reactions that show this to be yet another battle between Western imperial/colonial powers and those in the Middle East and the Global South that resist this centuries-old onslaught of control, subjugation, and mayhem.

Identifying critical dimensions
We cannot know today what this war will lead to, but we can identify some critical dimensions that we should closely monitor as the battles unfold. Here are the ones that strike me as the most significant.

First off, the ongoing attacks by Iran and Israel will clarify their respective offensive and defensive capabilities, especially in terms of missiles, drones, and the available defences against them.

Iran has anticipated such an Israeli attack for at least a decade, so we should assume it has also planned many counterattacks, while fortifying its key military and nuclear research facilities and duplicating the most important ones that might be destroyed or damaged.

Second, we will quickly discover the real US role in this war, though it is fair already to see Israel’s attack as a joint US-Israeli effort.

This is because of Washington’s almost total responsibility to fund, equip, maintain, resupply, and protect the Israeli armed forces; how it protects Israel at the UN, ICC, and other fora; and both countries’ shared political goals to bring down the Islamic Republic and replace it with a puppet regime that is subservient to Israeli-US priorities.

Trump claims this is not his war, but Israel’s attacks against Iran, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon can only happen because of the US commitment by law to Israeli military superiority in the Middle East. The entire Middle East and much of the world see this as a war between the US, Israel, and Iran.

And then today the US strikes on the three Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Unconventional warfare attacks
We will also soon learn what non-military weapons each side can use to weaken the other. Missiles and drones are a start, but we should expect unconventional warfare attacks against civilian, infrastructural, digital, and financial sector targets that make life difficult for all.

An important factor that will only become clear with time is how this conflict impacts domestic politics in both countries; Iran and Israel each suffer deep internal fissures and some discontent with their regimes. How the war evolves could fragment and weaken either country, or unite their home citizenries.

Also important will be how Arab leaders react to events, especially those who chose to develop much closer financial, commercial, and defence ties with the US, as we saw during Trump’s Gulf visit last month. Some Arab leaders have also sought closer, good neighbourly relations with Iran in the last three years, while a few moved closer to Israel at the same time.

Arab leaders and governments that choose the US and Israel as their primary allies, especially in the security realm, while the attacks on Gaza and Iran go on, will generate anger and opposition by many of their people; this will require the governments to become more autocratic, which will only worsen the legacy of modern Arab autocrats who ignore their people’s rights and wellbeing.

Arab governments mostly rolled over and played dead during the US-Israeli Gaza genocide, but in this case, they might not have the same opportunity to remain fickle in the face of another aggressive moral depravity and emerge unscathed when it is over.

If Washington gets more directly involved in defending Israel, we are likely to see a response from voters in the US, especially among Trump supporters who don’t want the US to get into more forever wars.

Support for Israel is already steadily declining in the US, and might drop even faster with Washington now engaging directly in fighting Iran, because the Israeli-US attack is already based on a lie about Iran’s nuclear weapons, and American popular opinion is increasingly critical of Israel’s Gaza genocide.

Iran’s allies tested
The extent and capabilities of Iran’s allies across the Middle East will, too, be tested in the coming weeks, especially Hezbollah, Hamas, Ansar Allah in Yemen, and Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq. They have all been weakened recently by Israeli-American attacks, and both their will and ability to support Iran are unclear.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees this attack as the last step in his strategy to reorganise and re-engineer the Middle East, to make all states dependent on Israeli approval of their strategic policies. A few already are.

Netanyahu has been planning this regional project for over a decade, including removing Saddam Hussein, weakening Hezbollah and Hamas, hitting Yemen, and controlling trends inside Syria now that Bashar al-Assad is gone.

We will find out in due course if this strategy will rearrange Arab-Middle East dynamics, or internal Israeli-American ones.

The cost of this war to Israeli citizens is a big unknown, but a critical one. Israelis now know what it feels like in Southern Lebanon or Gaza. Millions of Israelis have been displaced, emigrated, or are sheltering in bunkers and safe rooms.

This is not why the State of Israel was created, according to Zionist views, which sought a place where Jews could escape the racism and pogroms they suffered in Europe and North America from the 19th Century onwards.

Most dangerous place
Instead, Israel is the most dangerous place for Jews in the world today.

This follows two decades in which all the Arabs, including Palestinians and Hamas, have expressed their willingness to coexist in peace with Israel, if Israel accepts the Palestinians’ right to national self-determination and pertinent UN resolutions that seek to guarantee the security and legitimacy of both Israeli and Palestinian states.

The US-Israeli attack against Iran will intensify the forces that are already destroying international law legacies and the UN system in the Middle East and most of the world. The US-Israel pursue this centuries-old Western colonial-imperial action to deny indigenous people their national rights at a time when they have already ignored the global anti-genocide convention by destroying life and systems that allow life to exist in Gaza.

Rami G Khouri is a distinguished fellow at the American University of Beirut and a nonresident senior fellow at the Arab Center Washington. He is a journalist and book author with 50 years of experience covering the Middle East. Dr Khouri can be followed on Twitter @ramikhouri This article was first published by The New Arab before the US strikes on Iran.

“Just do it, before it is too late,” US President Donald Trump said.

The Western media described Trump’s and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threats after the first wave of attacks on Iran as “warnings”. They were, in fact, expressions of genocidal intent.

“The United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come.

“And they know how to use it. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire … JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

• READ MORE: Eugene Doyle: Team Genocide and the West’s war on Iran
• Iran fires missiles at Israel, kills 8, after attacks on oil sites
• Other Israeli war on Iran reports

FROM PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP:

“I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal…” pic.twitter.com/lsCQHkyT2f

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 13, 2025

As Pascal Lottaz and a number of other analysts pointed out on Friday, preemptive war or just war theory requires imminent threats not conceptual ones. As I also pointed out on Friday, the United States’ own intelligence agencies have consistently determined that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons programme and there has been no change to the regime’s position since the Grand Ayatollah issued a fatwa against such weapons in 2003.

Israel and the US may now have forced a change in that theology or calculus.

What we are witnessing is a war of aggression designed to trigger regime change and destroy Iran — to reduce it to the kind of chaos that Israel and the US have inflicted on Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and many other countries.

This is only possible because of the collusion of the Collective West. At the core of this project of endless violence towards non-white people is racism: contempt for people who are not like us.

Nearly half of Israelis support army killing all Palestinians in Gaza, poll finds.
Today an overwhelming majority of Israelis want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians — one of the very definitions of genocide — not just from Gaza but from Israel itself. Nearly half of Israelis support the army killing all Palestinians in Gaza, a recent US Penn State University poll finds.

Genocide has been normalised in Israel. Yet our political leaders and much of our media tell us we share values with these people.

One of the sickest, most profoundly tragic ironies of history is that the long suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of Western racism has culminated in a triumphalist Jewish State doing to the Palestinians what the Plantagenets and the Popes, the Medicis and the Russian boyars, the Italian Fascists and the Nazis did to the Jews.

Europeans perpetrated the Holocaust not the Palestinians or the Iranians. Israel, dominated as it is by Ashkenazi Jews, has now been incorporated into the Western project to maintain global hegemony.

They are today’s uber Aryans lording it over the untermenschen. It is the grim fulfillment of what the Israeli scholar Yeshayahu Leibowitz warned back in the 1980s was Israel’s incipient slide into what he termed “Judeo Nazism”.

‘We, the Israelis, are the victims’
Isn’t it time we woke from our deep slumber? Generations of people in Western countries were lied to for generations about the Zionist project. We were bombarded with propaganda that the Israelis were the victims, the plucky battlers; the Palestinians were somehow a nation of terrorists in their own land.

So too, the propaganda goes, are pretty much all of Israel’s neighbours, particularly Iran.

The propaganda shredded our minds, particularly people of my generation. It made most of our populations and all of our governments totally indifferent to the constant killing, repression and land thieving by generations of Israelis.

“We, the Israelis, are the victims.” They weep for themselves as they rape Palestinian prisoners — and call themselves heroes for doing so. In researching stories like this I had the unpleasant experience of watching videos of both the rape of Palestinians prisoners at Sde Temein (gloatingly shared by the perpetrators) and the repellent sight of Benjamin Netanyahu’s rabbi blessing one of these rapists and praising him for his work.

We are repeatedly told we share values with these people. I believe our governments really do share those values. I do not.

‘Hath not a Palestinian eyes? If you prick an Iranian do they not bleed?’
I’m a student of Shakespeare and have spent hours every month reading, watching and studying his plays. The Merchant of Venice, a complex play with highly contested interpretations, can be viewed as a masterful exploration of a dominant society enforcing its own double standards on a Hated Other.

The last time I watched it was a Royal Shakespeare Company performance with Palestinian actor Makram Khoury in the role of Shylock (the Jew).

Over the centuries Shylock had morphed from a pantomime villain, to an arch-villain to, in the 19th Century, a figure of pathos, dignity and loss, through to 20th Century interpretations of him as a powerful, albeit highly flawed, figure of resistance in the face of a supremacist society.

Palestinian Makram Khoury’s performance capped this transition and was an eloquent plea to see our common humanity whether we be Jewish, Muslim, Christian or any other slice of humanity.

“Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”

How would our reading of this passage change if we changed “Jew” to “Palestinian” or “Iranian”?

Only an utterly incoherent and damaged mind can continue to believe the propaganda coming out of the White House, the Pentagon, and out of the mouths of psychotic madmen like Netanyahu, Smotrich and the rest of Team Genocide.

It’s time to wake up. If not, we ourselves become victims. Only a hollowed-out heart and mind could content themselves with turning a blind eye to genocide, to turn a blind eye to the war of aggression just launched against Iran.

How will this end?

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.

Many people have been closely following the journey this week of the Madleen, a small humanitarian yacht seeking to break Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza with a crew of 12 on board, including humanitarian activists and journalists.

This morning we woke to the harrowing, yet not unexpected, news that the vessel had been illegally hijacked by Israeli forces, who boarded and took the crew captive into Israeli territories, in contravention of international law.

Yet another on the long list of war crimes Israel has committed over the last 20 months of genocide, and decades of illegal occupation.

• READ MORE: Palestinian supporters in NZ accuse Israel of ‘state piracy’ and condemn silence
• Israeli commandos seize Gaza-bound aid ship Madleen, take it to Israel
• Israeli forces intercept Gaza freedom aid boat Madleen – cut communications
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

Communication with the crew was lost after the final moments of tense onboard footage as they donned lifejackets, threw phones and other sensitive data overboard, and raised their arms in preparation for whatever might come next.

Israel has a detailed history of attacking all previous freedom flotillas — including the 2010 mission aboard the Mavi Marmara in which 10 crew were killed and dozens more injured when Israeli forces hijacked the humanitarian vessel.

Another mission earlier this year was cut short when it was targeted by an airstrike in international waters, injuring crew.

The next updates were scenes filmed by Israeli forces which appear to show them calmly handing bread rolls and water to the detained crew, painting a picture which immediately recalled my own experience last year being unlawfully arrested in the southern West Bank.

Detained while documenting
I was detained while documenting armed settler violence, taken illegally to a military base where myself and three other internationals were given a bathroom stop, bread and water.

While we ate, they filmed us, saying “You are unharmed, yes? We are looking after you well?”

We were then loaded into a police van where a Palestinian farmer sat blindfolded, in silence, with his hands zip-tied behind him.

Israel loves to put on a show of their “humane treatment” when internationals are present and cameras are rolling, but it’s a shallow and sinister facade for their abusive racism and cruelty towards Palestinians.

It appears their response to the Madleen’s crew over the next few days will be exactly that. Don’t buy into it; this is no more than deeply sinister propaganda to cover state-backed racism, supremacy, and cruelty.

Families in Gaza are still facing indiscriminate airstrikes, continuous displacement, forced starvation, and the phony Israel/US “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” which has led to more than 100 civilians being shot while desperately seeking food.

Thousands of trucks still wait at the border to Gaza, barred entry by Israeli forces, while Palestinians face severe malnutrition and a man-made famine.

The New Zealand government has still not placed a single sanction on the Israeli state.

Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament has confirmed the unprecedented punishments proposed for opposition indigenous Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in protest against the Treaty Principles Bill.

Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi will be suspended for 21 days, and MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke suspended for seven days, taking effect immediately.

Opposition parties tried to reject the recommendation, but did not have the numbers to vote it down.

• READ MORE: NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill haka highlights tensions between Māori tikanga and rules of Parliament
• Other haka reports

Te Pati Maori MPs speak after being suspended.  Video: RNZ/Mark Papalii

The heated debate to consider the proposed punishment came to an end just before Parliament was due to rise.

Waititi moved to close the debate and no party disagreed, ending the possibility of it carrying on in the next sitting week.

Leader of the House Chris Bishop — the only National MP who spoke — kicked off the debate earlier in the afternoon saying it was “regrettable” some MPs did not vote on the Budget two weeks ago.

Bishop had called a vote ahead of Budget Day to suspend the privileges report debate to ensure the Te Pāti Māori MPs could take part in the Budget, but not all of them turned up.

Robust, rowdy debate
The debate was robust and rowdy with both the deputy speaker Barbara Kuriger and temporary speaker Tangi Utikare repeatedly having to ask MPs to quieten down.

Tākuta Ferris spoke first for Te Pāti Māori, saying the haka was a “signal of humanity” and a “raw human connection”.

He said Māori had faced acts of violence for too long and would not be silenced by “ignorance or bigotry”.

“Is this really us in 2025, Aotearoa New Zealand?” he asked the House.

“Everyone can see the racism.”

He said the Privileges Committee’s recommendations were not without precedent, noting the fact Labour MP Peeni Henare, who also participated in the haka, did not face suspension.

Henare attended the committee and apologised, which contributed to his lesser sanction.

‘Finger gun’ gesture
MP Parmjeet Parmar — a member of the Committee — was first to speak on behalf of ACT, and referenced the hand gesture — or “finger gun” — that Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer made in the direction of ACT MPs during the haka.

Parmar told the House debate could be used to disagree on ideas and issues, and there was not a place for intimidating physical gestures.

Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said New Zealand’s Parliament could lead the world in terms of involving the indigenous people.

She said the Green Party strongly rejected the committee’s recommendations and proposed their amendment of removing suspensions, and asked the Te Pāti Māori MPs be censured instead.

Davidson said the House had evolved in the past — such as the inclusion of sign language and breast-feeding in the House.

She said the Greens were challenging the rules, and did not need an apology from Te Pāti Māori.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party speeches so far showed “no sincerity, saying countless haka had taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker.

“They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn’t tell the Speaker did they?

‘Bunch of extremists’
“The Māori party are a bunch of extremists,” Peters said, “New Zealand has had enough of them”.

Peters was made to apologise after taking aim at Waititi, calling him “the one in the cowboy hat” with “scribbles on his face” [in reference to his traditional indigenous moko — tatoo]. He continued afterward, describing Waititi as possessing “anti-Western values”.

Labour’s Willie Jackson congratulated Te Pāti Māori for the “greatest exhibition of our culture in the House in my lifetime”.

Jackson said the Treaty bill was a great threat, and was met by a great haka performance. He was glad the ACT Party was intimidated, saying that was the whole point of doing the haka.

He also called for a bit of compromise from Te Pāti Māori — encouraging them to say sorry — but reiterated Labour’s view the sanctions were out of proportion with past indiscretions in the House.

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the debate “would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious”.

“Get an absolute grip,” she said to the House, arguing the prime minister “is personally responsible” if the House proceeds with the committee’s proposed sanctions.

Eye of the beholder
She accused National’s James Meager of “pointing a finger gun” at her — the same gesture coalition MPs had criticised Ngarewa-Packer for during her haka. The Speaker accepted he had not intended to; Swarbrick said it was an example where the interpretation could be in the eye of the beholder.

She said if the government could “pick a punishment out of thin air” that was “not a democracy”, putting New Zealand in very dangerous territory.

An emotional Maipi-Clarke said she had been silent on the issue for a long time, the party’s voices in haka having sent shockwaves around the world. She questioned whether that was why the MPs were being punished.

“Since when did being proud of your culture make you racist?”

“We will never be silenced, and we will never be lost,” she said, calling the Treaty Principles bill a “dishonourable vote”.

She had apologised to the Speaker and accepted the consequence laid down on the day, but refused to apologise. She listed other incidents in Parliament that resulted in no punishment.

NZ Parliament TV: Te Pāti Māori Privileges committee debate.  Video: RNZ

Maipi-Clarke called for the Treaty of Waitangi to be recognised in the Constitution Act, and for MPs to be required to honour it by law.

‘Clear pathway forward’
“The pathway forward has never been so clear,” she said.

ACT’s Nicole McKee said there were excuses being made for “bad behaviour”, that the House was for making laws and having discussions, and “this is not about the haka, this is about process”.

She told the House she had heard no good ideas from the Te Pāti Māori, who she said resorted to intimidation when they did not get their way, but the MPs needed to “grow up” and learn to debate issues. She hoped 21 days would give them plenty of time to think about their behaviour.

Labour MP and former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe started by saying there were “no winners in this debate”, and it was clear to him it was the government, not the Parliament, handing out the punishments.

He said the proposed sanctions set a precedent for future penalties, and governments might use it as a way to punish opposition, imploring National to think twice.

He also said an apology from Te Pāti Māori would “go a long way”, saying they had a “huge opportunity” to have a legacy in the House, but it was their choice — and while many would agree with the party there were rules and “you can’t have it both ways”.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said there had been many instances of misinterpretations of the haka in the House and said it was unclear why they were being punished, “is it about the haka . . . is about the gun gestures?”

“Not one committee member has explained to us where 21 days came from,” he said.

Hat and ‘scribbles’ response
Waititi took aim at Peters over his comments targeting his hat and “scribbles” on his face.

He said the haka was an elevation of indigenous voice and the proposed punishment was a “warning shot from the colonial state that cannot stomach” defiance.

Waititi said that throughout history when Māori did not play ball, the “coloniser government” reached for extreme sanctions, ending with a plea to voters: “Make this a one-term government, enrol, vote”.

He brought out a noose to represent Māori wrongfully put to death in the past, saying “interpretation is a feeling, it is not a fact . . .  you’ve traded a noose for legislation”.

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

An escalation in fighting between Indonesian security forces and Papuan pro-independence fighters in West Papua has seriously threatened the security of the largely indigenous population, says Human Rights Watch in a new report.

The human rights watchdog warned that all parties to the conflict are obligated to abide by international humanitarian law, also called the laws of war.

The security forces’ military operations in the densely forested Central Highlands areas are accused of killing and wounding dozens of civilians with drone strikes and the indiscriminate use of explosive munitions, and displaced thousands of indigenous Papuans, said the report.

• READ MORE: Fiji rights coalition slams ‘betrayal’ of West Papua for Indonesian benefits
• Other West Papua reports

The National Liberation Army of West Papua, the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement, has claimed responsibility in the killing of 17 alleged miners between April 6 and April 9.

“The Indonesian military has a long history of abuses in West Papua that poses a particular risk to the Indigenous communities,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch.

“Concerned governments need to press the Prabowo [Subianto] administration and Papuan separatist armed groups to abide by the laws of war.”

The fighting escalated after the attack on the alleged miners, which the armed group accused of being targeted soldiers or military informers.

Operation Habema
The Indonesian military escalated its ongoing operations, called Operation Habema, in West Papua’s six provinces, especially in the Central Highlands, where Papuan militant groups have been active for more than four decades.

On May 14, the military said that it had killed 18 resistance fighters in Intan Jaya regency, and that it had recovered weapons including rifles, bows and arrows, communications equipment, and Morning Star flags — the symbol of Papuan resistance.

Further military operations have allegedly resulted in burning down villages and attacks on churches. Papuan activists and pastors told Human Rights Watch that government forces treated all Papuan forest dwellers who owned and routinely used bows and arrows for hunting as “combatants”.

Information about abuses has been difficult to corroborate because the hostilities are occurring in remote areas in Intan Jaya, Yahukimo, Nduga, and Pegunungan Bintang regencies.

Pastors, church workers, and local journalists interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that Indonesian forces had been using drones and helicopter gunships to drop bombs.

“Civilians from the Korowai tribe community, known for their tall treehouse dwellings, have been harmed in these attacks, and have desperately fled the fighting,” said the Human Rights Watch report.

“Displaced villagers, mostly from Intan Jaya, have sought shelter and refuge in churches in Sugapa, the capital of the regency.”

Resistance allegations
The armed resistance group has made allegations, which Human Rights Watch could not corroborate, that the Indonesian military attacks harmed civilians.

It reported that a mortar or rocket attack outside a church in Ilaga, Puncak regency, hit two young men on May 6, killing one of them, Deris Kogoya, an 18-year-old student.

The group said that the Indonesian military attack on May 14, in which the military claimed all 18 people killed were pro-independence combatants, mostly killed civilians.

Ronald Rischardt Tapilatu, pastor of the Evangelical Christian Church of the Land of Papua, said that at least 3 civilians were among the 18 bodies. Human Rights Watch has a list of the 18 killed, which includes 1 known child.

The daughter of Hetina Mirip said her mother was found dead on May 17 near her house in Sugapa, while Indonesian soldiers surrounded their village. She wrote that the soldiers tried to cremate and bury her mother’s body.

A military spokesman denied the shooting.

One evident impact of the renewed fighting is that thousands of indigenous Papuans have been forced to flee their ancestral lands.

Seven villages attacked
The Vanuatu-based United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) reported that the military had attacked seven villages in Ilaga with drones and airstrikes, forcing many women and children to flee their homes. Media reports said that it was in Gome, Puncak regency.

International humanitarian law obligates all warring parties to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians may never be the target of attack.

Warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimise harm to civilians and civilian objects, such as homes, shops, and schools. Attacks may target only combatants and military objectives.

Attacks that target civilians or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians, or that would cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population compared to the anticipated military gain, are prohibited.

Parties must treat everyone in their custody humanely, not take hostages, and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The Free Papua Movement has long sought self-determination and independence in West Papua, on the grounds that the Indonesian government-controlled “Act of Free Choice” in 1969 was illegitimate and did not involve indigenous Papuans.

It advocates holding a new, fair, and transparent referendum, and backs armed resistance.

Vast conflict area
Human Rights Watch reports that the conflict areas, including Intan Jaya, are on the northern side of Mt Grasberg, spanning a vast area from Sugapa to Oksibil in the Pegunungan Bintang regency, approximately 425 km long.

Sugapa is also known as the site of Wabu Block, which holds approximately 2.3 million kilos of gold, making it one of Indonesia’s five largest known gold reserves.

Wabu Block is currently under the licensing process of the Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.

“Papuans have endured decades of systemic racism, heightening concerns of further atrocities,” HRW’s Asia director Ganguly said.

“Both the Indonesian military and Papuan armed groups need to comply with international standards that protect civilians.”

Republished from Human Rights Watch.

When I despairingly contemplate the horrors and cruelty that Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to, I sometimes try to put this in the context of where I live.

I live on the Kāpiti Coast in the lower North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Geographically it is around the same size as Gaza. Both have coastlines running their full lengths. But, whereas the population of Gaza is a cramped two million, Kāpiti’s is a mere 56,000.

• READ MORE: Ian Powell: When apartheid met Zionism – the case for NZ recognising Palestine as a state
• Other Israel’s War on Gaza reports

I find it incomprehensible to visualise what it would be like if what is presently happening in Gaza occurred here.

The only similarities between them are coastlines and land mass. One is an outdoor prison while the other’s outdoors is peaceful.

New Zealand and Palestine state recognition
Currently Palestine has observer status at the United Nations General Assembly. In May last year, the Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of Palestine being granted full membership of the United Nations.

To its credit, New Zealand was among 143 countries that supported the resolution. Nine, including the United States as the strongest backer of Israeli genocide  outside Israel, voted against.

However, despite this massive majority, such is the undemocratic structure of the UN that it only requires US opposition in the Security Council to veto the democratic vote.

Notwithstanding New Zealand’s support for Palestine broadening its role in the General Assembly and its support for the two-state solution, the government does not officially recognise Palestine.

While its position on recognition is consistent with that of the genocide-supporting United States, it is inconsistent with the over 75 percent of UN member states who, in March 2025, recognised Palestine as a sovereign state (by 147 of the 193 member states).

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s government does have the opportunity to correct this obscenity as Palestine recognition will soon be voted on again by the General Assembly.

In this context it is helpful to put the Hamas-led attack on Israel in its full historical perspective and to consider the reasons justifying the Israeli genocide that followed.

7 October 2023 and genocide justification
The origin of the horrific genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the associated increased persecution, including killings, of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank (of the River Jordan) was not the attack by Hamas and several other militant Palestinian groups on 7 October 2023.

This attack was on a small Israeli town less than 2 km north of the border. An estimated 1,195 Israelis and visitors were killed.

The genocidal response of the Israeli government that followed this attack can only be justified by three factors:

1. The Judaism or ancient Jewishness of Palestine in Biblical times overrides the much larger Palestinian population in Mandate Palestine prior to formation of Israel in 1948;
2. The right of Israelis to self-determination overrides the right of Palestinians to self-determination; and
3. The value of Israeli lives overrides the value Palestinian lives.

The first factor is the key. The second and third factors are consequential. In order to better appreciate their context, it is first necessary to understand the Nakba.

Understanding the Nakba
Rather than the October 2023 attack, the origin of the subsequent genocide goes back more than 70 years to the collective trauma of Palestinians caused by what they call the Nakba (the Disaster).

The foundation year of the Nakba was in 1948, but this was a central feature of the ethnic cleansing that was kicked off between 1947 and 1949.

During this period  Zionist military forces attacked major Palestinian cities and destroyed some 530 villages. About 15,000 Palestinians were killed in a series of mass atrocities, including dozens of massacres.

During the Nakba in 1948, approximately half of Palestine’s predominantly Arab population, or around 750,000 people, were expelled from their homes or forced to flee. Initially this was  through Zionist paramilitaries.

After the establishment of the State of Israel in May this repression was picked up by its military. Massacres, biological warfare (by poisoning village wells) and either complete destruction or depopulation of Palestinian-majority towns, villages, and urban neighbourhoods (which were then given Hebrew names) followed

By the end of the Nakba, 78 percent of the total land area of the former Mandatory Palestine was controlled by Israel.

Genocide to speed up ethnic cleansing
Ethnic cleansing was unsuccessfully pursued, with the support of the United Kingdom and France, in the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. More successful was the Six Day War of 1967,  which included the military and political occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Throughout this period ethnic cleansing was not characterised by genocide. That is, it was not the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying them.

In fact, the acceptance of a two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) under the ill-fated Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 put a temporary constraint on the expansion of ethnic cleansing.

Since its creation in 1948, Israel, along with South Africa the same year (until 1994), has been an apartheid state.   I discussed this in an earlier Political Bytes post (15 March 2025), When apartheid met Zionism.

However, while sharing the racism, discrimination, brutal violence, repression and massacres inherent in apartheid, it was not characterised by genocide in South Africa; nor was it in Israel for most of its existence until the current escalation of ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

Following 7 October 2023, genocide has become the dominant tool in the ethnic cleansing tool kit. More recently this has included accelerating starvation and the bombing of tents of Gaza Palestinians.

The magnitude of this genocide is discussed further below.

The Biblical claim
Zionism is a movement that sought to establish a Jewish nation in Palestine. It was established as a political organisation as late as 1897. It was only some time after this that Zionism became the most influential ideology among Jews generally.

Despite its prevalence, however, there are many Jews who oppose Zionism and play leading roles in the international protests against the genocide in Gaza.

Based on Zionist ideology, the justification for replacing Mandate Palestine with the state of Israel rests on a Biblical argument for the right of Jews to retake their “homeland”. This justification goes back to the time of that charismatic carpenter and prophet Jesus Christ.

The population of Palestine in Jesus’ day was about 500,000 to 600,000 (a little bigger than both greater Wellington and similar to that of Jerusalem today). About 18,000 of these residents were clergy, priests and Levites (a distinct male group within Jewish communities).

Jerusalem itself in biblical times, with a population of 55,000, was a diverse city and pilgrimage centre. It was also home to numerous Diaspora Jewish communities.

In fact, during the 7th century BC at least eight nations were settled within Palestine. In addition to Judaeans, they included Arameans, Samaritans, Phoenicians and Philistines.

A breakdown based on religious faiths (Jews, Christians and Muslims) provides a useful insight into how Palestine has evolved since the time of Jesus. Jews were the majority until the 4th century AD.

By the fifth century they had been supplanted by Christians and then from the 12th century to 1947 Muslims were the largest group. As earlier as the 12th century Arabic had become the dominant language. It should be noted that many Christians were Arabs.

Adding to this evolving diversity of ethnicity is the fact that during this time Palestine had been ruled by four empires — Roman, Persian, Ottoman and British.

Prior to 1948 the population of the region known as Mandate Palestine approximately corresponded to the combined Israel and Palestine today. Throughout its history it has varied in both size and ethnic composition.

The Ottoman census of 1878 provides an indicative demographic profile of its three districts that approximated what became Mandatory Palestine after the end of World War 1.

In 1882, the Ottoman Empire revealed that the estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine represented just 0.3 percent of the world’s Jewish population.

The self-determination claim
Based on religion the estimated population of Palestine in 1922 was 78 percent Muslim, 11 percent Jewish, and 10 percent Christian.

By 1945 this composition had changed to 58 percent Muslim, 33 percent Jewish and 8 percent Christian. The reason for this shift was the success of the Zionist campaigning for Jews to migrate to Palestine which was accelerated by the Jewish holocaust.

By 15 May 1948, the total population of the state of Israel was 805,900, of which 649,600 (80.6 percent) were Jews with Palestinians being 156,000 (19.4 percent). This turnaround was primarily due to the devastating impact of the Nakba.

Today Israel’s population is over 9.5 million of which over 77 percent are Jewish and more than 20 percent are Palestinian. The latter’s absolute growth is attributable to Israel’s subsequent geographic expansion, particularly in 1967, and a higher birth rate.

The current population of the Palestinian Territories, including Gaza, is more than 5.5 million. Compare this with the following brief sample of much smaller self-determination countries —  Slovenia (2.2 million), Timor-Leste (1.4 million), and Tonga (104,000).

The population size of the Palestinian Territories is more than half that of Israel. Closer to home it is a little higher than New Zealand.

The only reason why Palestinians continue to be denied the right to self-determination is the Zionist ideological claim linked to the biblical time of Jesus Christ and its consequential strategy of ethnic cleansing.

If it was not for the opposition of the United States, then this right would not have been denied. It has been this opposition that has enabled Israel’s strategy.

Comparative value of Palestinian lives
The use of genocide as the latest means of achieving ethnic cleansing highlights how Palestinian lives are valued compared with Israeli lives.

While not of the same magnitude appropriated comparisons have been made with the horrific ethnic cleansing of Jews through the means of the holocaust by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Per capita the scale of the magnitude gap is reduced considerably.

Since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry (and confirmed by the World Health Organisation) more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed. Of those killed over 16,500 were children. Compare this with less than 2000 Israelis killed.

Further, at least 310 UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) team members have been killed along with over 200 journalists and media workers. Add to this around 1400 healthcare workers including doctors and nurses.

What also can’t be forgotten is the increasing Israeli ethnic cleansing on the occupied West Bank. Around 950 Palestinians, including around 200 children, have also been killed during this same period.

Time for New Zealand to recognise Palestine
The above discussion is in the context of the three justifications for supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians strategy that goes back to 1948 and which, since October 2023, is being accelerated by genocide.

• First, it requires the conviction that the theology of Judaism in Palestine in the biblical times following the birth of Jesus Christ trumps both the significantly changing demography from the 5th century at least to the mid-20th century and the numerical predominance of Arabs in Mandate Palestine;
• Second, and consequentially, it requires the conviction that while Israelis are entitled to self-determination, Palestinians are not; and
• Finally, it requires that Israeli lives are much more valuable than Palestinian lives. In fact, the latter have no value at all.

Unless the government, including Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, shares these convictions (especially the “here and now” second and third) then it should do the right thing first by unequivocally saying so, and then by recognising the right of Palestine to be an independent state.

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

West Papuans in Merauke claim the Indonesian government is stealing land to build its global “food barn” and feed its population of 280 million.

Indonesia denies this and says all transactions are lawful.

President Prabowo Subianto’s administration wants Indonesia to be able to feed its population without imports as early as 2028, with the greater goal of exporting food.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

To get there, Indonesia plans to convert millions of hectares into farmland.

Wensi Fatubun, from Merauke in Indonesian-occupied Papua close to Papua New Guinea’s border, said forests where he grew up were being cleared.

“[The] Indonesian government took the land for the [food] security project, it was not consulted with or consented to by Indigenous Papuans,” Fatubun said.

Prabowo’s goal is a continuation of his predecessors.

National food estate project
In 2020, President Joko Widodo announced the establishment of a national food estate project which aimed at opening up new areas of farmland outside the Java main island,

It is similar to the failed Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate, spearheaded by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2010.

About 1.3 million hectares were set aside in Merauke for it — half for food crops, 30 percent sugar cane, and 20 percent for palm.

A report from the US Department of Agriculture said it encountered resistance from locals and legal challenges.

“Approximately 90 percent of the targeted areas were forest, which provided a source of livelihood for many locals. Accordingly, the development plans became a flashpoint for local activists concerned about environmental and biodiversity impacts,” the report said.

Probowo’s government has a more ambitious goal of opening up 3 million ha of agricultural land in Merauke — two million for rice and one million for sugarcane.

Human Rights Watch Indonesia researcher Andreas Harsono said President Prabowo had elevated the “so-called food security issue”.

“[The President] wants Merauke in West Papua to be the so-called national food barn. This deforestation land grabbing is much more deeper in Merauke than in the past.”

Conflict has escalated
Harsono said conflict had escalated in West Papua and was now on par with some of the most violent periods in the past 60 years, but he was not sure if it was connected to the President’s focus on food security.

BenarNews reported that about 2000 troops had been deployed late last year in Merauke to provide security at a 2 million ha food plantation.

Rosa Moiwend, from Merauke, said the soldiers worked alongside farmers.

“They are expected to teach local farmers how to use mechanical agriculture equipment,” Moiwend said.

“But as West Papuan people, the presence of the military in the middle of the community, watching communities activities, people’s movement when they travel from one place to another, actually creates fear among the people in Merauke.”

Like Harsono and Fatubun, Moiwend said “land grabs” were happening.

However, she said it still involved a land broker, which created a facade of a fair procedure.

‘We do not sell land’
“Indigenous Merauke, indigenous Marind people like myself and my people, we do not sell land because land belongs to the community. It is communal land.”

However, a spokesperson for Indonesia’s Embassy in Wellington said all processes and steps involving land sales had been lawful, “always respecting the inclinations of local tribes”.

“Its development always involving local authorities, especially chief tribes for the consent of their ulayat (traditional land),” they said.

“There is no land grab without consent, and the government also working on the biodiversity conservation and forestry production to create space harmonisation model with Conservation International, Medco Group, and couple of other independent organisations.”

‘They are stripping communities’ – campaigner
West Papua Action Aotearoa spokesperson Catherine Delahunty, formerly a Green Party MP, said the region was part of the lungs of the Pacific, which was now being destroyed.

“The plan has been around for a long time but it seems to have escalated under Prabowo,” Delahunty said.

“They are stripping those lands and stripping those communities who live there from their traditional foods such as the sago palm to turn the whole of Merauke into sugar cane, rice and palm plantations.

“The effects have been massive and they’re just getting worse.”

She said New Zealand and Australia — the two “most powerful” governments in the South Pacific — were failing in their obligations to the citizens of West Papua.

“You could almost justify, because it’s a long way away from other parts of the world, that Europe and the northern hemisphere don’t really understand West Papua but there’s no excuse for us.

“These people are in our region but they’re not white people. I think there’s a huge element of racism towards Papuans and towards Pacific nations who aren’t perceived as important in the Western worldview.”

She said there was willingness to trade with Indonesia as a regional powerhouse, and New Zealand did not want to rock the boat.

That coupled with a media blackout made it easy for Indonesia to act with impunity, Delahunty said.

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

On April 24, 2025, Indonesia made a masterful geopolitical move. Jakarta granted Fiji US$6 million in financial aid and offered to cooperate with them on military training — a seemingly benign act of diplomacy that conceals a darker purpose.

This strategic manoeuvre is the latest in Indonesia’s efforts to neutralise Pacific support for the independence movement in West Papua.

“There’s no need to be burdened by debt,” declared Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka during the bilateral meeting at Jakarta’s Merdeka Palace.

• READ MORE: Indonesia gifts $12 million grant to Fiji
• Indonesia: Racism, discrimination against indigenous Papuans
• Russia-Indonesia: 75 years of cooperation in international affairs
• Other West Papua reports

More significantly, he pledged Fiji’s respect for Indonesian sovereignty — diplomatic code for abandoning West Papua’s struggle for self-determination.

This aligns perfectly with Indonesia’s Law No. 2 of 2023, which established frameworks for defence cooperation, including joint research, technology transfer, and military education, between the two nations.

This is not merely a partnership — it is ideological assimilation.

Indonesia’s financial generosity comes with unwritten expectations. By integrating Fijian forces into Indonesian military training programmes, Jakarta aims to export its “anti-separatist” doctrine, which frames Papuan resistance as a “criminal insurgency” rather than legitimate political expression.

The US $6 million is not aid — it’s a strategic investment in regional complicity.

Geopolitical chess in a fractured world
Indonesia’s manoeuvres must be understood in the context of escalating global tensions.

The rivalry between the US and China has transformed the Indo-Pacific into a strategic battleground, leaving Pacific Island nations caught between competing spheres of influence.

Although Jakarta is officially “non-aligned,” it is playing both sides to secure its territorial ambitions.

Its aid to Fiji is one move in a comprehensive regional strategy to diplomatically isolate West Papua.

While the world focuses on superpower competition, Indonesia is quietly strengthening its position on what it considers an internal matter — effectively removing West Papua from international discourse.

The Russian connection: Shadow alliances
Another significant yet less examined relationship is Indonesia’s growing partnership with Russia, particularly in defence technology, intelligence sharing, and energy cooperation

This relationship provides Jakarta with advanced military capabilities and reduces its dependence on Western powers and China.

Russia’s unwavering support for territorial integrity, as evidenced by its position on Crimea and Ukraine, makes it an ideal partner for Indonesia’s West Papua policy.

Moscow’s diplomatic support strengthens Jakarta’s argument that “separatist” movements are internal security issues rather than legitimate independence struggles.

This strategic triangulation — balancing relations with Washington, Beijing, and Moscow– allows Indonesia to pursue regional dominance with minimal international backlash. Each superpower, focused on countering the others’ influence, overlooks Indonesia’s systematic suppression of Papuan self-determination.

Institutionalising silence: Beyond diplomacy
The practical consequence of Indonesia’s multidimensional strategy is the diplomatic isolation of West Papua. Historically positioned to advocate for Melanesian solidarity, Fiji now faces economic incentives to remain silent on Indonesian human rights abuses.

A similar pattern emerges across the Pacific as Jakarta extends these types of arrangements to other regional players.

It is not just about temporary diplomatic alignment; it is about the structural transformation of regional politics.

When Pacific nations integrate their security apparatuses with Indonesia’s, they inevitably adopt Jakarta’s security narratives. Resistance movements are labelled “terrorist threats,” independence advocates are branded “destabilising elements,” and human rights concerns are dismissed as “foreign interference”.

Most alarmingly, military cooperation provides Indonesia with channels to export its counterinsurgency techniques, which are frequently criticised by human rights organisations for their brutality.

Security forces in the Pacific trained in these approaches may eventually use them against their own Papuan advocacy groups.

The price of strategic loyalty
For just US$6 million — a fraction of Indonesia’s defence budget — Jakarta purchases Fiji’s diplomatic loyalty, military alignment, and ideological compliance. This transaction exemplifies how economic incentives increasingly override moral considerations such as human rights, indigenous sovereignty, and decolonisation principles that once defined Pacific regionalism.

Indonesia’s approach represents a sophisticated evolution in its foreign policy. No longer defensive about West Papua, Jakarta is now aggressively consolidating regional support, methodically closing avenues for international intervention, and systematically delegitimising Papuan voices on the global stage.

Will the Pacific remember its soul?
The path ahead for West Papua is becoming increasingly treacherous. Beyond domestic repression, the movement now faces waning international support as economic pragmatism supplants moral principle throughout the Pacific region.

Unless Pacific nations reconnect with their anti-colonial heritage and the values that secured their independence, West Papua’s struggle risks fading into obscurity, overwhelmed by geopolitical calculations and economic incentives.

The question facing the Pacific region is not simply about West Papua, but about regional identity itself. Will Pacific nations remain true to their foundational values of indigenous solidarity and decolonisation? Or will they sacrifice these principles on the altar of transactional diplomacy?

The date April 24, 2025, may one day be remembered not only as the day Indonesia gave Fiji US$6 million but also as the day the Pacific began trading its moral authority for economic expediency, abandoning West Papua to perpetual colonisation in exchange for short-term gains.

The Pacific is at a crossroads — it can either reclaim its voice or resign itself to becoming a theatre where greater powers dictate the fate of indigenous peoples. For West Papua, everything depends on which path is chosen.

Ali Mirin is a West Papuan from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands that share a border with the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He graduated with a Master of Arts in international relations from Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

ANALYSIS: By Ilan Pappé

Responses in the Western world to the genocide in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank raise a troubling question: why is the official West, and official Western Europe in particular, so indifferent to Palestinian suffering?

Why is the Democratic Party in the US complicit, directly and indirectly, in sustaining the daily inhumanity in Palestine — a complicity so visible that it probably was one reason they lost the election, as the Arab American and progressive vote in key states could, and justifiably so, not forgive the Biden administration for its part in the genocide in the Gaza Strip?

This is a pertinent question, given that we are dealing with a televised genocide that has now been renewed on the ground. It is different from previous periods in which Western indifference and complicity were displayed, either during the Nakba or the long years of occupation since 1967.

• READ MORE: Israel releases Gaza paramedic who survived deadly attack on health workers
• Other Israeli war on Palestine reports

During the Nakba and up to 1967, it was not easy to get hold of information, and the oppression after 1967 was mostly incremental, and, as such, was ignored by the Western media and politics, which refused to acknowledge its cumulative effect on the Palestinians.

But these last 18 months are very different. Ignoring the genocide in the Gaza Strip and the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank can only be described as intentional and not due to ignorance.

Both the Israelis’ actions and the discourse that accompanies them are too visible to be ignored, unless politicians, academics, and journalists choose to do so.

This kind of ignorance is, first and foremost, the result of successful Israeli lobbying that thrived on the fertile ground of an European guilt complex, racism and Islamophobia. In the case of the US, it is also the outcome of many years of an effective and ruthless lobbying machine that very few in academia, media, and, in particular, politics, dare to disobey.

The moral panic phenomenon
This phenomenon is known in recent scholarship as moral panic, very characteristic of the more conscientious sections of Western societies: intellectuals, journalists, and artists.

Moral panic is a situation in which a person is afraid of adhering to his or her own moral convictions because this would demand some courage that might have consequences. We are not always tested in situations that require courage, or at least integrity. When it does happen, it is in situations where morality is not an abstract idea, but a call for action.

This is why so many Germans were silent when Jews were sent to extermination camps, and this is why white Americans stood by when African Americans were lynched or, earlier on, enslaved and abused.

What is the price that leading Western journalists, veteran politicians, tenured professors, or chief executives of well-known companies would have to pay if they were to blame Israel for committing a genocide in the Gaza Strip?

It seems they are worried about two possible outcomes. The first is being condemned as antisemites or Holocaust deniers. Secondly, they fear an honest response would trigger a discussion that would include the complicity of their country, or Europe, or the West in general, in enabling the genocide and all the criminal policies against the Palestinians that preceded it.

This moral panic leads to some astonishing phenomena. In general, it transforms educated, highly articulate and knowledgeable people into total imbeciles when they talk about Palestine.

It disallows the more perceptive and thoughtful members of the security services from examining Israeli demands to include all Palestinian resistance on a terrorist list, and it dehumanises Palestinian victims in the mainstream media.

On ‘Moral Panic’ and the Courage to Speak – Professor Ilan Pappé examines how fear of professional consequences silences Western voices in the face of genocide in Gaza — and what this reveals about power, complicity, and moral responsibility.

Don’t miss this exclusive article.… pic.twitter.com/bnYHYVNckM

— The Palestine Chronicle (@PalestineChron) April 18, 2025

Lack of compassion
The lack of compassion and basic solidarity with the victims of genocide was exposed by the double standards shown by mainstream media in the West, and, in particular, by the more established newspapers in the US, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

When the editor of The Palestine Chronicle, Dr Ramzy Baroud, lost 56 members of his family — killed by the Israeli genocidal campaign in the Gaza Strip — not one of his colleagues in American journalism bothered to talk to him or show any interest in hearing about this atrocity.

On the other hand, a fabricated Israeli allegation of a connection between the Chronicle and a family, in whose block of flats hostages were held, triggered huge interest by these outlets.

This imbalance in humanity and solidarity is just one example of the distortions that accompanies moral panic. I have little doubt that the actions against Palestinian or pro-Palestinian students in the US, or against known activists in Britain and France, as well as the arrest of the editor of the Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah, in Switzerland, are all manifestations of this distorted moral behaviour.

A similar case unfolded just recently in Australia. Mary Kostakidis, a famous Australian journalist and former prime-time weeknight SBS World News Australia presenter, has been taken to the federal court over her — one should say quite tame — reporting on the situation in the Gaza Strip.

The very fact that the court has not dismissed this allegation upon its arrival shows you how deeply rooted moral panic is in the Global North.

But there is another side to it. Thankfully, there is a much larger group of people who are not afraid of taking the risks involved in clearly stating their support for the Palestinians, and who do show this solidarity while knowing it may lead to suspension, deportation, or even jail time. They are not easily found among the mainstream academia, media, or politics, but they are the authentic voice of their societies in many parts of the Western world.

The Palestinians do not have the luxury of allowing Western moral panic to have its say or impact. Not caving in to this panic is one small but important step in building a global Palestine network that is urgently needed — firstly, to stop the destruction of Palestine and its people, and second, to create the conditions for a decolonised and liberated Palestine in the future.

Dr Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian, political scientist, and former politician. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies. This article is republished from The Palestine Chronicle, 19 April 2025.

French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls, who is visiting New Caledonia this week for the third time in two months, has once again called on all parties to live up to their responsibilities in order to make a new political agreement possible.

Failing that, he said a potential civil war was looming.

“We’ll take our responsibilities, on our part, and we will put on the table a project that touches New Caledonia’s society, economic recovery, including nickel, and the future of the younger generation,” he told a panel of French journalists on Sunday.

• READ MORE: Leaked ‘working paper’ on New Caledonia’s political future sparks new concerns
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

He said that he hoped a revised version on a draft document — resulting from his previous visits in the French Pacific territory and new proposals from the French government — there existed a “difficult path” to possibly reconcile radically opposing views expressed so far from the pro-independence parties in New Caledonia and those who want the territory to remain part of France.

The target remains an agreement that would accommodate both “the right and aspiration to self-determination” and “the link with France”.

“If there is no agreement, then economic and political uncertainty can lead to a new disaster, to confrontation and to civil war,” he told reporters.

“That is why I have appealed several times to all political stakeholders, those for and against independence,” he warned.

“Everyone must take a step towards each other. An agreement is indispensable.”

Valls said this week he hoped everyone would “enter a real negotiations phase”.

He said one of the ways to achieve this will be to find “innovative” solutions and “a new way of looking at the future”.

This also included relevant amendments to the French Constitution.

Local parties will not sign any agreement ‘at all costs’
Local parties are not so enthusiastic.

In fact, each camp remains on their guard, in an atmosphere of defiance.

And on both sides, they agree at least on one thing — they will not sign any agreement “at all costs”.

Just like has been the case since talks between Valls and local parties began earlier this year, the two main opposing camps remain adamant on their respective pre-conditions and sometimes demands.

The pro-independence Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS), largely dominated by the Union Calédonienne, held a convention at the weekend to decide on whether they would attend this week’s new round of talks with Valls.

They eventually resolved that they would attend, but have not yet decided to call this “negotiations”, only “discussions”.

They said another decision would be made this Thursday, May 1, after they had examined Valls’s new proposals and documents which the French minister is expected to circulate as soon as he hosts the first meeting tomorrow.

FLNKS reaffirms ‘Kanaky Agreement’ demand
During their weekend convention, the FLNKS reaffirmed their demands for a “Kanaky Agreement” to be signed not later than 24 September 2025, to be followed by a five-year transition period.

The official line was to “maintain the trajectory” to full sovereignty, including in terms of schedule.

On the pro-France side, the main pillar of their stance is the fact that three self-determination referendums have been held between 2018 and 2021, even though the third and last consultation was largely boycotted by the pro-independence camp.

All three referendums resulted in votes rejecting full sovereignty.

One of their most outspoken leaders, Les Loyalistes party and Southern Province President Sonia Backès, told a public rally last week that they had refused another date for yet another referendum.

“A new referendum would mean civil war. And we don’t want to fix the date for civil war. So we don’t want to fix the date for a new referendum,” she said.

However, Backès said they “still want to believe in an agreement”.

“We’re part of all discussions on seeking solutions in a constructive and creative spirit.”

Granting more provincial powers
One of their other proposals was to grant more powers to each of the three provinces of New Caledonia, including on tax collection matters.

“We don’t want differences along ethnic lines. We want the provinces to have more powers so that each of them is responsible for their respective society models.”

Under a draft text leaked last week, any new referendum could only be called by at least three-fifths of the Congress and would no longer pose a “binary” question on yes or no to independence, but would consider endorsing a “project” for New Caledonia’s future society.

Another prominent pro-France leader, MP Nicolas Metzdorf, repeated this weekend he and his supporters “remain mobilised to defend New Caledonia within France”.

“We will not budge,” Metzdorf said.

Despite Valls’s warnings, another scenario could be that New Caledonia’s political stakeholders find it more appealing or convenient to agree on no agreement at all, especially as New Caledonia’s crucial provincial elections are in the pipeline and scheduled for no later than November 30.

Concerns about security
But during the same interview, Valls repeated that he remained concerned that the situation on the ground remained “serious”.

“We are walking on a tightrope above embers”.

He said top of his concerns were New Caledonia’s economic and financial situation, the tense atmosphere, a resurgence in “racism, hatred” as well as a fast-deteriorating public health services situation or the rise in poverty caused by an increasing number of jobless.

“So yes, all these risks are there, and that is why it is everyone’s responsibility to find an agreement. And I will stay as long as needed and I will put all my energy so that an agreement takes place.

“Not for me, for them.”

Valls also recalled that since the riots broke out in May 2024, almost one year ago, French security and law enforcement agencies are still maintaining about 20 squads of French gendarmes (1500 personnel) in the territory.

This is on top of the normal deployment of 550 gendarmes and 680 police officers.

Valls said this was necessary because “any time, it could flare up again”.

Outgoing French High Commissioner Louis Le Franc said in an interview recently that in case of a “new May 13” situation, the pre-positioned forces could ensure law enforcement “for three or four days . . . until reinforcements arrive”.

If fresh violence erupts again, reinforcements could be sent again from mainland France and bring the total number to up to 6000 law enforcement personnel, a number similar to the level deployed in 2024 in the weeks following the riots that killed 14 and caused some 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4.2 billion) in damage.

Carefully chosen words
Valls said earlier in April the main pillars of future negotiations were articulated around the themes of:

• “democracy and the rule of law”;
• a “decolonisation process”;
• the right to self-determination;
• a “fundamental law” that would seal New Caledonia’s future status;
• the powers of New Caledonia’s three provinces; and a future New Caledonia citizenship with the associated definition of who meets the requirements to vote at local elections.

Valls has already travelled to Nouméa twice this year — in February and March.

Since his last visit that ended on April 1, discussions have been maintained in conference mode between local political stakeholders and Valls, and his cabinet, as well as French Prime Minister François Bayrou’s special advisor on New Caledonia, constitutionalist Eric Thiers.

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

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

The first demonstration I ever went on was at the age of 12, against the Vietnam War.

The first formal history lesson I received was a few months later when I commenced high school. That day the old history master, Mr Griffiths, chalked what I later learnt was a quote from Hegel:

“The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn the lessons of history.” It’s about time we changed that.

• READ MORE: ‘I sent them a good boy and they made him a murderer’ — The My Lai massacre
• The fall of Saigon 1975: Part two: The Quiet mutiny and the US army falls apart

Painful though it is, let’s have the courage to remember what they desperately try to make us forget.

Cultural amnesia and learning the lessons of history
Memorialising events is a popular pastime with politicians, journalists and old soldiers.

Nothing wrong with that. Honouring sacrifice, preserving collective memory and encouraging reconciliation are all valid. Recalling the liberation of Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) on 30 April 1975 is important.

What is criminal, however, is that we failed to learn the vital lessons that the US defeat in Vietnam should have taught us all. Sadly much was forgotten and the succeeding half century has witnessed a carnival of slaughter perpetrated by the Western world on hapless South Americans, Africans, Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, and many more.

It’s time to remember.

Memory shapes national identity
As scholars say: Memory shapes national identity. If your cultural products — books, movies, songs, curricula and the like — fail to embed an appreciation of the war crimes, racism, and imperial culpability for events like the Vietnam War, then, as we have proven, it can all be done again. How many recognise today that Vietnam was an American imperial war in Asia, that “fighting communism” was a pretext that lost all credibility, partly thanks to television and especially thanks to heroic journalists like John Pilger and Seymour Hersh?

Just as in Gaza today, the truth and the crimes could not be hidden anymore.

If a culture doesn’t face up to its past crimes — say the treatment of the Aborigines by settler Australia, of Māori by settler New Zealand, of Palestinians by the Zionist state since 1948, or the various genocides perpetrated by the US government on the indigenous peoples of what became the 50 states, then it leads ultimately to moral decay and repetition.

Lest we forget. Forget what?
Is there a collective memory in the West that the Americans and their allies raped thousands of Vietnamese women, killed hundreds of thousands of children, were involved in countless large scale war crimes, summary executions and other depravities in order to impose their will on a people in their own country?

Why has there been no collective responsibility for the death of over two million Vietnamese? Why no reparations for America’s vast use of chemical weapons on Vietnam, some provided by New Zealand?

Vietnam Veterans Against War released a report “50 years of struggle” in 2017 which included this commendable statement: “To VVAW and its supporters, the veterans had a continuing duty to report what they had witnessed”. This included the frequency of “beatings, rapes, cutting body parts, violent torture during interrogations and cutting off heads”.

The US spends billions projecting itself as morally superior but people who followed events at the time, including brilliant journalists like Pilger, knew something beyond sordid was happening within the US military.

The importance of remembering the My Lai Massacre
While cultural memes like “Me Love You Long Time” played to an exoticised and sexualised image of Vietnamese women — popular in American-centric movies like Full Metal Jacket, Green Beret, Rambo, Apocalypse Now, as was the image of the Vietnamese as sadistic torturers, there has been a long-term attempt to expunge from memory the true story of American depravity.

All, or virtually all, armies rape their victims. The US Army is no exception — despite rhetorically jockeying with the Israelis for the title of “the world’s most moral army”. The most famous such incident of the Vietnam War was the My Lai Massacre of 16 March 1968 in which about 500 civilians were subjected to hours of rapes, mutilation and eventual murder by soldiers of the US 20th Infantry Regiment.

Rape victims ranged from girls of 10 years through to old women. The US soldiers even took a lunch break before recommencing their crimes.

The official commission of inquiry, culminating in the Peers Report found that an extensive network of officers had taken part in a cover-up of what were large-scale war crimes. Only one soldier, Lieutenant Calley, was ever sentenced to jail but within days he was, on the orders of the US President, transferred to a casually-enforced three and half years of house arrest. By this act, the United States of America continued a pattern of providing impunity for grave war crimes. That pattern continues to this day.

The failure of the US Army to fully pursue the criminals will be an eternal stain on the US Army whose soldiers went on to commit countless rapes, hundreds of thousands of murders and other crimes across the globe in the succeeding five decades. If you resile from these facts, you simply haven’t read enough official information.

Thank goodness for journalists, particularly Seymour Hersh, who broke rank and exposed the truth of what happened at My Lai.

Senator John McCain’s “sacrifice” and the crimes that went unpunished
Thousands of Viet Cong died in US custody, many from torture, many by summary execution but the Western cultural image of Vietnam focuses on the cruelty of the North Vietnamese toward “victims” like terror-bomber John McCain.

The future US presidential candidate was on his 23rd bombing mission, part of a campaign of “War by Tantrum” in the words of a New York Times writer, when he was shot down over Hanoi.

Also emblematic of this state-inflicted terrorism was the CIA’s Phoenix Programme, eventually shut down after public outrage and hearings by the US Congress into its misdeeds. According to US journalist Douglas Valentine, author of several books on the CIA, including The Phoenix Program:

“Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers”.

Common practices, Valentine says, quoting US witnesses and official papers, included:

“Rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electrical shock (“the Bell Telephone Hour”) rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; “the water treatment”; “the airplane,” in which a prisoner’s arms were tied behind the back and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair.”

No US serviceman, CIA agent or other official was held to account for these crimes.

Tiger Force — part of the US 327th Infantry — gained a grisly reputation for indiscriminately mowing down civilians, mutilations (cutting off of ears which were retained as souvenirs was common practice, according to sworn statements by participants). All this was supposed to be kept secret but was leaked in 2003.

“Their crimes were uncountable, their madness beyond imagination — so much so that for almost four decades, the story of Tiger Force was covered up under orders that stretched all the way to the White House,” journalists Michael Sallah and Mitch Weiss reported.

Their crimes, secretly documented by the US military, included beheading a baby to intimidate villagers into providing information — interesting given how much mileage the US and Israel made of fake stories about beheaded babies on 7 October 2023. The US went to great lengths to hide these ugly truths — and no one ever faced real consequences.

Helicopter gunships and soldiers at checkpoints gunned down thousands of Vietnamese civilians, including women and children, much as US forces did at checkpoints in Iraq, according to leaked US documents following the illegal invasion of that country.

The worst cowards and criminals were not the rapists and murderers themselves but the high-ranking politicians and military leaders who tried desperately to cover up these and hundreds of other incidents. As Lieutenant Calley himself said of My Lai: “It’s not an isolated incident.”

Here we are 50 years later in the midst of the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza, with the US fuelling war and bombing people across the globe. Isn’t it time we stopped supporting this madness?

Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and is republished here with permission.

“Wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.” These were the words from New Zealand’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow.

During a meeting with Philippa Yasbek from Jewish Voices for Peace, Dr Rainbow allegedly told her that information from the NZ Security Intelligence Services (NZSIS) threat assessment asserted that Muslims were the biggest threat to the Jewish community. More so than white supremacists.

But the NZSIS has not identified Muslims as the greatest threat to national security.

• READ MORE:  Stoush breaks out between NZ Human Rights Commissioner and Jewish leader at Parliament
• Baptist Church condemns ‘appalling’ Israeli Palm Sunday attack on hospital
• New chief Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Rainbow’s pro-Israel Facebook posts, ‘transphobia’ accusations
• Other articles by Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab at Asia Pacific Report

In the 2023 threat environment report, NZSIS stated that it: “Does not single out any community as a threat to our country, and to do so would be a misinterpretation of the analysis.

“White Identity-Motivated Violent Extremism (W-IMVE) continues to be the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Young people becoming involved in W-IMVE is a growing trend.”

Religiously motivated violent extremism (RMVE) did not come from the Muslim community, as Dr Rainbow has also misrepresented.

The more recent 2024 NZSIS report stated: “White identity-motivated violent extremism (W-IMVE) remains the dominant IMVE ideology in New Zealand. Terrorist attack-related material and propaganda, including the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto and livestream footage, continue to be shared among IMVE adherents in New Zealand and abroad.”

To implicate Muslims as being the greatest threat may highlight Dr Rainbow’s own biases, racist beliefs, and political agenda. These false narratives, that have recently been strongly pushed by the US and Israel, undermine social cohesion and lead to a rise in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism.

It is also deeply troubling that he has framed Muslim and Arab communities as potential sources of violent extremism while failing to acknowledge the very real and documented threats they have faced in Aotearoa.

The Christchurch Mosque attacks — the most horrific act of mass violence in New Zealand’s modern history — were perpetrated not by Muslims, but against them, by an individual radicalised by white supremacist ideology.

Since that tragedy, there have been multiple threats made against mosques, Arab New Zealanders, and Palestinian communities, many of which have received insufficient public attention or institutional response.

For a Human Rights Commissioner to overlook this context and effectively invert the victim-aggressor dynamic is not only factually inaccurate, but it also risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes and undermining the safety and dignity of communities who are already vulnerable.

Such narratives are inconsistent with the Human Rights Commission’s mandate to protect all people in New Zealand from discrimination and hate.

The dehumanisation of Muslims and Palestinians
As part of Israel’s propaganda, anti-Muslim and Palestinian tropes are used to justify violence against Palestinians by framing us as barbaric, aggressive, and as a threat. We are dehumanised in order to normalise the harm they inflict on our communities which includes genocide, land theft, ethnic cleansing, apartheid policies, dispossession, and occupation.

In October 2023, Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, described Palestinians as “horrible, inhuman animals” and was perplexed with the growing global concern for us.

That same month Yoav Gallant, then Israeli Defence Minister, referred to Palestinians as “human animals” when he announced Israel’s illegal and horrific siege on Gaza that included blocking water, food, medicine, and shelter to an entire population, the majority of which are children.

In making his own remarks about the Muslim community being a “threat” in New Zealand as a collective group, and labelling Palestinians being “barbaric”, Dr Stephen Rainbow has shattered the credibility of the Human Rights Commission. He has made it very clear that he is not impartial nor is he representing and protecting all communities.

Instead, Dr Rainbow is exacerbating divisions within society. This is a worrying trend that we are witnessing around the world; the de-humanising of groups to serve political agendas, retain power, or seek public support for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Dr Rainbow’s appointment also points a spotlight onto this government’s commitment to neutrality and inclusiveness in its human rights policies. Allowing a high-ranking official to make discriminatory remarks undermines New Zealand’s commitment to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A high-ranking official should not be allowed to engage in Islamic and Palestinian racist rhetoric without consequence. The public should be questioning the morals, principles, and inclusivity of those currently in power. Our trust is being eroded.

Dr Stephen Rainbow’s comments can also be seen as a breach of human rights principles, as he is supposed to uphold equality and non-discrimination. Yet his beliefs seem to be peppered with racism, often falsely based on religion, ethnicity, and race.

Foreign influence in New Zealand
This incident also shines accountability and concerns for foreign influence and propaganda seeping into New Zealand. The Israel Institute of New Zealand (IINZ) has published articles that some perceive as dehumanising toward Palestinians.

In one article written by Dr Rainbow titled “With every chant Israel’s case grows stronger”, he says:

“The Left has found a new underdog to replace the Jews — the Palestinians — in spite of the fact that the treatment of gay people, women, and political opponents wherever Palestinians have control is barbaric.”

By publicising these comments, The Israel Institute of New Zealand signalled its support of these offensive and racist serotypes. Such statements risk reinforcing a narrative that portrays Palestinians as inherently violent, uncivilised, and unworthy of basic rights and dignity.

This kind of rhetoric contributes to what many describe as anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism, and it warrants public scrutiny, especially when shared by organisations involved in shaping public discourse.

Importantly, the NZSIS 2024 threat report stated that “Inflammatory and violent language online can target anyone, although most appears directed towards those from already marginalised minority communities, or those affected by globally significant conflicts or events, such as the Israel-Gaza conflict.”

Other statements and reposts published online by the IINZ on their X account include:

“Muslims are getting killed, is Israel involved? No. How many casualties? Under 100,00, who cares? Why is this even on the news? Over 100,000. Oh, that’s too bad, what’s for dinner?” (12 February 2024)

“Fact. Gaza isn’t ‘ancestral Palestinian land’. We’ve been here long before them, and we’ll still be here long after the latest propaganda campaign.” (12 February 2024)

Palestinian society was also described as being “a violent, terror-supporting, Jew-hating society with genocidal aspirations.” (16 February 2025)

The “estimate of Hamas casualties, the civilian-to-combat death ratio could be as low as 1:1. This could be historically low for urban warfare.” (21 February 2025)

“There has never been a country called Palestine.” (25 February 2025)

Even showing a picture of Gaza before Israel’s bombing campaign with a caption saying, “Open air prison”. Next to it a picture of a completely destroyed Gaza with a caption that says “Victory.” (23 February 2025)

“Palestinian society in Gaza is in my eyes little more than a death loving cult of murderers and criminals of the lowest kind.” (28 February 2025)

Anti-Palestinian bias and racism
Portraying Muslims and Palestinians as a threat and extremist reflects both Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian bias and potential racism. These statements risk dehumanising Palestinians and are typical of the settler colonial narrative used to erase indigenous populations by denying our history, identity and legal claim.

The IINZ has published content that many see as mocking the deaths of Palestinian Muslims and Christians, which is not only ethically questionable but can be seen as a complete lack of empathy.

And posting the horrific images of a completely destroyed Gaza, appears to revel in the suffering of others and contradicts basic ethical norms, such as decency and compassion.

There also appears to be a common theme among pro-Israeli organisations, not just the IINZ, that cast negative connotations on our national symbols including our Palestinian flag and keffiyeh.

In an article on the IINZ webpage, titled “A justified war”, they write “chorus of protesters wearing keffiyehs, waving their Palestinian and terrorist flags, and shouting about Israel’s alleged war crimes.”

It seemingly places the Palestinian flag — an internationally recognised national symbol– alongside so-called “terrorist flags,” suggesting an equivalence between Palestinian identity and terrorism. Many view this language as dehumanising and inflammatory, erasing the legitimate national and cultural characteristics of Palestinians and feeding into harmful stereotypes.

The Palestinian flag represents a people, their identity, and national aspirations.

There is nothing wrong with our keffiyeh, it is part of our national dress. The negative connotations of Palestinian cultural symbols have to stop, including vilifying other MPs or supporters who wear it in solidarity.

This is happening all too often in New Zealand and must be called out and addressed. Our keffiyeh is not just a scarf — it is a symbol of our Palestinian identity, our resistance, and our rich, historic and deeply rooted cultural heritage.

Pro-Israeli groups attack it because they aim to delegitimise Palestinian identity and resistance by associating it with violence, terrorism, or extremism.

In 2024, ISESCO and UNESCO both recognised the keffiyeh as an essential part of their Intangible Cultural Heritage lists as a way of safeguarding Palestinian cultural heritage and reinforcing its historical and symbolic importance.

As a safeguarded cultural artifact, much like indigenous dress and other traditional attire, attempts to ban or demonize it are acts of cultural erasure and need to be called out as such and dealt with accordingly.

In the same IINZ article titled “A Justified War”, the authors present arguments that appear to defend Israel’s military actions in Gaza, including the targeting of civilians.

Many within the community (most of us have been affected), including survivors and those with direct ties to the region, have found the article deeply distressing and feel that it lacks compassion for the victims of the ongoing violence, and the framing and tone of the piece have raised serious ethical concerns, especially as some statements are factually incorrect.

The New Zealand Palestinian communities affected by this unimaginable genocide are suffering. Our family members are being killed and are at threat daily from Israel’s aggression and illegal war.

Unfortunately, much rhetoric from this organisation aligns with Israeli state narratives and includes statements that some view as racist or immoral, warranting further scrutiny from the government.

There is growing public concern over the association of Human Rights Commissioner Dr Stephen Rainbow with the IINZ, which promotes itself as a research and advocacy body.

A Human Rights Commissioner requires neutrality and a commitment to protecting all communities from discrimination; aligning with Israel and publishing harmful rhetoric may lead to bias in policy decisions and discrimination.

It is also important to remember that we are not a monolithic group. Christian Palestinians exist (I am one) as well as Muslim and historically Jewish Palestinians. Christian communities have lived in Palestine for two thousand years.

This is also not a religious conflict, as many pro-Israeli groups wish the world to believe, and it is not complex. It is one of colonialism, dispossession, and human rights. A history that New Zealand is all too familiar with.

The need for accountability
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s inaction and disrespectful response, claiming that a staunchly pro-Israeli supporter can be impartial and will be “very careful” from now on, hints that he may also support some forms of racism, in this case against Muslims and Palestinians.

You cannot address only some groups who are discriminated against but then ignore others, or accept excuses for racist, intolerable actions or statements. This is not justice.

This is the application of selective principles, enforced and underpinned by political agendas, foreign influence, and racism. Does Goldsmith understand that justice is as much about human rights, fairness and accountability as it is about laws?

Without accountability, there is no justice at all, or perhaps he too is confused or uncertain about his role, as much as Dr Rainbow seems oblivious to his?

There needs to be accountability for Goldsmith. Why has he not removed Dr Rainbow from office and acted appropriately? If Dr Rainbow had said that Jews were the biggest threat to Muslims or that Israelis were the biggest threat to Palestinians, would this government and Goldsmith have sat back and said, “he didn’t mean it, it was a mistake, and he has apologised”?

Questions New Zealanders should be asking are, what kind of Human Rights Commissioner speaks of entire peoples this way? What kind of minister, like Paul Goldsmith, looks at that and does very little?

What kind of Government claims to champion justice, while turning a blind eye to genocide? This is betraying the very idea of human rights itself.

Although we are a small country here in New Zealand, we have remained strong by upholding and standing by our principles. We said no to apartheid in South Africa. We said no to nuclear weapons in the Pacific. We said no to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

And we must now say no to dehumanisation — anywhere. Are we a nation that upholds justice or do we sit on the sidelines while the darkest times in modern history envelopes us all?

The attacks against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must stop. We have already faced horrific acts of violence against us here in New Zealand and currently in Palestine. We need support and humanity, not dehumanisation, demonisation and cruelty. This is not what New Zealand is about, we must do better together.

There needs to be a formal enquiry and policy review to see if structural biases exist in New Zealand’s Human Rights institutions. This should also be done across some government bodies, including the Ministry of Education and Immigration NZ, to determine if there has been discrimination or inequality in the handling of humanitarian visas and how the Education Ministry has handled the complaints of anti-Palestinian discrimination at schools.

Communities have particular concern at how the curriculum in many schools deals with the creation of the state of Israel but is silent on Palestinian history.

Public figures should be held to a higher standard, with consequences for spreading racially charged rhetoric.

The Human Rights Commission needs to rebuild trust in our multicultural New Zealand society. The only way this can be done is through fair and just measures that include enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, true inclusivity and action when there is an absence of these.

We are living in a moment where silence is complicity. Where apathy is betrayal.

This is a test of whether New Zealand, Minister Goldsmith and this government truly uphold human rights for all, or only for some.

Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab is a New Zealand Palestinian advocate and writer.

The 1981 Springbok Tour was one of the most controversial events in Aotearoa New Zealand’s history. For 56 days, between July and September, more than 150,000 people took part in more than 200 demonstrations in 28 centres.

It was the largest protest in the country’s history.

It caused social ruptures within communities and families across the country. With the National government backing the tour, protests against apartheid sport turned into confrontations with both police and pro-tour rugby fans — on marches and at matches.

• READ MORE: 100 children killed or wounded every day since Gaza ceasefire broken
• Other war on Palestine reports

The success of these mass protests was that this was the last tour in either country between the two teams with the strongest rivalry among rugby playing nations.

This deeply rooted antipathy towards the racism of apartheid helps provide context to today’s growing opposition by New Zealanders to the horrific actions of another apartheid state.

Understanding apartheid
Apartheid is a humiliating, repressive and brutal legislated segregation through separation of social groups. In South Africa, this segregation was based on racism (white supremacy over non-whites; predominantly Black Africans but also Asians).

For nearly three centuries before 1948, Africans had been dispossessed and exploited by Dutch and British colonists. In 1948, this oppression was upgraded to an official legal policy of apartheid.

Apartheid does not have to be necessarily by race. It could also be religious based. An earlier example was when Christians separated Jews into ghettos on the false claim of inferiority.

In August 2024, Le Monde Diplomatic published article (paywalled) by German prize-winning journalist and author Charlotte Wiedemann on apartheid in both Israel and South Africa under the heading “When Apartheid met Zionism”:

She asked the pointed question of what did it mean to be Jewish in a country that saw Israel through the lens of its own experience of apartheid?

It is a fascinating question making her article an excellent read. Le Monde Diplomatic is a quality progressive magazine, well worth the subscription to read many articles as interesting as this one.

Relevant Wiedemann observations
Wiedemann’s scope is wider than that of this blog but many of her observations are still pertinent to my analysis of the relationship between the two apartheid states.

Most early Jewish immigrants to South Africa fled pogroms and poverty in tsarist Lithuania. This context encouraged many to believe that every human being deserved equal respect, regardless of skin colour or origin.

Blatant widespread white-supremacist racism had been central to South Africa’s history of earlier Dutch and English colonialism. But this shifted to a further higher level in May 1948 when apartheid formally became central to South Africa’s legal and political system.

Although many Jews were actively opposed to apartheid it was not until 1985, 37 years later, that Jewish community leaders condemned it outright. In the words of Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris to the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

“The Jewish community benefited from apartheid and an apology must be given … We ask forgiveness.”

On the one hand, Jewish lawyers defended Black activists, But, on the other hand, it was a Jewish prosecutor who pursued Nelson Mandela with “extraordinary zeal” in the case that led to his long imprisonment.

Israel became one of apartheid South Africa’s strongest allies, including militarily, even when it had become internationally isolated, including through sporting and economic boycotts. Israel’s support for the increasingly isolated apartheid state was unfailing.

Jewish immigration to South Africa from the late 19th century brought two powerful competing ideas from Eastern Europe. One was Zionism while the other was the Bundists with a strong radical commitment to justice.

But it was Zionism that grew stronger under apartheid. Prior to 1948 it was a nationalist movement advocating for a homeland for Jewish people in the “biblical land of Israel”.

Zionism provided the rationale for the ideas that actively sought and achieved the existence of the Israeli state. This, and consequential forced removal of so many Palestinians from their homeland, made Zionism a “natural fit” in apartheid South Africa.

Nelson Mandela and post-apartheid South Africa
Although strongly pro-Palestinian, post-apartheid South Africa has never engaged in Holocaust denial. In fact, Holocaust history is compulsory in its secondary schools.

Its first president, Nelson Mandela, was very clear about the importance of recognising the reality of the Holocaust. As Charlotte Wiedemann observes:

“Quite the reverse . . .  In 1994 Mandela symbolically marked the end of apartheid at an exhibition about Anne Frank. ‘By honouring her memory as we do today’ he said at its opening, ‘we are saying with one voice: never and never again!’”

In a 1997 speech, on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela also reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights:

“We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

There is a useful account of Mandela’s relationship with and support for Palestinians published by Middle East Eye.

Mandela’s identification with Palestine was recognised by Palestinians themselves. This included the construction of an impressive statue of him on what remains of their West Bank homeland.

Comparing apartheid in South Africa and Israel
So how did apartheid in South Africa compare with apartheid in Israel. To begin with, while both coincidentally began in May 1948, in South Africa this horrendous system ended over 30 years ago. But in Israel it not only continues, it intensifies.

Broadly speaking, this included Israel adapting the infamously cruel “Bantustan system” of South Africa which was designed to maintain white supremacy and strengthen the government’s apartheid policy. It involved an area set aside for Black Africans, purportedly for notional self-government.

In South Africa, apartheid lasted until the early 1990s culminating in South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994.

Tragically, for Palestinians in their homeland, apartheid not only continues but is intensified by ethnic cleansing delivered by genocide, both incrementally and in surges.

Apartheid Plus: ethnic cleansing and genocide
Israel has gone further than its former southern racist counterpart. Whereas South Africa’s economy depended on the labour exploitation of its much larger African workforce, this was relatively much less so for Israel.

As much as possible Israel’s focus was, and still is, instead on the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homeland.

This began in 1948 with what is known by Palestinians as the Nakba (“the catastrophe”) when many were physically displaced by the creation of the Israeli state. Genocide is the increasing means of delivering ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas by deporting or forcibly displacing people belonging to particular ethnic groups.

It can also include the removal of all physical vestiges of the victims of this cleansing through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

This destructive removal has been the unfortunate Palestinian experience in much of today’s Israel and its occupied or controlled territories. It is continuing in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Genocide involves actions intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

In contrast with civil war, genocide usually involves deaths on a much larger scale with civilians invariably and deliberately the targets. Genocide is an international crime, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

Today the Israeli slaughter and destruction in Gaza is a huge genocidal surge with the objective of being the “final solution” while incremental genocide of Palestinians speeds up in the occupied West Bank.

Notwithstanding the benefits of the recent ceasefire, it freed up Israel to militarily focus on repressing West Bank Palestinians.

Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the current vulnerable hiatus of the ceasefire has shifted from military action to starvation.

The final word
One of the encouraging features has been the massive protests against the genocide throughout the world. In a relative context, and while not on the same scale as the mass protests against the racist South African rugby tour in 1981, this includes New Zealand.

Many Jews, including in New Zealand and in the international protests such as at American universities, have been among the strongest critics of the ethnic cleansing through genocide of the apartheid Israeli state.

They have much in common with the above-mentioned Bundist focus on social justice in contrast to the dogmatic biblical extremism of Zionism.

Amos Goldberg, professor of genocidal studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem is one such Jew. Let’s leave the final word to him:

“It’s so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. Jewish history will henceforth be stained.”

This is a compelling case for the New Zealand government to join the many other countries in formally recognising the state of Palestine.

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

A stoush between the Chief Human Rights Commissioner and a Jewish community leader has flared up following a showdown at Parliament.

Appearing before a parliamentary select committee today, Dr Stephen Rainbow was asked about his recent apology for incorrect comments he made about Muslims earlier this year.

“If my language has been injudicious . . .  then I have apologised for that,” he told MPs.

• READ MORE: Sh’ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices (NZ): When you think of the Jewish community, assume diversity
• Jewish groups call for for resignation of Dr Rainbow
• Racism and Islamophobia at the Office of the Human Rights Commission — Report
• Chief Human Rights Commissioner apologises to Muslim community

“I’ve apologised publicly. I’ve apologised privately. I’ve met with FIANZ [The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand] to hear their concerns and to apologise to them, both in person and publicly, and I hold to that apology.”

The apology relates to a meeting he had with Jewish community leader Philippa Yasbek, from the anti-Zionist Jewish groups Alternative Jewish Voices and Dayenu, in February.

Yasbek said Rainbow claimed during the meeting that the Security Intelligence Services (SIS) threat assessment found Muslims posed a greater threat to the Jewish community in New Zealand than white supremacists.

In fact, the report states “white identity-motivated violent extremism [W-IMVE] remains the dominant identity-motivated violent extremism ideology in New Zealand”.

Rainbow changed his position
Rainbow told the committee he had since changed his position after receiving new information.

He said was disappointed he had “allowed [his] words to create a perception there was a prejudice there” and he would do everything in his power to repair his relationship with the Muslim community.

“Please be assured that I take this as a learning, and I will be far more measured with my comments in future.”

But Rainbow disputed another of Yasbek’s assertions that he had also raised the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s going to be really unhelpful if I get into a he-said-she-said, but I did not say the comments that were attributed to me about that. I do not believe that,” Rainbow said.

“I emphatically deny that I said that.”

‘It definitely stuck in my mind’ – Jewish community leader
Yasbek, who called for Rainbow’s resignation yesterday, was watching the select committee hearing from the back of the room.

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Yasbek said she was certain Rainbow had made the comments about Afghan refugees.

“It was particularly memorable because it was so specific and he said that he was concerned about the risk of anti-semitism in the community of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“It’s very specific. It’s not a sort of detail that one is likely to make up, and it definitely stuck in my mind.”

Yasbek said the race relations commissioner and two Human Rights Commission staff members were also in the room and should be interviewed to corroborate what happened.

“There were multiple witnesses. I am concerned that he has impugned my integrity in that way which is why there should be an independent investigation of this matter.”

Raised reported comments
Speaking to RNZ later, FIANZ chairman Abdur Razzaq said he raised the commissioner’s reported comments about Afghan refugees when he met with Rainbow several weeks ago.

“I raised it at the meeting with him and he did not correct me. At my meeting there were other members of the Human Rights Commission. He did not say he didn’t [say that].”

Razzaq said it was up to the justice minister as to whether or not Rainbow was fit for the role.

“When you hear statements like this, like ‘greatest threat’, he has forgotten it was precisely this kind of Islamophobic sentiment which gave rise to the terrorist of March 15, rise to the right-wing extremist terrorists to take action and they justify it with these kinds of statements.”

“[The commissioner] calls himself an academic, a student of history. Where is his lessons learned on this aspect? To pick a Muslim community by name… he has to really genuinely look at himself as to what he is doing and what he is saying.”

Minister backs Rainbow: ‘Doing his best’
Speaking at Parliament following the hearing, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said he backed Rainbow and believed the commissioner would learn from the experience.

“The new commissioner is doing his best. By his own admission he didn’t express himself well. He has apologised and he will be learning from that experience, and it is my expectation that he will be very careful in the way that he communicates in the future.”

Goldsmith said he stood by his appointment of Rainbow, despite the independent panel tasked with leading the process taking a different view.

“There’s a range of opinions on that. The advice that I had originally from the group was a real focus on legal skills, and I thought actually equally important was the ability to communicate ideas effectively.”

Speaking in Christchurch on Thursday afternoon, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Rainbow had got it “totally wrong” and it was appropriate he had apologised.

“He completely and quite wrongfully mischaracterised a New Zealand SIS report talking about threats to the Jewish community and he was wrong about that.

“He has subsequently apologised about that but equally Minister Goldsmith has or is talking to him about those comments as well.”

‘Not elabiorating further’
RNZ approached the Human Rights Commission on Thursday afternoon for a response to Yasbek doubling down on her recollection Rainbow had talked about the supposed antisemitism of Afghan refugees in West Auckland.

“The Chief Commissioner will not be elaborating further about what was said in the meeting,” a spokesperson said.

“He’s happy to discuss the matter privately with the people involved,” a spokesperson said.

“Dr Rainbow acknowledges that what was said caused harm and offence and what matters most is the impact on communities. That is why he has apologised unreservedly and stands by his apology.”

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

The new Universities Australia (UA) definition of antisemitism, endorsed last month for adoption by 39 Australian universities, is an ugly attempt to quash the pro-Palestine solidarity movement on campuses and to silence academics, university workers and students who critique Israel and Zionism.

While the Scott Morrison Coalition government first proposed tightening the definition, and a recent joint Labor-Coalition parliamentary committee recommended the same, it is yet another example of the Labor government’s overreach.

It seeks to mould discussion in universities to one that suits its pro-US and pro-Zionist imperialist agenda, while shielding Israel from accountability.

• READ MORE: Jewish Council slams Australian universities’ ‘dangerous, politicised’ antisemitism definition
• With words they try to jail us — US universities are not citadels of freedom
• Australian universities agree to antisemitism definition that bans calling for Israel’s elimination
• Other university freedom of speech reports

So far, the UA definition has been widely condemned.

Nasser Mashni, of Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, has slammed it as “McCarthyism reborn”.

The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) has criticised it as “dangerous, politicised and unworkable”. The NSW Council of Civil Liberties said it poses “serious risks to freedom of expression and academic freedom”.

The UA definition comes in the context of a war against Palestinian activism on campuses.

The false claim that antisemitism is “rampant” across universities has been weaponised to subdue the Palestinian solidarity movement within higher education and, particularly, to snuff out any repeat of the student-led Gaza solidarity encampments, which sprung up on campuses across the country last year.

Some students and staff who have been protesting against the genocide since October 2023 have come under attack by university managements.

Some students have been threatened with suspension and many universities are giving themselves, through new policies, more powers to liaise with police and surveil students and staff.

Palestinian, Arab and Muslim academics, as well as other anti-racist scholars, have been silenced and disciplined, or face legal action on false counts of antisemitism, merely for criticising Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine.

Randa Abdel-Fattah, for example, has become the target of a Zionist smear campaign that has successfully managed to strip her of Australian Research Council funding.

Intensify repression
The UA definition will further intensify the ongoing repression of people’s rights on campuses to discuss racism, apartheid and occupation in historic Palestine.

By its own admission, UA acknowledges that its definition is informed by the antisemitism taskforces at Columbia University, Stanford University, Harvard University and New York University, which have meted out draconian and violent repression of pro-Palestine activism.

The catalyst for the new definition was the February 12 report tabled by Labor MP Josh Burns on antisemitism on Australian campuses. That urged universities to adopt a definition of antisemitism that “closely aligns” with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.

It should be noted that the controversial IHRA definition has been opposed by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) for its serious challenge to academic freedom.

As many leading academics and university workers, including Jewish academics, have repeatedly stressed, criticism of Israel and criticism of Zionism is not antisemitic.

UA’s definition is arguably more detrimental to freedom of speech and pro-Palestine activism and scholarship than the IHRA definition.

In the vague IHRA definition, a number of examples of antisemitism are given that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but not the main text itself.

By contrast, the new UA definition overtly equates criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism and claims Zionist ideology is a component part of Jewish identity.

The definition states that “criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic . . . when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel”.

Dangerously, anyone advocating for a single bi-national democratic state in historic Palestine will be labelled antisemitic under this new definition.

Anyone who justifiably questions the right of the ethnonationalist, apartheid and genocidal state of Israel to exist will be accused of antisemitism.

Sweeping claims
The UA definition also makes the sweeping claim that “for most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.

But, as the JCA points out, Zionism is a national political ideology and is not a core part of Jewish identity historically or today, since many Jews do not support Zionism. The JCA warns that the UA definition “risks fomenting harmful stereotypes that all Jewish people think in a certain way”.

Moreover, JCA said, Jewish identities are already “a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel are not”.

Like other aspects of politics, political ideologies, such as Zionism, and political stances, such as support for Israel, should be able to be discussed critically.

According to the UA definition, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic “when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions”.

While it would be wrong for any individual or community, because they are Jewish, to be held responsible for Israel’s actions, it is a fact that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former  minister Yoav Gallant for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.

But under the UA definition, since Netanyahu and Gallant are Jewish, would holding them responsible be considered antisemitic?

Is the ICC antisemitic? According to Israel it is.

The implication of the definition for universities, which teach law and jurisprudence, is that international law should not be applied to the Israeli state, because it is antisemitic to do so.

The UA’s definition is vague enough to have a chilling effect on any academic who wants to teach about genocide, apartheid and settler-colonialism. It states that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”.

What these are is not defined.

Anti-racism challenge
Within the academy, there is a strong tradition of anti-racism and decolonial scholarship, particularly the concept of settler colonialism, which, by definition, calls into question the very notion of “statehood”.

With this new definition of antisemitism, will academics be prevented from teaching students the works of Chelsea Watego, Patrick Wolfe or Edward Said?

The definition will have serious and damaging repercussions for decolonial scholars and severely impinges the rights of scholars, in particular First Nations scholars and students, to critique empire and colonisation.

UA is the “peak body” for higher education in Australia, and represents and lobbies for capitalist class interests in higher education.

It is therefore not surprising that it has developed this particular definition, given its strong bilateral relations with Israeli higher education, including signing a 2013 memorandum of understanding with Association of University Heads, Israel.

It should be noted that the NTEU National Council last October called on UA to withdraw from this as part of its Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions resolution.

All university students and staff committed to anti-racism, academic freedom and freedom of speech should join the campaign against the UA definition.

Local NTEU branches and student groups are discussing and passing motions rejecting the new definition and NTEU for Palestine has called a National Day of Action for March 26 with that as one of its key demands.

We will not be silenced on Palestine.

Jonathan Strauss and Markela Panegyres are members of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Socialist Alliance. Republished from Green Left with permission.