The Israeli military prosecution has controversially cancelled the indictment of five soldiers accused of sexually assaulting a Palestinian detainee at the notorious Sde Teiman prison in southern Israel, reports Anadolu Ajansi.

“In light of significant developments that have occurred since the indictment was filed in the Yemen Field case, the military prosecution has decided today to cancel the indictment,” the Israeli army said in a statement yesterday.

The torture case dates back to July 2025, when Israeli soldiers tortured and sexually assaulted a Palestinian prisoner at the Sde Teiman detention facility, causing serious injuries and a tear in the rectum.

• READ MORE: Khamenei demands closure of US bases as Trump says war going ‘very well’
• Four possible outcomes with the war on Iran – but only one viable
• Other Israeli torture of Palestinian prisoners reports

Earlier, Israeli news media outlets, including the public broadcaster KAN, claimed that Israel released the tortured detainee on October 13, 2025, to the Gaza Strip as part of a group of prisoners released under the exchange deal with the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.

Sde Teiman, which literally means “Yemen Field” in Arabic, is an Israeli military base in the Negev Desert in southern Israel.

Interrogators there have become notorious for physical and sexual abuse of Palestinian detainees from Gaza to the extent that it has been dubbed “Israel’s Guantanamo” in reference to the infamous US detention facility in Iraq.

The Sde Teiman prison has witnessed widespread violations against Palestinian detainees, including severe beatings, prolonged restraint, and medical neglect, which have killed people, according to Palestinian and Israeli media and human rights reports.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is condemning Israel’s E1 settlement plan for the occupied West Bank, despite New Zealand not signing a joint statement on the matter.

Twenty-seven countries, including the UK and Australia, have condemned Israel’s plans to build an illegal settlement east of Jerusalem.

The countries have said the plan would “make a two-state solution impossible by dividing any Palestinian state and restricting Palestinian access to Jerusalem”.

• READ MORE: Over 20 nations join EU, UN in opposing Israel’s illegal E1 settlement plan
• Israel kills at least 51 in Gaza, military seizure of Gaza City progresses
• Other Israeli war on Palestine reports

Luxon said he fully agreed with the statement.

“That is something [signing the stement]I would address to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but there are a lot of joint statements that we try and align with, often at short notice, to make sure we are putting volume and voice to our position,” he said.

“Irrespective of that, we are very, very concerned about what is happening in the West Bank, particularly the E1 settlement programme.

“We have believed for a long time that those settlements are illegal.”

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

More than 200,000 people took the streets across Australia on Saturday in a national day of action demanding that the Labor government sanctions Israel and stops the two-way arms trade.

It comes after 300,000 people marched, in driving rain, across Sydney Harbour Bridge on August 3 to demand the same.

Palestine solidarity groups across the country are coordinating their plans as Israel’s illegal deliberate starvation policy is delivering its expected results.

Protests were organised in more than 40 cities and towns– a first in nearly two years since the genocidal war began.

At least 50,000 rallied on Gadigal Country/Sydney, 10,000 in Nipaluna/Hobart, 50,000 in Magan-djin/Brisbane, 100,000 in Naarm/Melbourne, 10,000 in Kaurna Yerta/Adelaide, 15,000 in Boorloo/Perth, 600 in the Blue Mountains, 500 in Bathurst, 5000 in Muloobinba/Newcastle, 1600 in Gimuy/Cairns and 700 in Djilang/Geelong.

• More photos on Green Left for Ecosocialist Action

Sydney’s turnout for Australia’s nationwide protests against Israeli genocide. Video: GreenLeft

Dear Rt Hon Winston Peters,

There was a time when New Zealanders stood up for what was morally right. There are memorials around our country for those who died fighting fascism, we wrote parts of the UN Charter of Human Rights, we took an anti-nuclear stance in 1984, and three years prior to that, many of us stood against apartheid in South Africa by boycotting South African products and actively protesting against the 1981 Springbok Rugby Tour.

To call out the Israeli government for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not to be antisemitic. Nor is it to be pro- Hamas. It is to simply to be pro-human.

While acknowledging the peace and humanitarian initiatives on the Foreign Affairs website, I note there is no calling out of the genocide and ethnic cleansing that cannot be denied is happening in Gaza.

• READ MORE: At least 65 killed in Gaza attacks as Israel sends tanks into Deir el-Balah
• UK, France and 23 other nations demand Israel’s war on Gaza ‘must end now’
• PSNA calls on NZ to urgently condemn Israeli weaponisation of starvation
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

The Israeli government is systematically demolishing whole towns and cities — including churches, mosques, even removing trees and vegetation — to deprive the Palestinian people the opportunity to return to their homeland; and there have been constant blocks to humanitarian aid as part of a policy forced starvation.

There is no doubt crimes against international law have been committed, which is why the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defence minister, for alleged crimes against humanity.

So, my question to you is: why are you not pictured standing in this photograph (below) alongside the representatives from 33 nations at the July 16 2025 Gaza emergency conference in Bogotá?

The nations that took part in the Gaza emergency summit in were:

Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Colombia, South Africa, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay and Venezuela.

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.

International public opinion continues to turn against Israel for its war on Gaza, with more governments slowly beginning to reflect those voices and increase their own condemnation of the country.

In the last few weeks, Israeli government ministers have been sanctioned by several Western countries, with the United Kingdom, France and Canada issuing a joint statement condemning the “intolerable” level of “human suffering” in Gaza.

Last week, a number of countries from the Global South — “The Hague Group” — collectively agreed on a number of measures that they say will “restrain Israel’s assault on the Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

• READ MORE: 12 countries agree to confront Israel collectively over Gaza after Bogotá summit
• Israeli attacks on aid seekers continue amid new evacuation threats
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

Across the world, and in increasing numbers, the public, politicians and, following an Israeli strike on a Catholic church in Gaza, religious leaders are speaking out against Israel’s killings in Gaza.

So, are world powers getting any closer to putting enough pressure on Israel for it to stop?

Here is what we know.

What is the Hague Group?
According to its website, the Hague Group is a global bloc of states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine.

Made up of eight nations; South Africa, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal, the group has set itself the mission of upholding international law, and safeguarding the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, principally “the responsibility of all nations to uphold the inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, that it enshrines for all peoples”.

Last week, the Hague Group hosted a meeting of about 30 nations, including China, Spain and Qatar, in the Colombian capital of Bogota. Australia and New Zealand failed to attend in spite of invitations.

Also attending the meeting was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who characterised the meeting as “the most significant political development in the past 20 months”.

Albanese was recently sanctioned by the United States for her criticism of its ally, Israel.

At the end of the two-day meeting, 12 of the countries in attendance agreed to six measures to limit Israel’s actions in Gaza. Included in those measures were blocks on supplying arms to Israel, a ban on ships transporting weapons and a review of public contracts for any possible links to companies benefiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

Have any other governments taken action?
More and more.

Last Wednesday, Slovenia barred far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and ultranationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from entering its territory after the wider European Union failed to agree on measures to address charges of widespread human rights abuses against Israel.

Slovenia’s ban on the two government ministers builds upon earlier sanctions imposed upon Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in June by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and Norway over their “incitement to violence”.

The two men have been among the most vocal Israeli ministers in rejecting any compromise in negotiations with Palestinians, and pushing for the Jewish settlement of Gaza, as well as the increased building of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

In May, the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement describing Israel’s escalation of its campaign against Gaza as “wholly disproportionate” and promising “concrete actions” against Israel if it did not halt its offensive.

Later that month, the UK followed through on its warning, announcing sanctions on a handful of settler organisations and announcing a “pause” in free trade negotiations with Israel.

Also in May, Turkiye announced that it would block all trade with Israel until the humanitarian situation in Gaza was resolved.

South Africa first launched a case for genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice in late December 2023, and has since been supported by other countries, including Colombia, Chile, Spain, Ireland, and Turkiye.

In January of 2024, the ICJ issued its provisional ruling, finding what it termed a “plausible” case for genocide and instructing Israel to undertake emergency measures, including the provision of the aid that its government has effectively blocked since March of this year.

What other criticism of Israel has there been?
Israel’s bombing on Thursday of the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, killing three people, drew a rare rebuke from Israel’s most stalwart ally, the United States.

Following what was reported to be an “angry” phone call from US President Trump after the bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement expressing its “deep regret” over the attack. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

To date, Israel has killed more than 62,000 people in Gaza, the majority women and children.

Has the tide turned internationally?
Mass public protests against Israel’s war on Gaza have continued around the world for the past 21 months.

And there are clear signs of growing anger over the brutality of the war and the toll it is taking on Palestinians in Gaza.

In Western Europe, a survey carried out by the polling company YouGov in June found that net favourability towards Israel had reached its lowest ebb since tracking began.

A similar poll produced by CNN last week found similar results among the American public, with only 23 percent of respondents agreeing Israel’s actions in Gaza were fully justified, down from 50 percent in October 2023.

Public anger has also found voice at high-profile public events, including music festivals such as Germany’s Fusion Festival, Poland’s Open’er Festival and the UK’s Glastonbury festival, where both artists and their supporters used their platforms to denounce the war on Gaza.

Has anything changed in Israel?
Protests against the war remain small but are growing, with organisations, such as Standing Together, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian activists to protest against the war.

There has also been a growing number of reservists refusing to show up for duty. In April, the Israeli magazine +972 reported that more than 100,000 reservists had refused to show up for duty, with open letters from within the military protesting against the war growing in number since.

Will it make any difference?
Netanyahu’s hard-right coalition has been pursuing its war on Gaza despite its domestic and international unpopularity for some time.

The government’s most recent proposal, that all of Gaza’s population be confined into what it calls a “humanitarian city”, has been likened to a concentration camp and has been taken by many of its critics as evidence that it no longer cares about either international law or global opinion.

Internationally, despite its recent criticism of Israel for its bombing of Gaza’s one Catholic church, US support for Israel remains resolute. For many in Israel, the continued support of the US, and President Donald Trump in particular, remains the one diplomatic absolute they can rely upon to weather whatever diplomatic storms their actions in Gaza may provoke.

In addition to that support, which includes diplomatic guarantees through the use of the US veto in the UN Security Council and military support via its extensive arsenal, is the US use of sanctions against Israel’s critics, such as the International Criminal Court, whose members were sanctioned by the US in June over the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on war crimes charges.

That means, in the short term, Israel ultimately feels protected as long as it has US support. But as it becomes more of an international pariah, economic and diplomatic isolation may become more difficult to handle.

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.

The conflict between Israel and Iran over the past 12 days has redefined the regional chessboard. Here is a look at their key takeaways:

Israel:
Pulled in the US: Israel successfully drew the United States into a direct military confrontation with Iran, setting a significant precedent for future direct (not just indirect) intervention.

Boosted political capital: This move generated substantial political leverage, allowing Israel to frame US intervention as a major strategic success.

• READ MORE: Israel orders attack on Iran after claiming Tehran violated ceasefire
• Israel’s attack on Iran — the violent new world being born is going to horrify you — Jonathan Cook
• Other Middle East crisis reports

Iran:
Forged a new deterrence: Iran has firmly established a new equation of deterrence, emerging as a powerful regional force capable of directly challenging Israel, the US, and their Western allies.

Demonstrated independence: Crucially, Iran achieved this without relying on its traditional regional allies, showcasing its self-reliance and strategic depth.

Defeated regime change efforts: This confrontation effectively thwarted any perceived Israeli strategy aimed at regime change, solidifying the current Iranian government’s position.

Achieved national unity: In the face of external pressure, Iran saw a notable surge in domestic unity, bridging the gap between reformers and conservatives in a new social and political contract.

Asserted direct regional role: Iran has definitively cemented its status as a direct and undeniable player in the ongoing regional struggle against Israeli hegemony.

Sent a global message: It delivered a strong message to non-Western global powers like China and Russia, proving itself a reliable regional force capable of challenging and reshaping the existing balance of power.

Exposed regional dynamics: The events sharply exposed Arab and Muslim countries that openly or tacitly support the US-Israeli regional project of dominance, highlighting underlying regional alignments.

Dr Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London). He has a PhD in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015) and was a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. This commentary is republished from his Facebook page.

In the final strike before the ceasefire, Iranian missiles caused extensive destruction, killing and injuring several Israelis in the city of Beersheba. pic.twitter.com/b25fHPw2yD

— The Palestine Chronicle (@PalestineChron) June 24, 2025

BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied Bethlehem

Kia ora koutou,

I’m a Kiwi journo in occupied Bethlehem, here’s a brief summary of today’s events across the Palestinian and Israeli territories from on the ground.

Israeli forces killed over 200 Palestinians in Gaza over the last 48 hours, injuring over 1037. Countless more remain under the rubble and in unreachable zones. 450 killed seeking aid, 39 missing, and around 3500 injured at the joint US-Israeli humanitarian foundation “death traps”.

Forty one  killed by Israeli forces since dawn today, including three children in an attack east of Gaza City. Gaza’s Al-Quds brigades destroyed a military bulldozer in southern Gaza.

*

Settlers, protected by soldiers, violently attacked Palestinian residents near the southern village of Susiya last night, including children. The West Bank siege continues with Israeli occupation forces severely restricting movement between Palestinian towns and cities. Continued military/settler assaults across the occupied territories.

*

Iranian strikes targeted Ben Gurion airport and several military sites in the Israeli territories. Israeli regime discuss a 3.6 billion shekel defence budget increase.

*

400 killed and 3000 injured by Israel’s attacks on Iran, in the nine days since Israel’s aggression began. Iranian authorities have arrested dozens more linked to Israeli intelligence, and cut internet for the last three days to prevent internal drone attacks from agents within their territories.

Israeli strikes have targeted a wide range of sites; missile depots, nuclear facilities, residential areas, and reportedly six ambulances today.

Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, held talks with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom yesterday in Geneva as Israel’s attacks on Iran entered a second week.

A US-based Iranian human rights group reports the Israeli attacks have killed at least 639 people. Israeli war planes have repeatedly pummeled Tehran and other parts of Iran. Iran is responded by continuing to launch missile strikes into Israel.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians have protested in Iran against Israel. Meanwhile, President Trump continues to give mixed messages on whether the US will join Israel’s attack on Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters, “I may do it, I may not do it”. On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a new statement from the President.

KAROLINE LEAVITT: “Regarding the ongoing situation in Iran, I know there has been a lot of speculation among all of you in the media regarding the president’s decision-making and whether or not the United States will be directly involved.

“In light of that news, I have a message directly from the president. And I quote, ‘Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.’”

AMY GOODMAN, The War and Peace Report: President Trump has repeatedly used that term, “two weeks,” when being questioned about decisions in this term and his first term as president. Leavitt delivered the message shortly after President Trump met with his former adviser, Steve Bannon, who has publicly warned against war with Iran.

Bannon recently said, “We can’t do this again. We’ll tear the country apart. We can’t have another Iraq,” Bannon said.

This comes as Trump’s reportedly sidelined National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard from key discussions on Iran. In March, Gabbard told lawmakers the intelligence community, “Continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.”

But on Tuesday, Trump dismissed her statement, saying, “I don’t care what she said.”

Earlier Thursday, an Iranian missile hit the main hospital in Southern Israel in Beersheba. After the strike, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened to assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei, saying Iran’s supreme leader, “Cannot continue to exist.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the hospital and likened Iran’s attack to the London Blitz. Netanyahu stunned many in Israel by saying, “Each of us bears a personal cost. My family has not been exempt. This is the second time my son Avner has cancelled a wedding due to missile threats.”

We’re joined now by William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new article for The National Interest is headlined, “Don’t Get Dragged Into a War with Iran.”

Can you talk about what’s going on right now, Bill, the whole question of whether the U.S. is going to use a bunker-buster bomb that has to be delivered by a B-2 bomber, which only the US has?

Another Iraq: Military expert warns US has no real plan    Video: Democracy Now!

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yeah. This is a case of undue trust in technology. The US is always getting in trouble when they think there’s this miracle solution. A lot of experts aren’t sure this would even work, or if it did, it would take multiple bombings.

And of course, Iran’s not going to sit on its hands. They’ll respond possibly by killing US troops in the region, then we’ll have escalation from there. It’s reminiscent of the beginning of the Iraq War, when they said, “It’s going to be a cakewalk. It’s not going to cost anything.”

Couple of trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of casualties, many US veterans coming home with PTSD, a regime that was sectarian that paved the way for ISIS, it couldn’t have gone worse.

And so, this is a different beginning, but the end is uncertain, and I don’t think we want to go there.

AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about the GBU-57, the bunker-buster bomb, and how is it that this discussion going on within the White House about the use of the bomb — and of course, the US has gone back and forth — I should say President Trump has gone back and forth whether he’s fully involved with this war.

At first he was saying they knew about it, but Israel was doing it, then saying, “We have total control of the skies over Tehran,” saying we, not Israel, and what exactly it would mean if the US dropped this bomb and the fleet that the US is moving in?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes, well, the notion is, it’s heavy steel, it’s more explosive power than any conventional bomb. But it only goes so deep, and they don’t actually know how deep this facility is buried. And if it’s going in a straight line, and it’s to one side, it’s just not clear that it’s going to work.

And of course, if it does, Iran is going to rebuild, they’re going to go straight for a nuclear weapon. They’re not going to trust negotiations anymore.

So, apparently, the two weeks is partly because Trump’s getting conflicting reports from his own people about this. Now, if he had actual independent military folks, like Mark Milley in the first term, I think we’d be less likely to go in.

But they made sure to have loyalists. Pete Hegseth is not a profile in courage. He’s not going to stand up to Trump on this. He might not even know the consequences. So, a lot of the press coverage is about this bomb, not about the consequences of an active war.

AMY GOODMAN: Right, about using it. In your recent piece, you wrote, “Israeli officials suggested their attacks may result in regime change in Iran, despite the devastating destabilising impact such efforts in the region would have.”

Can you talk about the significance of Israel putting forward and then Trump going back and forth on whether or not Ali Khamenei will be targeted?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yeah, I think my colleague Trita Parsi put it well. There’s been no example of regime change in the region that has come out with a better result. They don’t know what kind of regime would come in.

Could be to the right of the current one. Could just be chaos that would fuel terrorism, who knows what else.

So, they’re just talking — they’re winging it. They have no idea what they’re getting into. And I think Trump, he doesn’t want to seem like Netanyahu’s pulling him by the nose, so when he gets out in front of Trump, Trump says, “Oh, that was my idea.”

But it’s almost as if Benjamin Netanyahu is running US foreign policy, and Trump is kind of following along.

AMY GOODMAN: You have Netanyahu back in 2002 saying, “Iran is imminently going to have a nuclear bomb.” That was more than two decades ago.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Exactly. That’s just a cover for wanting to take out the regime. And he spoke to the US Congress, he’s made presentations all over the world, and his intelligence has been proven wrong over, and over, and over.

And when we had the Iran deal, he had European allies, he had China, he had Russia. There hadn’t been a deal like that where all these countries were on the same page in living memory, and it was working.

And Trump trashed it and now has to start over.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about the War Powers Act. The Virginia Senator Kaine has said that — has just put forward a bill around saying it must be — Congress that must vote on this. Where is [Senator] Chuck Schumer [Senate minority leader]? Where is [Hakeem] Jeffries [Congress minoroity leader] on this, the Democratic House and Senate leaders?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, a lot of the so-called leaders are not leading. When is the moment that you should step forward if we’re possibly going to get into another disastrous war? But I think they’re concerned about being viewed as critical of Israel.

They don’t want to go out on a limb. So, you’ve got a progressive group that’s saying, “This has to be authorised by Congress.” You’ve got Republicans who are doubtful, but they don’t want to stand up to Trump because they don’t want to lose their jobs.

“Risk your job. This is a huge thing. Don’t just sort of be a time-server.

AMY GOODMAN: So, according to a report from IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, released in May, Iran has accumulated roughly 120 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, which is 30 percent away from weapons-grade level of 90 percent. You have Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, saying this week that they do not have evidence that Iran has the system for a nuclear bomb.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes, well, a lot of the discussion points out — they don’t talk about, when you’ve got the uranium, you have to build the weapon, you have to make it work on a missile.

It’s not you get the uranium, you have a weapon overnight, so there’s time to deal with that should they go forward through negotiations. And we had a deal that was working, which Trump threw aside in his first term.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the foreign minister of Iran, Araghchi, in Geneva now speaking with his counterparts from Britain, France, the EU.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I don’t think US allies in Europe want to go along with this, and I think he’s looking for some leverage over Trump. And of course, Trump is very hard to read, but even his own base, the majority of Trump supporters, don’t want to go to war.

You’ve got people like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon saying it would be a disaster. But ultimately, it comes down to Trump. He’s unpredictable, he’s transactional, he’ll calculate what he thinks it’ll mean for him.

AMY GOODMAN: And what impact does protests have around the country, as we wrap up?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think taking the stand is infectious. So many institutions were caving in to Trump. And the more people stand up, 2000 demonstrations around the country, the more the folks sitting on the fence, the millions of people who, they’re against Trump, but they don’t know what to do, the more of us that get involved, the better chance we have of turning this thing around.

So, we should not let them discourage us. We need to build power to push back against all these horrible things.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, if the US were to bomb the nuclear site that it would require the bunker-buster bomb to hit below ground, underground. Are we talking about nuclear fallout here?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: I think there would certainly be radiation that would of course affect the Iranian people. They’ve already had many civilian deaths. It’s not this kind of precise thing that’s only hitting military targets.

And that, too, has to affect Iran’s view of this. They were shortly away from another negotiation, and now their country’s being devastated, so can they trust us?

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Hartung is senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His new piece for The National Interest is headlined, “Don’t Get Dragged Into a War with Iran.”

Republished from Democracy Now! under Creative Commons.

In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat.

The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding a solution to the Palestinian problem.”

For other, even more radical Israelis — such as the ultra-nationalist assassin Yigal Amir — the answer lay elsewhere. They sought the assassination of Israeli leaders such as Yitzak Rabin who wanted peace with the Palestinians.

• READ MORE: Iran fires missiles at Israel; Trump claims ‘total control of Iran skies’
• Attack on Iran’s state media – Israel bombs IRIB building in new war crime
• Why Israel’s ‘humane’ propaganda is such a sinister facade
• Other Israeli war on Iran reports

Despite Rabin’s long personal history as a famed and often ruthless military commander in the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars, Amir stalked and shot Rabin dead in 1995. He believed Rabin had betrayed Israel by signing the Oslo Accords peace deal with Arafat.

Nothing has changed. Listen to how Yasser Arafat described the media and how they refused to comdemn Israeli war crimes. pic.twitter.com/BNbjp6ZEww

— Unfiltered Muslim (@muslimbants) November 9, 2023

It has been 20 years since Arafat died as possibly the victim of polonium poisoning, and 30 years after the shooting of Rabin. Peace between Israelis and the Palestinians has never been further away.

What Amnesty International and a United Nations Special Committee have called genocidal attacks on Palestinians in Gaza have spilled over into Israeli attacks on the prominent leaders of its enemies in Lebanon and, most recently, Iran.

Since its attacks on Iran began on Friday, Israel has killed numerous military and intelligence leaders, including Iran’s intelligence chief, Mohammad Kazemi; the chief of the armed forces, Mohammad Bagheri; and the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami. At least nine Iranian nuclear scientists have also been killed.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly said:

We got their chief intelligence officer and his deputy in Tehran.

Iran, predictably, has responded with deadly missile attacks on Israel.

Far from having solved the issue of Middle East peace, assassinations continue to pour oil on the flames.

A long history of extrajudicial killings
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First argues assassinations have long sat at the heart of Israeli politics.

In the past 75 years, there have been more than 2700 assassination operations undertaken by Israel. These have, in Bergman’s words, attempted to “stop history” and bypass “statesmanship and political discourse”.

This normalisation of assassinations has been codified in the Israeli expression of “mowing the grass”. This is, as historian Nadim Rouhana has shown, a metaphor for a politics of constant assassination.

Enemy “leadership and military facilities must regularly be hit in order to keep them weak”.

The point is not to solve the underlying political questions at issue. Instead, this approach aims to sow fear, dissent and confusion among enemies.

Thousands of assassination operations have not, however, proved sufficient to resolve the long-running conflict between Israel, its neighbours and the Palestinians. The tactic itself is surely overdue for retirement.

Targeted assassinations elsewhere
Israel has been far from alone in this strategy of assassination and killing.

Former US President Barack Obama oversaw the extrajudicial killing of Osama Bin Laden, for instance.

After what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch denounced as a flawed trial, former US President George W. Bush welcomed the hanging of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as “an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy”.

Current US President Donald Trump oversaw the assassination of Iran’s leader of clandestine military operations, Qassem Soleimani, in 2020.

Martyr General Qassem Soleimani : No scholar or authority in Shiite history has been able to do what Imam Khomeini did#Baghdad0120#Soleimani pic.twitter.com/FgieLy1Rsu

— Soleimani TV (@Soleimani_TV) February 10, 2021

More recently, however, Trump appears to have baulked at granting Netanyahu permission to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

And it’s worth noting the US Department of Justice last year brought charges against an Iranian man who said he had been tasked with killing Trump.

Elsewhere, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it’s common for senior political and media opponents to be shot in the streets. Frequently they also “fall” out of high windows, are killed in plane crashes or succumb to mystery “illnesses”.

A poor record
Extrajudicial killings, however, have a poor record as a mechanism for solving political problems.

Cutting off the hydra’s head has generally led to its often immediate replacement by another equally or more ideologically committed person, as has already happened in Iran. Perhaps they too await the next round of “mowing the grass”.

But as the latest Israeli strikes in Iran and elsewhere show, solving the underlying issue is rarely the point.

In situations where finding a lasting negotiated settlement would mean painful concessions or strategic risks, assassinations prove simply too tempting. They circumvent the difficulties and complexities of diplomacy while avoiding the need to concede power or territory.

As many have concluded, however, assassinations have never killed resistance. They have never killed the ideas and experiences that give birth to resistance in the first place.

Nor have they offered lasting security to those who have ordered the lethal strike.

Enduring security requires that, at some point, someone grasp the nettle and look to the underlying issues.

The alternative is the continuation of the brutal pattern of strike and counter-strike for generations to come.

Dr Matt Fitzpatrick is professor in international history, Flinders University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

War is good for business and geopolitical posturing.

Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington in early February for his first visit to the US following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, he issued a bold statement on the strategic position of Israel.

“The decisions we made in the war [since 7 October 2023] have already changed the face of the Middle East,” he said.

• READ MORE: Middle East Eye’s live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war
• Iran says it will stop ‘self-defence response’ if Israel halts attacks
• Other Israeli war on Iran reports

“Our decisions and the courage of our soldiers have redrawn the map. But I believe that working closely with President Trump, we can redraw it even further.”

How should this redrawn map be assessed?

Hamas is bloodied but undefeated in Gaza. The territory lies in ruins, leaving its remaining population with barely any resources to rebuild. Death and starvation stalk everyone.

Hezbollah in Lebanon has suffered military defeats, been infiltrated by Israeli intelligence, and now faces few viable options for projecting power in the near future. Political elites speak of disarming Hezbollah, though whether this is realistic is another question.

Morocco, Bahrain and the UAE accounted for 12 percent of Israel’s record $14.8bn in arms sales in 2024 — up from just 3 percent the year before

In Yemen, the Houthis continue to attack Israel, but pose no existential threat.

Meanwhile, since the overthrow of dictator Bashar al-Assad in late 2024, Israel has attacked and threatened Syria, while the new government in Damascus is flirting with Israel in a possible bid for “normalisation“.

The Gulf states remain friendly with Israel, and little has changed in the last 20 months to alter this relationship.

According to Israel’s newly released arms sales figures for 2024, which reached a record $14.8bn, Morocco, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates accounted for 12 percent of total weapons sales — up from just 3 percent in 2023.

It is conceivable that Saudi Arabia will be coerced into signing a deal with Israel in the coming years, in exchange for arms and nuclear technology for the dictatorial kingdom.

An Israeli and US-assisted war against Iran began on Friday.

In the West Bank, Israel’s annexation plans are surging ahead with little more than weak European statements of concern. Israel’s plans for Greater Israel — vastly expanding its territorial reach — are well underway in Syria, Lebanon and beyond.

Shifting alliances
On paper, Israel appears to be riding high, boasting military victories and vanquished enemies. And yet, many Israelis and pro-war Jews in the diaspora do not feel confident or buoyed by success.

Instead, there is an air of defeatism and insecurity, stemming from the belief that the war for Western public opinion has been lost — a sentiment reinforced by daily images of Israel’s campaign of deliberate mass destruction across the Gaza Strip.

What Israel craves and desperately needs is not simply military prowess, but legitimacy in the public domain. And this is sorely lacking across virtually every demographic worldwide.

It is why Israel is spending at least $150 million this year alone on “public diplomacy”.

Get ready for an army of influencers, wined and dined in Tel Aviv’s restaurants and bars, to sell the virtues of Israeli democracy. Even pro-Israel journalists are beginning to question how this money is being spent, wishing Israeli PR were more responsive and effective.

Today, Israeli Jews proudly back ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza in astoundingly high numbers. This reflects a Jewish supremacist mindset that is being fed a daily diet of extremist rhetoric in mainstream media.

There is arguably no other Western country with such a high proportion of racist, genocidal mania permeating public discourse.

According to a recent poll of Western European populations, Israel is viewed unfavourably in Germany, Denmark, France, Italy and Spain.

Very few in these countries support Israeli actions. Only between 13 and 21 percent hold a positive view of Israel, compared to 63-70 percent who do not.

The US-backed Pew Research Centre also released a global survey asking people in 24 countries about their views on Israel and Palestine. In 20 of the 24 nations, at least half of adults expressed a negative opinion of the Jewish state.

A deeper reckoning
Beyond Israel’s image problems lies a deeper question: can it ever expect full acceptance in the Middle East?

Apart from kings, monarchs and elites from Dubai to Riyadh and Manama to Rabat, Israel’s vicious and genocidal actions since 7 October 2023 have rendered “normalisation” impossible with a state intent on building a Jewish theocracy that subjugates millions of Arabs indefinitely.

While it is true that most states in the region are undemocratic, with gross human rights abuses a daily reality, Israel has long claimed to be different — “the only democracy in the Middle East”.

But Israel’s entire political system, built with massive Western support and grounded in an unsustainable racial hierarchy, precludes it from ever being fully and formally integrated into the region.

The American journalist Murtaza Hussain, writing for the US outlet Drop Site News, recently published a perceptive essay on this very subject.

He argues that Israeli actions have been so vile and historically grave — comparable to other modern holocausts — that they cannot be forgotten or excused, especially as they are publicly carried out with the explicit goal of ethnically cleansing Palestine:

“This genocide has been a political and cultural turning point beyond which we cannot continue as before. I express that with resignation rather than satisfaction, as it means that many generations of suffering are ahead on all sides.

“Ultimately, the goal of Israel’s opponents must not be to replicate its crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, nor to indulge in nihilistic hatred for its own sake.

“People in the region and beyond should work to build connections with those Israelis who are committed opponents of their regime, and who are ready to cooperate in the generational task of building a new political architecture.”

The issue is not just Netanyahu and his government. All his likely successors hold similarly hardline views on Palestinian rights and self-determination.

The monumental task ahead lies in crafting an alternative to today’s toxic Jewish theocracy.

But this rebuilding must also take place in the West. Far too many Jews, conservatives and evangelical Christians continue to cling to the fantasy of eradicating, silencing or expelling Arabs from their land entirely.

Pushing back against this fascism is one of the most urgent generational tasks of our time.

Antony Loewenstein is an Australian/German independent, freelance, award-winning, investigative journalist, best-selling author and film-maker. In 2025, he released an award-winning documentary series on Al Jazeera English, The Palestine Laboratory, adapted from his global best-selling book of the same name. It won a major prize at the prestigious Telly Awards. This article is republished from Middle East Eye with permission of the author.

By Helen Musa in Canberra

Former Palestinian diplomat and long-time Canberra identity Ali Kazak died on Saturday en route to Palestine.

Sources at the Canberra Islamic Centre report that he was recovering from heart surgery and died during a stopover in Thailand.

Kazak was born in Haifa in 1947 and grew up in Syria as a Palestinian refugee. He and his mother were separated from his father when Israel was created in 1948 and Kazak was only reunited with his father in 1993.

• READ MORE: The third Nakba in Israel’s war of genocide: Why does the Albanese government shirk its responsibility?

In 1968, while at Damascus University, Kazak had been invited to join the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Fateh) and joined its political wing.

He migrated to Australia in 1970 where he became the founder, publisher and co-editor of the Australian newspaper, Free Palestine, also authoring among many books, The Jerusalem Question and Australia and the Arabs.

Kazak was the driving force behind the establishment in 1981 of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign and was appointed by the PLO executive committee as the PLO’s representative to Australia, NZ and the Pacific region.

In 1982, he established the Palestine Information Office, which was recognised by the Australian government in 1989 as the office of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and then further recognised in 1994 as the General Palestinian Delegation.

As Palestinian Ambassador, Kazak initiated the establishment of the NSW State and Australian Federal Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, as well as the Victorian, South Australian and NZ Parliamentary Friends of Palestine.

Always a passionate advocate, in 1986 he became the first person to call for adjudication by the Australian Press Council of stereotyped reporting of Palestinians.

After retiring from diplomacy, he became the managing director of the consultancy company Southern Link International, but continued to comment on Palestinian affairs and Gaza.

His most recent article was published in the Pearls and Irritations: John Menadue’s Public Policy journal on May 16, titled The third Nakba in Israel’s war of genocide: Why does the Albanese government shirk its responsibility?

Arrangements are being made to return his body from Thailand to Australia for internment.

Helen Musa is the Canberra City News arts editor. This article was first published by City News.

A group of New Zealand academics at Otago University have drawn up a “Declaration on Palestine” against genocide, apartheid and scholasticide of Palestinians by Israel that has illegally occupied their indigenous lands for more than seven decades.

The document, which had already drawn more than 300 signatures from staff, students and alumni by the weekend, will be formally adopted at a congress of the Otago Staff for Justice in Palestine (OSJP) group on Thursday.

“At a time when our universities, our public institutions and our political leaders are silent in the face of the daily horrors we are shown from illegally-occupied Palestine, this declaration is an act of solidarity with our Palestinian whānau,” declared Professor Richard Jackson from Te Ao O Rongomaraeroa — The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies.

• READ MORE: How Israel’s war on Gaza is destroying Palestinian education
• Gaza: An expression of conscience
• Other Gaza scholasticide reports

“It expresses the brutal truth of what is currently taking place in Palestine, as well as our commitment to international law and human rights, and our social responsibilities as academics.

“We hope the declaration will be an inspiration to others and a call to action at a moment when the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is accelerating at an alarming rate.”

Scholars and students at the university had expressed concern that they did not want to be teaching or learning about the Palestinian genocide in future courses on the history of the Palestinian people, Professor Jackson said.

Nor did they want to feel ashamed when they were asked what they did while the genocide was taking place.

‘Collective moral courage’
“Signing up to the declaration represents an act of individual and collective moral courage, and a public commitment to working to end the genocide.”

In an interview with the Otago Daily Times published at the weekend, Professor Jackson said boycotting academic ties with Israel was among the measures included in a declaration.

The declaration commits its signatories to an academic boycott as part of the wider Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanction (BDS) campaign “until such time as Palestinians enjoy freedom from genocide, apartheid and scholasticide”, they had national self-determination and full and complete enjoyment of human rights, as codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The declaration says that given the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled there is a “plausible” case that Israel has been committing genocide, and that all states that are signatory to the Genocide Convention must take all necessary measures to prevent acts of genocide, the signatories commit themselves to an academic boycott.

BDS is a campaign, begun in 2005, to promote economic, social and cultural boycotts of the Israeli government, Israeli companies and companies that support Israel, in an effort to end the occupation of Palestinian territories and win equal rights for Palestinian citizens within Israel.

It draws inspiration from South African anti-apartheid campaigns and the United States civil rights movement.

The full text of the declaration:

The Otago Declaration on the Situation in Palestine

We, the staff, students and graduates, being members of the University of Otago, make the following declaration.

We fully and completely recognise that:
– The Palestinian people have a right under international law to national self-determination;
– The Palestinians have the right to security and the full enjoyment of all human and social rights as laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

And furthermore that:
– Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian nation, according to experts, official bodies, international lawyers and human rights organisations;
– Israel operates a system of apartheid in the territories it controls, and denies the full expression and enjoyment of human rights to Palestinians, according to international courts, human rights organisations, legal and academic experts;
– Israel is committing scholasticide, thereby denying Palestinians their right to education;

We recognise that:
– Given the International Court of Justice has ruled that there is a plausible case that Israel has been committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, that all states that are signatory to the Genocide Convention, which includes Aotearoa New Zealand, have a responsibility to take all necessary measures to prevent acts of genocide;

We also acknowledge that as members of a public institution with educational responsibilities:
– We hold a legal and ethical responsibility to act as critic and conscience of society, both individually as members of the University and collectively as a social institution;
– We have a responsibility to follow international law and norms and to act in an ethical manner in our personal and professional endeavours;
– We hold an ethical responsibility to act in solidarity with oppressed and disadvantaged people, including those who struggle against settler colonial regimes or discriminatory apartheid systems and the harmful long-term effects of colonisation;
– We owe a responsibility to fellow educators who are victimised by apartheid and scholasticide;

Therefore, we, the under-signed, do solemnly commit ourselves to:
– Uphold the practices, standards and ethics of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in terms of investment and procurement as called for by Palestinian civil society and international legal bodies; until such time as Palestinians enjoy freedom from genocide, apartheid and scholasticide, national self-determination and full and complete enjoyment of human rights, as codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
– Adopt as part of the BDS campaign an Academic Boycott, as called for by Palestinian civil society and international legal bodies; until such time as Palestinians enjoy freedom from genocide, apartheid and scholasticide, national self-determination and full and complete enjoyment of human rights, as codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• The Otago Declaration congress meeting will be held on Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 12 noon at the Museum Lawn, Dunedin.

Peaceful protesters in Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest city Auckland held an Easter prayer vigil honouring Palestinian political prisoners and the sacrifice of thousands of innocent lives as relentless Israeli bombing of displaced Gazans in tents killed at least 92 people in two days.

Organisers of the rally for the 80th week since the war began in October 2023 said they aimed for a shift in emphasis for quietness and meditation this spiritual weekend.

“This is dedicated to the Palestine Prisoners’ Day and those who have died, innocent of any crime — women, children, journalists, patients, friends, healthcare workers, those buried under rubble, non-military civilians,” said Kathy Ross of Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

• READ MORE: Israel kills 92 in 2 days as Gaza’s Christians prepare for sorrowful Easter
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports
• More images and videos at today’s vigil

“All those starving and needing our help,” she added.

The organisers created a flowers and candles circle of peace with hibiscus blossoms in an area of Britomart that has become dubbed “Palestinian Corner”.

Placards declared “Free all Palestinian prisoners — all 10,000 people” and “Release the Palestinian prisoners.”

Palestinian fusion dancer and singer Rana Hamida, who last year sailed on the Freedom Flotilla boat Handala in an attempt to break the Israel siege of Gaza, spoke about how people could keep their spirits up in the face of such terrible atrocities, and sang a haunting cappella.

Calmness and strength
She also described how the air and wind could help protesters seek calmness and strength in spite of storms like Cyclone Tam that gusted across much of New Zealand yesterday on Good Friday causing havoc.

She spread her arms like wings as Palestinian flags fluttered strongly, saying: “The wind is now blowing in exactly the right direction.”

Another PSNA organiser, Del Abcede, spoke about the incarceration of Palestinian paediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, who was kidnapped by the Israeli military last December 27 — two days after Christmas – and has been held in detention without charge and under torture ever since.

“The reason why he was arrested is because he would not leave his hospital or his patients,” she said, adding that he had been held incommunicado for a long time.

“I want to dedicate a special honour and prayer for him and I hope that he will be released soon.”

Beaten in prison
Dr Safiya is suffering from a serious eye injury as a result of being beaten in Israeli prison, his lawyer has revealed to media.

According to lawyer Ghaid Qassem, Dr Abu Safiya has been classified by Israeli authorities as an “unlawful combatant” but has not yet been charged or received any court trials.

Despite a global campaign calling for him to be released from prison, Israeli authorities have continued to interrogate and torture Dr Abu Safiya.

Another speaker at the vigil, Dr David Robie, said he had been a journalist for 50 years and he found it “shameful” that the Western media — including Aotearoa New Zealand — failed to report the genocide and ethnic cleansing truthfully, and in fact was normalising the “horrendous crimes”.

He called for silent prayer for the at least 232 Gazan journalists killed — many along with their entire families — who had been courageously reporting the truth to the rest of the world.

Banners at the vigil referred to “Jesus [was] Palestinian – born in Bethlehem” and “Let Gaza live”. One placard declared “Jesus was an anti-imperialist Palestinian Jew who preached (and practised) radical love for all – not a violent bully bigot”.

Other vigils and protests took place across New Zealand at Easter weekend, especially in Ōtautahi Christchurch.

‘Violating’ religious status quo
Meanwhile, in Jerusalem reports were emerging that Israelis were “taking pride in violating the status quo” with religious traditions at Easter.

Xavier Abu Eid, a political scientist and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from occupied East Jerusalem, explained on Al Jazeera that Jerusalem, “has a very central place” in the history of Palestinian Christians.

“We have to … understand what the Israeli occupation is doing to all Palestinians, because there is a concept. … It’s called the status quo. It’s understood and it’s under a very old agreement, centuries or older than the state of Israel,” he said.

Under the status quo, “the status of Christian and Muslim holy sites, including Al-Aqsa Mosque, for example, and the Holy Sepulchre, would be respected,” Dr Eid explained.

Despite this, he said, “Israeli government officials are taking pride in violating the status quo of Al-Aqsa Mosque compound by allowing Israeli settlers to pray in Al-Aqsa Mosque”.

He said the Israeli authorities are also trying to “turn the Mount of Olives, a very important place for this [Easter] celebration, into an Israeli national park”.

“So you’re talking about a community that feels under threat, not just from a national point of view with the Israeli government, pushing for ethnic cleansing and annexation, but also from the traditions that religiously we have kept here for generations,” he noted.

The UN Palestine relief agency UNRWA reports that after 1.5 years of war in Gaza, at least 51,000 Palestinians have been killed, 1.9 million people have been forcibly displaced multiple times, and the Israel military has blocked humanitarian aid from entering the besieged enclave for seven weeks.

A researcher says the Israeli prison system aims to subjugate the Palestinian people as rallies across the West Bank marked Prisoners’ Day today while yet another prisoner was reported dead.

“When you have the statistics that one in every five Palestinians has been arrested and you understand that 50 percent of our population are children under 18 — that means that roughly one in every two male adults has been arrested, subjugated and criminalised by Israeli authorities,” researcher and former detainee Al-Aboudi told Al Jazeera.

He is the director of the Bisan Center for Research and Development, based in Ramallah, occupied West Bank.

• READ MORE: Call for collective global action over ‘horrific’ Israeli crimes against Palestinian prisoners
• Other Palestinian prisoners reports

The goal, said Al-Aboudi, who himself was detained in 2019, is to break Palestinian resilience.

“It’s only in Israeli jails that you will find doctors, professors, academics, physicists — the creme de la creme of Palestinian civil society is being targeted, incarcerated because Israel doesn’t want any kind of Palestinian agency, any Palestinian collective agency, any kind of Palestinian leadership,” he said.

Palestinians mark Prisoners’ Day on April 17 each year, reports Al Jazeera.

Human rights organisations warn that Palestinian detainees are subject to some of the worst conditions in Israeli prisons.

Detainees tell of torture, starvation
They are not allowed visits from family, lawyers or doctors, and former detainees tell of torture, abuse and starvation by Israeli prison authorities.

Musab Hassan Adili, a 20-year-old Palestinian prisoner from the occupied West Bank city of Nablus, was reported to have died on Wednesday night in Israel’s Soroka Hospital, according to the Palestinian Prisoner’s Society.

Palestine marches for prisoners’ freedom.    Video: Al Jazeera

Adili had been detained in March last year and sentenced to 13 months in Israeli prison. He was supposed to be released in a couple of days, his family said.

His death brings the number of Palestinian prisoners who have died in Israeli prisons to 64 since the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel in 2023.

‘Shameless double standard’
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) has condemned what it calls the “clear and shameless double standard” of those demanding the release of Israeli captives in Gaza but staying silent while thousands of Palestinians languish in Israel’s jails, including women and children.

In a statement marking Palestinian Prisoners’ Day, PIJ said the “international community is tarnished by its silence regarding the suffering of tens of thousands of Palestinian prisoners, which has continued for decades”.

Of the nearly 10,000 Palestinians that support groups say are held in Israeli prisons, 3498 are held without charge or trial under what’s known as “administrative detention”.

PIJ said that 400 children and almost 30 women are among those held, while some 2000 people from Gaza have been arrested by Israeli forces since October 7, 2023, and that the prisoners who have died in Israeli jails suffer from medical negligence and torture.

According to PIJ, the October 7 attacks on Israel were launched “primarily to impose a genuine prisoner exchange deal that would free prisoners from the occupation’s prisons and alleviate the suffering of our people”.

“Their liberation has become an unwavering goal in the battle for dignity and freedom,” it said.

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.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Alex Foley

Israel announced that Hossam Shabat was a “terrorist” alongside six other Palestinian journalists. Hossam predicted they would assassinate him.

He survived several attempts on his life. He wrote a brief obituary for himself at the age of 23, carried on reporting, and then on March 24, 2025, Israel killed him.

For those of us outside of Gaza, helpless to stop the carnage but unable to look away, a begrudging numbness has set in, a psychic lidocaine to cope with the daily images of the shattered bodies of dead children.

• READ MORE: NZ protesters honour killed Gaza journalists – ‘targeted’ say press freedom groups
• Silencing the messenger: Israel kills journalists, while the West merely censors them — David Robie
• Other Gaza journalist reports

The other pro-Palestinian advocates and activists I speak with all mention familiar brain fogs and free-floating agitations.

By this point, I am accustomed to opening my phone and steeling myself for the horrors. But learning of Hossam’s death cut through me like a warm knife.

Through whatever fluke of the internet, many of the friends I have made over the course of the genocide are from the city of Beit Hanoun, like Hossam Shabat.

One was his classmate. Another walked with him through the bombed-out ruins of the North. Looking upon his upturned face, splattered with three stripes of crimson blood, I could not help but imagine each of them lying there in his place.

To quote my dear friend Ibrahim Al-Masri:

“Hossam Shabat wasn’t alone. He carried the grief of Beit Hanoun, the cries of children trapped under rubble, the aching voices of mothers queuing for bread, and the gasps of the wounded in hospitals that no longer functioned as hospitals.”

Many will remember the video of 14-year-old aspiring journalist Maisam Al-Masri greeting Hossam Shabat in his car, elated that he had not been killed when the occupation first took the North.

Separated from family
Hossam remained in Northern Gaza throughout the genocide, separated from his family, in full knowledge that staying and working was a death sentence. His reports were an invaluable insight into the occupation’s crimes, and for that they killed him.

In death, his eyes remained open, bearing witness one last time.

The Israeli account is, of course, very different. The Israeli army has claimed that Hossam Shabat was a “Hamas sniper” with the Beit Hanoun Battalion.

It is the kind of paper-thin lie we have grown accustomed to, dutifully repeated by the Western press. I am no military tactician, but I find it hard to believe that a young man with a high profile who reported his location frequently, including in live broadcasts, would be an effective sniper.

In the weeks before he was assassinated, Hossam Shabat was tweeting up to a dozen times a day.

Hasbara killed Hossam Shabat because it’s losing the PR war
A qualitative shift has occurred over the course of the genocide; Israel no longer seems interested in or capable of convincing the rest of the world that its actions are just. Rather, they are preoccupied with producing increasingly flimsy justifications with the sole aim of quelling internal dissent.

The Hasbara machine is foundering.

How could it not? For 17 months we have experienced a daily split screen between the endless stream of atrocities committed against the Palestinians and the screeching histrionics of Zionist influencers. While the people of Gaza endure blockade and bombing, Noa Tishby and Michael Rapaport moan about campus demonstrations.

The campus encampments are also the subject of a new documentary, October 8, currently in theatres throughout the US. Originally titled October H8te, the film claims to be a “searing look at the eruption of antisemitism in America that started the day after Hamas’ attack on Israel”.

The trailer is a series of to-camera interviews of the usual suspects, all decrying the lack of support Zionists discovered in the wake of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. They cite social media censorship and foreign interference as reasons for Zionism’s wild unpopularity among college students.

It never seems to occur to them that it might be Israel’s actions doing the damage.

In a recently shared clip, former Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg, leans into the victim role, fighting through tears that do not come while relaying a story of asking a close friend if she would hide her while the pair were on a walk. Sandberg attributes her friend’s confusion at the question to the woman not being Jewish and not to the fact that it is a frankly absurd thing for a woman worth over $2 billion to ask.

‘Disappearing’ student protesters
The reality is, while Sandberg talks about how unsafe she feels in the US because of the university encampments, the government itself has begun “disappearing” student protesters on her behalf.

Plainclothes ICE agents are continuing to abduct student activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk at the behest of Betar USA, a far-right militant movement founded by Jabotinsky that has been providing the Trump administration with deportation lists.

The violent fantasies that Sandberg argues warrant a global outpouring of sympathy for Zionists are being enacted on an almost daily basis against the very students she claims are a threat.

The hysteria around the encampments has reached a new ludicrous pitch with a lawsuit filed by a group including the families of hostages taken on October 7 against students at Columbia, among them Khalil, whom they allege have been coordinating with Hamas.

The “bombshell” filing includes such evidence as an Instagram post by Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine published three minutes before Hamas’ attack that stated, “We are back!!” after the account was dormant for several months.

The reasonable person might note that the inactivity on the account coincided with the Summer holidays. They might point out that it seems unlikely Hamas was coordinating with student groups in the US about an operation that required the element of surprise.

They might even question what the American students could provide that would make such a risk worth it.

Securing flow of weapons
But Hasbara is no longer concerned with the reasonable person; its sole purpose is securing the flow of weapons. Despite the government announcing earlier this year that they are spending an additional $150 million on “international PR,” Israel seems increasingly uninterested in convincing anyone other than the Western governments that still back them.

While public opinion of Israel plummets, each day the genocide continues without significant repercussions only reinforces that they can ignore this opinion.

This is reflected in the degree to which the goalposts have shifted. First, we were told Israel would never bomb a hospital, then we were shown elaborate schematics of nonexistent subterranean command centres, and now they execute and bury first responders without so much as a shrug.

The perverse result of Hasbara falling apart is more brazen, ruthless killing.

While legacy media may still run interference for Israel and universities continue to roll over for the Trump administration, Israel is facing a real threat. It can kill and kill — the number of journalists they have slain far outstrips other major conflicts — but for every Hossam Shabat they kill, there is a Maisam waiting in the wings, ready to shed light on their crimes.

Alex Foley is a researcher and painter living in Brighton, UK. They have a background in molecular biology of health and disease. They are the co-founder of the Accountability Archive, a web tool preserving fragile digital evidence of pro-genocidal rhetoric from power holders. Follow them on X:@foleywoley Republished from The New Arab under Creative Commons.

A Fiji-based Pacific solidarity group supporting the indigenous Palestine struggle for survival against the Israeli settler colonial state has today issued a statement condemning Fiji backing for Israel.

In an open letter to the “people of Fiji”, the Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network (F4P) has warned “your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians”.

“It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”

• READ MORE: Global watchdog condemns Fiji for ‘blocking’ protest marches over Gaza genocide
• Other Fiji support for Israel reports

The group said the struggle resonated with all who believed in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.

Fijians for Palestine has condemned Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government plans to open a Fijian embassy in Jerusalem with Israeli backing and has launched a “No embassy on occupied land” campaign.

The group likened the Palestine liberation struggle to Pacific self-determination campaigns in Bougainville, “French” Polynesia, Kanaky and West Papua.

Global voices for end to violence
The open letter on social media said:

“Our solidarity with the Palestinian people is a testament to our shared humanity. We believe in a world where diversity, is treated with dignity and respect.

“We dream of a future where children in Gaza can play without fear, where families can live without the shadow of war, and where the Palestinian people can finally enjoy the peace and freedom they so rightly deserve.

“We join the global voices demanding a permanent ceasefire and an end to the violence. We express our unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people.

“The Palestinian struggle is not just a regional issue; it is a testament to the resilience of a people who, despite facing impossible odds, continue to fight for their right to exist, freedom, and dignity. Their struggle resonates with all who believe in justice, equality, and the fundamental rights of every human being.

“The images of destruction, the stories of families torn apart, and the cries of children caught in the crossfire are heart-wrenching. These are not mere statistics or distant news stories; these are real people with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, much like us.

“As Fijians, we have always prided ourselves on our commitment to peace, unity, and humanity. Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.

“We call on you to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people this Thursday with us, not out of political allegiance but out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.

“There can be no peace without justice, and we stand in unity with all people and territories struggling for self-determination and freedom from occupation. The Pacific cannot be an Ocean of Peace without freedom and self determination in Palestine, West Papua, Kanaky and all oppressed territories.

“To the Fijian people, please know that your government openly supports Israel despite its genocidal campaign against Palestinians. It is directly complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and history will not forgive their inaction.”

Today I attended a demonstration outside both Aotearoa New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Israeli Embassy in Wellington.

The day before, the Israelis had blown apart 174 children in Gaza in a surprise attack that announced the next phase of the genocide.

About 174 Wellingtonians turned up to a quickly-called protest: they are the best of us — the best of Wellington.

• READ MORE: Israel kills 71 in predawn attacks on Gaza — Netanyahu warns of ‘fierce’ war
• Netanyahu commits a new ‘bloodbath in Gaza’ to save himself
• Other Gaza genocide reports

In 2023, the City made me an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian for service across a number of fronts (water infrastructure, conservation, coastal resilience, community organising) but nothing I have done compares with the importance of standing up for the victims of US-Israeli violence.

What more can we do?  And then it crossed my mind: “Declare Wellington Genocide Free”.  And if Wellington could, why not other cities?

Wellington started nuclear-free drive
The nuclear-free campaign, led by Wellington back in the 1980s, is a template worth reviving.

Wellington became the first city in New Zealand — and the first capital in the world — to declare itself nuclear free in 1982.  It followed the excellent example of Missoula, Montana, USA, the first city in the world to do so, in 1978.

These were tumultuous times. I vividly remember heading into Wellington harbour on a small yacht, part of a peace flotilla made up of kayakers, yachties and wind surfers that tried to stop the USS Texas from berthing. It won that battle that day but we won the war.

This was the decade which saw the French government’s terrorist bomb attack on a Greenpeace ship in Auckland harbour to intimidate the anti-nuclear movement.

Also, 2025 is the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the death of Fernando Pereira. Little Island Press will be reissuing a new edition of my friend David Robie’s book Eyes of Fire later this year. It tells the incredible story of the final voyage of the Rainbow Warrior.

Standing up to bullies
Labour under David Lange successfully campaigned and won the 1984 elections on a nuclear-free platform which promised to ban nuclear ships from our waters.

This was a time when we had a government that had the backbone to act independently of the US. Yes, we had a grumpy relationship with the Yanks for a while and we were booted out of ANZUS — surely a cause for celebration in contrast to today when our government is little more than a finger puppet for Team Genocide.

In response to bullying from Australia and the US, David Lange said at the time:  “It is the price we are prepared to pay.”

With Wellington in the lead, nuclear-free had moved over the course of a decade from a fringe peace movement to the mainstream and eventually to become government policy.

The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 was passed and remains a cornerstone of our foreign policy.

New Zealand took a stand that showed strong opposition to out-of-control militarism, the risks of nuclear war, and strong support for the international movement to step back from nuclear weapons.

It was a powerful statement of our independence as a nation and a rejection of foreign dominance. It also reduced the risk of contamination in case of a nuclear accident aboard a vessel (remember this was the same decade as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine).

The nuclear-free campaign and Palestine
Each of those points have similarities with the Palestinian cause today and should act as inspiration for cities to mobilise and build national solidarity with the Palestinians.

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.

The Palestinian resistance group Hamas has accused Israel of “blackmail” over aid for Gaza and urged the US government to act more like a neutral mediator in the ceasefire process.

“We call on the US administration to stop its bias and alignment with the fascist plans of the war criminal Netanyahu, which target our people and their existence on their land,” Hamas said in a statement.

“We affirm that all projects and plans that bypass our people and their established rights on their land, self-determination, and liberation from occupation are destined for failure and defeat.

• READ MORE: Israel blocks entry of aid into Gaza after first phase of truce ends
• Israel’s genocide is expanding into the West Bank – but Western media ‘ignores’ it
• Other war on Palestine reports

“We reaffirm our commitment to implementing the signed agreement in its three stages, and we have repeatedly announced our readiness to start negotiations on the second stage of the agreement,” it said.

Al Jazeera Arabic reports that Israel sought a dramatic change to the terms of the ceasefire agreement with a demand that Hamas release five living captives and 10 bodies of dead captives in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and increased aid to the Gaza Strip.

It also sought to extend the first phase of the ceasefire by a week.

Israel has chosen to mark the first days of Ramadan by blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Still, our government refuses to implement sanctions and defend international law.

There is no other way of putting it: this is a resumption of genocide — and our government is complicit.

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) March 2, 2025

Hamas informed the mediators that it rejected the Israeli proposal and considered it a violation of what was agreed upon in the ceasefire.

Israel suspends humanitarian aid
In response, Israel suspended the entry of humanitarian aid at the start of Ramadan until further notice and Hamas claimed Tel Aviv “bears responsibility” for the fate of the 59 Israelis still held in the Gaza Strip.

Reports said Israeli attacks in Gaza on Sunday have killed at least four people and injured five people, according to medical sources.

“The occupation [Israel] bears responsibility for the consequences of its decision on the population of the Strip and for the fate of its prisoners,” Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said in a statement.

Under the agreed ceasefire, the second phase of the truce was intended to see the release of the remaining captives, the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and a final end to the war.

However, the talks on how to carry out the second phase never began, and Israel said all its captives must be returned for fighting to stop.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, an analyst said that although the fragile ceasefire seemed on the brink of collapse, it was unlikely that US President Donald Trump would allow it to fail.

“I think the larger picture here is Trump is not interested in the resumption of war,” said Sami al-Arian, professor of public affairs at Istanbul Zaim University.

“He has a very long agenda domestically and internationally and if it is going to be dragged by Netanyahu and his fascist partners into another war of genocide with no strategic end, he knows this is going to be a no-win for him.

“And for one thing, Trump hates to lose.”

No game plan
In another interview, Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg told Al Jazeera that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was caught between seeing the Gaza ceasefire through and resorting to a costly all-out war that may prove unpopular at home.

“I’m not sure Netanyahu has a game plan,” Goldberg said.

“The reason he hasn’t made a decision is because . . . Israel is not equipped to go to war right now. Resilience is at an all-time low. Resources are at an all-time low.”

In December, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees reported that more than 19,000 children had been hospitalised for acute malnutrition in four months.

In the first full year of the war — ending in October 2024 — 37 children died from malnutrition or dehydration.

Last September 21, The International Criminal Court (ICC) said there was reason to believe Israel was using “starvation as a method of warfare” when it issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said all efforts must be made to prevent a return to hostilities, which would be catastrophic.

He urged all parties to exercise maximum restraint and find a way forward on the next phase.

Guterres also called for an urgent de-escalation of the violence in the occupied West Bank.

Almost 50,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli war on Gaza since 7 October 2023.

Palestine has strongly condemned Fiji’s decision to open a Fiji embassy in Jerusalem, calling it a violation of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry and the Hamas resistance group that governs the besieged enclave of Gaza issued separate statements, urging the Fiji government to reverse its decision.

According to the Palestinian Foreign Ministry, the Fijian decision is “an act of aggression against the Palestinian people and their inalienable rights”.

• READ MORE: UN rights expert calls for Gaza medical director Dr Abu Safia’s release
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

The Palestinian group Hamas said in a statement that the decision was “a blatant assault on the rights of our Palestinian people to their land and a clear violation of international law and UN resolutions, which recognise Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory”.

Fiji will become the seventh country to have an embassy in Jerusalem after the US, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, and Paraguay.

• The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on 18 September 2024 (124-14) to adopt a resolution that demands Israel “brings to an end without delay its unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. More than seven years earlier, on 21 December 2017, an emergency resolution by the UNGA declared the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void”.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

I watched US President Donald Trump’s joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week in utter disbelief. Not that the idea, or indeed the practice, of ethnic cleansing of Palestine is new.

But at that press conference the mask has fallen. Recently, fascism has been on the march everywhere, but that press conference seemed to herald an age of naked fascism.

So the Palestinians have just been “unlucky” for decades.

• READ MORE: Fear, anxiety in Gaza as Trump gives Hamas ultimatum to release captives
• Other Israel’s war on Palestine reports

“Their lives have been made hell.” Thank God for grammar’s indirect speech. Their lives have been made hell. We do not know who made their lives hell. Nothing to see here.

Trump says of Gaza: “We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site, and get rid of the destroyed buildings — level it out and create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area . . . ”

I wonder who are those lucky “people of the area” he has in mind, once those “unlucky” Palestinians have been “transferred” out of their homeland.

Trump speaks of transforming Gaza into a magnificent “Riviera of the Middle East”. Obviously, the starved amputees of Gaza do not fit his image of the classy people he wants to see in the Riviera he wants to build, on stolen Palestinian land.

No ethnic cleansing questions
After the press conference, I did not hear a single question about ethnic cleansing, genocide, occupation or international law.

Under the new fascist leaders, just like under the old ones, those words have become old-fashioned and are to be expunged from the lexicon.

The difference has never been more striking between the meek who officially hold the title “journalist” and the brave who actually work to hold the powerful to account.

Now, more than ever, independent journalists are a threatened species. We should treasure them, support them and protest every attempt to silence them.

Gaza is now the prototype. We can forget international laws and international organisations. We have the bombs. You do as we wish or you will be obliterated.

Who now dares say that the forced transfer of a population by an occupying power is a war crime under the Geneva Convention? But then again, Trump and Netanyahu are not really talking about “forced transfer”. They are talking about “voluntary transfer”.

Once the remaining Israeli hostages have been freed, and water and food have been cut off again, those unlucky Palestinians will climb voluntarily onto the buses waiting to transport them to happiness and prosperity in Egypt and Jordan.

Or to whatever other client state Trump manages to threaten or bribe.

Can the International Criminal Court (ICC) command a shred of respect when Netanyahu is sharing the podium with Trump? Or indeed when Trump is at the podium?

Dismantling the international order
Recently, fascist leaders have been dismantling the international order by accusing its organisations and officials of being “antisemitic” or “working with terrorists”. Tomorrow they will defund and delegitimise these organisations without the need for an excuse.

I listen to Trump speak of combatting antisemitism and deporting Hamas sympathisers and I hear, “We will combat anti-Israel views and we will deport those who protest Israel’s crimes.

“And we will continue to conflate antisemitism and anti-Israel’s views in order to silence pro-Palestinian voices.”

I watch Trump and Netanyahu, the former reading the thoughts of a real estate developer turned into a president’s speech and the latter grinning like a Cheshire cat — and I am gripped by fear. Not just for the Palestinians, but for all humanity.

If we think fascism is only coming for people on a distant shore, we ought to think again.

I watch Netanyahu repeating lies that investigative journalists have spent months debunking. Why would he care? The truth about his lies will not make it to mainstream media and the consciousness of the majority of people.

Hamas suspends the release of Gaza captives, accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire by continuing to kill Palestinians and blocking humanitarian aid.

Follow our LIVE coverage: https://t.co/OXOBADdF6T pic.twitter.com/h4vf4GM9W7

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) February 11, 2025

Lies taking hold, enduring
And the more he repeats those lies, the more they take hold and endure.

I wonder how our political leaders will spin our allies’ new, illegal and immoral plans. For years, they have clung to the mantra of the two-state solution while Israel continued to make every effort to render this solution unfeasible.

What will they say now? With what weasel words will they stay on the same page as our friends in the US and Israel?

Netanyhu praises Trump for thinking outside the box. Here is an idea that Israel has spent billions on arms and propaganda to persuade people that it is dangerously outside the box.

Instead of asking Egypt and Jordan to take the Palestinians, why not make Israel end the occupation and give Palestinians equal rights in their own homeland?

Sawsan Madina is former head of Australia’s SBS Television. This article was first published by John Menadue’s public policy journal Pearls and Irritations and is republished with permission.

A Palestinian man living in Aotearoa New Zealand who has lost 55 relatives in three Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, says his remaining family will never leave, despite a US proposal to remove them.

US President Donald Trump doubled down on his plan on Friday after it was rejected by Palestinians and leaders around the world.

Yasser Abdulaal, who has lived in Ōtautahi Christchurch for five years, said his two sisters had lost their homes in the 15-month-long war.

• READ MORE:  US committed to ‘buying and owning’ Gaza, Trump says
• Palestinians returning to ‘toxic wasteland’ in northern Gaza
• Peters’ refusal to join ICC backers puts NZ in Trump’s ‘lawless minority’
• World leaders react to Trump sanctions on International Criminal Court
• Other Israel’s war on Palestine reports

Abdulaal said they and their husbands — all teachers — could have left at the start of the bombing but refused to abandon their land — and they would not be leaving now.

“After the ceasefire and with Trump’s statements, they are definitely not going to leave Gaza, regardless of what he says and what [the US] does. It’s their land.”

He said New Zealand should recognise Palestine as a state and sanction Israel in accordance with international law.

It should also call for more funding for international aid to Gaza, he added.

‘Two-state solution’
“New Zealand voted for a two-state solution and we have been asking the government to enforce that. Many countries during the genocide already recognise Palestine as a state but our government sees it as ‘not the right time’.

“I think it is the right time, and New Zealand should recognise Palestine immediately.”

Abdulaal said he reached a moment during the war where he could not bring himself to call his sisters.

“I didn’t know what to say, remotely, from New Zealand.

“It’s a really hard time for everyone, they’ve been in tents for more than eight months, both [my sisters’] houses have gone, they are completely rubble.

“They are still in tents despite the ceasefire because they have no other place to go to.”

But he has talked to the pair since the ceasefire began.

Israeli tanks in area
“One of my sisters can’t even go and see her house as there is still Israeli tanks in that area [the Philadelphia corridor]. But we know from footage — as she says — the height of my house now is half a metre, it was two levels but now it’s half a metre.

“It’s mixed emotions. The killing and bloodshed has stopped, but I have lost 55 [relatives] in the airstrikes, most of them women and children.

“They haven’t even had a proper funeral . . .  it’s really hard, people are just trying to get food for their kids, those basic human rights for people which they don’t have.

“They are happy with the ceasefire, and we hope it will be a permanent ceasefire, but we have also lost lots of people . . .  [the rest] have lost their houses, their jobs, everything.

Families returning to northern #Gaza are shocked by the scale of destruction.

UNICEF’s Tess Ingram shares the reality on the ground and the immense challenges people are facing. pic.twitter.com/IRYrN9AsNM

— UNICEF MENA – يونيسف الشرق الأوسط وشمال إفريقيا (@UNICEFmena) February 9, 2025

“When I close my eyes and I think about losing 55 people, and that’s just the ones we know about. It’s horrific, I can’t believe it . . .  they’re all relatives: cousins, uncles, extended family.”

Trump’s proposal was a “dangerous statement and outrageous”, Abdulaal said, likening it to “a reward to Netanyahu and the Israeli government who have been bombing everything in Gaza, killing everyone, committing genocide”.

“[President Trump] says he wants to drive the people out of Gaza, meaning he wants to ethnically cleanse the people from Gaza, which is another war crime,” said Abdulaal.

“This is our land and we are rooted to this land and we’ll never leave it.”

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

New Zealand should be robust in its response to the “unacceptable” situation in Gaza but it must also back its allies against threats by the US President, says an international relations academic.

Otago University professor of international relations Robert Patman said the rest of the world also “should stop tip-toeing” around President Donald Trump and must stand up to any threats he makes against allies, no matter how outlandish they seem.

Trump doubled down on his proposal for a US takeover of Gaza on Friday, after the idea was rejected by Palestinians and leaders around the world.

• READ MORE: Israel pulling out of Netzarim in Gaza after captives exchange
• Other war on Palestine reports

Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ that New Zealand would not comment on the plan until it was clear exactly what was meant, but said New Zealand continued to support a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Dr Patman said the president’s plan was “truly shocking and absolutely appalling” in light of the devastation in Gaza in the last 15 months.

It was not only “tone deaf” but also dangerous, he added, with the proposal amounting to “the most powerful country in the world — the US — dismantling an international rules=based system that [it] has done so much to establish”.

“This was an extraordinary proposal which I think is reckless and dangerous because it certainly doesn’t help the immediate situation. It probably plays into the hands of extremists in the region.

“There is a view at the moment that we must all tiptoe round Mr Trump in order not to upset him, while he’s completely free to make outrageous suggestions which endanger people’s lives.”

Winston Peters’ careful position on a potential US takeover of Gaza was “a fair response . . . but the Luxon-led government must be clear the current situation is unacceptable” and oppose protectionism, he said.

“[The government ] wants a solution in the Middle East which recognises both the Israeli desire for security but also recognises the political right to self determination of the Palestinian people — in other words the right to have a state of their own.”

New Zealand should also speak out against Trump’s threats to annex Canada, “our very close ally”, he said.

He was “not suggesting New Zealand be provocative but it must be robust”, Dr Patman said.

Greens also respond to Trump actions
The Green Party said President Trump had been explicit in his intention to take over Gaza, and New Zealand needed to make its position crystal clear too.

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the Prime Minister needed to stand up and condemn the plan as “reprehensible”.

“President Trump’s comments have been pretty clear to anybody who is able to read or to listen to them, about his intention to forcibly displace, or to see displaced, about 1.8 million Gazans from their own land, who have already been made refugees in their own land.”

France, Spain, Ireland, Brazil and other countries had been “unequivocal” in their condemnation of Trump’s plan, and NZ’s Foreign Affairs Minister should be too, she added.

“New Zealanders value justice and they value peace, and they want to see our leadership represent that, on the international stage. So [these were] really disappointing and unfortunately unclear comments from our Deputy Prime Minister.”

Yesterday Foreign Minister Winston Peters told RNZ that New Zealand still supported a two-state solution, but said he would not comment on Trump’s Gaza plan until officials could grasp exactly what this meant.

Trump sanctions International Criminal Court
Meanwhile, an international law expert says New Zealand’s cautious position following Trump’s sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) staff is the right response — for now.

Dozens of countries have expressed “unwavering support” for the ICC in a joint statement, after the US President imposed sanctions on its staff.

The 125-member ICC is a permanent court that can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression against the territory of member states or by their nationals.

The United States, China, Russia and Israel are not members.

Trump has accused the court of improperly targeting the US and its ally, Israel.

Neither New Zealand nor Australia had joined the statement, but in a statement to RNZ the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had always supported the ICC’s role in upholding international law and a rules-based system.

University of Victoria law professor Alberto Costi said currently New Zealand is at little risk of sanctions and there’s no need for a stronger approach.

“At this stage there is no reason to be stronger. New Zealand is perceived as a state that believes in a rules-based order and is supportive of the work of the ICC.

“So there’s not much need to go further but it’s a space to watch in the future, should these sanctions become a reality.

“But as far as New Zealand is concerned, at the moment there is no need to antagonise anyone at this stage.”

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

The Al Jazeera Network has condemned the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent by Palestinian security services as a bid by the Israeli occupation to “block media coverage” of the military attack on Jenin.

Israeli soldiers have killed at least 12 Palestinians in the three-day military assault that has rendered the refugee camp “nearly uninhabitable” and forced displacement of more than 2000 people. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said the Jenin operation was a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and human rights”.

Al Jazeera said in a broadcast statement that the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent Muhammad al-Atrash by the Palestinian Authority (PA) could only be explained as “an attempt to block the media coverage of the occupation’s attack in Jenin”.

• READ MORE: International media’s reluctance to show solidarity with Palestinian journalists could backfire
• Bulldozer or Butcher: Netanyahu follows in Sharon footsteps from Jenin to Jabalia: Marwan Bishara
• Killing of five Gaza journalists by Israel strike highlights weak NZ media response
• Other media freedom reports in occupied Palestine

We’re following with concern the arrest of journalist Mohammed Al-Atrash by the Palestinian security forces in connection with his work at Al Jazeera and call for his immediate release./1 pic.twitter.com/M2ZcEoWqJl

— Al-Haq الحق (@alhaq_org) January 23, 2025

“The arbitrary actions of the Palestinian Authority are unfortunately identical to the occupation’s targeting of the Al Jazeera Network,” it said.

“We value the positions and voices that stand in solidarity and defend colleague Muhammad al-Atrash and the freedom of the press.”

The network said the journalist was brought before a court in Hebron after being arrested yesterday while covering the events in Jenin “simply for doing his professional duty as a journalist”.

“We confirm that these practices will not hinder our ongoing professional coverage of the facts unfolding in the West Bank,” Al Jazeera’s statement added.

The Israeli occupation has been targeting Al Jazeera for months in an attempt to gag its reporting.

Calling for al-Atrash’s immediate release, the al-Haq organisation (Protecting and Promoting Human Rights & the Rule of Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory) said in a statement: “Freedom of opinion and expression cannot be guaranteed without ensuring freedom of the press.”

Rage over AJ ban
Earlier this month journalists expressed outrage and confusion about the PA’s decision to shut down the Al Jazeera office in the occupied West Bank after the Israeli government had earlier banned the Al Jazeera broadcasting network’s operation within Israel.

“Shutting down a major outlet like Al Jazeera is a crime against journalism,” said freelance journalist Ikhlas al-Qarnawi.

Also earlier this month, award-winning Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab criticised the Israeli government for targeting journalists and attempting to “cover up” the assassination of five Palestinian journalists last month.

He said a December 26 press statement by the Israeli army attempted to “justify a war crime”.

“It unabashedly admitted that the military incinerated five Palestinian journalists in a clearly marked press vehicle outside al-Awda Hospital in the Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip,” Kuttab said in an op-ed article.

Many Western publications had quoted the Israeli army statement as if it was an objective position and “not propaganda whitewashing a war crime”, he wrote.

“They failed to clarify to their audiences that attacking journalists, including journalists who may be accused of promoting ‘propaganda’, is a war crime — all journalists are protected under international humanitarian law, regardless of whether armies like their reporting or not.”

Israel not only refuses to recognise any Palestinian media worker as being protected, but it also bars foreign journalists from entering Gaza.

“It has been truly disturbing that the international media has done little to protest this ban,” wrote Kuttab.

“Except for one petition signed by 60 media outlets over the summer, the international media has not followed up consistently on such demands over 15 months.”

Gaza’s Health Ministry has confirmed that close to 46,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel’s ongoing assault, but Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah estimates the true number is closer to 300,000.

“This is literally and mathematically a genocidal project,” says Dr Abu-Sittah, a British Palestinian reconstructive surgeon who worked in Gaza for more than a month treating patients at both Al-Shifa and Al-Ahli Baptist hospitals.

Israel continues to attack what remains of the besieged territory’s medical infrastructure.

• READ MORE: Gaza Kamal Adwan Hospital chief Abu Safia held at Israeli army base: Report
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, and Faris Odeh, a 15-year-old boy from Gaza, are iconic figures of Palestine, both photographed standing unarmed before Israeli tanks with nothing but their resolve.

Dr. Hussam refused to abandon his hospital despite… pic.twitter.com/R0Y9Qwfcpx

— Suppressed News. (@SuppressedNws) December 29, 2024

On Sunday, an Israeli attack on the upper floor of al-Wafa Hospital in Gaza City killed at least seven people and wounded several others. On Friday, Israeli troops stormed Kamal Adwan Hospital, northern Gaza’s last major functioning hospital, and set the facility on fire.

Many staff and patients were reportedly forced to go outside and strip in winter weather.

The director of Kamal Adwan, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, was arrested, and his whereabouts remain unknown. [Editor: He is reportedly being held in the Sde Teiman base in Israel’s Negev desert, a place notorious for the torture and deaths of detainees].

“It’s been obvious from the beginning that Israel has been wiping out a whole generation of health professionals in Gaza as a way of increasing the genocidal death toll but also of permanently making Gaza uninhabitable,” says Abu-Sittah.

“On October 7, the Israelis crossed that genocidal Rubicon that settler-colonial projects cross.”

‘A genocidal project’.          Video: Democracy Now!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show in Gaza, where a sixth baby has died from severe cold as the death toll tops 45,500 and Israel’s assault on medical infrastructure continues in the besieged territory.

On Sunday, an Israeli attack on the upper floor of al-Wafa Hospital in Gaza City killed at least seven people and wounded several others.

On Friday, Israeli troops stormed Kamal Adwan Hospital, northern Gaza’s last major functioning hospital.

The director of Kamal Adwan, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, was arrested, [and he is reportedly being held in the Sde Teiman base in Israel’s Negev desert, a place notorious for the torture and deaths of detainees].

Many staff and patients were reportedly forced to go outside and strip in winter weather. This is nurse Waleed al-Boudi describing Dr Hussam Abu Safiya’s arrest.

WALEED AL-BOUDI: [translated] Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya was arrested from Al-Fakhoura School after he had stayed with us and refused to leave. Even though they told him to and that he was free to go, he told them that he won’t leave his medical staff.

He took all of us and wanted to get us out at night. But they yelled at him and arrested him, a man of great humanity.

We appeal to the entire world, all of the world, all the human rights organiSations to stand by Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, the great man, the man who planted, within us and within our hearts, patience so we can persevere in our steadfast north.

I swear we wouldn’t have left, but by force. We cried blood on the doors of Kamal Adwan Hospital when we were forced out by the occupation army.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: A person who was with Dr Hussam Abu Safiya shared testimony that, quote, “The Israeli forces whipped Dr Hussam using an electrical wire found in the street after forcing him and others from the medical staff to remove their clothes”.

This is Dr Hussam Abu Safiya in one of his final interviews before being detained, produced by Sotouries.

DR HUSSAM ABU SAFIYA: [translated] I always say the situation requires one to stand by our people’s side and not run away from it.

Gaza is our homeland, our mother, our beloved and everything to us. Gaza deserves all of this steadfastness and deserves all of the sacrifices.

It is not just about Gaza, but we deserve to be a people that deserves freedom just like every other people on Earth.

I think the occupation wants us to get out and for us to ask them to get us out, so they can publicly say that the healthcare system is the one asking to leave and that it wasn’t them who asked us to, but we are aware of that.

But we will not leave, God willing, from this place, as I said, for as long as there are humanitarian services to be provided to our people in the northern Gaza Strip.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Dr Hussam Abu Safiya in one of his last interviews before Israeli forces arrested him on Friday in a raid on Kamal Adwan Hospital along with at least 240 others in a raid which left the hospital nonoperational.

Israel’s military alleged that Hamas militants were using Kamal Adwan Hospital [But have never provided evidence for their claims].

The World Health Organisation is calling on Israel to end its attacks on Gaza hospitals. Earlier today, the World Health Organization’s chief, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, said: “People in Gaza need access to health care. Humanitarians need access to provide health aid. Ceasefire!”

Last week, World Health Organisation spokesperson Dr Margaret Harris was asked on Channel 4 News whether there was any evidence of the Israeli claim that the hospital is a Hamas stronghold.

DR MARGARET HARRIS: So, whenever we send a mission, we go and we look at the health situation.

Now, I’ve not had at any point our healthcare teams come back and say that they’ve got any concerns beyond the healthcare, but I should say that what we do is look at what the health situation is and what needs to be done.

But all we’ve ever seen going on in that hospital is healthcare.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, for more, we go to Cairo, Egypt.

AMY GOODMAN: Nermeen, thanks so much. I am here with a man who knew Dr Abu Safiya well and is in constant contact with people on the ground in Gaza, particularly the medical professionals.

Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah is with us here, British Palestinian reconstructive surgeon. He worked last year in Gaza for almost — for over a month with Médecins Sans Frontières — that’s Doctors Without Borders (MSF) — in two hospitals. He worked at Al-Shifa, the main hospital in Gaza, as well as Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital.

Welcome to Democracy Now! You’ve been in touch with family of Dr Abu Safiya. If you can talk about where he is right now, believed to have been arrested by the Israeli military, and then the crisis just right now on the ground with the closing of Kamal Adwan and more?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: So, unfortunately, the family is afraid that he has been moved to the infamous Sde Teiman torture camp, an internment camp where, before him, Dr Adnan al-Bursh was tortured, and tortured to death, Dr Iyad Rantisi was tortured to death, where there is documented evidence of not just Israeli guards taking part in torture, but even Israeli doctors taking part in the torture of Palestinians.

And so, that is the fear that not just the family has, but all of us have.

And what we’ve seen in this process, in this destruction, systematic destruction of the health system, with the total destruction of all of the hospitals in the north, so not just Kamal Adwan, before that, the Indonesian Hospital and Al-Awda Hospital, and, immediately after, the targeting of al-Wafa Hospital and then the targeting again of Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital, which was the first hospital the Israelis targeted on the October 17.

The targeting of al-Wafa Hospital was intended to kill medical students from Gaza’s Islamic University who were sitting in exam in that hospital. And luckily for them, the Israelis got the wrong floor. And then the targeting of Al-Ahli Hospital, which is now the last hospital functioning in that whole arbitrarily created northern part of Gaza, is a sign that the Israelis will now move towards the Ahli Hospital for destruction.

I just want to highlight there is research that is about to be published that shows that the chances of being killed as a nurse or a doctor in Gaza during this genocidal war is three-and-a-half times that of the general population.

So it’s been obvious from the beginning that Israel has been wiping out a whole generation of health professionals in Gaza as a way of increasing the genocidal death toll but also of permanently making Gaza uninhabitable.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, you, of course, as we mentioned, as Amy mentioned in the introduction, you have worked in two Gaza hospitals. You’ve just talked a little bit about what’s recently — the recent Israeli attacks on medical infrastructure in Gaza, but if you could explain, just to give a sense of what’s happened overall since October 7, 2023.

If you could say the scale of the destruction of medical infrastructure, as well as the systematic attacks on medical personnel, as you said, this new research that’s coming out that shows that they’re three to four times more likely to be killed than the general population?

So, if you could just say, begin from October 2023 to now?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: So, what happened on October 12th is that the Israeli army started to call by phone medical directors of all of the hospitals, telling them that unless they evacuated the hospitals, the blood of the patients would be on their hands.

And I remember that day I was with Dr Ahmed Muhanna from Al-Awda Hospital, who’s still been arrested now for over a year, an anesthetist and a medical director, and he received a phone call from the Israeli army to tell him to evacuate Al-Awda Hospital.

Of course, we realised at that point that the destruction of the health system was going to be a prerequisite for the kind of ethnic cleansing that the Israelis wanted in Gaza.

I was in Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital on the day of the October 17, when the Israelis bombed that hospital, killing over 480 patients. And then we had the whole narrative about Shifa Hospital, the siege of Shifa Hospital, the destruction of three pediatric hospitals in the north, and then the first attack on Shifa Hospital.

And then, after that, 36 hospitals in Gaza have now been reduced to the three partially working hospitals in the south and only a remnant of Al-Ahli Hospital in the north. We have had over a thousand health workers — doctors, nurses, health professionals — killed, over 400 imprisoned, and then the destruction of the health infrastructure, the destruction of water and sewage, the use of water as a tool of collective punishment in order to create the public health catastrophe that exists in Gaza in terms of infectious diseases, and the intentional famine.

And so, at the moment, we have in Gaza what the doctors are referring to as the triad of death: hypothermia because of the winter, wounding because of the injuries, and malnutrition.

And with the three, what happens is that people die of at higher temperatures, people die of lesser injuries, because the coexistence of these three conditions means that the body is depleted of any physiological reserve.

And so, that’s why we’re watching over seven kids in the last week die of hypothermia, an adult nurse die of hypothermia, not because the temperatures are subzero — the temperatures are just hovering above zero — but because they’re so malnourished and they’re injured and a lot of them have infectious diseases, and so they’re dying at the same time.

Israel has created a genocidal machine that takes Palestinian lives beyond the injury, beyond the bombs, beyond the shrapnel.

And so people are dying of infectious diseases. People are dying because of the health system has collapsed, and so their chronic diseases become medical emergencies. And people are dying from the famine and the malnutrition.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, in light of that, Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, if you could comment on the fact that so many people now, an increasing number of people, are questioning this death toll of 45,500, over that number who have been killed in Gaza since or who have died in Gaza since October 2023?

People are saying that is a vast undercount. From what you’re saying, that seems almost certain. If you could comment as a medical professional? You know, what do you think might be a more accurate figure?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: So, 45,000 are people whose bodies were taken to a Ministry of Health hospital, and they were taken by people who witnessed or who recognised them, and a death certificate was issued.

This 45,000 excludes the tens of thousands who are still under the rubble, more so in the north, where the emergency services were targeted by the Israelis and so are now completely unable to function.

And so, we see pictures of dogs eating bodies of those killed in the streets. Not only people under the rubble, people who have been killed and not reported, or their bodies have not been retrieved.

When you drop 2000-pound bombs, there’s very little of the human body that is left. And so there are people who literally pulverized by these bombs.

Then you have those whose chronic illnesses, once untreated, became deadly, so the kidney dialysis patients, the heart disease patients, the diabetics, who were no longer able to get treatment.

It doesn’t take into account the women who are dying from maternal care, from obstetric injuries during delivery, because they’re delivering in makeshift hospitals, they’re delivering in the tents, and they’re malnourished when they give birth, and so them and their babies have a higher rate of maternal mortality, of infant mortality.

And then you have those who are dying of infectious diseases, of the thousands who have hepatitis at the moment, of the polio, and those who are dying not immediately from their injuries but from the wounds that do not have access to healthcare to stop the infection setting in, and then, eventually, the infection becoming sepsis and killing them.

The number is closer to 300,000. This is around 10 to 12 percent of Gaza’s population.

France, at the end of the Second World War, 4 percent of its population were killed. This is literally and mathematically a genocidal project.

This is not a political term. This is a literal and mathematical term, where you want to eliminate the population and to ensure that whoever is left is incapable of becoming part of a society, because they’re tending to their wounds or they’ve been so severely debilitated by the injuries and the neglected injuries.

We at @amnesty are extremely concerned over the fate & wellbeing of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan hospital who was detained by Israeli forces along with others during a raid on the hospital on 27 December. He must be released immediately and unconditionally.

For… pic.twitter.com/lB6ymeNlPJ

— Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) December 30, 2024

AMY GOODMAN: Dr Abu-Sittah, you have asked, “How can a live-streamed genocide continue unhindered?” What is your response to that question right now?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: Right now with the arrest of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, where is the British Medical Association? Where is the American Medical Association? Where are the royal colleges? Where is the French Medical Association?

Western medical institutions, their moral bankruptcy has become so astounding during this genocide. For them to become part of a genocidal enablement apparatus, for their silence and, in a lot of times, their collusion to silence those who speak out against the genocide.

For me, as a health professional, you’re shocked at how completely empty of any moral value these medical associations have become, when they have become complicit in a televised genocide which targets doctors.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, I’m speaking to you here in Cairo. In May, Germany did not allow you in to speak. You are a British Palestinian doctor.

Since you were in Gaza last year, you’ve been speaking out about what’s happening. Explain exactly what happened. I mean, Human Rights Watch and other groups were demanding that this ban be lifted. They banned you from where?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: So, I was invited to speak at a conference in Germany. I was stopped at Berlin Airport and was told that I’m banned from going into Germany for a month, and I was deported at the end of that day back to the UK.

A few months later, I had an invitation from the French Senate. When I arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport, I discovered that the Germans, a few days after they deported me, had put in a ban for the whole of the Schengen — and Schengen is the EU plus Norway, plus Sweden, plus Switzerland — using an administrative law so that they wouldn’t have to put it in front of the judge. We then were able to challenge that and have it overturned.

But at the same time, pro-Israel groups, like UK Lawyers for Israel, submitted multiple complaints against me with the General Medical Council to have my medical licence removed, submitted complaints against me with the Charity Commission in the UK to have me banned for life from ever holding office in a UK registered charity.

This is what — this is why this genocide has continued unhindered and unchallenged for over 14 months. There are apparatus of genocide enablement that exists in the West, either through collusion or by actively targeting.

Over 60 doctors in the UK have had complaints against them with the General Medical Council to have their medical licences removed as a result of their support of the Palestinians during the genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Dr Abu-Sittah, Jimmy Carter died yesterday at the age of 100. He wrote the book in the 2000s, which is quite amazing, but after he was president, Palestine: Peace [Not] Apartheid. I’m going to rejoin Nermeen for the end of the show, an interview I did with him on that issue. But your thoughts on President Carter?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: The logic of the relationship between the Zionist colonialist movement and the Palestinian indigenous population has always been that of elimination.

At a certain point — and that’s unfortunately now behind us since the 7th of October — apartheid separation was the chosen method of elimination of the Palestinians. On the 7th of October, the Israelis crossed that genocidal Rubicon that settler-colonial projects cross.

And once the genocidal Rubicon is crossed, the elimination of the indigenous population by the settler-colonial project then purely becomes genocidal.

Israel, even at the end of this genocidal war in Gaza, will not be able to deal with the Palestinians in a nongenocidal way. Once the settler-colonial project becomes genocidal, it cannot undo itself.

We’ve seen that in North America with the killing of the children in Canada. We’ve seen that in Australia. We’ve seen that everywhere.

AMY GOODMAN: And Carter, again, as we just have 30 seconds, writing the book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: Well, Carter had a historic opportunity to change the course of this struggle, had he insisted that part of the Camp David Accords was the creation of a Palestinian state. And no amount of recantation will ever change that missed opportunity.

He could have forced on the Israeli government, and the first right-wing Israeli government at that point, under Begin — he could have forced the creation of a Palestinian state, but he failed to do that.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And finally, Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, we just have 30 seconds. You just said that a genocidal settler-colonial project cannot undo itself. How do you see this ending, then?

DR GHASSAN ABU-SITTAH: You see, the world has a choice, because surplus populations like the Palestinians, like refugees crossing the Mediterranean, like the poor people in the favelas and in the inner-city slums, these will either be dealt with through a genocidal project, as Israel has dealt with the Palestinians in Gaza — and this kind of response or this kind of template will become part of the military doctrine that is taught to armies across the world in dealing with these surplus populations.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, thank you so much for joining us, a British Palestinian reconstructive surgeon who worked in Gaza as a volunteer with Doctors without Borders treating patients at both Al-Shifa and Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital.

Amy will rejoin us for our last segment talking about her interview with former President Jimmy Carter, who died Sunday at age 100.

This article/transcript is republished from Democracy Now! under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has told a media conference Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he entered New Zealand

“We support the ICC [the International Criminal Court],” Luxon said yesterday.

“We believe in the international rules-based system, we support the ICC, and we would be obligated to do so.”

• READ MORE: Israel and the ICC: A legal scholar’s response to The Washington Post
• Many of Israel’s Western supporters indicate they would arrest Netanyahu. Will Australia and NZ follow suit?
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

The NZ prime minister’s comments followed the ICC announcing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Israel’s former defence minister Yoav Gallant on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the 13-month war on the besieged Gaza Strip that has killed more than 44,000 people — mostly women and children.

Netanyahu and Gallant are now fugitives from global justice after the ICC issued the arrest warrants against them.

Although Israel — and the US — does not recognise the authority of the ICC, the highest international criminal court, and Netanyahu and Gallant will not turn themselves in, the pair’s world has got a lot smaller.

The Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, includes 124 state parties across six continents.

Legally bound
Under the statute, countries that are part of the ICC are legally bound to enforce its arrest warrants, according to international human rights lawyer Jonathan Kuttab.

“The law operates on the basis of a presumption that people will obey it. That’s how all laws are created,” Kuttab told Al Jazeera.

“You expect everybody to respect the law. Those who don’t respect the law are themselves violating the law.”

He added that there were early signs that countries would not ignore the court’s decision.

Many of Israel’s allies — including several European Union countries — have committed to enforcing the arrest warrants.

The ICC was set up in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression when member states are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. It is based in The Hague in the Netherlands.

The case at the ICC is separate from another legal battle Israel is waging at the top UN court, the International Court of Justice, in which South Africa accuses Israel of genocide, an allegation Israeli leaders deny.

Here is a list of the countries where Netanyahu and Gallant could be detained after the ICC’s decision.

It prompted an outbreak of grim cheer in Israel. In Washington, there were similar pulsations of congratulation.

Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was dead, killed in Rafah after being spotted by an Israeli patrol and located by yet another one of those drones ubiquitous over the skies of Gaza.

Sinwar was considered the central figure behind the October 7 attacks on Israel, which left, in its wake, more than 1200 dead and 250 hostages of diminishing number.

• READ MORE: Other Binoy Kampmark articles

His death earlier this month prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to declare this to be “the beginning of the end”.

Notwithstanding this cherished scalp, Netanyahu also made it clear that the war would continue.

“It is harsh and it takes a heavy price from us.” Out of force of habit, a sinister quotation followed, this time from King David: “I will pursue my enemies and destroy them. And I will not turn back until they are wiped out.”

In priestly fashion, he promised the Palestinians that Hamas would never rule in Gaza, a sure sign that terms will be dictated, not from any equal level, but the summit of victory.

Same tone struck
The same tone was struck for those “people of the region”: “In Gaza, in Beirut, in the streets of the entire area, the darkness is withdrawing and the light is rising.” The deciders are in charge.

US President Joe Biden mirrored the approach. He focused on the bloody imprint of Sinwar’s legacy (“responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis, Palestinians, Americans and citizens from over 30 countries”).

Israel had been right to “eliminate the leadership and military structure of Hamas.”

Like Netanyahu, Biden made his own paternal assessment about the fate of the Palestinian people, one perennially subject to others. A rotten egg had been removed. Rejoice, for others will be laid under over guidance.

“This is now the opportunity for a ‘day after’ in Gaza without Hamas in power, and for a political settlement that provides a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

The killing also prompted other assessments that say nothing about Palestinians, but everything about that all subsuming word of “terrorism”.

Israeli power had proved its point, suggesting the premise for resisting it had abated. It led to such remarks as those of Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to call it an end to “a reign of terror”, a point conveniently ignoring Israel’s own policy of ill-nourishment towards Palestinians since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948.

Little context, history ‘irrelevant’
Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, boxing Sinwar as “a brutal murderer and terrorist who wanted to annihilate Israel and its people” told Hamas to “lay down its weapons”, suggesting that the suffering of those in Gaza had been exclusive and unilateral to the organisation.

Context, in short, was inconsequential, history an irrelevant past.

As these statements were being made, the Israeli strikes on Gaza have continued with unabated ferocity — and Lebanon, as well as now Iran.

Civilians continue perishing by the families, as do the habitual displacements. In Netanyahu’s cabinet, the pro-settler faction remains ever present.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir nurses fantasies of ethnically displacing Palestinians from the Gaza Strip — something he euphemises as “voluntary departure”. He explicitly said as much at a rally in May. “This is moral, rational and humanitarian.”

That Sinwar would perish in conflict was not unexpected. The extraordinary violence of October 7 was always going to trigger an extraordinarily violent response, and was intended to do so from the outset.

Israel’s method of retaliation, rather than understanding the historical, exploitative savagery of Hamas, was to stubbornly cling to previous patterns: the use of superior military technology, vaunted intelligence, the decapitation of organisations, picking off central figures in adversarial entities, wish lists that rank well in the making of war and delight intelligence chiefs.

Brokering of durable peace ignored
The method says little in the brokering of durable peace, the notion of strategy, the skills of diplomacy. It ignores the terrible truth that harvests in such matters are almost always bitter.

“A number of Israeli moderates have considered this a chance to retreat from a military solution and seek a grand bargain that would conclude conflicts against Hamas, Hezbollah and ease conflict with Iran. It would also involve the return of the surviving hostages.”

Sinwar’s killing is mistakenly positioned as a chance to end the sequence of wars that have become an annexure of Israel’s existence.

In Biden’s words, he “was an insurmountable obstacle to achieving all of those goals [about achieving peace]. That obstacle no longer exists.” Such statements are made even as others are already readying to occupy leadership roles for the next war.

The same could be said about the recent killing of Hezbollah’s Hasan Nasrallah. In 1992, Abbas al-Musawi, then Hezbollah’s secretary-general, was slain along with his wife and son.

His replacement: the resourceful, charismatic Nasrallah. It was he who pushed on the endeavours of the late Fuad Shukr, an architect in acquiring the militant group’s vast stockpile of missiles. Like a savage pruning, such killings inspire fresh offshoots.

Ibrahim Al-Marashi of California State University, San Marcos, puts it better than most. “History shows every single Israeli assassination of a high-profile political or military operator, even after being initially hailed as a game-changing victory, eventually led to the killed leader being replaced by someone more determined, adept and hawkish.”

Seeking a grand bargain
With this in mind, a number of Israeli moderates have considered this a chance to retreat from a military solution and seek a grand bargain that would conclude conflicts against Hamas, Hezbollah and ease conflict with Iran.

It would also involve the return of the surviving hostages. Hardly the sort of thing that thrills the likes of Ben-Gvir and his belligerent comrade in arms, Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich. The customary language of “degrade”, “annihilate” and “destroy” feature with dull regularity.

This is the State of Judah doing battle against the forces of night. It is, however, a night that risks blackening all, a harvest that promises another Sinwar and another Nasrallah. Guns, drones, and bombs only go so far.

Dr Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures in international politics at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by Eureka Street and is republished with the author’s permission.

Christchurch, New Zealand’s third-largest city, today became the first local government in the country to sanction Israel by voting to halt business with organisations involved in illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

It passed a resolution to amend its procurement policy to exclude companies building and maintaining illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.

It was a largely symbolic gesture in that Christchurch (pop. 408,000) currently has no business dealings with any of the companies listed by the United Nations as being active in the illegal settlements.

• READ MORE: ‘Split vote’ on council’s Israel sanction
• Christchurch Council votes to boycott companies linked to Israeli settlements
• Other NZ and Palestine reports

However, the vote — 10 in favour, two against and three abstentions — also rules out any future business dealings by the city council with such companies.

The sanctions vote came after passionate pleas to the council by John Minto, president of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), and University of Canterbury postcolonial studies lecturer Dr Josephine Varghese.

“We’re delighted the council has taken a stand against Israel’s ongoing theft of Palestinian land,” said Minto in a statement welcoming the vote.

He had urged the council to take a stand against companies identified by the UN Human Rights Council as complicit in the construction and maintenance of the illegal settlements.

‘Failure of Western governments’
“It has been the failure of Western governments to hold Israel to account which means Israel has a 76-year history of oppression and brutal abuse of Palestinians.

“Today Israel is running riot across the Middle East because it has never been held to account for 76 years of flagrant breaches of international law,” Minto said.

“The motion passed by Christchurch City today helps to end Israeli impunity for war crimes.” (Building settlements on occupied land belonging to others is a war crime under international law)

“The motion is a small but significant step in sanctioning Israel. Many more steps must follow”.

The council’s vote to support the UN policy was met with cheers from a packed public gallery. Before the vote, gallery members displayed a “Stop the genocide” banner.

Minto described the decision as a significant step towards aligning with international law and supporting Palestinian rights.

“In relation to the council adopting a policy lined up with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, this resolution was co-sponsored by the New Zealand government back in 2016,” Minto said, referencing the UN resolution that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories “had no legal validity and constituted a flagrant violation under international law”.

‘Red herrings and obfuscations’
In his statement, Minto said: “We are particularly pleased the council rejected the red herrings and obfuscations of New Zealand Jewish Council spokesperson Ben Kepes who urged councillors to reject the motion”

“Mr Kepes presentation was a repetition of the tired, old arguments used by white South Africans to avoid accountability for their apartheid policies last century – policies which are mirrored in Israel today.”

Dr Varghese said more than 42,000 Palestininians — at least 15,000 of them children — had been killed in Israel’s war on Gaza.

“Boycotting products and services which support and benefit from colonisation and apartheid is the long standing peaceful means of protest adopted by freedom fighters across the world, not only by black South Africans against apartheid, but also in the Indian independent struggle By the lights of Gandhi,” she said.

“This is a rare opportunity for us to follow in the footsteps of these greats and make a historic move, not only for Christchurch City, but also for Aotearoa New Zealand.

“On March 15, 2019 [the date of NZ’s mosque massacre killing 51 people], we made headlines for all the wrong reasons, and today could be an opportunity where we make headlines global globally for the right reasons,” Dr Varghese said.

The International Press Institute (IPI) has strongly condemned the Israeli government’s recent decision to revoke the press passes of Al Jazeera journalists, months after the global news outlet was banned in the country.

“The Israeli government’s decision to revoke Al Jazeera press passes highlights a broader and deeply alarming pattern of harassment of journalists and attacks on press freedom in Israel and the region,” IPI interim executive director Scott Griffen said.

The Israeli government announced it will be revoking all press passes previously issued to Al Jazeera journalists.

• READ MORE: Hezbollah blames Israel after Lebanon pager blasts killed at least 9 and wounded 2750 across Lebanon and Syria
• UN General Assembly debates end to Israeli occupation of Palestine
• Beyond Gaza: The terror in the West Bank

Nitzan Chen, director of Israel’s Government Press Office (GPO), announced the decision via X on Thursday, accusing Al Jazeera of spreading “false content” and “incitement against Israelis”.

Use of press office cards in the course of the journalists’ work could in itself “jeopardise state security at this time”, claimed Chen.

The journalists affected by the decision would be given a hearing before their passes are officially revoked.

While the GPO press card is not mandatory, without it a journalist in Israel will not be able to access Parliament, Israeli government ministries, or military infrastructure.

Only Israeli recognised pass
It is also the only card recognised at Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank.

Griffen said the move was indicative of a “systematic effort” by Israeli authorities to “expand its control over media reporting about Israel, including reporting on and from Gaza”.

He added: “We strongly urge Israel to respect freedom of the press and access to information, which are fundamental human rights that all democracies must respect and protect.”

In May, Israel’s cabinet unanimously voted to shut down Al Jazeera in the country, immediately ordering the closure of its offices and a ban on the company’s broadcasts.

At the time, Al Jazeera described it as a “criminal act” and warned that Israel’s suppression of the free press “stands in contravention of international and humanitarian law”.

GPO Director Nitzan Chen: “Al Jazeera disseminates false content, which includes incitement against Israelis and Jews and constitutes a threat to IDF soldiers. Use of GPO cards in the course of the journalists’ work could in itself jeopardize state security at this time”.
(2/3)

— Gov’t Press Office (@GPOIsrael) September 12, 2024

Al Jazeera is widely regarded as the most balanced global news network covering the war on Gaza in contrast to many Western news services perceived as biased in favour of Israel.

Media freedom petition rejected
A petition for military authorities to allow foreign journalists to report inside Gaza was rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court in January 2024.

IPI and other media watchdogs have repeatedly called on Israel to allow international media access to Gaza and ensure the safety of journalists.

At least 173 Palestinian journalists are reported to have been killed in Israel’s war on Gaza with the latest killing of reporter Abdullah Shakshak, who was shot by an Israeli military quadcopter in Rafah in southern Gaza.

UN General Assembly debates end to Israeli occupation of Palestine.    Video: Al Jazeera

Deadly pager attack
Meanwhile, the deadly en masse explosion of pagers in Lebanon and Syria killing 11 and wounding almost 3000 people that has widely been attributed to Israel raises questions about what the end game may be, amid rising tensions in the region, say analysts.

Mairav Zonszein, a senior Israeli analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that the attack was something that Israel had had in the works for several months and risked losing if Hezbollah became suspicious.

This concern may have led the Israeli army to trigger the blasts, but Israel’s strategy overall remains unclear.

“Where is Israel going to go from here? This question still hasn’t been answered,” Zonszein said.

“Without a ceasefire in Gaza, it’s unclear how Israel plans to de-escalate, or if Netanyahu is in fact trying to spark a broader war,” the analyst added, noting that more Israeli troops were now stationed in the West Bank and along the northern border than in the Gaza Strip.

In a historic moment, Palestine, newly promoted to observer status at the UN General Assembly (UNGA), has submitted a draft resolution at the body demanding an end to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.

Building on a recent International Court of Justice ruling, the resolution calls for Israel to withdraw its troops, halt settlement expansion, and return land taken since 1967 within 12 months.

While the US opposes the resolution, it has no veto power in the UNGA, and the body has previously supported Palestinian recognition.

The resolution, which will be voted on by UNGA members today, is not legally binding, but reflects global opinion as leaders gather for high-level UN meetings next week.

A new poll shows a significant number of New Zealanders support recognising Palestine as a state and applying sanctions against Israel.

Commissioned by advocacy group Justice for Palestine and conducted by Talbot-Mills, the poll found support for recognising Palestinian statehood and sanctions for Israel was higher among young people.

It also showed many people were not sure where they stood.

• READ MORE: Israel war on Gaza live: More than 11,000 students killed in Gaza, West Bank
• Call for UN sanctions on Israel to implement ICJ ruling on illegality of Palestine occupation

While Israel’s embassy questioned the neutrality of the poll, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it was a matter of “when, not if” for Palestinian statehood — but the main priority for now was a ceasefire.

The poll found 40 percent of the 1116 people surveyed supported recognising Palestine as a state, while 19 percent did not.

Forty-two percent of the respondents supported sanctioning Israel, while 29 percent did not.

Laura Agel, a Palestinian-British woman and a member of Justice for Palestine — the group which commissioned the poll — said it sent a clear message to the government.

“I think that the government needs to respond to the needs of its citizens, and the wants of its citizens and sanction Israel fully. I think we can see that other countries, whether small or big have taken strong action against Israel,” she said.

Many respondents without opinion
Although the poll showed strong support for Palestine, many respondents did not give an opinion either way.

Forty-one percent were not sure whether New Zealand should recognise Palestine as a state, and 30 percent were not sure whether the government should sanction Israel.

Agel put this down to the issues New Zealanders were facing in their day-to-day lives, and a lack of knowledge.

“Issues such as the cost-of-living crisis, and I think it also shows that the Israel-Palestine issue is one that people don’t necessarily think they’re very informed about,” she said.

She also blamed the government and media for not showing the extent of what was happening in Gaza.

“What they’ve done to civilians and infrastructure in Gaza. What they’ve done bombing hospitals and schools since October 7th. But also within a context of decades-long oppression.”

Long-standing conflict
Israel and Hamas have been locked in a number of battles since 2008 — with people on both sides being killed.

The current 12 month bombardment of the Gaza Strip by Israel followed a Hamas attack last October.

About 1139 people were killed and about 240 hostages were taken. Some were freed, some died and about 97 were still unaccounted for.

More than 41,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

The military campaign also led to what the United Nations said was a “massive human rights crisis and a humanitarian disaster”.

Israeli embassy responds
Israel’s embassy in Wellington told RNZ Checkpoint in a statement that Israel was defending its citizens from Hamas, and the focus should remain on “dismantling terrorism” and releasing the remaining hostages.

It added that while polls could be informative, those commissioned by advocacy groups would not always provide a comprehensive or neutral view.

It said the poll’s respondents might not be familiar with the complex roots of the Middle East conflict and the positions of all parties involved, and a question should have been added to reflect that.

Marilyn Garson, co-founder of Alternative Jewish Voices of Aotearoa, said the poll’s result that 51 percent of New Zealanders under the age of 30 supported recognising Palestinian statehood reflected a growing movement of young people rejecting Zionism — the ideology that supported the creation of a Jewish state.

That was playing out in New Zealand and overseas, she said.

“An unprecedented number of Jews are taking part in demonstrations, joining organisations for justice — for dignified solutions. And they are disproportionately young people. I think that’s magnificent.”

Garson did not care whether the solution to the crisis involved two states or 12, she said, as long both Palestinian and Jewish people were involved in the process.

“I don’t care what the number of administrative entities is, I just want to know that two peoples sat down and made a dignified choice that represent their peoples. I’ll support any outcome.”

Minister of Foreign Affairs responds
In May this year, Spain, Ireland and Norway officially recognised a Palestinian state — 146 of the 193 UN members (more than 75 percent) have now recognised Palestine as a sovereign state.

A spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said the government had supported the establishment of a Palestinian state for decades and it was a matter of “when not if”.

But asserting Palestinian statehood at this point would not alleviate the plight of the Palestinian people, he said. The immediate focus should be on a ceasefire and the provision of aid in Gaza.

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

You could be forgiven if you missed the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion that Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine is illegal.

The landmark ruling sank without trace in Aotearoa New Zealand and aside from an anaemic tweet from the Minister of Foreign Affairs has barely caused a ripple in official circles.

However, the court’s July 19 decision is a watershed in holding Israel to account for its numerous breaches of international law and United Nations resolutions and while western governments prefer to look the other way, this is no longer tenable.

• READ MORE: ICJ says Israel’s presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful
• Other Israeli War on Palestine reports
• This weekend’s rallies for Palestine protesting over NZ ‘complicity’

The ICJ has found not only that Israel’s 57-year occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal but that BDS (Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions) are an obligation on governments to impose on Israel.

The wording is unambiguous. The ICJ says:

“The State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful [and it] is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence . . .  as rapidly as possible.”

And goes on to say:

“All States are under an obligation not to recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the [Occupied Palestinian Territory] and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

NZ government must reevaluate
Not rendering “aid or assistance” to Israel to continue its illegal occupation means the New Zealand government must re-evaluate its entire relationship with Israel.

For a start government investments in companies profiting from Israel’s illegal occupation must be withdrawn; imports or procurement of services from companies in the illegally-occupied Palestinian territories must be stopped and visas for young Israelis coming to New Zealand after serving in support of Israel’s illegal occupation must cease.

A host of other government policies to impose BDS sanctions against Israel must follow — the type of sanctions we imposed against Russia for its invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine.

This ICJ ruling comes as western governments such as New Zealand shamefully provide political cover for Israel’s illegal occupation and wholesale slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. Most of the victims are women and children.

By April Israel had dropped over 70,000 tonnes of bombs on Gaza, surpassing the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

Israel has killed the equivalent of all the children in more than 100 average sized New Zealand primary schools and yet our Prime Minister has refused to condemn this slaughter, refused to call for an immediate, permanent ceasefire or join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

Our Prime Minister describes the situation in Gaza as catastrophic but refuses to utter a single word of condemnation of Israel. Mr Luxon has replaced principled political action with bluff and bluster.

Widening chasm with international law
The gap between what our government does and what international law demands is a widening chasm.

Gaza exists as an illegally occupied and densely populated area because Israeli militias conducted a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from 1947 to 1949 to artificially create a majority Jewish state on Palestinian land.

Eighty percent of Gazans are descendants of the victims of this ethnic cleansing.

Under cover of its war on Gaza, Israel’s ethnic cleansing continues today in the occupied West Bank. Illegal Israeli settlers, with the backing of Israeli Occupation Forces are driving Palestinians off their land.

Numerous Palestinian towns and rural communities have been attacked in pogroms with arson, looting and killing leaving “depopulated” areas behind for Israel to settle.

There are now more than 700,000 illegal Israeli settlers in more than 200 settlements and settlement outposts on Palestinian land in the occupied territories of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

700,000 settlers declared illegal
It is these settlers and settlements the International Court of Justice has declared illegal.

As well as responsibilities on individual states to end support for Israel’s illegal occupation, the ICJ ruling says the world should take collective action requesting “The UN, and especially the General Assembly . . .  and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

New Zealand must regain its moral courage and become a leader in helping end the longest-running military occupation in modern history.

John Minto is national chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

Dear TVNZ,

We are deeply concerned with the misleading nature of the journalism presented in your recent coverage of the escalating crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. By focusing on specific language and framing, while leaving out the necessary context of international law, the broadcast misrepresents the reality of the situation faced by Palestinians.

This has the effect of perpetuating a narrative that could be seen and experienced as biased and dehumanising.

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on January 26, 2024, mandated that Israel prevent its forces from committing acts of genocide against Palestinians and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

• READ MORE: Aotearoa: NZ news media under fire for ‘bias, propaganda’ in Gaza coverage
• Appalling NZ mainstream media reporting on Palestine continues – John Minto
• Israel’s war on Gaza live: Eight killed in Israeli attack on school sheltering displaced Palestinians

This ruling highlights the severity of Israel’s actions and the international community’s obligation to hold those responsible accountable. However, TVNZ’s coverage has often failed to reflect this legal and humanitarian perspective.

Instead it echos biased narratives that obscure these realities. This includes the expansion of genocidal like acts to the West Bank and the serious concerns about the potential for mass ethnic cleansing and further escalation of grave human rights violations.

Under international law, including the Genocide Convention, media organisations have a crucial responsibility to report accurately and avoid inciting violence or supporting those committing genocidal acts.

Complicity in genocide can occur when media coverage supports or justifies the actions of perpetrators, contributing to the dehumanisation of victims and the perpetuation of violence. By failing to provide balanced reporting and instead contributing to harmful stereotypes and misinformation, TVNZ risks being complicit in these grave violations of human rights.

Tragic history of attacks
New Zealand’s own tragic history of attacks on Muslims, such as the Al Noor Mosque shootings, should serve as a powerful reminder of the consequences of dehumanising narratives. The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception, and it is deeply concerning to see TVNZ contributing to the marginalisation and demonisation of Muslims and Palestinians through biased reporting.

We urge you to review your coverage of the genocide to ensure that it is fair, balanced, and aligned with international law and journalistic ethics. Specific examples of biased reporting include recent stories on Gaza that failed to mention the ICJ ruling or the context of an illegal occupation.

This includes decades of systematic land confiscation, military control, restrictions on movement, and the suppression of Palestinian voices through media censorship and the shutdown of local newspapers. Accurate and responsible journalism is essential in fostering an informed and empathetic public, especially on matters as sensitive and impactful as this.

On August 29, 2024, TVNZ aired a news story that exemplifies problematic media framing when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The story begins by benignly describing Israel’s “entry into the West Bank” as part of a “counter-terrorism strike”— the largest operation in 10 years — implying that the context is solely anti-terrorism.

Automatically, the use of the word terrorism, sets the narrative of “good Israel” and “bad Palestinian” for the remainder of the news story.  However, the report fails to mention numerous critical aspects, such as the provocations by Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, visiting the Al-Aqsa Mosque and threatening to build a synagogue at Islam’s third holiest site, or Israel’s escalations and violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Convention considers the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into the territory it occupies a war crime, and under international law, Palestinians have the right to resist such occupation, a right recognised and protected by international legal frameworks.

The story uses footage, presumably provided by the IDF, that portrays the Israeli military as a calm, moral force entering “terrorist strongholds”, which is at odds with abundant open-source footage showing the IDF destroying infrastructure, terrorising civilians, and protecting armed settlers as they displace Palestinians from their homes.

Bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes
It portrays the IDF entering the town with bulldozers, but makes no mention of how those bulldozers are used to destroy Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make way for Israeli settlements.

Furthermore, the report fails to mention that just last month, the Israeli government announced its plans to officially recognise five more illegal settlements in the West Bank and expand existing settlements, understandably exacerbating tensions.

The narrative is further reinforced by giving airtime to an Israeli spokesperson who frames the operation as a defensive counter-terrorism initiative. The journalist echoes this narrative, positioning Israel as merely responding to threats.

Although a brief soundbite from a Palestinian Red Crescent worker expresses fears of what might happen in the West Bank, the report fails to provide any counter-narrative to Israel’s self-defence claim.

The story concludes by listing the number of deaths in the West Bank since October 19, implying that the situation began with Hamas’s actions in Gaza on that date, rather than addressing the illegal Israeli occupation since 1967, as the root cause of the violence.

Why is this important?
The news story is a violation of the Accuracy and Impartiality Standard with TVNZ failing to present a balanced view of the situation in Palestine, potentially misleading the audience on critical aspects of the conflict.

Secondly, the news story violates  the Harm and Offence Standard, being an insufficient and inflammatory portrayal of the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine contributing to public misperception and harm.

Additionally, there is a concern regarding the Fairness Standard, with individuals and groups affected by the conflict not being given fair opportunity to respond or be represented in the broadcast.

These breaches are significant as they undermine the integrity of the reporting and fail to uphold the standards of responsible journalism. Holding our media outlets to high journalistic standards is essential, particularly in the context of the genocide in Gaza.

The media plays a significant part in either exposing or obscuring the realities of such atrocities. When news outlets fail to report accurately or neglect to label the situation in Gaza as genocide, they contribute to a narrative that minimises the severity of the crisis and enables and prolongs Israel’s social license to continue it’s genocidal actions.

Should there be no substantial changes to address our concerns,  we will escalate this matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for further review.

• Join the Our Action Station petition

Since 7 October 2023, across every profession and social realm in Australia — teachers, students, doctors, nurses, academics, public servants, lawyers, journalists, artists, food and hospitality workers, protesters and politicians — speaking out against Israel’s genocide and the Zionist political project has been met with blatant anti-Palestinian racism.

This has manifested in repressive silencing campaigns, disciplinary processes and lawfare.

As coercive repression of anti-Zionist voices escalates at a frenzied pace in Western society, what is at stake extends beyond individuals’ livelihoods and mental health, for these ultimately constitute collateral damage.

• READ MORE: Democracy Now!, Diana Buttu analyse ICJ ruling over illegal and ‘rapid end’ to Israel occupation of Palestine
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

The real target and objective of anti-Palestinian racism is discursive disarmament, specifically, disarming the Palestinian movement of its capacity to critique and resist Zionism and hold Israel to account.

This disarmament campaign — the immobilising of our discursive and explanatory frameworks, our analysis and commentary, our slogans, protest language and chants — is emboldened and empowered by the collusion and complicity of institutions, media outlets and employers.

The past fortnight alone has seen a frenzy of Zionist McCarthyism. Both I and Special Broadcasting Service veteran journalist, Mary Kostakidis, were defamed as “7 October deniers” and rape apologists, and as being on a par with Holocaust deniers.

Complaint lodged
A week later, the Zionist Federation of Australia announced it had lodged a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Kostakidis, alleging racial vilification for her social media posts on Gaza.

On July 11, Australian-Palestinian activist and businessman Hash Tayeh was notified of arrest for allegedly inciting hatred of Jewish people over protest chants including “all Zionists are terrorists” and other statements equating Zionism with terrorism.

The same day, right-wing shock jock radio host Ray Hadley interrogated the AHRC about Australian-Palestinian Sara Saleh, employed as legal and research adviser to the AHRC’s president.

In violation of Saleh’s privacy, the AHRC went on the defensive and revealed that Saleh had resigned. Saleh had been subjected to months of anti-Palestinian racism and marginalisation at the commission.

On July 15, documents released under a freedom of information request revealed that the State Library of Victoria was actively surveilling the social media activity of four writers and poets — Arab and Muslim poet Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian, Alison Evans and Ariel Slamet Ries, specifically around Palestine.

The documents provided more evidence that the writers’ pro-Palestine social media posts were the likely reason for the State Library cancelling a series of online creative writing workshops for teens which the writers had been contracted to host — corroborating what library staff whistleblowers had revealed earlier this year.

Political ideology
It is impossible to overstate how the repression we are witnessing is occurring because governments, media, institutions and employers are legitimating disingenuous complaints and blatant hit-jobs by acquiescing to the egregious and false equivalence between Zionism and Judaism.

Despite pro-Palestine voices explicitly critiquing and targeting Zionist ideology and practice in clear distinction to Judaism and Jewish identity, and despite standing alongside anti-Zionist Jews, we are accused of antisemitism.

Zionism is a political ideology that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century. It explicitly argued for settler colonialism to replace the majority indigenous population of Palestine.

Zionism is not a religious, racial, ethnic or cultural identity. It is a political doctrine that a member of any culture, religion, race or ethnic category can subscribe to.

Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. Jews and Judaism existed for thousands of years before Zionism. These are not controversial contentions. They are borne out by almost a century of academic scholarship and have been adopted by anti-Zionist Jewish scholars, lawyers, human rights organisations and clerics.

They are supported by facts. Consider, for example, that the largest pro-Israel organisation in the United States is Christians United for Israel.

A Zionist can be an adherent of any religion and come from any ethnic or racial background. US President Joe Biden is an Irish-American Catholic and a Zionist.

Australia’s former prime minister, Scott Morrison, is an evangelical Christian and a Zionist. Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong is an Australian-Malay Christian and a Zionist.

Inherently racist
Zionist ideology is recognised as inherently racist because it denies the inalienable right of indigenous Palestinian people to self-determination, and the right to live free of genocide, apartheid, settler colonialism and domination.

Palestinian subjugation is an existential necessity for the supremacist goal of Israel’s political project. This is not even contested.

Israel’s 2018 nation-state law explicitly states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people” and established “Jewish settlement as a national value”, mandating that the state “will labour to encourage and promote its establishment and development”.

Anti-Zionism is directed at a state-building project and a political regime. Rather than protect people’s right to subject Zionism to normative interrogation, as is the case with all political ideologies, institutions panic at complaints and uncritically legitimate the false claim that anti-Zionism equals antisemitism.

Protected cultural identity
Indulging vexatious claims and dishonest conflations is why we are seeing extraordinary coercive repression and anti-Palestinian racism across institutions.

To posit Zionism as a religious or ethnic identity is like saying white supremacy, Marxism, socialism or settler colonialism are all categories of identity. The perverse logic we are being asked to indulge is essentially this: Zionism equals Judaism therefore a white Christian Zionist is a protected cultural identity category.

Indulging the notion that the ideology of Zionism is a protected cultural identity sets a precedent that would be absurd if it were not so dangerous.

By this logic, communists can claim the status of a protected category of identity on the basis that there are Chinese communists who feel threatened by critiques of communism.

Adherents of doctrines and ideologies including white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, socialism, liberalism and communism could claim to be protected identities.

Adherents of doctrines and ideologies including white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, socialism, liberalism and communism could claim to be protected identities

Further, if Zionism is a protected cultural identity, what does this mean for anti-Zionist Jews? And what is Zionism from the standpoint of its victims, as Edward Said famously said?

Genocide in name of Zionism
What does it mean for Palestinians whose lives are marked by dispossession, exile, refugee camps, land theft and now, as I write, genocide explicitly enacted in the name of Zionism?

In the context of a genocide that has so far, on a recent conservative by The Lancet, one of the world’s highest-impact academic journals, caused an estimated 186,000 deaths and counting, governments, institutions and mainstream media are prepared to effectively destroy any vestige of democratic principles, fundamental rights and intellectual rigour in order to exceptionalise Zionism and Israel and shield a political ideology and a state from critique.

While institutions stand with Israel, the vast majority of the public, witnessing the massacres, are daring to question Israel’s actions. This includes questioning the Zionist ideology that underpins that state.

Institutions and employers may choose to discipline and sack those calling out Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in this moment, but will be held to account for their complicity in the political suppression of our collective protest against crimes against humanity.

Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah is a Future Fellow at Macquarie University. Her research areas cover Islamophobia, race, Palestine, the war on terror, youth identities and social movement activism. She is also a lawyer and the multi-award-winning author of 12 books for children and young adults. This article was republished from Middle East Eye.

Among the many sayings attributed to Winston Churchill is, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

This sentiment seems appropriate as Israel potentially appears ready to embark on a war against the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said this week a decision on an all-out war against Hezbollah was “coming soon” and that senior commanders of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had signed off on a plan for the operation.

• READ MORE: Rafah fighting ‘intensifying’ as Israel strikes north, south, central Gaza
• Are Israel and Hezbollah on the verge of full-blown war?
• Other War in Gaza reports

This threat comes despite the fact Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza is far from over. Israel has still not achieved the two primary objectives Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put forth at the start of the conflict:

• the destruction of Hamas as a military and governing entity in Gaza
• the freeing of the remaining Israeli hostages held by Hamas (about 80 believed to still be alive, along with the remains of about 40 believed to be dead).

Why Hezbollah is attacking Israel now
Israel has cogent reasons for wanting to eliminate the threat from Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been launching Iranian-supplied missiles, rockets and drones across the border into northern Israel since the Gaza war began on October 8.

Its stated purpose is to support Hamas by distracting the IDF from its Gaza operation.

Hezbollah’s attacks have been relatively circumscribed – confined so far to northern Israel. But they have led to the displacement of some 60,000 residents from the border area. These people are understandably fed up and demanding Netanyahu’s government takes action to force Hezbollah to withdraw from the border.

This anger has been augmented this week by Hezbollah publicising video footage of military and civilian sites in the northern Israeli city of Haifa, which had been taken by a low-flying surveillance drone.

The Israeli army said plans for an offensive in Lebanon were “approved and validated” amid escalating cross-border clashes with Hezbollah and a relative lull in Gaza fighting https://t.co/H0nq61Gbay pic.twitter.com/qzzFq3nDt5

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) June 18, 2024

The implication: Hezbollah was scoping the region for new targets. Haifa, a city of nearly 300,000, has not yet been subject to Hezbollah attacks.

The most far-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have openly called for Israel to invade southern Lebanon. Even without this pressure, Netanyahu has ample reason to want to neutralise the Hezbollah threat because residents of northern Israel are strong supporters of his Likud party.

US and Iranian interests in a broader conflict
The United States is obviously concerned about the risk Israel will open a second front in its conflicts. As such, President Joe Biden has sent an envoy, Amos Hochstein, to Israel and Lebanon to try to reduce tensions on both sides.

In Lebanon, he cannot publicly deal directly with the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, because the group is on the US list of global terrorist organisations. Instead, he met the long-serving speaker of the Lebanese parliament, Nabih Berri, who as a fellow Shia is able to talk with Nasrallah.

But Hezbollah answers to Iran — its main backer in the region. And it’s doubtful if any Lebanese leader can persuade it to desist from action approved by Iran.

Iran’s interests in the potential for an Israel-Hezbollah war at this time are mixed. It would obviously be glad to see Israel under military pressure on two fronts. But Iranian leaders see Hezbollah as insurance against an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities.

Hezbollah has an estimated 150,000 missiles and rockets, including some that could reach deep into Israel. So far, Iran seems to want Hezbollah to hold back from a major escalation with Israel, which could deplete most of that arsenal.

That said, although Israel’s Iron Dome defensive shield has been remarkably successful in neutralising the rocket threat from Gaza, it might not be as effective against a large-scale barrage of more sophisticated missiles.

Israel needed help from the US, Britain, France and Jordan in countering a direct attack from Iran in April that involved some 150 missiles and 170 drones.

Israel and Hezbollah conflict: escalating cross-border tensions. Video: ABC News

Lessons from previous Israeli interventions in Lebanon
The other factor – especially for wiser heads mindful of history – is the country’s previous interventions in Lebanon have been far from cost-free.

Israel’s problems with Lebanon started when the late King Hussein of Jordan forced the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), then led by Yasser Arafat, to relocate to Lebanon in 1970. He did that because the PLO had been using Jordan as a base for operations against Israel after the 1967 war, provoking Israeli retaliation.

From the early 1970s, the PLO formed a state within a state in Lebanon. It largely acted independently from the perennially weak Lebanese government, which was divided on sectarian grounds, and in 1975, collapsed into a prolonged civil war.

The PLO used southern Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, leading Israel to launch a limited invasion of its northern neighbour in 1978, driving Palestinian militia groups north of the Litani River.

That invasion was only partially successful. Militants soon moved back towards the border and renewed their attacks on northern Israel. In 1982, then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin decided to remove the PLO entirely from Lebanon, launching a major invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut. This eventually forced the PLO leadership and the bulk of its fighters to relocate to Tunisia.

Gaza Genocide: 17th June: In depth report on escalation of cross border conflict: Hezbollah v Israel: Dissolving of genocidal war cabinet by Netenyahu to select others: visit by U.S. Hochstein today & far right fascists Gver/Smotrich jostling for war cabinet positions pic.twitter.com/g5J44afWeB

— JANET Gibson (@JANETGi59151282) June 17, 2024

Despite this success, the two Israeli invasions had the unintended consequence of radicalising the until-then quiescent Shia population of southern Lebanon.

That enabled Iran, in its early post-revolutionary phase under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, to work with Shia clerics in Lebanon to establish Hezbollah (Party of God in Arabic), which became a greater threat to Israel than the PLO had ever been.

Bolstered by Iranian support, Hezbollah has become stronger over the years, becoming a force in Lebanese politics and regularly firing missiles into Israel.

In 2006, Hezbollah was able to block an IDF advance into southern Lebanon aimed at rescuing two Israeli soldiers Hezbollah had captured. The outcome was essentially a draw, and the two soldiers remained in captivity until their bodies were exchanged for Lebanese prisoners in 2008.

Many Arab observers at the time judged that by surviving an asymmetrical conflict, Hezbollah had emerged with a political and military victory.

For a while during and after that conflict, Nasrallah was one of the most popular regional leaders, despite the fact he was loathed by rulers of conservative Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.

Will history repeat itself?
This is the background to discussions in Israel about launching a war against Hezbollah. And it demonstrates how the quote from Churchill is relevant.

Most military experts would caution against choosing to fight a war on two fronts. Former US President George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003 when the war in Afghanistan had not concluded. The outcome was hugely costly for the US military and disastrous for both countries.

The 19th century American writer Mark Twain is reported to have said that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Will Israel’s leaders listen to the echoes of the past?

Dr Ian Parmeter, research scholar, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been described as involving two competing narratives: one, about a displaced Palestinian people denied their right to self-determination, and the other, about the Jewish people who, having established an independent state in their historical homeland after generations of persecution in exile, have been under threat from hostile neighbours ever since.

When Fiji joined the United States as the only two countries to support Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territory at the ICJ in February, it was seen as walking head-on into one of the longest running conflicts in history, leaving Fijians, as well as the international community struggling to figure out which narrative that position fits into.

Following Hamas’ unprecedented attack on Israel in October, Israel’s retaliatory campaign against Gaza has provoked international consternation and has seen a humanitarian crisis unfolding, resulting in the motions against Israel in the ICJ.

• READ MORE: South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice explained
• Nicaragua’s case against Germany over Israel’s war on Gaza
• Faith and foreign policy — how the Pacific vies the Israel-Gaza conflict
• Other War on Gaza reports

And since then other cases such as Nicaragua this month against Germany alleging the enabling by the European country of the alleged genocide by Israel as the second-largest arms supplier.

South Africa had asked the ICJ to consider whether Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Fiji’s pro-Israel position was on another matter — the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) had requested the ICJ’s advisory opinion into Israel’s policies in the occupied territories.

Addressing the ICJ, Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, retired Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini said the ICJ should not render an advisory opinion on the questions posed by the General Assembly. He said the court had been presented “with a distinctly one-sided narrative. This fails to take account of the complexity of this dispute, and misrepresents the legal, historical, and political context.”

The UNGA request was “a legal manoeuvre that circumvents the existing internationally sanctioned and legally binding framework for resolution of the Israel-Palestine dispute,” said Tarakinikini.

“And if the ICJ is to consider the legal consequences of the alleged Israeli refusal to withdraw from territory, it must also look at what Palestine must do to ensure Israel’s security,” he said.

On the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, “Fiji notes that the right to self-determination is a relative right.

“In the context of Israel/Palestine, this means the Court would need to ascertain whether the Palestinians’ exercise of their right to self-determination has infringed the territorial
integrity, political inviolability or legitimate security needs of the State of Israel,” he added.

Crossing the line
Long-standing Fijian diplomats such as Kaliopate Tavola and Robin Nair said Fiji had crossed the line by breaking with its historically established foreign policy of friends-to-all -and-enemies-to-none.

Nair, Fiji’s first ambassador to the Middle East, said Fiji had always chosen to be an international peacekeeper, trusted by both sides to any argument or conflict that requires its services.

“The question being asked is, how is it in the national interest of Fiji to buy into the Israeli-Palestine dispute, particularly when it has been a well-respected international peacekeeper in the region?

“Fiji has either absented itself or abstained from voting on any decisions at the United Nations concerning the Israeli-Palestinian issues, particularly since 1978 when Fiji began taking part in the UN-sponsored peacekeeping operations in the Middle East,” Nair told Islands Business.

Nair said it was worth noting that in keeping with its traditionally neutral position on Israeli-Palestinian issues, Fiji had initially abstained on the UN General Assembly resolution asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion.

Former Ambassador Kaliopate Tavola asks why that position has changed. “Fiji’s rationale for showing interest now is not so much about the real issue on the ground — the genocide
taking place, but the niceties of legal processes. Coming from Fiji with its history of coups, it is a bit over-pretentious, one may say”.

At odds with past conduct
Former Deputy Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, now professor in law at the University of Fiji, Aziz Mohammed, says the change of position does not reconcile with Fiji’s past endorsement of international instruments and conventions, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute on war crimes at play in the current proceedings at the ICJ.

“That endorsement happened by the government that was in power at the time of the current Prime Minister (Sitiveni Rabuka’s administration in the 1990s),” says Mohammed.

“We became the fifth country to endorse it. So, it was very early that we planted a flag to say, ‘we’re going to honour this international obligation’. And that happened. But subsequently, we brought the war crimes (section from the ICC statute) into our Crimes Act. Not only that, but we also adopted the international humanitarian laws into our laws — three Geneva Conventions, and three protocols. So, in terms of laws, most countries only have adopted two, but we have adopted all the international instruments. But then we’re not adhering to it.”

Fiji was among six Pacific Island countries — including Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Nauru, Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia — that voted against a UN resolution in October calling for a humanitarian truce in Gaza.

That vote caused significant political ruptures. One of Rabuka’s two coalition partners, the National Federation Party (NFP), said Fiji should have voted for the resolution. “It was a motion that called for peace and access to humanitarian aid, and as a country, we should have supported that,” said NFP Leader, Professor Biman Prasad, who is Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.

Prasad’s fellow party member and former NFP Leader, Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua, served in the Fiji peacekeeping forces deployed to Lebanon in the 1990s, and recounted the horrors of war he had seen in the region.

“I can still vividly remember the blood, the carnage and the mothers weeping for their children and the children finding out that they no longer had parents,” he said.

“In any war, no matter how justified your cause may be, it is always the innocent that suffer and pay the price. Those images, those memories are seared into my memory forever . . . that is why NFP has taken the position of supporting a ceasefire in Gaza contrary to Fiji’s position at the UN.”

Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai said the “decision has significant implications for the safety and security of RFMF troops currently deployed in the Middle East” and called on the government to reevaluate its stance on the Israel-Hamas issue.

“Their safety and security should remain a top priority, and it is crucial that their contribution to international peacekeeping efforts are fully supported and respected,” an RFMF statement said.

Interesting cocktail
Writing in the Asia-Pacific current affairs publication, The Diplomat, Melbourne-based Australia and the Pacific political analyst, Grant Wyeth said Pacific islanders’ faith and foreign policy make an “interesting cocktail” that drives their UN votes in favour of Israel. He knocks any theories about the United States having bought off these island nations.

“Rather than power, faith may be the key to understanding the Pacific Islands’ approach,” writes Wyeth. “Much of the Pacific is highly observant in their Christianity, and they have an eschatological understanding of humanity.”

He notes that various denominations of Protestantism see the creation of Israel in 1948 as the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy in which the Jewish people — “God’s chosen” — return to the Holy Land.

“Support for Israel is, therefore, a deeply held spiritual belief, one that sits alongside Pacific
Islands’ other considerations of interests and opportunities when forming their foreign policies.”

In September, Papua New Guinea moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Prime Minister James Marape was quoted as saying at the time: “For us to call ourselves
Christian, paying respect to God will not be complete without recognising that Jerusalem is the universal capital of the people and the nation of Israel.”

Political vs humanitarian
The commentators draw the distinction between the matter of political recognition/state identity and the humanitarian issues at stake.

Says Mohammed: “This is not about recognising the state of Israel. This is about a conflict where people wanted to protect the unprotected. All they were saying is, ‘let’s’ support a ceasefire so [that] women, children, elderly … could get out [and] food supplies, medical supplies could get in …’ and it wasn’t [going to be] an indefinite ceasefire, which we [Fiji]
agreed to later.”

Fiji eventually did vote for the ceasefire when it came before the UN General Assembly again in December, following a major outcry against its position at home. The key concern going forward is the impact on the future of Fiji’s decades-long peacekeeping involvement in the Middle East.

Fiji-born political sociologist, Professor Steven Ratuva, is director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies and professor in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Canterbury.

“The security of Fijian soldiers overseas will be threatened, as well as Fijian citizens themselves,” says Ratuva. “There are already groups campaigning underground for a tourist boycott of Fiji. I’ve personally received angry emails about ‘your bloody dumb country.’”

Nair says when 45 peacekeeping Fijian soldiers were taken hostage by the al Qaeda-linked Syrian rebel group al-Nusra Front in the Golan Heights in 2014, when all else — including the UN — had failed to secure their release, Fiji’s only bargaining power was the value of its peacekeeping neutrality.

“No international power stepped up to help Fiji in its most traumatic time in international relations in its entire history. Fiji had to fall back on itself, to use its own humble credentials. I successfully used our peace-keeping credentials in the Middle East and over many decades, including the shedding of Fijian blood, to ensure peace in the Middle East, to free our captured soldiers.”

Punishing the RFMF?
Mohammed agrees with the concern about the implications of Fiji’s compromised neutrality.

“I think what’s on everybody’s mind is whether we’re going to continue peacekeeping or suddenly, somebody is going to say, ‘enough of Fiji, they have compromised their neutrality, their impartiality, and as such, we are withdrawing consent and we want them to go back,’” he says.

Fiji’s Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua has been dismissive of such concerns, saying Fiji’s position on Israel at the ICJ did not diminish the capability of its peacekeepers because Fiji had “very professional people serving in peacekeeping roles”.

Mohammed, with an almost 40-year military career and having held the rank of Deputy Commander and once a significant figure on Fiji’s military council, asks whether Fiji’s position on Israel is a strategic manoeuvre by the government to reign in the military.

“Do they really want Fijian peacekeepers out there? Or are they going to indirectly punish the RFMF [Republic of Fiji Military Forces]?” he said in an interview with Islands Business.

He floats this theory on the basis that Fiji’s position on Israel came from two men acutely aware of what is at stake for the Fijian military — Prime Minister Rabuka and Tarakinikini, both seasoned army officers with extensive experience in matters of the Middle East.

“We all know that in recent times, the RFMF has been vocal (in national affairs). And they have stood firm on their role under Article 131 (of Fiji’s 2013 Constitution which states that it is the military’s overall responsibility to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians).

“And they have pressured the government into positions, so much so, the government has had difficulty. And they (government) say, ‘the RFMF are stepping out of position. Now, how do we control the RFMF? How do we cut them into place? One, we can basically give them everything and keep them quiet, or two, we take away the very thing that put them in the limelight. How do we do that? We take a position, knowing very well that the host countries will withdraw their consent, and the Fijians will be asked to leave’.

“Fiji will no longer have peacekeepers. No peacekeeping engagements, the numbers of the RFMF will have to be reduced. So, all they will do is be confined to domestic roles.

“People are questioning this,” says Mohammed. “Military strategists are raising this issue because the government knows they can’t openly tell the Fijian public that we are withdrawing from peacekeeping. There’ll be an outcry because every second household in Fiji has some member who has served in peacekeeping.

“So, strategically, we [government] take a position. It may not be perceived that way. But the outcome is happening in that direction.”

Richard Naidu is currently editor of Islands Business. This article was published in the March edition of the magazine and is republished here with permission.

Gaza’s last standing university has been destroyed by the Israeli army as military continued to strike targets in areas of the besieged territory where it has told civilians to seek refuge.

The US has carried out another air raid on Yemen, with targets reportedly including the international airport in the capital city of Sanaa. This comes a day after US and UK airstrikes on Yemen in retaliation for Houthi attacks on Red Sea commercial vessels.

For weeks Yemen’s Houthi forces have been greatly inconveniencing commercial shipping with their blockade, with reports last month saying Israel’s Eilat Port has seen an 85 percent drop in activity since the attacks began.

This entirely bloodless inconvenience was all it took for Washington to attack Yemen, the war-ravaged nation in which the US and its allies have spent recent years helping Saudi Arabia murder hundreds of thousands of people with its own maritime blockades.

• READ MORE: This genocide is being live-streamed. We can’t say we didn’t know
• How the US, UK bombing of Yemen might help the Houthis
• What is South Africa’s five-point ICJ genocide argument against Israel?

Yemen has issued defiant statements in response to these attacks, saying they will not go “unanswered or unpunished”.

The U.S. can have a multi-decade long blockade on Cuba and it’s normalized.

Israel can have a decade and a half long total air, land, and sea blockade on Gaza and it’s normalized.

But Yemenis block some ships to stop a genocide and all the sudden it’s indefensible.

— James Ray (@GoodVibePolitik) January 13, 2024

The Biden administration’s dramatic escalation toward yet another horrific war in the Middle East has been hotly criticised by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who argue that the attacks were illicit because they took place without congressional approval.

This impotent congressional whining will never go anywhere, since, as Glenn Greenwald has observed, the US Congress never actually does anything to hold presidents to account for carrying out acts of war without their approval.

But there are some worthwhile ideas going around.

After the second round of strikes, a Democratic representative from Georgia named Hank Johnson tweeted the following:

“I have what some may consider a dumb idea, but here it is: stop the bombing of Gaza, then the attacks on commercial shipping will end. Why not try that approach?”

By golly, that’s just crazy enough to work. In fact, anti-interventionists have been screaming it at the top of their lungs since the standoff with Yemen began.

All the way back in mid-October Responsible Statecraft’s Trita Parsi was already writing urgently about the need for a ceasefire in Gaza to prevent it from exploding into a wider war in the region, a position Parsi has continued pushing ever since.

“Huge Miscalculation”: Biden’s Refusal to Push for Gaza Ceasefire Could Drag U.S. into Middle East War https://t.co/eJuzswi2BJ

— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) January 8, 2024

As we discussed previously, Israel’s US-backed assault on Gaza is threatening to bleed over into conflicts with the Houthis in Yemen, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Iran-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria, and even potentially with Iran itself – any of which could easily see the US and its allies committing themselves to a full-scale war.

Peace in Gaza takes these completely unnecessary gambles off the table.

And it is absolutely within Washington’s power to force a ceasefire in Gaza. Biden could end all this with one phone call, as US presidents have done in the past. As Parsi wrote for The Nation earlier this month:

“In 1982, President Ronald Reagan was ‘disgusted’ by Israeli bombardment of Lebanon. He stopped the transfer of cluster munitions to Israel and told Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a phone call that ‘this is a holocaust.’ Reagan demanded that Israel withdraw its troops from Lebanon. Begin caved. Twenty minutes after their phone call, Begin ordered a halt on attacks.

“Indeed, it is absurd to claim that Biden has no leverage, particularly given the massive amounts of arms he has shipped to Israel. In fact, Israeli officials openly admit it. ‘All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the US,’ retired Israeli Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Brick conceded in November of last year. ‘The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability.… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.’ ”

In the end, you get peace by pursuing peace. That’s how it happens. You don’t get it by pursuing impossible imaginary ideals like the total elimination of Hamas while butchering tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.

You don’t get it by trying to bludgeon the Middle East into passively accepting an active genocide. You get it by negotiation, de-escalation, diplomacy and detente.

The path to peace is right there. The door’s not locked. It’s not even closed. The fact that they don’t take it tells you what these imperialist bastards are really interested in.

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

South Africa has accused Israel of “genocidal intent” over its war on the besieged enclave Gaza Strip, and pleaded with judges at the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue an interim order demanding Israel halt its military offensive in the embattled territory, reports Middle East Eye.

South African lawyer Adila Hassim told judges at The Hague that “genocides are never declared in advance, but this court has the benefit of the past 13 weeks of evidence that shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies as a plausible claim of genocidal acts”.

“Israel deployed 6000 bombs per week . . . No one is spared. Not even newborns.

• READ MORE: ICJ hears South Africa’s genocide case against Israel over Gaza war
• Genocide in Gaza: A call to urgent global action – Backgrounder

UN chiefs have described it as a graveyard for children,” she said told the court on the opening session of the two-day preliminary hearing.

“Nothing will stop the suffering except an order from this court.”

Israel’s ongoing three-month war in Gaza has killed more than 23,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, lawyers told the court.

Most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million has been displaced, and an Israeli blockade severely limiting food, fuel and medicine has caused a humanitarian “catastrophe”, according to the UN.

‘Genocidal in character’
South Africa submitted its case against Israel at the ICJ last month and has said Israel’s actions in Gaza are “genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group”.

Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, another South African lawyer and legal scholar at the hearing, said Pretoria was not alone in drawing attention to Israel’s genocidal rhetoric.

He said that at least 15 UN special rapporteurs and 21 members of the UN working groups had warned that what was happening in Gaza reflected a genocide in the making.

Video: Middle East Eye

Ngcukaitobi added that genocidal intent was evident in the way Israel’s military was conducting attacks, including the targeting of family homes and civilian infrastructure.

“Israel’s political leaders, military commanders and persons holding official positions have systematically and in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent.”

Ngcukaitobi said the “genocidal rhetoric” had become common within the Israeli Knesset, with several MPs calling for Gaza to be “wiped out, flattened, erased and crushed”.

Israeli defence
On Wednesday, Nissim Vaturi, a member of Israel’s ruling Likud party, said it was a “privilege” for his country to appear at The Hague as he doubled down on earlier remarks where he said there were “no innocent people” in Gaza.

This is the first time Israel is being tried under the United Nations’ Genocide Convention, which was drawn up after the Second World War in light of the atrocities committed against Jews and other persecuted minorities during the Holocaust.

During yesterday’s proceedings, Professor Max du Plessis, another lawyer representing South Africa, said Israel had subjected the Palestinian people to an oppressive and prolonged violation of their rights to self-determination for more than half a century.

Dr Du Plessis added that based on materials shown before the court, the acts of Israel were plausibly characterised as genocidal.

“South Africa’s obligation is motivated by the need to protect Palestinians in Gaza and their absolute rights not to be subjected to genocidal acts.”

Genocide cases, which are notoriously hard to prove, can take years to resolve, but South Africa is asking the court to speedily implement “provisional measures” and “order Israel to cease killing and causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinian people in Gaza”.

Thank you Madiba. Thank you South Africa. #ICJ #ICJGenocideConvention pic.twitter.com/9xjdSR40MI

— Dr. Omar Suleiman (@omarsuleiman504) January 11, 2024

Three hour hearing
Yesterday’s hearing consisted of three hours of detailed descriptions detailing what South Africa says is a clear example of genocide. Israel will today have three hours to respond on Friday.

The spokesperson of the Israeli Foreign Affairs, Lior Haiat, hit out at the comments made in the hearing, calling it “one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy,” and demonstrated “false and baseless claims.”

He also accused South Africa of “functioning as the legal arm of the Hamas terrorist organisation”.

As South Africa did in its 84-page legal filing ahead of the case, the country’s Minister of Justice Ronald Lamola repeated that he “unequivocally condemns Hamas” for the October 7 attack on southern Israel.

Republished from Middle East Eye.

The full first day hearing – South Africa’s submissions. Video: Middle East Eye

Two years ago New Zealand joined 22 other countries in supporting the Ukrainian case against Russia at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its invasion of Ukraine.

We sent a legal team to The Hague where the ICJ is based and our representatives spoke directly to the court on New Zealand’s behalf. We used international law to argue the Russian invasion was illegal and warranted sanction by the ICJ.

Successive New Zealand governments for as long as I can remember have said we believe in an “international rules-based order” of which the ICJ and the ICC are an important part.

• READ MORE: War on Gaza: A textbook case of genocide
• Jordan backs South Africa ICJ genocide file against Israel over Gaza atrocities
• War on Gaza: The fate of global justice hangs on South Africa’s ICJ case

This makes sense because we are a small country without the economic or military clout to take unilateral action to protect our interests. Like other small countries we rely on international rules to provide a measure of protection when bigger countries, like Russia in this case, break the rules.

We have used such rules ourselves by making applications to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) when our trade interests have been threatened. Without such rules the biggest bully will win every time.

Last week South Africa filed papers at the ICJ alleging Israel’s actions in Gaza over the past 12 weeks amount to genocide.

South Africa said it “is gravely concerned with the plight of civilians caught in the present Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip due to the indiscriminate use of force and forcible removal of inhabitants”.

It described its case saying “acts and omissions by Israel . . .  are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent . . .  to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group”.

Their court papers go on to claim that, “the conduct of Israel — through its state organs, state agents, and other persons and entities acting on its instructions or under its direction, control or influence — in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, is in violation of its obligations under the Genocide Convention”.

This case is important because Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA), and South Africa are all signatories of the Genocide Convention and are bound to abide by any decision made by the court.

The most important part of South Africa’s case is its application for an interim injunction to stop Israel’s indiscriminate killing immediately. If this interim injunction is successful it could put in place an immediate ceasefire to end the war and Israel’s indiscriminate killing of Palestinians.

It would allow unfettered humanitarian aid to enter Gaza where the need for food, water, fuel, medicine and vaccinations is desperate.

This is the outcome the majority of people in New Zealand, and across the world, want to see. New Zealand should back up the South African case which is most likely to get a first hearing on January 11.

So far, Bolivia, Ireland, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Turkey, Venezuela and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have supported the South African legal action.

Those who have been paying attention will not be surprised at claims of genocide.

Genocide always begins with words and there is a wealth of reporting on the dehumanising language being used by Israel’s political and military leaders to set the scene for what has followed.

For example, Israel’s President Isaac Herzog said “it is an entire nation out there that is responsible”, and two days after the attack Israeli Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant spelt out genocidal intentions saying:

“We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we will act accordingly.”

Israelis more generally have taken up this talk across social media with calls for Gaza to be “flattened,” “erased” or “destroyed”. More tragic is a social media post showing Israeli children singing “we will annihilate everyone” in Gaza.

Israel’s Defence Minister’s statement matches the UN Convention closely to the point where Israeli scholar of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Raz Segal, has described Israel’s rhetoric and actions as “a textbook case of genocide”.

It is clear Israel’s political and military leaders have a case to answer before the International Court of Justice, just as Russia does for its invasion of Ukraine.

South Africa has filed a case at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. International law expert Francis Boyle, who has argued successfully at the ICJ, says he believes “South Africa will win an order against Israel.” pic.twitter.com/4Ebz02vxVc

— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) January 2, 2024

As well as backing South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice we should also call for a swift, well-resourced International Criminal Court investigation into war crimes committed in the October 7 attack on Israel and the Israeli response.

This investigation should include examining the crimes of genocide and apartheid.

Palestinians deserve our support as much as the people of Ukraine.

John Minto is the national chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published by The Post and is republished with the author’s permission.

Sydney-born investigative journalist, author and filmmaker John Pilger died on December 31, 2023.

He should be remembered and honoured not just for his impressive body of work, but for being a brave — and at times near-lone — voice for truth against power.

In early 2002, the “war on terror”, launched by then United States President George W Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attack, was in full swing.

• READ MORE: Daily Mirror legend John Pilger awoke world to great injustices as tributes pour in

After two decades, more than 4 million would be killed in Iraq, Libya, Philippines, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere under this bloody banner, and 10 times more displaced.

The propaganda campaign to justify this ferocious, US-led, global punitive expedition cowed many voices, not least in the settler colonial state of Australia.

But there was one prominent Australian voice that was not silenced — and it was John Pilger’s.

‘Breaking the silence’
On March 10 that year, Sydney Town Hall was packed out with people to hear John speak in a Green Left public meeting titled “Breaking the silence: war, propaganda and the new empire”.

Outside the Town Hall, about 100 more people, who could not squeeze in, stayed to show their solidarity.

Pilger described the war on terror as “a war on world-wide popular resistance to an economic system that determines who will live well and who will be expendable”.

He called for “opposition to a so-called war on terrorism, that is really a war of terrorism”.

The meeting played an important role in helping build resistance in this country to the many US-led imperial wars that followed the US’ bloody retribution exacted on millions of Afghans who had never even heard of the 9/11 attacks, let alone bore any responsibility for them.

That 2002 Sydney Town Hall meeting cemented a strong bond between GL and John.

GL is proud to have been the Australian newspaper and media platform that has published the most articles by John Pilger over the years.

Shared values
For much of the last two decades, the so-called mainstream media were always reluctant to run his pieces because he refused to obediently follow the unspoken war-on-terror line.

He refused to go along with the argument that every military expedition that the US launched (and which Australia and other loyal allies promptly followed) to protect privilege and empire were in defence of “shared democratic values”.

The collaboration between GL and John was based on real shared values, which he summed up succinctly in his introduction to his 1992 book Distant Voices:

“I have tried to rescue from media oblivion uncomfortable facts which may serve as antidotes to the official truth; and in doing so, I hope to have given support to those ‘distant voices’ who understand how vital, yet fragile, is the link between the right of people to know and to be heard, and the exercise of liberty and political democracy …”

GL editors have had many exchanges with John over the years. At times, there were political differences. But each such exchange only built up a mutual respect, based on a shared commitment to truth and justice.

The last two decades of John’s moral leadership against Empire were inadvertently confirmed a few weeks before his passing when US President Joe Biden warned Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu not to repeat the US’ mistakes after 9/11.

“There’s no reason we did so many of the things we did,” Biden told Netanyahu.

Focus on Palestine struggle
John had long focused on Palestine’s struggle for self-determination from the Israeli colonial settler state. He condemned Israel’s most recent genocidal campaign of Gaza and, on X, praised those marching for “peaceful decency”.

He urged people to (re)watch his 2002 documentary film Palestine is Still The Issue, in which he returned to film in Gaza and the West Bank, after having first done so in 1977.

John was outspoken about Australia’s treatment of its First Peoples; he didn’t agree with Labor’s Voice to Parliament plan, saying it offered “no real democracy, no sovereignty, no treaty between equals”.

He criticised Labor’s embrace of AUKUS, saying it was about a new war with China, a campaign he took up in his documentary The Coming War on China. While recognising China’s abuse of human and democratic rights, he said the US views China’s embrace of capitalist growth as the key threat.

John campaigned hard for WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange’s release; he visited him several times in Belmarsh Prison and condemned a gutless Labor Prime Minister for refusing to meet with Stella Assange when she was in Australia.

He spoke out for other whistleblowers, including David McBride who exposed Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.

Did not mince words
John did not mince words which is why, especially during the war on terror, most mainstream media refused to publish him — unless a counterposed article was run side-by-side. He never agreed to this pretence of “balance”.

John wrote about his own, early, conscientisation.

“I was very young when I arrived in Saigon and I learned a great deal,” he said on the anniversary of the last day of the longest war of the 20th century — Vietnam.

“I learned to recognise the distinctive drone of the engines of giant B-52s, which dropped their carnage from above the clouds and spared nothing and no one; I learned not to turn away when faced with a charred tree festooned with human parts; I learned to value kindness as never before; I learned that Joseph Heller was right in his masterly Catch-22: that war was not suited to sane people; and I learned about ‘our’ propaganda.”

John Pilger will be remembered by all those who know that facts and history matter, and that only through struggle will people’s movements ever have a chance of winning justice.

Republished with permission from Green Left Magazine.