radiofree.asia

Category: Human Rights

  • Fiji PM Rabuka blames ‘insulated’ upbringing for racially motivated 1987 coups

    RNZ Pacific

    Sitiveni Rabuka, the instigator of Fiji’s coup culture, took to the witness stand for the first time today — fronting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Suva.

    The TRC was set up by Rabuka’s coalition government with the aim of promoting truth-telling and reconciliation regarding political upheavals dating back to 1987.

    The five-member TRC began its work earlier this year. It was led by Dr Marcus Brand, who was appointed in January, and has reportedly already finished his role.

    Rabuka had stated earlier this year he would “voluntarily appear” before the commission and disclose names of individuals involved in his two racist coups almost four decades ago.

    The man, often referred to as “Rambo” for his military past, has been a permanent fixture in the Fijian political landscape since first overthrowing a democratically elected government as a 38-year-old lieutenant-colonel.

    But now, at 77, he has a weatherbeaten face yet still carries the resolute confidence of a young soldier. He faced the TRC commissioners, wearing a tie in the colours of the Fiji Army, to give a much-anticipated testimony by Fijians locally and in the diaspora.

    He began by revisiting his childhood and the influences in his life that shaped his worldview. He fundamentally accepted the actions of 1987 were rooted in his racial worldview.

    Protecting Indigenous Fijians
    He acknowledged those actions were a result of his background, being raised in an “insulated” environment (i.e. village, boarding school, military), and it is his view that he was acting to protect Indigenous Fijians.

    Asked if the coups had served their purpose, Rabuka said: “The coups have brought out more of a self-realisation of who we are, what we’re doing, where we need to be.”

    “If that is a positive outcome of the coup, I encourage all of us to do that. Let us be aware of the sensitivity of numbers, the sensitivity of a perceived imbalance in the distribution of assets, or whatever.”

    But perhaps the most important response from him came toward the end of the almost 1hr 50min submission to a question from the facilitator and veteran journalist Netani Rika, who asked Rabuka: “Do you see the removal of immunity for coup perpetrators from the [2013] Constitution as a way towards preventing a repeat of these incidents [coups]?”

    “There should be [a] very objective assessment of what can be done,” Rabuka replied.

    “There are certain things that we cannot do unless we all agree [to] leave the amendment to the [2013] Constitution open to the people. If that is the will of the people, let it be.

    “At the moment our hands are tied,” confirming indirectly that the removal of immunity for coup perpetrators is off the table as it stands.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • How Israel has set a dangerous precedent in international law

    ANALYSIS: By Emad Moussa

    “Israel appears set on destroying the framework created to ensure compliance with international law . . . ”, the International Court of Justice heard in April 2025.

    To a similar effect, Norway’s Development Minister said in May that Israel was setting a dangerous precedent for international human rights law violations in Gaza.

    Both accounts stem from the belief that Israel’s crimes in Gaza are so extreme that they have broadened the scope of impunity under international law. That would make future conflicts more fluid and the world more dangerous, possibly precipitating the emergence of a New World Order.

    The First World Order emerged in 1920 with the creation of the League of Nations, the first intergovernmental organisation. The goal was to prevent conflicts and wars from ever happening again. But because of, inter alia, structural weaknesses and the unresolved injustice of the defeated parties, the Second World War erupted in 1939 and the world order crumbled.

    The horrors of the Second World War thus paved the way to the emergence of the Second World Order. It rallied universalism with the establishment of the United Nations and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was reinforced by numerous bodies and treaties to maximise compliance with international law.

    While International law was never perfect, let alone fully implementable, it has had an indirect, normative influence on shaping domestic politics, academia, civil society, and journalism. It set in motion the emergence of a global rights-based consciousness, setting a frame of reference against which states are morally and legally judged, even if lacked enforcement.

    ‘Self-defence’ claim
    Israel is the product of the Second World Order. It was initially legitimised by the UN Partition Plan of Palestine in November 1947, and was admitted as a full UN member state in May 1949.

    It is today a signatory of multiple UN treaties and engages with international law in various domains. Yet for years it has employed quasi-legal concepts hoping to inject dangerous exceptions in the law tailored to its own image.

    It dealt with international law based more on self-perceived legitimacy (via historical victimhood or Biblical ties to the land of Palestine) than objective legality. That resulted in the production of Israeli societal beliefs regarding the country’s boundless right to, say, “self-defence”, that only few in the international community shared.

    This exclusive outlook was helped, ironically, by international law’s own lingua franca, its rhetorical nature. It equipped Tel Aviv, like several other states, with the linguistic tools to justify themselves.

    Think of how Israelis defend their military occupation of Palestinians by quoting legal arguments regarding self-defence. Or by re-interpreting the UN Resolution 242, which calls for the “withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967”, to mean not “all” territories.

    They also argue that the Gaza Strip was not occupied since 2005. But ignore Israel’s continued “effective control” over it, which makes it an occupation as per the Fourth Hague Convention.

    And while Israel isn’t a party to the Convention, it is customary international law, and therefore binding.

    Dahiya Doctrine
    In the same vein, Tel Aviv’s ratification in 1995 of the convention on certain conventional weapons, did not stop it deploying cluster bombs against civilians in Beirut’s southern Dahiya’s district in 2006.

    The Israeli army readily denied it was in violation of international law, because “they warned the area’s population”.

    It is in Dahiya that a new legal threshold was crossed, or rather twisted. One that would define Israel’s next military campaigns, namely “The Dahiya Doctrine”. It permits the unleashing of extraordinary force against the civilian population and infrastructure.

    While a clear violation of international law’s “principle of proportionality”, Israeli officials often justified the attacks as lawful for they target the civilian bedding of “terrorists”.

    Needless to say, the Israeli definition of terrorism encapsulates almost every act of dissidence directed at the state, or Jews. Regardless of the legitimacy of that act, and irrespective of its form — violent or passive.

    Israel would upscale the Dahiya Doctrine in its consecutive onslaughts on Gaza since 2008, while continuing to pay lip service to international law.

    After 7 October 2023, even the words of justification had been abandoned. Calls by Israeli officials and some journalists to commit war crimes in Gaza, including genocide, were mostly unapologetic.

    Save for the gas chambers, the Israeli army committed every atrocity imaginable against Gaza’s civilians. Gaza became the world’s largest graveyard of children. Most hospitals, schools, and universities were destroyed, alongside nearly 80 percent of the Strip’s infrastructure and homes.

    More journalists were targeted and killed in Gaza than both world wars, the Vietnam War, wars in Yugoslavia, and the war in Afghanistan combined. And unknown to modern conflict, Israel systematically went after aid workers, including UN-associated ones.

    Enemies and allies
    The gun barrels were then turned against the very representative of international law, the UN. In October 2024, the Knesset banned the UNRWA — going even further by labelling it a “terrorist organisation”.

    Sure, Israel has long looked at the UN as biased, and saw the UNRWA as detrimental to Tel Aviv’s wishes to erase the Palestinian refugee problem from existence. But after October 7, not only did Israel unleash a genocidal war against Palestinians, it used quasi-legal instrument and military prowess to neutralise the legal bodies that may limit its scope.

    This is unprecedented in the United Nation’s history.

    Yet, despite its unbridled brutality, Israel could have been kept at bay had it not been for the US support.

    Indeed, the White House helped Israel normalise its violations of international law in two ways. Firstly, by emphasising the “reason of the state” doctrine over international law. The White House under Biden and Trump, almost fully embraced the Israeli narrative of self-defence after October 7, even when it was evident that the Israelis went too far in Gaza.

    Secondly, the US was already waging its own lateral war on international law. In February 2025, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order authorising sanctions on the ICC and its Chief Prosecutor.

    It expanded the sanctions on four ICC officials in August, saying they had been pivotal in efforts to prosecute Americans and Israelis.

    Trump had withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council in 2018, allegedly over anti-Israel bias. The Biden administration re-joined in 2021 despite being critical of the council’s “disproportionate  attention on Israel”. But in 2025 Trump re-withdrew from the organisation.

    Ultimately, whether Israel is being driven by a sense of doom post-October 7, one that has overshadowed rationality, or it is rationally using whatever necessary militarily capacity it has to achieve its war objectives, matters little.

    Whatever the explanation, what stands is that Israel’s unprecedented crimes set a trajectory in the international system. There is now a possibility that under the increasing normalisation of such crimes, the system will ultimately break.

    But if the trajectory follows the same pattern as in the past 100 years, then the crisis may usher in a third world order. A rectifying phase. But that remains speculative, for the path of history is not linear.

    Dr Emad Moussa is a Palestinian-British researcher and writer specialising in the political psychology of intergroup and conflict dynamics, focusing on MENA with a special interest in Israel/Palestine. He has a background in human rights and journalism. Follow him on Twitter: @emadmoussa

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israel still committing genocide in Gaza, Amnesty International says

    The NGO’s chief says last month’s ceasefire ‘risks creating a dangerous illusion that life in Gaza is returning to normal’

    Amnesty International has said Israel is “still committing genocide” against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, despite the ceasefire agreed last month.

    The fragile, US-brokered truce between Israel and Hamas came into effect on 10 October, after two years of war.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Indonesia’s Gaza peacekeeping mission risks enforcing a ‘broken’ status quo

    ANALYSIS: By Dr Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat

    Indonesia is preparing one of the largest peacekeeping deployments in its history — a 20,000-strong force of soldiers, engineers, medics and logistics personnel — to enter the shattered and starving Gaza Strip.

    Three brigades, three hospital ships, Hercules aircraft, a three-star general, a reconnaissance team, battalions for health services, construction and logistics — Jakarta is moving with remarkable speed and confidence.

    But the moral clarity that Indonesia prides itself on in its support for Palestine is now in danger of being muddied by geopolitical calculation.

    And that calculation, in this case, is deeply entangled with a plan conceived and promoted by US President Donald Trump — a plan that critics argue would freeze, not resolve, the structures of domination and blockade that have long suffocated Gaza.

    Indonesia must ask itself a hard question: Is it stepping into Gaza to help Palestinians — or to help enforce a fragile order designed to protect the status quo?

    For years, Indonesian leaders have proudly stated that their support for Palestine is grounded not in expediency but in principle.

    President Prabowo Subianto has reiterated that Jakarta stands “ready at any moment” to help end the suffering in Gaza. But readiness is not the same as reflection. And reflection is urgently needed.

    Tilted towards Israel
    Trump’s so-called stabilisation plan envisions an International Stabilisation Force tasked with training select Palestinian police officers and preventing weapons smuggling — a mission framed as neutral but structurally tilted toward Israel’s long-standing security demands.

    The plan does little to address the root political causes of Gaza’s devastation. It does not confront Israel’s decades-long military occupation.

    It does not propose a just political horizon. And it does not establish meaningful accountability for continued violations, even as reports persist that ceasefire terms are repeatedly breached.

    A peacekeeping force that does not address the underlying conditions of injustice is not peacekeeping. It is de facto enforcement of a deeply unequal arrangement.

    Indonesia’s deployment risks becoming just that.

    Former deputy foreign minister Dino Patti Djalal has urged caution, warning that Indonesian troops could easily be drawn into clashes simply because the territory remains saturated with weaponry, competing authorities and unresolved political tensions.

    He argues that Indonesia must insist on crystal-clear rules of engagement. With volatility always a possibility, a mission built on ambiguity is a mission built on quicksand.

    Impossible peacekeeper position
    His warning deserves attention. A peacekeeper who does not know whether they are expected to intervene, withdraw or hold ground in moments of confrontation is placed in an impossible position.

    And should Indonesian forces — admired worldwide for their professionalism — be forced to navigate chaos without a political framework, Jakarta will face unpredictable political and humanitarian consequences at home and abroad.

    More troubling is the lack of political strategy behind Indonesia’s enthusiasm. Prabowo’s government frames this mission as a humanitarian and stabilising operation, but it has not clarified how it fits within the long-term political resolution that Indonesia claims to champion.

    For decades, Jakarta has stood consistently behind a two-state solution. Yet today, after the destruction of Gaza and the collapse of any credible peace process, many Palestinians and international observers argue that the two-state paradigm has become a diplomatic mirage — repeatedly invoked, never realised, and often used to justify inaction.

    If Indonesia truly wants to stand for justice rather than merely stability, it must be willing to articulate alternatives. One of those alternatives — controversial but increasingly discussed in academic, political and human rights circles — is a rights-based one-state solution that guarantees equal citizenship and security for all who live between the river and the sea.

    Such a political horizon would require courage from Jakarta. Supporting a single state would mean breaking sharply from US policy preferences and acknowledging that decades of partition proposals have failed to deliver anything resembling peace.

    But Indonesia has taken courageous positions before. It has spoken against apartheid in South Africa and, most recently, called out the global community’s double standards in the treatment of Ukraine and Palestine.

    Jakarta must be moral voice
    If Jakarta wants to be a moral voice, it cannot outsource its vision to a proposal drafted by an American administration whose approach to the conflict was widely criticised as one-sided.

    Indonesia’s soldiers are being told they are going to Gaza to help. That is noble. But noble intentions do not excuse political naivety.

    Before Jakarta sends even a single battalion forward — before the hospital ships are launched, before the Hercules engines warm, before the three-star commander takes his post — Indonesia must ask whether this mission will move Palestinians closer to genuine freedom or merely enforce a temporary calm that leaves the underlying injustices untouched.

    A peacekeeping force that sustains the structures of oppression is not peacekeeping at all. It is maintenance.

    Indonesia can — and must — do better.

    Dr Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the director of the Indonesia-MENA Desk at the Centre for Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS) in Jakarta and a research affiliate at the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore. He spent more than a decade living and traveling across the Middle East, earning a BA in international affairs from Qatar University. He later completed his MA in International Politics and PhD in politics at the University of Manchester. This article was first published by Middle East Monitor.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Indonesia’s Gaza peacekeeping mission risks enforcing a ‘broken’ status quo

    ANALYSIS: By Dr Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat

    Indonesia is preparing one of the largest peacekeeping deployments in its history — a 20,000-strong force of soldiers, engineers, medics and logistics personnel — to enter the shattered and starving Gaza Strip.

    Three brigades, three hospital ships, Hercules aircraft, a three-star general, a reconnaissance team, battalions for health services, construction and logistics — Jakarta is moving with remarkable speed and confidence.

    But the moral clarity that Indonesia prides itself on in its support for Palestine is now in danger of being muddied by geopolitical calculation.

    And that calculation, in this case, is deeply entangled with a plan conceived and promoted by US President Donald Trump — a plan that critics argue would freeze, not resolve, the structures of domination and blockade that have long suffocated Gaza.

    Indonesia must ask itself a hard question: Is it stepping into Gaza to help Palestinians — or to help enforce a fragile order designed to protect the status quo?

    For years, Indonesian leaders have proudly stated that their support for Palestine is grounded not in expediency but in principle.

    President Prabowo Subianto has reiterated that Jakarta stands “ready at any moment” to help end the suffering in Gaza. But readiness is not the same as reflection. And reflection is urgently needed.

    Tilted towards Israel
    Trump’s so-called stabilisation plan envisions an International Stabilisation Force tasked with training select Palestinian police officers and preventing weapons smuggling — a mission framed as neutral but structurally tilted toward Israel’s long-standing security demands.

    The plan does little to address the root political causes of Gaza’s devastation. It does not confront Israel’s decades-long military occupation.

    It does not propose a just political horizon. And it does not establish meaningful accountability for continued violations, even as reports persist that ceasefire terms are repeatedly breached.

    A peacekeeping force that does not address the underlying conditions of injustice is not peacekeeping. It is de facto enforcement of a deeply unequal arrangement.

    Indonesia’s deployment risks becoming just that.

    Former deputy foreign minister Dino Patti Djalal has urged caution, warning that Indonesian troops could easily be drawn into clashes simply because the territory remains saturated with weaponry, competing authorities and unresolved political tensions.

    He argues that Indonesia must insist on crystal-clear rules of engagement. With volatility always a possibility, a mission built on ambiguity is a mission built on quicksand.

    Impossible peacekeeper position
    His warning deserves attention. A peacekeeper who does not know whether they are expected to intervene, withdraw or hold ground in moments of confrontation is placed in an impossible position.

    And should Indonesian forces — admired worldwide for their professionalism — be forced to navigate chaos without a political framework, Jakarta will face unpredictable political and humanitarian consequences at home and abroad.

    More troubling is the lack of political strategy behind Indonesia’s enthusiasm. Prabowo’s government frames this mission as a humanitarian and stabilising operation, but it has not clarified how it fits within the long-term political resolution that Indonesia claims to champion.

    For decades, Jakarta has stood consistently behind a two-state solution. Yet today, after the destruction of Gaza and the collapse of any credible peace process, many Palestinians and international observers argue that the two-state paradigm has become a diplomatic mirage — repeatedly invoked, never realised, and often used to justify inaction.

    If Indonesia truly wants to stand for justice rather than merely stability, it must be willing to articulate alternatives. One of those alternatives — controversial but increasingly discussed in academic, political and human rights circles — is a rights-based one-state solution that guarantees equal citizenship and security for all who live between the river and the sea.

    Such a political horizon would require courage from Jakarta. Supporting a single state would mean breaking sharply from US policy preferences and acknowledging that decades of partition proposals have failed to deliver anything resembling peace.

    But Indonesia has taken courageous positions before. It has spoken against apartheid in South Africa and, most recently, called out the global community’s double standards in the treatment of Ukraine and Palestine.

    Jakarta must be moral voice
    If Jakarta wants to be a moral voice, it cannot outsource its vision to a proposal drafted by an American administration whose approach to the conflict was widely criticised as one-sided.

    Indonesia’s soldiers are being told they are going to Gaza to help. That is noble. But noble intentions do not excuse political naivety.

    Before Jakarta sends even a single battalion forward — before the hospital ships are launched, before the Hercules engines warm, before the three-star commander takes his post — Indonesia must ask whether this mission will move Palestinians closer to genuine freedom or merely enforce a temporary calm that leaves the underlying injustices untouched.

    A peacekeeping force that sustains the structures of oppression is not peacekeeping at all. It is maintenance.

    Indonesia can — and must — do better.

    Dr Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the director of the Indonesia-MENA Desk at the Centre for Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS) in Jakarta and a research affiliate at the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore. He spent more than a decade living and traveling across the Middle East, earning a BA in international affairs from Qatar University. He later completed his MA in International Politics and PhD in politics at the University of Manchester. This article was first published by Middle East Monitor.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Fiji MP: Violence against women and girls ‘permeates every dimension of society’

    RNZ Pacific

    Fiji marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and Girls  this week with the government saying the day is a reminder that for too many women and girls violence is a daily reality — not a headline or a statistic.

    The day also kicked off 16 days of activism against gender-based violence — a worldwide UN campaign running from November 25 to December 10.

    The country’s Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection Sashi Kiran told Parliament violence against women and girls was not limited to the private sphere — “it permeates every dimension of society”.

    “Addressing this issue is therefore not only a woman’s matter; it is a national priority — requiring engagement from every sector, every institution and every leader in our country.

    “It manifests in various forms including physical, emotional, sexual and economic abuse as well as harmful practices such as trafficking.”

    She said the cost of violence against females was estimated to be equivalent to seven percent of Fiji’s gross domestic product (GDP), affecting families, the health system, productivity and the nation’s development.

    “The cost of violence is not only emotional — it is national.”

    She pointed out several statistics, including that around 60 percent of Fijian women had experienced some form of violence in their lifetime; girls as young as 13 remained the most vulnerable to sexual assault; and from 2020-2024, more than 4000 child sexual offences were reported — most involving young girls.

    “Our response must be survivor-centred, and above all accessible to everyone — including women and girls with disabilities and those from diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.”

    In the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Western Pacific Region, more than a quarter of girls and women experience some form of intimate partner or sexual violence.

    But WHO said in several Pacific island countries and areas, the prevalence of lifetime intimate partner violence is as high as one in two women.

    WHO’s western Pacific director, Dr Saia Ma’u Piukala, said governments and communities must use data to drive stronger policies, scale up prevention efforts, and invest in health system readiness, “so every girl is protected and woman is empowered”.

    WHO said while the numbers were grim, a survey on “health system readiness to respond to interpersonal violence” pointed to an encouraging policy environment.

    “Many countries are integrating strategies to prevent violence against women and girls into their national multisectoral plans, and acknowledging the key role that health systems must play in tackling this societal problem.

    “However, the survey also highlights challenges in implementing these strategies.”

    It is not all bad news in the region though — Cook Islands police have reported a decrease in the number of assault cases against women this year.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Yellow lines and green zones – Israel’s de facto partition into ‘two Gazas’

    ANALYSIS: By Alessandra Bajec

    Last week, the UN Security Council endorsed President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, effectively installing American supervision over the Palestinian territory’s postwar future.

    The resolution, which mandated a transitional administration and an international stabilisation force, faced sharp rejection from several Palestinian factions, who warned that it would undermine the national will.

    The US roadmap sets out a future path to a Palestinian state, although its opaque wording and lack of concrete details on what it would look like cast doubt on any real commitment towards Palestinian self-determination.

    While the UNSC contemplates a “possible” pathway to an independent Palestinian state, the Israeli government firmly rejected Palestinian statehood, calling it an “existential threat”.

    The vote came amid American plans to split the Gaza Strip into two zones. The arrangement envisions a potentially indefinite division of the war-ravaged enclave along the Israeli-established Yellow Line, creating a “green zone” under Israeli military control — where reconstruction would begin — and a “red zone,” which would remain under de facto Hamas control.

    Under the US-brokered ceasefire agreement reached in October, which Tel Aviv is repeatedly violating, Palestinians have been pushed into a small zone on the coastline that makes up less than half of Gaza, with Israeli forces controlling 53 to 58 percent of the Strip.

    The Israeli army maintains roughly 40 active military positions in the area that falls beyond the Yellow Line, the invisible military demarcation boundary set during the first phase of the truce, where Israeli troops had to withdraw to.

    Armed militias and clans
    A mix of armed militias and clans, some supported by Israel, has emerged across the areas of Gaza now under Israeli command, challenging Hamas’s authority. Many Gazans, including those disillusioned with the group, are uneasy about the rise of these small, fragmented groups.

    The majority of Gaza’s two million people are squeezed into a confined, suffocating land mass, living amidst rubble and makeshift tents, with only limited life-saving aid and no operational medical care.

    “The first stage of the US plan has further fragmented Gaza and forced its surviving population into an even smaller territory, turning less than half of it into a concentration camp with no means of survival whatsoever,” US-Palestinian journalist and writer Ramzy Baroud told The New Arab.

    Khaled Elgindy, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, made similar comments to TNA, describing Gaza as split between an indefinitely Israeli-ruled sector and a massive concentration camp.

    “This is the reality that the Security Council has normalised,” he said, criticising the latest UN resolution.

    For the Middle East expert, the so-called peace plan for Gaza has created new facts on the ground that are likely to become “permanent realities”, with the risk of a West Bank–style arrangement marked by extensive Israeli control.

    The Trump administration is reportedly working to build “alternative safe communities” inside the part of Gaza under Israeli control. These communities are intended to provide temporary housing, schools, and hospitals until long-term reconstruction becomes possible.

    The new residential sites are said to be part of a project aimed at resettling Gazans from areas under Hamas rule.

    Gaza’s fragmentation entrenched
    Critics caution that the initiative could entrench Gaza’s fragmentation, undermine Palestinian sovereignty, and amount to forced displacement.

    Rami Abu Zubaydah, a Palestinian researcher on Israeli affairs, however, told the Palestinian Information Center that the American blueprint was unrealistic, since Gaza’s dense urban and familial fabric “is not land that can be partitioned”.

    In fact, he added, Israel had not been able to fully control the enclave, either before its withdrawal or throughout the two years of conflict.

    Baroud, born and raised in Gaza, explained that the project was a “far uglier” version of any previous Israeli policy toward Palestinians, in that people are now told that their political stance could determine whether the Strip returns to full-scale genocide or not.

    “Israel’s new tactic is to divide Gaza and let those Palestinians who are not linked to the resistance trickle into the rebuilt zone,” hoping to set up an alternative governing structure there, he argued.

    The analyst believes that Israel’s attempt to form “two Gazas” is unlikely to gain enough traction among people, affirming that their strong sense of unity has long made it almost impossible to manufacture divisions within Gaza’s society.

    “I don’t think Israel can do this kind of social engineering in Gaza, no matter how desperate the situation”, he said.

    Segmentation an old idea
    Baroud stressed that Gaza’s segmentation is an old idea, pointing to former Israeli PM Ariel Sharon’s 1971 “five fingers” plan, which divided the Strip into separate areas through military zones and settlements.

    But he also noted that Gazans resisted it for many years, which later pushed Sharon to withdraw Israeli settlers and troops from the coastal enclave in 2005.

    Besides the emerging territorial divisions, Tel Aviv previously established the Netzarim Corridor, an east‑west military route through central Gaza that splits the Strip in two and gives Israel grip over major highways.

    It also fortified the Philadelphi Corridor, a buffer zone along the Gaza‑Egypt border.

    The Yellow Line, originally intended as a temporary military arrangement marking Israel’s first withdrawal under the ceasefire, is now being cemented despite plans to deploy an international stabilisation force and reduce the Israeli army’s direct presence in the territory after phase one.

    Trump’s 20-point plan has essentially created a geographical division in Gaza that risks becoming permanent.

    Many Palestinians fear the outcome will be a de facto partition between the Israeli-occupied east, with some reconstruction concentrated there, and the Hamas-controlled west, where most of the population remains crowded in devastated areas with little rebuilding.

    Gradual Israeli pull back
    According to the proposal, Israel would gradually pull back to a “security perimeter” but retain military control over this buffer zone, overseen by an international administrative body.

    Critics warn this would perpetuate Israel’s effective control over much of the territory and confine Palestinians to a smaller, more restricted Gaza than before the war.

    Meanwhile, negotiations for the second phase of the truce remain stalled as Hamas still holds the remains of three hostages. An extended standstill would only prolong Palestinian suffering and expose civilians to further violence.

    Israeli forces have continued to carry out near-daily airstrikes, artillery shelling, and demolitions since the truce began on 10 October. In just the first month, Israel violated the ceasefire nearly 500 times, killing more than 340 Palestinians and injuring hundreds more, with some of the worst violence occurring near or past the Yellow Line.

    “Each passing day makes the ceasefire look more like a farce,” Elgindy said, slamming the Security Council’s silence in the face of Israel’s daily ceasefire violations.

    Aid flows restricted
    Israeli authorities have also continued to restrict aid flows to Gaza more than a month into the ceasefire, leaving nearly 1.5 million people without emergency shelter and hundreds of thousands living in tents without basic services.

    UN data shows that just over 100 trucks of humanitarian assistance are entering the besieged enclave each day, far below the 600 trucks per day agreed under the October ceasefire deal.

    Elgindy added that if the world keeps pretending the war is over while bombing continues, aid is still blocked, and reconstruction is stalled, the truce will become untenable, and the situation will erupt again.

    “It’s only a matter of time before we see a Palestinian response, giving Israel a pretext to resume a full-scale assault,” he said.

    Alessandra Bajec is a freelance journalist currently based in Tunis. This article was first published by The New Arab.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Activists slam Mayor Brown’s ‘free beer’ cavalier response to Palestine genocide issue

    Asia Pacific Report

    A news report highlighting Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown yelling “free beer” at pro-Palestine protesters at an Auckland Council governing body meeting on Tuesday has stirred an angry response over the failure to face up to a serious human rights issue.

    Mayor Brown was called a ”shameful man” by protesters after they were refused an opportunity to speak at the meeting over ethical procurement policies in response to the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

    At the start of the meeting, the mayor said a request from the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) to speak had been declined, saying the governing body did not have responsibility for Palestine.

    A point of order was then raised by Councillor Mike Lee, who questioned the decision and asked for an explanation, said a Stuff news report.

    Two other councillors also challenged the mayor, but Brown doubled down on his refusal to allow the PSNA deputation to speak.

    When protesters started chanting “free Palestine”, Brown shouted “free beer”.

    Brown again reiterated that the governing body did not have responsibility for Palestine, said the Stuff report.

    ‘Depraved comment’
    “It’s hard to know who is more to blame for this story in Stuff,” said PSNA co-chair John Minto to supporters in a social media post.

    “Is it Wayne Brown’s depraved comment ‘free beer’ in response to genocide in Gaza or is it the mainstream media which presents such a half-arsed account of our request to speak at the council meeting?”

    Minto pointed out that so far the Christchurch, Nelson, Wellington and Palmerston North city councils — as well as Environment Canterbury and Environment Southland — had passed motions to exclude from their procurement policies any company on the United Nations Human Rights Council list of companies building and maintaining illegal Israeli settlements on illegally occupied Palestinian land.

    “Brown is happy for Auckland ratepayer money to be spent on companies involved in flagrant violations of international law and is refusing to allow the council to discuss this,” Minto said.

    “We will be back.”

    Other pro-Palestinian protesters added comments in support.

    West Coast environmental activist Pete Lusk wrote: “That’s like the age-old comment ‘get a job’. Such an ignorant man is Wayne Brown.”

    Brown lacked ‘compassion’
    In a lengthy response, Nancy McShane wrote in part: “I find Mr Brown’s cavalier response of ‘free beer’ entirely inappropriate. It’s a pity he was unable to demonstrate an appropriate level of concern, insight and compassion towards the Palestinian people, and engage constructively with this group of PSNA members who were advocating on their behalf.

    “PSNA has worked extremely hard to ensure our local bodies are vigilant in ensuring they are not supporting genocide through poor purchasing choices.

    “Aucklanders should be concerned that, unlike many other councils around New Zealand, their own council has refused to even have a discussion on this issue, let alone adopt an ethical, genocide-free procurement policy.

    “Once upon a time, our country had a proud reputation as a progressor and defender of human rights. That is rapidly disappearing.

    “New Zealanders should think carefully about how this shift away from our foundational values of peace, justice and equality will shape the future of Aotearoa.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Civicus raps 8 Pacific countries for ‘not doing enough’ to protect civic rights, press freedom

    Asia Pacific Report

    The global civil society alliance Civicus has called on eight Pacific governments to do more to respect civic freedoms and strengthen institutions to protect these rights.

    It is especially concerned over the threats to press freedom, the use of laws to criminalise online expression, and failure to establish national human rights institutions or ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

    But it also says that the Pacific status is generally positive.

    The Civicus Pacific civic protections report
    The Civicus Pacific civic protections report.

    Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Solomon Islands have been singled out for criticism over press freedom concerns, but the brief published by the Civicus Monitor also examines the civic spce in Fiji, Kiribati, Tonga and Vanuatu.

    “There have been incidents of harassment, intimidation and dismissal of journalists in retaliation for their work,” the report said.

    “Cases of censorship have also been reported, along with denial of access, exclusion of journalists from government events and refusal of visas to foreign journalists.”

    The Civicus report focuses on respect for and limitations to the freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly, which are fundamental to the exercise of civic rights.

    Freedoms guaranteed
    “These freedoms are guaranteed in the national constitutions of all eight countries as well as in the ICCPR.

    “In several countries — including Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, PNG and Samoa — the absence of freedom of information laws makes it extremely difficult for journalists and the public to access official information,” the report said.

    Countries such as Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, continued to enforce criminal defamation laws, creating a “chilling environment for the media, human rights defenders and anyone seeking to express themselves or criticise governments”.

    In recent years, Fiji, PNG and Samoa had also used cybercrime laws to criminalise online expression.

    “Governments in the Pacific must do more to protect press freedom and ensure that journalists can work freely and without fear of retribution for expressing critical opinions or covering topics the government may find sensitive,” said Josef Benedict, Civicus Asia Pacific researcher.

    “They must also pass freedom of information legislation and remove criminal defamation provisions in law so that they are not used to criminalise expression both off and online.”

    Civicus is concerned that at least four countries – Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands and Tonga – have yet to ratify the ICCPR, which imposes obligations on states to respect and protect civic freedoms.

    Lacking human rights bodies
    Also, four countries — Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu — lack national human rights institutions (NHRI).

    Fiji was criticised over restricting the right to peaceful assembly over protests about genocide and human rights violations in Palestine and West Papua.

    In May 2024, “a truckload of police officers, including two patrol cars, turned up at a protest at the premises of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre against human rights violations in Gaza and West Papua, in an apparent effort to intimidate protesters”.

    Gatherings and vigils had been organised regularly each Thursday.

    In PNG and Tonga, the Office of the Ombudsman plays monitor and responds to human rights issues, but calls remain for establishing an independent body in line with the Paris Principles, which set international standards for national human rights institutions.

    “It is time all Pacific countries ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and ensure its laws are consistent with it,” said Benedict.

    “Governments must also to establish national human rights institutions to ensure effective monitoring and reporting on human rights issues. This will also allow for better accountability for violations of civic freedoms.”

    How Civicus rates Pacific countries
    How Civicus rates Pacific countries. Image: Civicus

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Philippines testimony reveals torture, abuses by police, says Amnesty

    Asia Pacific Report

    Philippines police unlawfully targeted protesters with unnecessary and excessive force during anti-corruption marches in September, according to harrowing new testimony gathered by the human rights watchdog Amnesty International ahead of fresh protests planned across the country this weekend.

    Ten people interviewed by Amnesty International detailed physical abuse — including violations that may amount to torture and other ill-treatment — by state forces following demonstrations in the capital Manila on 21 September 2025.

    The research comes as thousands prepare to return to the streets on November 30 in renewed protests against government corruption, said the Amnesty International report.

    “The disturbing evidence we have gathered of unlawful force unleashed by the police against protesters and others on September 21 makes a mockery of the Philippine government’s repeated claim that it exercises ‘maximum tolerance’ during protests,” said Jerrie Abella, Amnesty International regional campaigner.

    “Victims have described how police punched, kicked and hit people — including children — with batons as they were arrested, with appalling ill-treatment continuing in detention. The police must change course and respect people’s right to protest on November 30 and beyond.”

    Police only stopped beatings “when they saw the media coming”.

    The Philippines’ biggest demonstrations in years took place on September 21, as tens of thousands in Manila and elsewhere protested against corruption by government officials, high-level politicians and contractors in flood-control and infrastructure projects.

    Isolated incidents
    Isolated incidents of violence from some protesters, including setting vehicles on fire and throwing stones at the police, were reported in Manila.

    Manila police said they arrested and detained 216 people who were allegedly involved in the violence, including 91 children. Many are facing criminal charges.

    However, Amnesty’s research indicates that peaceful protesters and bystanders were also violently targeted by the police.

    Rey*, 20, recounted how three men in plain clothes — who he believes were police as they later handed him to uniformed officers — grabbed and punched him in the face as he tried to run away while holding a sign calling on people to take to the streets.

    The assault on Rey was captured in a video, by an unknown individual, which he found online and showed to Amnesty International.

    “Police in uniform joined in to punch, kick and hit me with their batons. I briefly lost consciousness but woke up to pain as they dragged me by my hair,” Rey told Amnesty International.

    He said police accused him of taking part in violence that killed two officers, despite the fact that no police were killed in the protests.

    Beating stopped when media came
    Rey said the beating only stopped when one officer warned the others that members of the media were approaching. He also described how he and his friend were taken by uniformed police into an ambulance, where they were beaten further.

    Omar*, 25, said he was watching the protests with relatives in Mendiola Street, Manila, when he was arrested.

    Police accused him of being among those who caused violence, including attacking the police.

    While walking with the police who arrested him, Omar said they passed other officers who punched and hit him with batons.

    He said he was then held in a tent with about 14 other people, one of whom “had blood dripping from a head wound” which he said was from being hit with a gun by a police officer.

    Ahmed*, 17, was arrested alongside his relatives Yusuf*, 18, and Ali*, 19, who all live and do construction work near the protest site.

    They said they went out to buy rice and were waiting for police to allow them to pass through a protest area on their way back to the construction site when they were arrested.

    ‘Hit with batons, kicked’
    “The police took us to a tent where they hit us with their batons. They punched us in the face and kicked our torsos,” Ali told Amnesty International. He said they were accused of attacking the police and subsequently detained.

    ‘I saw people coming out of the tent bloodied and bruised’

    Greg*, 18, and Ryan*, 22, were arrested in separate incidents in Mendiola and Ayala Bridge in Manila for their alleged involvement in attacks against the police. Like all those interviewed, they were brought by the police to a blue tent in Mendiola, where police beat them further.

    Lawyer Maria Sol Taule, from a legal aid group representing those interviewed, said the “notorious blue tent” served as a temporary holding area for those arrested. While it showed no outward sign of police affiliation, it appeared to be supervised by the police, according to the group’s investigation.

    “I was so scared. I saw people coming out of the tent bloodied and bruised. Inside, they made me spread my hands and repeatedly hit both sides with their batons,” said Greg, who showed Amnesty International welts on his back where he said he was struck.

    Ryan said police hit him on his head and neck. “They saw me lift my head up and accused me of ‘verifying’ or looking at the faces of police to identify them,” he said. Others interviewed reported being similarly hit following the same accusation by police.

    “I told myself, I was done for. I’d never make it out of this tent alive,” said Michael*, 23, who described being punched, kicked and hit with batons by police. He was arrested with his girlfriend Sam*, 21, and their friend Lena*, 22, before all three were detained at a police station. They said they went to the protest just to watch and take videos but were arrested for allegedly committing violence.

    Sam and Lena were not hurt but could hear people being beaten nearby. “Even now, I can still hear the cries coming from the tent. I have problems sleeping, imagining how they beat up Michael,” Sam said.

    Needed medical treatment
    The beatings were so severe that some victims needed medical treatment, according to Taule. She said one individual sustained injuries including a dislocated jaw when he was hit by the police with a baton in the face. Others – including Michael, Sam and Lena – lost their jobs after failing to report to work as they were detained.

    All those interviewed maintained they were not involved in the violence of which they were accused by the police.

    On November 4, police said 97 individuals had been charged with conspiracy, sedition and other crimes over the protests.

    *Names were changed in the Amnesty International report upon request for safety reasons

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Piers Morgan accepts Russia’s war crimes — shame he won’t do the same with America’s

    In a conversation with Jeffrey Sachs, Piers Morgan got a brutally honest response on the consequences Russia will face for invading Ukraine:

    Morgan wasn’t wrong to speak out against Russia’s actions. However, his criticism masks the double standards of the Western establishment, which conveniently glosses over its own imperial misadventures.

    The grim truth

    Morgan was speaking to the American economist and analyst Sachs when he asked:

    What happens to a country like Russia, which by common consent has committed myriad war crimes in the last three years?

    It’s targeted and killed civilians. I think that’s inarguable. It’s kidnapped a reported 20,000 Ukrainian children. There was the massacre at places like Bucha. I’ve been there. Absolutely horrific what went on down there. There have been the sexual assaults and rapes of Ukrainian women and so on. So it seems inarguable. There’s been a number of war crimes committed.

    Is it fair and just that at the end of this, assuming you’re right and this is the beginning of the end of this, that Russia emerges unpunished for any of this?

    It’s not an unfair question.

    The people who order and commit these inhumanities should be held accountable, but this seldom happens, as Sachs explained:

    Well, if the United States were punished for all its war crimes, the world would be a better place. And if all countries were punished for their war crimes; if Israel was punished for its genocide before our eyes; if the United States was punished for overthrowing so many regimes and causing so many wars; if the United States were punished for the Iraq war; if the United States were punished for the coup in Iraq, Maidan in February 2014, I’d agree with you.

    It would be great if governments were accountable. But what we like to do is say the other side is the wrong one and not to acknowledge our own sins.

    For this, Jesus had it right. Why do you always point to the moat in the other eye when you have the plank or the beam in your own eye? To my mind, this is the basic point.

    I would love to follow your line, Piers. I agree with it. We should have accountability for all the crimes that are committed. And the United States’ list is so long.

    I have been tracking it for more than 40 years professionally. It’s just one war crime after another, including complicity in a genocide in Gaza during the last two years.

    War crimes

    After WWII, it was possible to hold the Nazis accountable. Germany was completely defeated — ignoring the Nazis who went to work for the Americans, obviously.

    Nations like America, Russia, Israel, and the UK, have not been defeated. Therefore, it’s not possible to hold foreign politicians accountable in the same way.

    Of course, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push for accountability or demand an international response to war criminals. Our politics would be in a much better state if Blair and New Labour had been punished for invading Iraq on unfounded claims. And it goes without saying, that everyone should support the International Criminal Court’s attempts to hold Israel responsible for the genocide.

    The problem is that the mechanisms for justice and accountability are limited to waging war — which rarely works out … or sanctions — both of which make things worse.

    Morgan isn’t wrong about Russia’s crimes. The issue is that he’s selectively correct. You won’t hear mainstream journalists like him arguing that Western nations should face accountability, and that’s a massive problem.

    Featured image via Piers Morgan Uncensored

    By Willem Moore

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Chile plans to launch global campaign seeking to expel ‘pariah’ Israel from United Nations

    Ma’an News Agency in Santiago

    Civil society forces in Chile are preparing to launch an international campaign to demand the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations.

    This is based on Article 6 of the United Nations Charter against the backdrop of what the campaign describes as “continuous and systematic violations” of international law and resolutions of the UN General Assembly and Security Council.

    The official launch of the campaign is due to take place tomorrow during a public event in the capital Santiago while a collection of signatures by electronic petition has already begun.

    Campaign data indicated that the petition addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had already exceeded 57,000 signatures, with a goal of quickly reaching 100,000 signatures.

    The organisers of the civil society initiative say the rapid response reflects a “broad popular response” to the dire humanitarian situation in Palestine, and embodies “international civil pressure” to get the international system moving after decades of inaction.

    At the media event introducing the initiative, lawyer and former Chilean ambassador Nelson Haddad presented the legal framework for the campaign, explaining that Israel had become a “pariah state according to the definitions of international law,” and that it “does not abide by UN resolutions, nor by the basic rules of international humanitarian law, and practises systematic violations that have been ongoing for more than seven decades”.

    Campaign organisers say this mechanism has been used in historical moments, such as the Korean War and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and that activating it now could constitute an “institutional pressure tool” capable of overcoming obstruction within the UN Security Council.

    ‘Reforming the UN’
    The organisers also believe that the goal is not limited to imposing measures against Israel, but extends to “reopening the file of reforming the structure of the United Nations”, restricting the power of the veto, and restoring the principle of legal equality between states in order to limit the ability of one state to “disrupt international justice.”

    The petition read as follows:

    “We, the undersigned, respectfully but firmly appeal to you to initiate formal procedures to expel the State of Israel from the Organisation, in accordance with Article 6 of the Charter of the United Nations, because of its repeated violations of the principles contained therein.”

    The letter continues:

    “Emphasising that Israel, through official statements, declares its intention to eliminate the State of Palestine with all its inhabitants, infrastructure, and memory, and accuses every party that criticises its policies of ‘anti-Semitism,’ and practices repression even against Jewish citizens who oppose genocide, thus making its violations extensive, deep, and directed against everyone who disagrees with its orientations.”

    The letter describes what is happening in the Gaza Strip as a “complex war crime,” noting that the occupying state is killing “Palestinians with bombs and missiles, destroying medical infrastructure, and exterminating nearly two million people through hunger and thirst”.

    ‘Starving population, poisoning the land’
    Israel is also depriving the population of water, food, and medicine, and destroying and poisoning the land, representing “one of the most serious documented crimes in the modern era”.

    The letter adds that the continued dealings of international and academic institutions with Israel are “unjustified and unacceptable”, and that “Israel must be immediately expelled from all international activities, all institutional relations with it must be severed, and a comprehensive arms embargo imposed that contributes to the continuation of the genocide.”

    The message concluded by saying: “With Gaza, humanity dies too. We want Palestine to live, for it is the heart of the world.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Leading lawyers condemn ‘contrived’ Bangladesh trial of former UK minister

    Exclusive: High-profile lawyers suggest ex-City minister Tulip Siddiq has not enjoyed basic rights during her trial in absentia

    The trial in Bangladesh of the former UK City minister Tulip Siddiq has been “contrived and unfair”, leading lawyers including a former Conservative justice secretary have told Bangladesh’s ambassador before Thursday’s verdict.

    Siddiq, who resigned from the UK government in January, is due to receive her verdict and sentence in absentia, with the prosecution seeking a maximum life sentence term.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Leading lawyers condemn ‘contrived’ Bangladesh trial of former UK minister

    Exclusive: High-profile lawyers suggest ex-City minister Tulip Siddiq has not enjoyed basic rights during her trial in absentia

    The trial in Bangladesh of the former UK City minister Tulip Siddiq has been “contrived and unfair”, leading lawyers including a former Conservative justice secretary have told Bangladesh’s ambassador before Thursday’s verdict.

    Siddiq, who resigned from the UK government in January, is due to receive her verdict and sentence in absentia, with the prosecution seeking a maximum life sentence term.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Starving Gaza: Israel weaponises food, Palestinians refuse to capitulate

    New figures published by the Israeli body overseeing food delivery expose a deliberate policy of mass starvation against 2.4 million Gazans

    This tactic of genocidal coercion is intended to crush their spirit and force their submission.

    Dr. Ismail Al-Thawabta, the Director General of the Government Media Office in Gaza, confirmed the figures published by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), criticising them as morally indefensible.

    Upholding a farcical image of itself as a benevolent humanitarian agency, COGAT is restricting and seizing critical food supplies.

    A population on the brink

    COGAT claims to be delivering 1.4 million meals to the Strip daily. However, compared with Gaza’s population size, only 58.3 percent receive a daily meal — leaving the remainder without. The single meal provided weighs between 300 and 500 grams, with an average of just 400 grams. This means that only 560 tonnes of food enters the Strip each day.

    The people of Gaza need between 2,400 and 2,600 tonnes of food per day, while only 560 tonnes has been getting through. That’s less than 25 percent of the required amount. Let that sink in.

    COGAT reported that 3.5 million loaves of bread are delivered daily, amounting to 1.46 loaves per person.

    Surviving on these rations is laughable especially for families enduring prolonged displacement without access to potable water.

    Children bear the additional hardship of needing a diverse, ample diet in support of their developmental needs.

    Starvation as a method of warfare

    The occupation claims it had delivered 270,000 parcels in November, which it uncritically deemed ‘sufficient’ for one million people. In reality, a single food parcel barely covers the needs of a family of five.

    Supplies that are supposed to last a month barely last a week.

    This is a deliberate strategy the callous occupation repeatedly resorts to — warfare by alternative means.

    For many observers, these latest figures serve as an official acknowledgement that the occupation deliberately imposes restrictions on food aid to achieve its political ambitions in Gaza — ultimately to empty the city of its indigenous population.

    Al-Thawabta points to the occupation’s continued failure to comply with the terms of the humanitarian truce. The ceasefire stipulates that sufficient and regular aid must be allowed to enter. Allowing only a quarter of the required amount is a clear violation. It punishes the local population and compounds the  humanitarian crisis families endure, particularly southern and northern Gaza.

    Starvation is a war crime

    He views the latest figures issued by the occupation as explicit evidence of the policy of starvation to force the population into capitulation. It is not the result of emergency circumstances. The risk of famine is manmade, deliberate, morally reprehensible, and intended to break the will of the people of Gaza.

    He points out that one million people aren’t receiving a single daily meal. Only one and a half loaves of bread are provided for each person, and families receive one measly food parcel per month. These figures reveal the scale of the crisis and show that the occupation is directly responsible for orchestrating this man-made disaster.

    Featured image via Reuters

    By Alaa Shamali

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Nauru president floats returning NZYQ refugees to home countries, in interview Australia tried to suppress

    In an interview kept secret since February, David Adeang wrongly stated the people Australia has begun deporting to his country are not refugees

    Nauru may seek to return refugees from the NZYQ cohort to their home countries, the Nauruan president has said, in an interview officially translated into English for the first time, and which the Australian government sought to keep hidden.

    David Adeang’s interview erroneously claimed those being sent to Nauru were not refugees and said Nauru may seek to return them to their countries of origin where possible.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Fiji journalists condemn police over lack of courtroom security after another reporter attacked

    Pacific Media Watch

    The Fijian Media Association (FMA) has demanded better police protection after a  journalist working for the state broadcaster Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBC) was violently attacked outside a courthouse

    In a statement today, the FMA again called for police to be more vigilant in managing security and threats outside the Suva High Court in the capital after another Fijian journalist was violently attacked by a convicted murderer leaving under police guard.

    Journalist Apenisa Waqairadovu of the FBC suffered injuries to his arms and hands after he was attacked by Sairusi Ceinaturaga, who had just been convicted of murdering the one-year-old child of his de facto partner, the FMA stated.

    After his conviction, Ceinaturaga walked out of the courtroom in handcuffs, followed a metre or two behind by a police officer who was outrun and scrambled to catch up when Ceinaturaga chased the journalist.

    Ceinaturaga threatened Waqairadovu, swore and ran after him before pushing him down the stairs.

    “This has been happening too often to journalists outside the courtroom, and we do not see any improved process despite our repeated calls for stronger security and protection,” the FMA stated.

    “We have been consistently calling for urgent action from police to protect media workers — even after another convicted murderer Tevita Kapawale tried to attack journalists outside the courthouse in August.

    ‘Physical threats every year’
    “Journalists have faced physical threats every year while covering court cases, and the Fiji Police Force’s repeated failure to provide adequate security for media personnel is unacceptable.

    “The media plays a vital role in ensuring transparency and accountability in our justice system. Journalists have the right to report on matters of public interest without fear of violence or intimidation.”

    The FMA is now demanding the Fiji Police Force immediately implement proper security protocols for court proceedings, including secure perimeters during prisoner transport and adequate police presence to protect journalists from violent offenders — the same call it made following the August incident.

    The FMA says police must do better and relook at how they provide security at the courthouse.

    “In the past officers would surround the accused person and escort him out, not let them just walk out with officers strolling at the back.

    “In this case the journalist kept their distance but was still chased down and attacked and this is totally unacceptable.”

    The FMA said reporters covered court stories in order to inform the public and to ensure that justice was served under the law.

    “We are again urging the public to appreciate and understand the role journalists play in providing the coverage of how justice and the rule of law is administered in this country.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • PM hits back at PINA and PFF over Samoa Observer ‘ethics’ ban

    Pacific Media Watch

    Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt has defended his decision to ban the Samoa Observer in response to a joint letter from the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and the Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF).

    In a statement issued by the Press Secretary, Nanai Lave Tuiletufuga yesterday, the office of the Prime Minister acknowledged concerns raised by the PINA and the PFF, writing that the criticism was “respected and understood” but urged them “to seek full information before forming conclusions”, reports Sulamanaia Manaui Faulalo of the Samoa Observer.

    “This is not a ban on media freedom — it is a response to persistent unprofessional and unethical conduct,” the release said.

    “The action taken relates solely to the Samoa Observer, following sustained unprofessional behaviour, breaches of industry ethics, and continuous inaccurate and misleading reporting over an extended period.

    “Samoa remains firmly committed to upholding media freedom, transparency, and open engagement with the media,” the statement said.

    “However, it is equally important to clarify the context and the basis of the government’s decision.”

    The release said that the move targets one media outlet and does not represent a broader clampdown.

    ‘Multiple opportunities’
    According to the statement, the Samoa Observer was given “multiple opportunities for correction, dialogue, and improvement,” and that “No other media organisation in Samoa is affected. Engagement with all other local and regional media continues uninterrupted.”

    The release also said it would follow due process.

    “The Prime Minister has already indicated that a formal review will be undertaken in due course, once all matters surrounding the Observer’s conduct are addressed and resolved and the facts are fully documented,” the statement said. “This review will include an opportunity for the media organisation concerned to respond to the issues raised.”

    The release also reiterated its recognition of the importance of a free press.

    “The government reiterates that it welcomes robust scrutiny, responsible journalism, and constructive criticism,” it said. “At the same time, media freedom carries the corresponding responsibility of accuracy, professionalism, and respect for the truth.”

    “The government invites PINA and PFF to engage constructively and to review the documented evidence of unprofessional reporting and breach of media ethical standards that led to this action,” the statement said.

    “Samoa remains available to provide clarification and to work collaboratively to strengthen media standards across the region.”

    No response to Samoa Observer
    “The decision relating to the Samoa Observer is specific, justified, and based on conduct, not on an attempt or attack to suppress the free flow of information or journalism,” it said.

    “The government of Samoa remains open to fair, balanced, and ethical engagement with all media organisations, both local and overseas.”

    The Samoa Observer reached out to the government on November 19 to offer the opportunity to make corrections and provide clarifications on the five points originally raised as the reasons for the ban but no response has been received.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israel has lost social media battle over Gaza, says military ex-spokesperson

    Pacific Media Watch

    Former Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari says Israel has “lost the war on social media,” describing the online space as the most dangerous and complex arena shaping global public opinion, especially among younger generations.

    Speaking at the annual conference of the Jewish Federations of North America in Washington, DC, Hagari urged the creation of a powerful new propaganda apparatus modelled on the capabilities and structure of Unit 8200, Israel’s elite cyber intelligence division, reports Middle East Monitor.

    He argued that Israel must now fight “a battle of images, videos, and statistics—not lengthy texts.”

    Hagari proposed establishing a unit capable of monitoring anti-Israel content across platforms, in real time and in multiple languages, supplying rapid-response messaging and data to government and media outlets.

    His plan also calls for the systematic creation of fake online identities, automated bot networks, and the use of unofficial bloggers — “preferably mostly young women” — to shape global perceptions.

    He warned that the decisive phase of this battle would unfold a decade from now, when students using artificial intelligence tools searched for information on the events of October 7 and encountered “two completely contradictory narratives.”

    Hagari, a former navy officer who served in sensitive military roles, became Israel’s top military spokesperson in 2023 before being dismissed from the position earlier this year.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Showing their aroha for the activist ‘power couple’ of Māngere East

    Asia Pacific Report

    Māngere East community stalwarts and activists from across Tamaki Makaurau Auckland have gathered at the local Village Green to pay tribute to their popular ‘power couple’ and entertainers Roger Fowler and Lyn Doherty with their whānau.

    MC Emily Worman of Science in a Van summed it up best yesterday morning by declaring the event as the “perfect opportunity to show our aroha for both Roger and Lyn” after a lifetime or service and activism for the community.

    Fowler recently retired from his community duties at the Māngere East Community Centre and is seriously ill with cancer.

    The community presented both Fowler and Doherty with stunning korowai and their “main stage” entourage included Māori land rights lawyer and activist Pania Newton and former MP Aupito Sua William Sio.

    “This is the perfect place to acknowledge them,” said Worman. “Right in the heart of our community beside the Māngere East Community Centre which started out as Roger and Lyn needed after school care for their kids — so you put your heads together and started an after school programme in the late 1990s.

    “Right in front of the library that you campaigned to protect and rebuild back in 2002,
    over the road from the Post Shop which you organised the community to successfully fight to stop its closure in 2010.

    “Next to the Metro Theatre where the Respect Our Community Campaign, ROCC Stars, met with the NZ Transport Authority over 10 years ago now to stop a motorway from going through our hood.

    ‘Putting in the mahi’
    “Next to Vege Oasis which would have been another alcohol outlet if it wasn’t for you and your whānau putting in the mahi!

    “Right here in this festival — where, in previous years, we’ve gathered signatures and spread the word about saving the whenua out at Ihumatao.”

    Worman said her words were “just a highlight reel” of some of the “awesomeness that is Roger Fowler”.

    “We all have our own experiences how Roger has supported us, organised us and shown us how to reach out to others, make connections and stand together,” she added

    Former MP Sua said to Fowler and the crowd: “In the traditional Samoan fale, there is a post in the middle – some posts have two or more — usually it is a strong post that hold up the roof and everything else is connected to it.

    Roger Fowler about to be presented with a korowai by activist Brendan Corbett
    Roger Fowler about to be presented with a korowai by activist Brendan Corbett. former MP Aupito Sua William Sio (right) liked Fowler to the mainstay post in a Samoan fale. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    “And I think, you are that post. You are that post for Māngere East, for our local community.”

    While paying tribute to Fowler’s contribution to Mangere East, Sua also acknowledged his activism for international issues such as the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

    Fowler had set up Kia Ora Gaza, a New Zealand charity member of the global Gaza Freedom Flotilla network trying to break the siege around the enclave. He wore his favourite “Kia Ora Gaza” beanie for Palestine during the tribute.

    ‘Powerful man in gumboots’
    Worman said: “Roger, we all know you love to grab your guitar and get the crowd going.

    “But you’ve shown us over the years, it’s not about getting the attention for yourself — it’s about pointing us to where it matters most.

    “I’ve never met such a quiet yet powerful man who wears gumboots to almost every occasion!”

    Turning to Roger’s partner, “Lyn, on the other hand, always looks fabulous.

    “She is the perfect match for you Roger. We might not always see Lyn out the front but — trust me — she’s a powerhouse in her own right!

    “Lyn, who knows intuitively what our families need, and then gets a PhD to prove it in order to get the resources so that our whānau can thrive.”

    Part of the crowd at Māngere East's Village Green
    Part of the crowd at Māngere East’s Village Green. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    The work of health and science psychologist Dr Lyn Doherty (Ngati Porou and Ngapuhi) with the Ohomairangi Trust is “vast and continues to have a huge impact on the wellbeing of our community”.

    Worman also said one of the couple’s biggest achievements together had been their four children — “they are all amazing, caring, capable and fun children, Kahu, Tawera, Maia and Hone”.

    “And they are now raising another generation of outstanding humans,” she said.

    Other Asia Pacific Report images and video clips
    Other Asia Pacific Report images and video clips are here. Montage: APR

    The three grandchildren treated the Village Green crowd to a waiata and also songs from Fowler’s recently released vinyl album “Songs of Struggle and Solidarity” and finishing with a Christmas musical message for all.

    The whānau are also working on a forthcoming book of community activism and resistance with a similar title to the album.

    Fowler thanked the community for its support and gave an emotional tribute to Doherty for all her mahi and aroha.

    Roger Fowler's grandchildren sing a waiata
    Roger Fowler’s grandchildren sing a waiata on Māngere East’s Village Green yesterday. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • International Federation for Human Rights keeps growing

    In 2025 the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) welcomed 14 new organisations, on the occasion of its 42nd Congress, which took place in Bogotá at the end of October. The federation now has 194 members in 120 countries. Of varied origins, cultures, organisations, issues and sizes, yet united by a common struggle: the universal defence of human rights. These 14 memberships demonstrate the vitality of the human rights movement across the world, the relevance of the growth of an international federation dedicated to this universalist cause, and the need to bring together the strengths of civil society worldwide in the face of the challenges it is faced with. Local struggles, global problems, the organisations of FIDH find within the federation a space of solidarity where they can exchange ideas and collectively develop solutions to the shrinking civic space observed throughout the world.

    “With these new arrivals, our federation is growing and becoming stronger, particularly on the Asian continent“, says Alexis Deswaef, President of FIDH, elected at the same congress in Bogotá.

    https://www.fidh.org/en/about-us/What-is-FIDH/fidh-joined-by-14-new-member-organisations-for-a-stronger-federation

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Report: US Mercenary Firm Behind Aid Massacres Returning To Gaza

    UG Solutions, a US military subcontractor that guarded Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) aid sites, is ramping up recruitment for a new deployment as plans advance for 12 to 15 distribution locations to reopen in Gaza next month, Drop Site News reported on 19 November.

    A former US Army officer, who spoke anonymously citing security concerns, said a UG Solutions recruiter told him in late October that the company “was going to need a lot more guys” for a Gaza operation expected to begin in early to mid-December.

    The officer was offered $800 per day for static guard duty and $1,000 for mobile roles, plus a steady allowance of $180 per day.

    The post Report: US Mercenary Firm Behind Aid Massacres Returning To Gaza appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In Courting Saudi Arabia, Trump Emulates Mohammed Bin Salman’s Authoritarianism

    Fascism thrives in societies that grow desensitized to violence. Once cruelty is normalized, political life collapses into a spectacle of force, lies, and corruption. Under such conditions, the humanity of selected populations becomes disposable. Bodies disappear, injustice parades as lawful, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security reveal themselves as…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Samoan PM takes aim at local journalists, claims overseas media ‘in the dark’

    By Sulamanaia Manaui Faulalo of the Samoa Observer

    Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt says international media are “in the dark” about the reasons behind his decision to ban the Samoa Observer from government press conferences, arguing that overseas attention has created “support for one newspaper at the expense of the entire country.”

    He also addressed concerns raised locally, directing criticism at the Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS) for advising him to reconsider the ban.

    “Now you have given me advice, but you should advise where the problem came from,” he said at a media conference this week. “Why are you advising me to lift the ban when you should be advising them [Samoa Observer]?”

    La’aulialemalietoa said his duty was to the nation. “Who do I stand for? It is the country I represent. I will not back down from protecting the people of Samoa.”

    He said he remained firm in his decision but hoped for a “constructive resolution” ahead. “As the Prime Minister, I will stand strong to do the right thing.”

    On international reactions, he said some overseas commentators “do not understand Samoa” and claimed outside support was being used “to support one business and throw away the whole country that is trying to protect its future.”

    He said the media was “part of democracy,” but argued that global reporting had focused on the ban itself rather than what he described as the issues that led to it.

    Questioned actions of journalists
    Turning to domestic matters, the Prime Minister also questioned the actions of local journalists, saying JAWS did not engage with ministries affected by earlier Samoa Observer reporting.

    “You are talking to me, but why didn’t you talk to the ministries impacted?” he asked.

    He also raised questions about the role of a media council. “Where do I go, or where does the government go, if this sort of thing happens?” he said, adding he was unsure whether such a body existed or had convened.

    The Prime Minister said his concerns extended beyond media conduct to the protection of the Samoan language and culture.

    “My whole being is about the Gagana Samoa. If there is no language, there is no country,” he said.

    He also accused the Samoa Observer of showing disrespect and said harmful reporting left lasting effects.

    “If you say something that hurts a person, it will stay with the person forever,” he said.

    JAWS calls for lifting of ban
    JAWS has called on the Prime Minister to lift the ban, saying the decision raises concerns about the safety and independence of the media whenever the government feels threatened.

    La’aulialemalietoa said he made it clear upon taking office that his position “is Samoa’s chair,” and the government must correct misinformation when it believed reporting was inaccurate or misleading.

    “The government has to say something if a journalist is in the wrong,” he said, arguing that overseas commentary did not reflect local realities.

    He said the government supported the media but insisted that cooperation depended on factual reporting.

    “If you want to work together, the opportunity is open, but we cannot move forward until the writings are corrected.”

    He dismissed one allegation as “a pure lie,” accusing journalists of trespassing onto his land.

    “People do not walk onto my land like it’s a market,” he said, urging respect for aganuʻu and cultural protocol.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Protesters march to Warehouse in Auckland city, demand halt to Israeli SodaStream products

    Asia Pacific Report

    New Zealand pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched peacefully on The Warehouse in downtown Auckland today to protest over the sale of products by the genocidal state of Israel.

    Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair Maher Nazzal and fellow protesters delivered a giant letter calling on the management to stop selling SodaStream products.

    SodaStream — an Israel-based company since 1978 — is at the centre of the global BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) campaign.

    The letter was reluctantly accepted by The Warehouse city branch duty manager Alyce, who needed to take a management phone call before agreeing to take the letter mounted on a board.

    “The Warehouse’s complicity in Israel’s war crimes must stop,” said Nazzal in the letter. “I know you will be appalled as we are at Israel’s cruel and depraved war crimes against Palestinians.”

    The letter was handed over by a small deputation on behalf of about 200 protesters who stood peacefully by the shop entrance escalator in Elliott Street as they chanted “Blood on your hands” and other condemnation of Israel over the genocide in Gaza that has killed at least 69,000 people, mostly women and children.

    The letter addressed to The Warehouse management said that “trading in SodaStream products . . . supports Israel to continue its war crimes against Palestinian people. It encourages Israel to expand its illegal occupation and its genocidal oppression of Palestinians.”

    One third of aid trucks
    In spite of the so-called “ceasefire” brokered by US President Donald Trump commencing on October 10, only one third of the promised 600 aid trucks a day had been allowed into Gaza.

    “Arrest warrants have been issued by the International Criminal Court against Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But this is not enough,” said the letter, signed by scores of the protesters.

    PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal explains the purpose of the giant protest letter to The Warehouse city branch duty manager Alyce in Auckland today
    PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal explains the purpose of the giant protest letter to The Warehouse city branch duty manager Alyce in Auckland today. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    “On 19 July 2024 the International Court of Justice, in a landmark ruling, declared Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories — the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza strip — is illegal and no one should give ‘aid or assistance’ to Israel in maintaining its illegal occupation.

    “However, The Warehouse is giving direct ‘aid and assistance’ to Israel’s racist policies through selling SodaStream. This must stop.

    “Since 2005, Palestinian civil society organisations have called for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel, to build international, non-violent pressure on Israel to end its brutal oppression of Palestinians.

    "Sanction Israel Now" declares a banner at today's Palestine rally and march in downtown Auckland
    “Sanction Israel Now” declares a banner at today’s Palestine rally and march in downtown Auckland. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    “BDS aims to pressure Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, end its apartheid policies towards Palestinians and allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land in Palestine.

    The PSNA letter said the protesters supported BDS against Israel — “just as we supported the international boycott of apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s”.

    ‘New Zealanders support sanctions’
    “New Zealanders support sanctions against Israel by the ratio of two to one amongst those who give an opinion. New Zealanders expect The Warehouse to end its collaboration with Israeli apartheid and genocide and swap out of SodaStream for alternative brands,” the letter said.

    Auckland's central city branch of The Warehouse in Elliott Street
    Auckland’s central city branch of The Warehouse in Elliott Street . . . plea to drop SodaStream products. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    The Warehouse Group’s says “ethical sourcing” policy was cited in the letter, quoting in part: “Like our customers,  we  care about doing the right thing — not only here in New Zealand but everywhere we operate.

    “Our aim is to ensure our customers have confidence  that  our products have been ethically sourced.”

    The letter continued: “Selling SodaStream directly violates this policy. So why do The Warehouse and it’s subsidiary, Noel Leeming, continue to sell these products linked to ethnic cleansing and genocide?”

    Nasser said PSNA wanted the opportunity to speak with The Warehouse management directly about the stocking of SodaStream and looked forward to hearing from the business.

    Earlier, at a rally in Te Komititanga Square several speakers about BDS policies included PSNA secretary Neil Scott and South African-born activist Achmat Esau, who explained how global sanctions had forced the brutal racist minority white regime in his homeland to abandon apartheid and bow to genuine democracy.

    Esau recalled how in 1968 white South African Prime Minister John Vorster banned a tour by the England cricket team because it included a mixed-race player, Cape Town-born Basil D’Oliveira.

    Boycott of apartheid South Africa
    “After this incident, South Africa was excluded from international cricket until the release of political prisoner Nelson Mandela 22 years later.

    “The anti-apartheid boycott of the South African regime from the 1960s until the 1980s was instrumental in bringing the racist apartheid regime to its knees,’ Esau said.

    He said the success of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa was an indicator of how it could also succeed through the BDS movement against apartheid Israel.

    “We must draw in the politicians and political parries to isolate, expose and oppose this evil Zionist regime that is guilty of state terrorism.”

    Pro-Palestinian protesters outside the Elliott Street entrance to The Warehouse in Auckland
    Pro-Palestinian protesters outside the Elliott Street entrance to The Warehouse in Auckland. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • They knew we were journalists — Israel bombed us anyway

    On 21 November 2023, Farah Omar stood in the shade of a tree after finishing her live report for Al Mayadeen TV. Beside her were cameraman Rabih Maamari and their local guide — Hussein Akil, a resident of Ter Harfa — only a few kilometers from the Lebanese–Israeli border. None of the three knew that this live broadcast would be their final one. Minutes later, an Israeli drone fired a missile at the marked journalists, killing them all. If history has taught us anything: It’s never by accident, Israel kills journalists deliberately.

    Farah (25), Rabih (44), and Hussein (26) were killed while covering exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israel during the first year of the war — the incident condemned by the head of UNESCO. Their murders came just one month after an Israeli Merkava tank shot and killed Reuters photojournalist Issam Abdullah (37) in Alma al-Shaab on 13 October 2023. The same strike injured six other journalists working for AFP and Al Jazeera. A year later, on 25 October 2024, another deliberate Israeli strike targeted journalists as they slept in Hasbaya, killing three and injuring several others.

    Israel kills journalists with full knowledge

    All three incidents share the same pattern — the journalists notify the UN and military personnel of their presence, clearly identifying themselves to both warring sides, but Israel shoots to kill anyway. The targeting was intentional and far from “exceptional.” Israel has repeatedly killed journalists — during the genocide in Gaza and in its aggression against Lebanon. The United Nations reports that Israel has killed at least 248 journalists in Gaza — more than in any conflict in modern history — in addition to 13 journalists in Lebanon, six of them on duty — since October 7. Israeli forces also struck a media center in Sanaa, Yemen, killing 31 journalists and media workers — according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

    Elsy Moufarrej — head of the independent Union of Journalists in Lebanon — tells The Canary that:

    targeting journalists is not surprising from an enemy that represses the image exposing its crimes. That’s a war crime! Israel goes far with it because the international silence indirectly grants it impunity… There was no accountability for Israel, and that gives it a green light to continue.

    Moufarrej and her colleagues have tried to pursue justice — since the killing of Issam Abdullah — through the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has been in coordination with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, CPJ, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) — yet progress remains stalled.

    Moufarrej tells us:

    We blame the Lebanese government for not taking any measures to ensure accountability. There should be a serious investigation here. Internationally, the ICC must be authorised to investigate the war crimes committed in Lebanon since 7 October — including the direct killing of journalists.

    Had this happened, journalists today would not be facing increasing restrictions, nor would the population of the south be systematically displaced from their homes even after the ceasefire.

    Ramzi Kaiss, a Lebanese researcher at Human Rights Watch, echoes this sentiment saying:

    Israel’s apparently deliberate killing of Issam Abdullah should have served as a crystal-clear message for Lebanon’s government that impunity for war crimes begets more war crimes…

    Since the killing of Issam, scores of other civilians in Lebanon have been killed in apparently deliberate or indiscriminate attacks that violate the laws of war and amount to war crimes.

    On the ground, Lebanese journalists describe a climate of constant fear.

    Constant state of fear

    Reporter Rola Atwi recalls the moment she and her colleagues were targeted during a media tour in Yaroun— 300 meters away from the Lebanese border with ‘Israel’ — while accompanying UNIFIL and the Lebanese military on 14 November 2023.

    Atwi tells The Canary:

    I felt like life stopped. I felt direct danger. I was afraid I would never see my colleagues again.

    Even after the ceasefire, reporting from the south has become extremely difficult:

    There isn’t a single moment of safety. Roads are sometimes blocked or monitored by drones. Even gathering information is harder because people are afraid and under psychological pressure… We’re reporting about our own people and our own households.

    Local journalist Dalia Bazzi, who lives in Bint Jbeil — about three kilometres from the border — tells The Canary:

    We want to impose the law. There have been thousands of Israeli violations since the ceasefire, while Lebanon has fully abided by the agreement. The truth is evident.

    She describes the horror she witnesses:

    It kills me to know that a little girl has witnessed death. A 12-year-old once described to me the dismembered bodies of civilians after a massacre. She ran toward the site when she heard the strike, wanting to help. No child should have to live with that.

    About 45 kilometers north, in Nabatieh, journalist Tarek Mrouwe describes the same reality:

    We’re cautious but not afraid. We’ve gotten used to the situation. You start asking yourself: when will this end? Why are our areas always targeted? It’s sad that the government isn’t doing much, and those opposed to the resistance are indifferent.

    Covering Israeli violations across the south, Tarek notes that:

    Israel targets civilian cars and structures while claiming they’re military targets—but that’s false. They strike forests, and after the fires burn out, we see there was no military site.

    Dalia confirms this with a recent example:

    In Bint Jbeil, Shady Sharara and his three daughters were killed, while his wife and another daughter were wounded. It’s a massacre. Are these military targets?

    She adds:

    We woke up one day to two airstrikes on a civilian car in a crowded street as everyone was heading to work. The first strike was a few meters from my house. Have you ever replaced ‘good morning’ with ‘airstrike’? I ran to cover the news before even washing my face.

    Despite this reality, international bodies remain largely indifferent. Israel’s long history of targeting journalists — in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and elsewhere — continues with impunity. As Elsy Moufarrej put it: Israel is “oppressing the image” of those who expose its crimes—especially the journalists who dare to report them.

    Featured image via LBCI

    By Mohamad Kleit

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Iqbal Mohamed quits Your Party blaming ‘false allegations’… apparently….

    Dewsbury and Batley independent MP Iqbal Mohamed has followed Blackburn colleague Adnan Hussain in resigning from the new Your Party and, like Hussain, has done so with a blast at his treatment during his time with the Corbyn/Sultana outfit, claiming that he was subject to “many false allegations and smears… reported as fact without evidence”.

    Iqbal Mohamed: off

    His full resignation statement insists that he and his colleagues “have acted professionally, patiently and in good faith” at all times during his period with Your Party – the launch period of the new party that has been marked by rows, divisions, and chaos:

    Over the past few months at the invitation of organisers, I have helped steward the launch of Your Party alongside Parliamentary colleagues Adnan Hussain (who voluntarily left Your Party on 14 Nov 2025), Ayoub Khan, Jeremy Corbyn, Shockat Adam and Zarah Sultana (who voluntarily left the Independent Alliance and the Your Party stewarding group on 18 Sept 2025).

    After careful consideration, I have decided to leave Your Party and continue serving as I was elected as an Independent Member of Parliament for Dewsbury & Batley.

    The many false allegations and smears made against me and others, and reported as fact without evidence, have been surprising and disappointing.

    However, I am confident that my colleagues and I have acted professionally, patiently, and in good faith throughout.

    I thank everyone who has dedicated time, energy, and commitment to building and supporting Your Party, and wish them success in their future endeavours. British politics needs a genuine, inclusive force for positive change, and I hope Your Party fulfils that role.

    I will continue working with my colleagues in the Independent Alliance, which has proven highly effective in advocating for the common good in Parliament over the past eighteen months. I am grateful for the sincerity, unity and trust that has defined our work, and look forward to continuing our shared commitment to peace, justice, equality, and truth.

    However, not every allegation made against Iqbal Mohamed has been false. He told the Canary that he “fully” supports April’s Supreme Court ruling on gender that has horrified trans and human rights activists and set back the rights of trans people by decades. He also claimed as a cis man that this is not a “transphobic” view:

    I fully support the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex being defined as biological male and biological female.

    I fully support the rights of biological women to safe protected spaces from biological men. I also support the human rights of trans and all LGBTQ+ people.

    None of the above views are transphobic. It would be misogynistic for anyone to advocate for biological women’s rights to safe and private spaces to be shared with biological males.

    The EHRC trans code

    The Supreme Court ruling has led directly to the appalling Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance on single-sex spaces that means that any woman, trans or not, whom attendants or security consider to look a bit ‘too’ masculine can be excluded from both women’s and men’s toilets by “proportionate means”, whatever that vague phrase is considered to mean.

    This guidance has been presented, both by the EHRC and by the media, as if only trans women could possibly fall foul of it and as if that would make it acceptable. As our trans Canary colleague Alex/Rose Cocker has pointed out today:

    The EHRC and its transphobic stenographers in the BBC and the Times would like you to believe that this code will only impact trans people. This is a lie, and a deliberate one at that. Transphobes like to believe that they can tell who is trans just by looking at them, because they’ve convinced themselves that all trans women look like men in dresses, and all trans men look like tomboys.

    This is false. If it wasn’t, having sex without disclosing that you’re trans wouldn’t be a crime. If trans people always looked like their assigned sex, the EHRC wouldn’t have to suggest that trans men could be banned from men’s and women’s toilets. Likewise, trans advocacy and education group TransActual UK reported that:

    Our research has uncovered many stories of cis people, especially gender non-conforming women, being humiliated and excluded by staff or vigilante gender police when using the appropriate facilities and shown that this has already increased since the publication of the EHRC’s draft guidance.

    Trans people already face grotesque discrimination that has needed decades of work and courage to unpick to reach the already deeply-flawed situation that prevailed before the Supreme Court ruling and those gains were wiped out with the stroke of a judge’s pen to please anti-trans bigots who dress their prejudice up as ‘women’s rights’. Few of them will mourn the departure of two MPs who oppose their efforts, even if those leaving give lip service to the rights stripped by the court.

    Enough, now, in Your Party

    Your Party co-founder Jeremy Corbyn said in April that he is “really saddened by the level of vitriol and hatred being directed toward the trans community. We are losing our common humanity.” Zarah Sultana went much further, saying that there is no room for transphobia on the left or in Your Party and that an “ironclad commitment to trans rights is non-negotiable” for any socialist party.

    The party needs to decide whose position it is taking and whether trans rights really are human rights that it will fight for as hard as those of any other minoritised person or community. If it does, then it must stop ignoring the rampant transphobia that exists in its ranks – and make sure that Your Party is not a place for anyone with those views.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Leaked trans code is a victory for women everywhere, provided they don’t look a bit too mannish

    Despite being handed the 300-page document months ago, the government still hasn’t implemented the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) new trans code. It deals with the practical implementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Equality Act defines women according to sex assigned at birth.

    The EHRC immediately chose to interpret this as the basis for the complete exclusion of trans people from the single-sex facilities of their lived gender. However, it has since taken down the ‘interim’ guidance.

    The lack of the new code has left trans people in a legal limbo. My community has been left without a clue to the extent of exclusion we are about to face.

    However, the new code has now been leaked to the press. The news outlets of the UK managed to get their reporting out just in time for Trans Day of Remembrance, on which we mourn the lives lost to transphobic violence and discrimination around the world. This, I’m sure, was a coincidence.

    The big reveal that has taken so long? The promised solution to the trans question? The service providers of the UK will be asked to take a guess at who they reckon is a tranny, and chuck people out accordingly.

    EHRC trans code: ‘based on how they look’

    The BBC wrote that:

    Trans people could be asked about whether they should be accessing single-sex services based on their physical appearance or behaviour, according to proposed new guidance seen by the BBC.

    Likewise, the Times claimed that:

    Under the guidance, which has been seen by The Times, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over their use of single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others.

    Note the language used here: “trans people could be asked” and “question transgender women”. These statements are a rhetorical attempt to mislead the reader – either on the part of the EHRC or the news outlets. What’s more, the articles themselves expose them as such. Both go on to state some variation on the following:

    The code reportedly notes that “there is no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex” because people are able to change their sex on passports and driving licences without a GRC. Instead, where there is “genuine concern about the accuracy of the response”, the code reportedly states it may be proportionate to exclude a transgender person.

    ‘Humiliated and excluded’

    So, walk with me here. There’s no way to tell whether or not someone is trans by official documentation. As such, a service provider is allowed to exclude someone from single-sex spaces purely according to how they look and act.

    Therefore, someone doesn’t have to be trans in order to be excluded under the new anti-trans guidance. So stating that “trans women could be questioned” etc. isn’t actually true, is it? Anybody could be questioned, and anybody could be excluded, based purely on “concerns raised by others”.

    The EHRC and its transphobic stenographers in the BBC and the Times would like you to believe that this code will only impact trans people. This is a lie, and a deliberate one at that. Transphobes like to believe that they can tell who is trans just by looking at them, because they’ve convinced themselves that all trans women look like men in dresses, and all trans men look like tomboys.

    This is false. If it wasn’t, having sex without disclosing that you’re trans wouldn’t be a crime. If trans people always looked like their assigned sex, the EHRC wouldn’t have to suggest that trans men could be banned from men’s and women’s toilets. Likewise, trans advocacy and education group TransActual UK reported that:

    Our research has uncovered many stories of cis people, especially gender non-conforming women, being humiliated and excluded by staff or vigilante gender police when using the appropriate facilities and shown that this has already increased since the publication of the EHRC’s draft guidance.

    ‘Get this right’

    It falls on equalities minister Bridget Phillipson to make the EHRC’s guidance into law. The EHRC’s Kishwer Falkner – a woman criticised for her bigotry by the fucking Lemkin Institute for the Prevention of Genocide – has urged Phillipson to implement the new code. Likewise, the Guardian reported that the code was leaked by government figures who believe Labour is “delaying publication to avoid a potential backlash”.

    Addressing these claims, Phillipson told reporters:

    I have responsibilities to make sure that’s done properly and we’re taking the time to get this right.

    This is an important area and we want to make sure that women have access to a single-sex provision – that’s incredibly important for domestic violence services, rape crisis centres, so that women are able to heal from the trauma they’ve experienced.

    But of course, trans people should be treated with dignity and respect.

    Let’s not mince words. If a trans person is trying to access a rape crisis centre, it is because they have been raped. However, that fact is less important than the possibility that they might make a cis woman uncomfortable. There’s no “dignity and respect” in that.

    Similarly, there is no way to “get this right”, with all the time in the world. This transphobic code necessarily involves an assault on the rights of anyone who could be perceived as trans, regardless of their gender status. Trans+ Solidarity Alliance founder Jude Guaitamacchi called out that very fact, stating:

    These leaks reveal that not only does the EHRC’s proposed code of practice seek to require trans exclusion, it instructs service providers to police this based on appearance and gender stereotypes.

    This is a misogynist’s charter, plain and simple, and the government must reject it.

    Echoing the sentiment, a spokesperson for TransActual stated:

    We’ve seen this before – people trying to make our society into a place that is only safe for ‘normal’ ladies. Not just loos. But sports centres, changing rooms and more. We know from experience that women of colour and butch lesbians are more likely to be seen as unfeminine by strangers, so this policy would have racist and homophobic impacts as well as being obviously incredibly harmful for trans people.

    We offer our solidarity to the many cis women who have been targeted and harassed for their appearance by ‘gender critical activists’ who believed they were trans, and who would be put even further at risk by these rules.

    We cannot believe that government would be so foolish – so hell-bent on shooting itself in the foot – as to go along with this. We therefore trust that Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson will treat it with the contempt it deserves and reject this costly, cruel and unworkable guidance, sending it back to the EHRC to be completely rewritten.

    Congratulations to the anti-trans left. You’d better own the EHRC trans code.

    I want to finish this article with a direct address. Almost every time I – or one of my colleagues – write a piece on trans issues, the comment section is populated by people who cheer on the anti-trans policies. Some, I’m sure, are right-wing trolls who merely pretend to be on the left to muddy the water.

    However, I’m also sure that some of you genuinely believe that you are on the left. Lets ignore for a minute the fact that trans bans were a policy priority for the fascist Trump regime. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    You might believe that trans women don’t belong in women’s sport. In turn, that opened the door to your wholesale opposition of trans people living their lives as they see fit. Maybe you believe that women’s oppression is rooted wholly in biology. Accordingly, you fight against the rights of the trans men you believe to be women, because they can’t be allowed to make decisions for themselves.

    I want to congratulate you. I am now wholly defined by my biology, or at least, whatever anybody cares to guess is my biology. This is your great victory. Please do celebrate.

    Only, own your victory with your whole chest, because all of it belongs to you. I cordially invite you to comment with expressions of joy, invectives for trans people to stay out of single-sex spaces, and explanations of why you’re actually the true leftist and all of the fascists you keep company with are mere coincidence.

    Just remember to append your comment with the following:

    I believe that the accompanying discrimination against intersex people, butch lesbians, femme gays, and gender non-conformists is worthwhile to achieve this goal.

    You fucking cowards.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Out for blood: Israel ramps-up sweeping military assault on West Bank refugee camps

    The Israeli occupation launched Operation Iron Wall on 21 January 2025. It targeted West Bank refugee camps of Jenin, Tulkarem, and Nur Shams, displacing 32,000 Palestinians and obliterating homes and civilian infrastructure.

    Israel continues to deny displaced populations the right of return, making this the largest West Bank forced displacement since 1967.

    Operation Iron Wall: Israel’s goes after refugee camps

    A new Human Rights Watch report, documents this military campaign.

    The timing is difficult to ignore.

    Two days after a temporary ceasefire in Gaza was reached, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) undertook massive raids. They deployed Apache helicopters, drones, armoured vehicles, bulldozers, and hundreds of ground troops to clear the three refugee camps.

    Soldiers stormed homes, ransacked possessions, interrogated civilians, and issued evacuation orders via drones and loudspeakers, giving little time or explanation.

    Displacement occurred under active military operations and threat of sniper fire. Vulnerable groups, including wheelchair users, faced extra hardships. Occupation forces often cruelly forcing them to abandon their assistive devices.​

    Plans to permanently displace 32,000 Palestinians

    Satellite imagery analysed by Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Satellite Centre confirm the scale of destruction.

    Israel has demolished and damaged more than 850 buildings across Palestinian refugee camps. Meanwhile, extensive bulldozing of roads cleared the way for military access.

    The IOF claim these measures are necessary “to reshape and stabilise” the area and combat “terror”.

    They failed to justify the displacement and demolition as crucial military necessities, and did not take appropriate measures to safeguard displaced populations. They provided no shelter, food or water, nor evacuation routes, as required under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.​

    Statements by senior Israeli occupation officials made clear their intent to make displacement permanent. Defense Minister Israel Katz told the IDF:

    not to allow residents to return and terrorism to grow again.

    Meanwhile Bezalel Smotrich threatened that camps:

    will be turned into uninhabitable ruins.

    Forced displacement constitutes a war crime when the displacement is the result of illegal attacks. But when it is part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population, it is classified as a crime against humanity. The scale, organisation, and deliberate nature of Operation Iron Wall’s forced displacement fulfil these criteria.

    A campaign of ethnic cleansing

    According to Human Rights Watch the campaign amounts to ethnic cleansing. The policy is specifically designed to violently remove an ethnic or religious group from a geographic area.

    Displaced Palestinians are living in terrible conditions.

    Médecins Sans Frontières has reported worsening health, unmet needs, and inadequate access to healthcare, food, and water supplies.

    The occupation’s restrictions on movement and limited humanitarian access make these challenges worse. Israel’s closure of camps has barred UNRWA school access for thousands of children.

    Many families live in cramped makeshift shelters, where privacy and dignity are strained.

    They face repeated forced relocations and Israeli occupation authorities have failed to meet their obligations under international law.

    Unspeakable terror

    The report’s testimonies speak of the terror experienced.

    Nadim M. from Tulkarem described being zip-tied and threatened by snipers while being forced out with his family. Anoud C., who was undergoing intensive treatment for lung cancer, was at home in Jenin camp at the time of the raid. She said:

    I could hear explosions, there were four explosions first, before the helicopter began to shoot over our heads and at the people.

    Anoud and her family fled from their home with nothing, holding a white cloth. Fatima B. escaped the Jenin raid under airstrikes and warnings broadcast by drones. There were also fatalities, including the pregnant Rahaf al-Ashqar, who the Israeli forces killed when they detonated an explosive at her home in Nur Shams.

    Since the camps’ evictions, the IOF has consistently barred residents from returning. They have made sure the damage has been long lasting damage. These actions breach Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting “wanton destruction”. But the occupation’s military has failed to justify demolitions or prove an operational need. Civilians continue to suffer the consequences.​

    Israel must answer for its crimes

    UNRWA established the three refugee camps in the early 1950s. They were to house Palestinians expelled from their homes following ‘Israel’s’ creation in 1948.

    Those refugees, and their descendants, had resided in these camps since then.

    The occupation’s military campaign against these refugee camps perpetuates a familiar pattern of repression and dispossession. Israeli occupation policies reflect apartheid and persecution. ‘Israel’ has carried out decades of settlement growth and violence against Palestinian communities. Administrative detentions have reached record highs since the genocide started.

    Human Rights Watch is urging governments to investigate and prosecute the growing litany of Israeli war crimes — and they must act now.

    Governments must also use sanctions, arms embargoes, trade suspensions, and enforcement of ICC arrest warrants to pressure Israel to stop its crimes. Without international intervention, human rights violations and ethnic cleansing risk becoming entrenched and normalised, worsening the humanitarian catastrophe, and prolonging injustice.​

    Featured image via Electronic Intifada/Mohammed Nasser.

    By Charlie Jaay

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Things Happen: Trump, the Crown Prince and Killing Khashoggi

    The Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is at it again. Gulling, wooing, and grinning his way into the establishment of another country, he is greasing palms and making deals. Effusive and flattering of his host, this time US President Donald Trump, he received a state welcome on November 18 rarely afforded visiting dignitaries: a red carpet viewing of fighter jets, a horse-mounted guard of honour, and a feast in the East Room. He was also promised the much-sought-after F-35 fighter jets as part of a defence arrangement, elevating Saudi Arabia to the status of a “major non-NATO ally”. Along the way, MBS has done much to deter those who wish to remind him of a wretched human rights record and the barbaric habits of a state he claims to be modernising.

    The gaudy occasion risked being sullied by a question from Mary Bruce of ABC News. Intended for the Crown Prince, it inquired about his role behind the murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018. The death squad responsible for strangling and dismembering the unsuspecting Khashoggi had been dispatched with his blessing, numbering among them a forensic specialist, a bone saw, and a body double. Many of its members hailed from bin Salman’s own protective guard, the Rapid Intervention Force.

    Trump’s intervention was abrupt: “You’re mentioning someone that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen. But he [MBS] knew nothing about it.  You don’t have to embarrass our guest.”

    His guest has much to be embarrassed about, and more besides. With surliness and much petulant audacity, the opportunistic princeling has seized such power in the realm as to marginalise all other decision makers, including rival family members.  The most important decisions, be they on vast investment agreements, the refurbishment of the country’s medieval bearing, or authorising the extrajudicial killing of an irritating scribbler, would issue from him.

    To therefore suggest that the Crown Prince was ignorant of his own misdeeds is to fly in the face of hardened reality. When she was UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary killings, Agnès Callamard found that state responsibility for Khashoggi’s death was the only plausible conclusion.  “His killing was the result of elaborate planning involving extensive coordination and significant human and financial resources. It was overseen, planned, and endorsed by high-level officials.  It was premeditated.”

    Most importantly, Trump’s breezy acquittal of MBS’s culpability resoundingly ignores the findings by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in a 2021 declassified report submitted to Congress by the then Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. “We assess,” the report avers, “that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.” This was the only reasonable conclusion given bin Salman’s “control of decisionmaking in the Kingdom”, the seminal role played by one of his key advisors and members of the Crown Prince’s protective detail in the operation, along with bin Salman’s appetite “for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad, including Khashoggi.”

    The report goes on to make a most telling observation: that the Crown Prince’s assumption (one might even say seizure) of “absolute control of the Kingdom’s security and intelligence organizations” since 2017 made it “highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without” his approval. Some equivocation is expressed about “how far in advance Saudi officials decided to harm” Khashoggi.

    Bin Salman, for his part, reverted to his role as high-minded reformer while citing the defence of mistake. This was at least partially in keeping with previous admissions that his hands were not entirely clean on the subject. (Khashoggi’s widow, Hanan, reiterated that point in an interview with BBC Newsnight.) It had been “painful for us in Saudi Arabia”, he told Bruce. “We did all the right steps of investigating, etc., in Saudi Arabia, and we’ve improved our system to be sure that nothing happens like that again. And it’s painful, and it was a huge mistake.” Trump also gave his guest the needed ballast: “What’s he done is incredible in terms of human rights and everything else.”

    Since Khashoggi’s murder, the response from the Kingdom has been one of denial, distancing, and detachment. It has involved isolating the killers as wayward enthusiasts and adventurers, lacking the force of a mandate. They were to be the convenient scalps, the necessary sacrifices. Of the group, five were subsequently sentenced to death while three were given prison sentences. Saud al-Qahtani, bin Salman’s disseminator of venomous social media, along with Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Asiri, were acquitted for lack of evidence. Callamard was compelled to remark that “The executioners were found guilty and sentenced to death,” while “those who ordered the executions not only walk free but have barely been touched by the investigation and the trial.” That’s the MBS version of modern Saudi Arabia for you.

    The post Things Happen: Trump, the Crown Prince and Killing Khashoggi first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.