Speaking at an inaugural conference on girls’ education in the Muslim world, Malala Yousafzai decried the state of women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan as ‘gender apartheid’. The conference in Islamabad brought together local and international advocates and dignitaries committed to advancing girls’ education. Representatives from Afghanistan, where girls’ education remains banned under Taliban rule, were notably absent
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! As we continue our discussion of President Jimmy Carter’s legacy, we look at his policies in the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, Israel and Palestine.
On Thursday during the state funeral in Washington, President Carter’s former adviser Stuart Eizenstat praised Carter’s work on facilitating the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978.
STUART EIZENSTAT: Jimmy Carter’s most lasting achievement, and the one I think he was most proud of, was to bring the first peace to the Middle East through the greatest act of personal diplomacy in American history, the Camp David Accords.
For 13 days and nights, he negotiated with Israel’s Menachem Begin and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, personally drafting more than 20 peace proposals and shuttling them between the Israeli and Egyptian delegations.
And he saved the agreement at the 11th hour — and it was the 11th hour — by appealing to Begin’s love of his grandchildren.
For the past 45 years, the Egypt-Israel peace treaty has never been violated and laid the foundation for the Abraham Accords.
AMY GOODMAN: The Abraham Accords are the bilateral normalisation agreements between Israel and, as well, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel and Bahrain, signed in 2020.
In 2006, years after he left office, Jimmy Carter wrote a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in which he compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s former racist regime.
It was striking for a former US president to use the words “Palestine,” let alone “apartheid,” in referring to the Occupied Territories. I went down to The Carter Center to speak with President Jimmy Carter about the controversy around his book and what he wanted the world to understand.
JIMMY CARTER: The word “apartheid” is exactly accurate. You know, this is an area that’s occupied by two powers. They are now completely separated.
The Palestinians can’t even ride on the same roads that the Israelis have created or built in Palestinian territory.
The Israelis never see a Palestinian, except the Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians never see an Israeli, except at a distance, except the Israeli soldiers.
So, within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way. And the other thing is, the other definition of “apartheid” is, one side dominates the other.
And the Israelis completely dominate the life of the Palestinian people.
AMY GOODMAN: Why don’t Americans know what you have seen?
JIMMY CARTER: Americans don’t want to know and many Israelis don’t want to know what is going on inside Palestine.
It’s a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine. And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land.
I think it’s accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I’m familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries, or to publicise the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good-faith peace talks.
There hasn’t been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years. So this is a taboo subject. And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out as I’ve just described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.
AMY GOODMAN: President Jimmy Carter. To see that whole interview we did at The Carter Center, you can go to democracynow.org.
For more on his legacy in the Middle East during his presidency and beyond, we’re joined in London by historian Seth Anziska, professor of Jewish-Muslim relations at University College London, author of Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo.
What should we understand about the legacy of President Carter, Professor Anziska?
Late former US President Jimmy Carter’s opposition to Israeli apartheid. Video: Democracy Now!
SETH ANZISKA: Well, thank you, Amy.
I think, primarily, the biggest lesson is that when he came into office, he was the first US president to talk about the idea of a Palestinian homeland, alongside his commitment to Israeli security. And that was an enormous change from what had come before and what’s come since.
And I think that the way we understand Carter’s legacy should very much be oriented around the very deep commitment he had to justice and a resolution of the Palestinian question, alongside his commitment to Israel, which derived very much from his Southern Baptist faith.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the whole trajectory. Talk about the Camp David Accords, for which he was hailed throughout the various funeral services this week and has been hailed in many places around the world.
SETH ANZISKA: Well, I think one of the biggest misunderstandings about the legacy of Camp David is that this is not at all what Carter had intended or had hoped for when he came into office. He actually had a much more comprehensive vision of peace in the Middle East, that included a resolution of the Palestinian component, but also peace with Syria, with Jordan.
And he came up with some of these ideas, developed them with Cyrus Vance, the secretary of state, and Zbigniew Brzeziński, his national security adviser. And in developing those ideas, which came out in 1977 in a very closely held memo that was not widely shared inside the administration, he actually talked about return of refugees, he talked about the status of Jerusalem, and he desired very much to think about the different components of the regional settlement as part of an overall vision.
This was in contrast to Henry Kissinger’s attitude of piecemeal diplomacy that had preceded him in the aftermath of the 1973 war. So we can understand Carter in this way very much as a departure and somebody who understood the value and the necessity of contending with these much broader regional dynamics.
Now, the reasons why this ended up with a far more limited, but very significant, bilateral peace treaty between Egypt and Israel had a lot to do both with the election of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977, as well as the position of Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and also the role of the Palestinians and the PLO.
But what people don’t quite recall or understand is that Camp David and the agreement towards the peace treaty was in many ways a compromise or, in Brzeziński’s view, was a real departure from what had been the intention.
And that gap between what people had hoped for within the administration and what ended up emerging in 1979 with the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty also was tethered very much to the perpetuation of Palestinian statelessness. So, if we want to understand why and how Palestinians have been deprived of sovereignty or remain stateless to this day, we have to go back to think about the impact of Camp David itself.
AMY GOODMAN: Interesting that Sadat would be assassinated years later in Egypt when Carter was on the plane with Nixon and Ford. That’s when they say that cemented his relationship with Ford, while they hardly talked to Nixon at all.
But if you could also comment on President Carter and post-President Carter? I mean, the fact that he wrote this book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, using the word “Palestine,” using the word “apartheid,” to refer to the Occupied Territories — I remember chasing him down the hall at the Democratic convention when he was supposed to speak. This was the Obama Democratic convention. And it ended up he didn’t speak. And I chased him and Rosalynn, because . . .
SETH ANZISKA: Remember that in 1977, there was a very famous speech that he gave in Clinton, Massachusetts, talking about a Palestinian homeland. And that raised huge hackles, both in the American Jewish community among American Jewish leaders who were very uncomfortable and were already distrustful of a Southern Democrat and his views on Israel, but also Cold War conservatives, who were quite hawkish and felt that he was far too close to engaging with the Soviet Union.
And so, both of those constituencies were very, very opposed to his attitude and his approach on the Palestinian issue. And I think we can see echoes of that in how he then was treated after his presidency, when much of his activism and much of his engagement on the question of Palestine, to my view, derived from a sense of frustration and regret about what he was not able to achieve in the Camp David Accords.
And his commitment stemmed from the same values that he had been shaped by early on, a sense of viewing the Palestinian issue through the same lens as civil rights, in the same lens as what he experienced in the South, which is often, what his biographers have explained, where his views and approach towards the Palestinians came from, but also a particularly close relationship to biblical views around Israel and Zionism, that he was very much committed to Israeli security as a result.
And that was never something that he let go of, even if you look closely at his work in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Some of his views on Israel are actually quite closely aligned with positions that many in the Jewish community would feel comfortable with.
The fact that people criticised and attacked him for that, I think, speaks to the taboo of talking about what’s happening or what has happened, in the context of Israel and Palestine, in the same kind of language as disenfranchisement around race in apartheid South Africa.
And, of course, as Carter said in the interview you just ran that you had done with him when the book came out, the situation is far worse in actuality with what is happening vis-à-vis Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
AMY GOODMAN:Seth Anziska, I want to thank you so much for being with us, professor of Jewish-Muslim relations at University College London, author of Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo, speaking to us from London.
UK chancellor made comments during visit to China where agreements were made worth £600m to UK economy
Rachel Reeves vowed to stand by her “non-negotiable” fiscal rules as she arrived in China for a trip overshadowed by market turbulence at home.
The chancellor said the trip was a “significant milestone” in UK-China relations, adding that agreements had been reached worth £600m to the UK economy over the next five years.
A Palestine solidarity advocate today appealed to New Zealanders to shed their feelings of powerlessness over the Gaza genocide and “take action” in support of an effective global strategy of boycott, divestment and sanctions.
“Many of us have become addicted to ‘doom scrolling’ — reading or watching more and more articles on what is happening in Palestine,” Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) national chair Neil Scott told supporters in Auckland’s Te Komititanga Square.
“Then becoming depressed because we have watched it month after month without feeling we can do anything about it.”
The news over the 15-month war was depressing daily as the “official” death toll in Gaza from Israel’s war in the besieged enclave topped 46,000 this week, mostly women and children, and Israeli raids on neighbouring Lebanon in breach of the ceasefire and also on Yemen continued unabated.
The medical research journal Lancet also reported yesterday that the real death toll had been underreported and it was 40 percent higher with an estimated 64,200 killed in the first nine months of the war ending June 30.
PSNA national secretary Neil Scott . . . “When we do nothing in the face of the genocide we see going on in Gaza, that causes us to be stressed and be uncomfortable.” Image: APR
“If you’re like me, you will be scrolling around the available information sources finding out the truth about the crimes against humanity of apartheid and genocide that the Israeli military and the illegal settlers are doing,” Scott said.
“Along with this, we’re all feeling disgusted at the lack of action by the government.
“Who feels helpless about what is happening and feel as if they can’t do much about it? A common feeling,” he admitted.
Action good for health
Scott said there was evidence that taking some action was actually good for people’s mental health. Feeling helpless added to “the stress we feel”.
“There is a concept of ‘Bearing Witness’ — this is about exposing ourselves to the suffering of the Palestinians.
“It basically means being aware of those abuses. Something I think we all do.
“Then there is ‘Taking Action’ — this is about participating in a tangible way to try to help alleviate or prevent the suffering we witness the Palestinians living through.
Lancet study: Gaza toll 40% higher. Video: TRT News
“When we do nothing in the face of the genocide we see going on in Gaza, that causes us to be stressed and be uncomfortable.
“But we, as individuals, can do something.
“All human rights activists, unless we are absolutely overwhelmed at the moment, should probably spend a couple of hours a week taking action. Not all in one go but spread throughout the week.
Using ‘doom scrolling’ energy
“We can do something with all that doom scrolling stress or energy.
“We can turn it into taking action.”
PSNA’s Neil Scott speaking at the BDS rally today. Image: APR
Protesters have embarked on a three-week cycle addressing the global BDS Movement’s strategy of “boycott, divest and sanctions” in support of Palestine’s right to be a state while still seeking a ceasefire. Boycott was today’s theme.
Tasneem Gouda addressing the BDS rally today. Video: APR
The rally MC, Tasneem Gouda, reminded the crowd that they had been protesting over the massacres for 66 weeks and that “the BDS movement works”.
“We have enabled one of the most popular chains to close down and to lose billions of dollars.
“And to everyone who chooses to continue buying from these brands, let me tell you that every drink, every fry that you buy has blood on it.
“It has the blood of a Palestinian child. It has the blood of a mother.
“Shame on you.”
The BDS rally in support of Palestine at Auckland’s Te Komitanga Square today. Image: APR
The BDS Movement was launched by Palestinians in 2005 with more than 170 organisations backing the initiative. Coordination of the movement followed a couple of years later with a conference in Ramallah, Occupied West Bank.
Aotearoa New Zealand is part of the Asia-Pacific sector of the global movement, grouping Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand.
The Malaysian government is preparing a draft resolution for the United Nations General Assembly to expel Israel over its system of apartheid and the genocide, as South Africa was suspended in 1974 (it was reinstated 20 years later following the end of apartheid).
A poster calling for the expulsion of Israel’s ambassador to New Zealand. Image: APR
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.
UK chancellor becomes first holder of her office to make an official visit to China in a decade
Rachel Reeves has said the UK “must engage confidently with China”, as she arrived in Beijing amid market turbulence at home.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had demanded the chancellor call off her China trip after the value of the pound plummeted to its lowest level in a year. But ministers argue that improved relations with the world’s second-largest economy will help boost growth, and that under the Conservatives the UK lagged behind the US and EU when it came to high-level engagement with Beijing.
We continue to reflect on Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy with history professor Brad Simpson. Despite presiding over an administration that stood out for its successful championing of human rights elsewhere in the world, “in Southeast Asia, Carter really continued the policies of the Nixon and Ford administration,” particularly in Indonesia, which was at the time occupying and carrying out a…
Largest known deportation of people back to Niger to date comes as EU is accused of outsourcing cruelty to reduce Mediterranean crossings
More than 600 people have been forcibly deported from Libya on a “dangerous and traumatising” journey across the Sahara, in what is thought to be one of the largest expulsions from the north African country to date.
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) confirmed 613 people, all Nigerien nationals, arrived in the desert town of Dirkou in Niger last weekend in a convoy of trucks. They were among a large number of migrant workers rounded up by the authorities in Libya over the past month.
An open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in response to the social media giant’s decision to abandon its fact-checking regime protection in the US against hoaxes and conspiracy theories. No New Zealand fact-checkers are on the list of signatories.
Nine years ago, we wrote to you about the real-world harms caused by false information on Facebook. In response, Meta created a fact-checking programme that helped protect millions of users from hoaxes and conspiracy theories. This week, you announced you’re ending that programme in the United States because of concerns about “too much censorship” — a decision that threatens to undo nearly a decade of progress in promoting accurate information online.
The programme that launched in 2016 was a strong step forward in encouraging factual accuracy online. It helped people have a positive experience on Facebook, Instagram and Threads by reducing the spread of false and misleading information in their feeds.
We believe — and data shows — most people on social media are looking for reliable information to make decisions about their lives and to have good interactions with friends and family. Informing users about false information in order to slow its spread, without censoring, was the goal.
Fact-checkers strongly support freedom of expression, and we’ve said that repeatedly and formally in last year’s Sarajevo statement. The freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech.
But you say the programme has become “a tool to censor,” and that “fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the US.” This is false, and we want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record.
Meta required all fact-checking partners to meet strict nonpartisanship standards through verification by the International Fact-Checking Network. This meant no affiliations with political parties or candidates, no policy advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to objectivity and transparency.
Each news organisation undergoes rigorous annual verification, including independent assessment and peer review. Far from questioning these standards, Meta has consistently praised their rigour and effectiveness. Just a year ago, Meta extended the programme to Threads.
Fact-checkers blamed and harassed Your comments suggest fact-checkers were responsible for censorship, even though Meta never gave fact-checkers the ability or the authority to remove content or accounts. People online have often blamed and harassed fact-checkers for Meta’s actions. Your recent comments will no doubt fuel those perceptions.
But the reality is that Meta staff decided on how content found to be false by fact-checkers should be downranked or labeled. Several fact-checkers over the years have suggested to Meta how it could improve this labeling to be less intrusive and avoid even the appearance of censorship, but Meta never acted on those suggestions.
Additionally, Meta exempted politicians and political candidates from fact-checking as a precautionary measure, even when they spread known falsehoods. Fact-checkers, meanwhile, said that politicians should be fact-checked like anyone else.
Over the years, Meta provided only limited information on the programme’s results, even though fact-checkers and independent researchers asked again and again for more data. But from what we could tell, the programme was effective. Research indicated fact-check labels reduced belief in and sharing of false information. And in your own testimony to Congress, you boasted about Meta’s “industry-leading fact-checking programme.”
You said that you plan to start a Community Notes programme similar to that of X. We do not believe that this type of programme will result in a positive user experience, as X has demonstrated.
Researchshows that many Community Notes never get displayed, because they depend on widespread political consensus rather than on standards and evidence for accuracy. Even so, there is no reason Community Notes couldn’t co-exist with the third-party fact-checking programme; they are not mutually exclusive.
A Community Notes model that works in collaboration with professional fact-checking would have strong potential as a new model for promoting accurate information. The need for this is great: If people believe social media platforms are full of scams and hoaxes, they won’t want to spend time there or do business on them.
Political context in US
That brings us to the political context in the United States. Your announcement’s timing came after President-elect Donald Trump’s election certification and as part of a broader response from the tech industry to the incoming administration. Mr Trump himself said your announcement was “probably” in response to threats he’s made against you.
Some of the journalists that are part of our fact-checking community have experienced similar threats from governments in the countries where they work, so we understand how hard it is to resist this pressure.
The plan to end the fact-checking programme in 2025 applies only to the United States, for now. But Meta has similar programmes in more than 100 countries that are all highly diverse, at different stages of democracy and development. Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide. If Meta decides to stop the programme worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places.
This moment underlines the need for more funding for public service journalism. Fact-checking is essential to maintaining shared realities and evidence-based discussion, both in the United States and globally. The philanthropic sector has an opportunity to increase its investment in journalism at a critical time.
Most importantly, we believe the decision to end Meta’s third-party fact-checking programme is a step backward for those who want to see an internet that prioritises accurate and trustworthy information. We hope that somehow we can make up this ground in the years to come.
We remain ready to work again with Meta, or any other technology platform that is interested in engaging fact-checking as a tool to give people the information they need to make informed decisions about their daily lives.
Access to truth fuels freedom of speech, empowering communities to align their choices with their values. As journalists, we remain steadfast in our commitment to the freedom of the press, ensuring that the pursuit of truth endures as a cornerstone of democracy.
Editor: Fact-checking organisations continue to sign this letter, and the list is being updated as they do. No New Zealand fact-checking service has been added to the list so far. Republished from the International Fact-Checking Network at the Poynter Institute.
Israeli officials have obstructed a UN investigation into alleged sexual crimes committed by Hamas fighters during the 7 October 2023 Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, fearing this would open the door to a probe into the rampant allegations of sexual violence against Palestinians inside Israeli torture camps.
According to a report by Israeli daily Haaretz, Tel Aviv rejected a request from Pramila Patten, the UN special representative of the secretary-general on sexual violence in conflict, to investigate the allegations against Hamas after she established that a necessary condition would be access to Israeli detention centers to probe claims against Israeli soldiers.
It’s been said that the road to bad policy is paved with good intentions. The case of New York City’s new congestion pricing program puts this aphorism to the task as both the intentions and the program itself raise salient questions about who benefits, who suffers, and if the inchoate initiative even complies with at least two landmark State statutes that purport to position New York State as the national leader in climate action and environmental justice.
The congestion pricing program, which charges drivers entering Manhattan from 60th street and below $9.00 between the hours of 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends.
Australia violated the rights of asylum seekers arbitrarily detained on the island of Nauru, a UN watchdog has ruled, in a warning to other countries intent on outsourcing asylum processing.
The UN human rights committee published decisions in two cases involving 25 refugees and asylum seekers who endured years of arbitrary detention in the island nation.
To be Jewish does not mean an automatic identification with the rogue state of Israel. Nor does it mean that Jews are automatically threatened by criticism of Israel, yet our media and Labor and Liberal politicians would have you believe this is the case.
We are seeing a debate in Australia about the so-called rise of antisemitism which includes rally chants for Gaza at a time when we are witnessing the most horrific Israeli genocide of Palestinians in which our government is complicit.
Jewish peak bodies here and internationally have continually linked their identity to that of Israel.
Why? Can generations of Jews in this country still believe that Israel represents anything like the myths that were perpetrated at its inception?
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Zionist Federation of Australia, the Jewish Board of Deputies and others, all staunchly defend this apartheid state that is accused of plausible genocide by the UN International Court of Justice and confirmed by dozens of human rights and legal NGOs, UN Rapporteurs, medical organisations and holocaust scholars.
Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister have been charged as war criminals by the International Criminal Court and must be arrested and tried in the Hague, yet Australia maintains a cosy relationship with Israel and our media dutifully repeats its outright lies verbatim.
Conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism has been the main focus of the Israeli state and its defenders for decades. With the emergence of the Palestinian-led Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement in 2005, Israel’s narrative was countered, leading to a persistent Israeli directed campaign to link BDS with antisemitism.
Colonial, occupying power
BDS focuses on the actions of Israel as a colonial, occupying power violating international law against the indigenous people of Palestine. It is anti-racist and human rights-centred.
On December 11, we heard Prime Minister Albanese at the Jewish Museum in Sydney combining his support for Jewish people with his ongoing condemnation and active campaigning against BDS.
He referred to the Marrickville Council BDS motion, (which I proposed back in 2010 along with my Greens councillor colleague, Marika Kontellis), and again repeated the bald-faced mistruths that were spread back then about BDS and the intent and focus of the Marrickville motion.
“I was part of a campaign against BDS in my own local government area. At the time I argued that if you start targeting businesses because they happen to be owned by Jewish people, you’ll end up with the Star of David above shops.
“And that ended in World War II, during the Holocaust, with six million lives lost, murdered. We need an end to antisemitism.”
In one sentence we see Albanese’s extremely offensive equation of the horror of the Holocaust and antisemitism, directly linked to BDS. Why would a prime minister and local federal member deliberately mischaracterise BDS, given the movement has always been clear that its targets are global companies and corporations that are complicit in the Israeli state’s apartheid and genocidal actions, as well as Israeli government bodies and arms companies?
What is in it for Albanese, Wong, Plibersek or Dutton and all of the politicians back in 2010/2011 who appeared to think there was political advantage in scapegoating BDS by jumping on the frenzied anti-BDS campaign?
Fawning support for Israel
It was obvious back then, as it is now, that their fawning support for the rogue Israeli state knows no bounds. Lock step in line with the United States outlier position, Australia has maintained its repugnant inaction in the face of 15 months of Israel’s genocide in Gaza despite continued condemnation by the UN and a majority of states.
But Australia has, however, appointed a public supporter of Zionism and the Israeli state, as its special envoy on antisemitism.
The inaction by all states since 1948 to apply sanctions has gifted Israel the impunity that’s led to its industrial scale slaughter of innocents in Gaza and its continuing violence and killing of civilians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. All governments must bear responsibility for this.
At the time of the Marrickville BDS, he used the situation to attempt to discredit the Greens who were challenging the incumbent Labor state member, Carmel Tebbutt (his former wife). He fanned the national media frenzy that was fed by pro-Israel Jewish lobbyists who were the long-time custodians of the “reputation” of Israel.
Marrickville Council and the Greens were characterised as antisemites who would be pulling Jewish books out of the local library.
This insanity was akin to what is happening today. The legitimate opposition to the worst, most egregious, brutality of the Israeli state has somehow been cleverly morphed into so-called expressions of antisemitism.
Absurd claims on protest
In the media conference of December 11, Albanese also made absurd claims that the peaceful 24-hour protest outside his electorate office in Marrickville was displaying Hamas symbols in a vile attempt to discredit the constituents he had refused to meet for more than eight months.
He and his colleagues in Canberra continue to appease the powerful Israel lobby at the expense of our rights and the rights and visibility of the whole Palestinian population here and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories who are now literally on death row.
Back then, we heard locally that he and the party had bullied the four Labor councillors to vote to rescind the Marrickville BDS motion that they had all previously wholeheartedly supported. Some months earlier these same councillors had also supported a motion condemning the latest Israeli strike against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
The meaning of BDS was no secret to them — they appreciated that it was important for a council to check its ethical purchasing guidelines to ensure that it was not supporting companies that were in violation of international human rights law by operating in the illegal Israeli settlements or by providing technology or services that maintained Israel’s apartheid and dispossession of Palestinians.
They knew then, as we know now, that this is not antisemitic. They knew then that no Jewish businesses per se were the target of this peaceful civil rights movement. And they knew then that the Labor Party was lying for political gain.
Now, as for far too many decades, political parties in power in this country have failed Palestinians for political gain and at the behest of Israel lobby groups which dare to speak on behalf of anti-Zionist Jews like me.
Despite all the gratuitous rhetoric, these politicians have failed to uphold the basic precepts of human rights law — rights they regularly give lip service to, but rights they will never defend by taking the action required of them as signatories to numerous UN conventions.
Australia must sanction Israel
To act with humanity and to act as required by international law, Australia must sanction and end all economic and military ties with the Israeli state.
We must expel the Israeli ambassador and bring our ambassador back and we must prosecute any Australian citizen or resident who has joined the IDF to kill Palestinians. We must also support Palestinian refugees and take all action necessary to assist those in Gaza for as long as it takes.
But as we have seen so clearly this year, most governments have not acted to pressure Israel to end its barbaric colonial project. To protest as allies and to call out the hypocrisy of governments and politicians that speak of a rules-based order while enabling a state that has continually breached fundamental human rights laws, is to be called antisemitic.
The pressure applied to governments, universities and the like in recent years to adopt the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism is precisely because it equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
It’s the perfect tool for shutting down condemnation of Israel’s grave human rights violations. We’ve seen some universities and parliaments endorse it in deference to this pressure, despite the serious flaws that have been identified, including from Jewish Israeli experts.
Now more than ever BDS is imperative.
BDS campaigns will work to isolate Israel as it should be isolated until it complies with international law. Multinational companies are increasingly loath to be associated with this terror state.
Major pension funds are divesting from companies that are complicit in Israel’s human rights violations and local councils, unions and universities are taking steps to ensure they divest from any partnerships or investments that would make them part of the chain of complicity and liable for prosecution by the International Court of Justice as enabling Israel’s genocide.
The facts are indisputable. Australia’s complicity with Israel’s genocide and colonisation of Palestine can be countered by individuals, churches, unions, councils and students taking immediate and urgent BDS action.
Do not wait for Labor or Liberal politicians in this country to act, as they are doing their best to shut us down and to appease Israel. Their complicity will never be forgotten.
Cathy Peters is a former Greens councillor on the Marrickville Council from 2008-2011 and the co-founder of BDS Australia. She worked as a radio producer and executive producer for the ABC for 30 years making some documentaries on the Israeli occupation. She is Jewish and her grandparents and other relatives perished in the Holocaust. She has travelled to Gaza and throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories on a number of occasions and is a long-time advocate for Palestinian rights and justice. First published in the Australia social policy journal Pearls and Irritations and republished with permission.
A failure of justice, and draconian Tory law, put Gaie Delap in prison. A failure of government is keeping her there
Gaie Delap will turn 78 on Friday, in Eastwood Park prison, Gloucestershire. Sentenced to 20 months last August for climbing a gantry over the M25 for Just Stop Oil, she was released in November to serve the rest of her sentence on a home detention curfew. But the electronic tag that she was required to wear couldn’t go round her ankle because she has deep-vein thrombosis and it might have risked causing her a stroke. It couldn’t go round her wrist because they couldn’t find a tag small enough, which people keep saying is because she’s frail. Delap hates being called frail. Her wrist is a perfectly reasonable size, 14-and-a-half centimetres. It’s the wrist-tag design that’s wanting. The topsy-turvy world where a government contractor, Serco, can fail and fail again, while a citizen with a social purpose gets called back to prison five days before Christmas to atone for that failure, isn’t even the most absurd thing about this story.
Delap was engaged in direct action to raise awareness about the climate emergency, and the day citizens stop doing that is the day that progressive politics might as well give up and go home. Whatever pretzel twists Labour ministers have to perform to sound as if they’re on the side of the decent, honest commuter, while simultaneously signalling that they understand the scale of the climate crisis, they must surely remember this: the trade union movement, the peace movement, the suffragette movement, the civil rights movement, the climate justice movement; every known movement of change has relied on non-violent action to disrupt the status quo.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Ali Husain Matrook Abdulla was a 15-year-old minor and school student when Bahraini authorities arrested him on 26 August 2024 in Karranah while spending time with friends. The arrest was carried out without a warrant. During his detention, he endured torture, denial of family visits, denial of access to his lawyer, deprivation of his right to education, and medical neglect. He has been held at the Dry Dock Detention Center for five months without trial, as Bahraini authorities repeatedly delay and continue to postpone his hearings.
On the evening of 26 August 2024, Ali was with his friends in the village of Karranah when plainclothes officers and officers from the Ministry of Interior (MOI) arrested him without presenting an arrest warrant. During the arrest, an officer slapped him on the face. The officers then transferred him to Budaiya Police Station before sending him for medical examinations. Unaware of Ali’s arrest, his parents attempted to contact him, but their calls went unanswered. They later learned of his detention from witnesses who saw him being apprehended and taken to Budaiya Police Station. When his family inquired at the station, officers at the police station denied he was being held there. In reality, Ali was not at the station at the time, as he had been sent for a medical examination, a detail the officers failed to disclose. Ten hours later, the station called to inform the family that Ali was there and requested they send him clothes and shoes. Ten minutes later, Ali called his family, informing them he was being transferred to Roundabout 17 Police Station and asked for the clothes to be sent there instead.
On 27 August 2024, the day after Ali’s arrest, at approximately 8:30 A.M., Ali’s mother visited Budaiya Police Station to inquire about him and requested to see him, unaware that he had already been transferred for interrogation at Roundabout 17 Police Station. Officers informed her that he was charged with arson and possession of Molotov cocktails but stated that Ali was no longer at the station and had been transferred for interrogation without disclosing his destination.
During interrogation at Roundabout 17 Police Station, officers slapped Ali in the face and subjected him to psychological torture to force a confession. One officer threatened him, saying, “If you don’t talk and confess, I’ll beat you with this stick or bring something else from outside.” Fearing further abuse, Ali falsely confessed. His lawyer was not allowed to be present during the interrogation. The following day, 28 August 2024, Ali was brought before the Public Prosecution Office (PPO). Although his lawyer was present, he was only allowed to exchange greetings with Ali and was not permitted to consult with him. Consequently, the Juvenile and Family Prosecution decided to detain him for one week pending investigation. Following this, Ali was transferred to the Dry Dock Detention Center.
On 4 September 2024, Ali appeared before the Juvenile and Family Prosecution for the second time, where his detention was extended for another two weeks pending investigation, based on his coerced confessions obtained under threats and torture. This pattern of extending his detention every two weeks continued after each appearance before the Prosecution, relying on the same coerced confessions, until his referral to trial on 19 December 2024. During these sessions, Ali’s lawyer was consistently prohibited from attending. As of 6 January 2025, it was revealed that Ali faced charges in two separate arson cases. On 8 January 2025, he discovered a third arson charge against him, related to an arson incident in Karranah on 24 August 2024, which had been referred to the High Criminal Court.
Ali was not brought before a judge within 24 hours of his arrest, does not have adequate time and facilities to prepare for trial, is unable to present or challenge evidence, and is denied access to his attorney. As a result, his mother serves as an intermediary, communicating with the lawyer and relaying the information to her son through phone calls. On 19 December 2024, after nearly four months of arbitrary pre-trial detention, Ali and several of his peers were referred to trial, with the first court session initially scheduled for 23 December 2024. However, the session was later postponed to 30 December 2024. He remains detained at Dry Dock Detention Center, awaiting trial, as his court sessions continue to be postponed.
Ali has been subjected to medical neglect while in detention. Before his arrest, he was receiving dental treatment at a private clinic, but his detention prevented him from completing the treatment. As a result, his front teeth remained exposed after nerve extraction and gum surgery, causing him frequent, severe pain. Initially, authorities denied him medical care and even refused to provide painkillers. After a complaint was filed with the Ombudsman, treatment resumed, with one tooth being treated and a promise to continue treatment on one tooth per week. However, this treatment was later discontinued, and his care was limited to pain relief medication. Ali experienced three consecutive fainting episodes due to severe pain. Additionally, comprehensive medical examinations revealed low blood pressure, but neither he nor his family were provided with detailed results.
Ali, a first-year high school student, has been deprived of his education while in detention. The Ministry of Education refused to allow him to take exams or continue his studies. His mother was summoned to the ministry and presented with two options: either withdraw Ali from school or accept a certificate marked “Deprived” with a zero average. The Ministry of Education justified this by stating that Ali had not attended any school days due to his detention.
Since his arrest, Ali’s family has been denied visits with him in detention. They submitted multiple complaints to both the Ombudsman and the National Institute for Human Rights (NIHR) regarding mistreatment, denial of medical care, and the deprivation of his right to education. However, most of these complaints have yielded no results.
Ali’s warrantless arrest as a minor, torture, denial of family visits and lawyer access, deprivation of his right to education, medical neglect, and prolonged arbitrary pre-trial detention are clear violations of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), all of which Bahrain is a party to.
Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) calls upon Bahraini authorities to fulfill their human rights obligations by immediately and unconditionally releasing Ali. It calls on the Bahraini government to investigate allegations of arbitrary arrest, torture, coerced confessions, denial of family visits and lawyer access, deprivation of the right to education, and medical neglect, and to hold the perpetrators accountable. ADHRB also demands compensation for the violations Ali has suffered in detention. At the very least, ADHRB advocates for a prompt, fair trial for Ali under the Bahraini Restorative Justice Law for Children, and in accordance with international legal standards, leading to his release. Furthermore, ADHRB calls on the Dry Dock Detention Center administration to provide Ali with immediate, appropriate medical care, including the completion of his dental treatment, holding it responsible for any further deterioration in his health. It also demands that the center allow Ali to resume his education and permit family visits without delay.
A descendant of one of the original translators of New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi says the guarantees of the Treaty have not been honoured.
A group, including 165 descendants of Henry and William Williams, has collectively submitted against the Treaty Principles Bill, saying it was a threat to the original intent and integrity of te Tiriti.
Bill submissions reached a record of more than 300,000 on Tuesday night with Parliament’s Justice Select Committee extending the deadline for a week until 1pm, Tuesday, January 14, due to technical issues with the overloaded website.
The Williams brothers translated te Tiriti o Waitangi and promoted it to Māori chiefs in 1840.
William William’s great-great-great grandson, Martin Williams, told RNZ Morning Report they want to see the promises of the treaty upheld.
“Fundamentally, it’s time that we as Pākeha stood up and be counted . . . we prefer a future for our nation that isn’t premised on the idea that Māori were told a big lie in 1840.”
“It’s very concerning that the Waitangi Tribunal has described this bill as the worst, most comprehensive breach in modern times so it’s time for us to stand up and be counted and stand alongside tangata whenua.
‘We need to honour Te Tiriti’
“We need to honour Te Tiriti, not tear it up and scatter it to the wind.”
The two version of the Treaty — English and Māori — have become the source of debate and confusion over the intervening centuries because of varying content and wording.
Williams said his ancestors had faithfully followed the instructions of Governor Hobson and James Busby when translating the Treaty into te reo Māori.
“We don’t think that there was anything wrong about the way the Treaty was prepared and Henry did it under enormous time pressure, but the outcome was exactly as intended by those instructing him.”
“In essence, the Crown was conferred the right to govern for peace and good order and Māori retained their full rights as chiefs, Tino Rangatiratanga.
“That was the essence of the bargain and we’re wanting that bargain because that was the version that was signed by Māori to be honoured today, and we think it can be. If it is the future for our nation is bright, and if it isn’t the opposite applies.”
Williams said he and his whānau disagreed that the bill would make all New Zealanders, including Māori, equal under the law.
‘Equality’ not a Treaty principle
“Ask Māori who are involved in abuse in state care, whether they enjoyed equal rights during that time of their lives.”
“Equality before the law is a great legal principle, but it’s not a Treaty principle.”
Minister for Regulation David Seymour, the bill’s architect . . . seeking to “promote a national conversation about [New Zealanders’] place in our constitutional arrangements”. Image: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone
“Māori very much, I think, as a result of systemic breach of the Treaty by the Crown again over decades are in a position where they have to start from way behind the line to have any hope of catching up with Pākeha for things that they take for granted.”
Williams said equity and equality were not the same thing.
The bill’s architect, Minister for Regulation David Seymour, argues the interpretation of the Treaty principles has been developed through the Waitangi Tribunal, courts and public service, and “New Zealanders as a whole have never been democratically consulted on these Treaty principles”.
Purpose to ‘provide certainty The principles have been developed to justify actions many New Zealanders feel are “contrary to the principle of equal rights”, he says, including co-governance in the delivery of public services.
The purpose of the bill, says Seymour, is to provide certainty and clarity and to “promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements”.
ACT would argue the principles have a very influential role in decision-making, political representation and resource allocation that has gone too far. Seymour believes it is necessary to define the principles “or the courts will continue to venture into an area of political and constitutional importance”.
People have expressed frustration and outrage this week after persisent technical issues stopped them from submitting online feedback about the bill before the midnight on Tuesday night deadline.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The ongoing controversy over RAF Akrotiri‘s participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza is not the only scandal relating to British armed forces. Because the Afghanistan Inquiry into possible UK Special Forces (UKSF) war crimes has just revealed that SAS officers had a “golden pass allowing them to get away with murder” from 2010 to 2013.
This is according to a former senior Special Boat Service (SBS) officer who, along with others, had raised concerns in 2011 about SAS executions and cover-ups.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick faced criticism in 2024 for “casually revealing a UK extra-judicial assassination program designed to evade ECHR jurisdiction”. And there were many official denials. But the revelations from the Afghanistan Inquiry suggest that this type of behaviour may indeed be commonplace.
The inquiry’s closed hearings do not allow attendance by members of the public, the media, or the legal teams of bereaved families.
SAS: kill counts, child murder, impunity, and fear of WikiLeaks
Senior SBS officers told the inquiry of deep concerns that the SAS, fresh from aggressive, high-tempo operations in Iraq, was being driven by kill counts – the number of dead they could achieve in each operation.
A junior officer of the SBS, meanwhile, reported how an SAS member had spoken “about a pillow being put over the head of someone before they were killed with a pistol”. They added that “some of those killed by the SAS had been children” likely younger than 16.
In an email, another SBS officer showed concern about what might happen if they didn’t speak out:
When the next WikiLeaks occurs then we will be dragged down with them
One said that “basically, there appears to be a culture there of ‘shut up, don’t question’”.
The low level of accountability for the SAS was apparently “astonishing”.
British support for and participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza has been utterly damning. But the UK seems not to reserve impunity only for its allies’ crimes. Instead, it seems to be how things work with our own forces too.
Responding to the rejection of Chinese human rights lawyer see also:s appeal against his three-year prison sentence for “inciting subversion of state power”, Amnesty International’s Interim Regional Deputy Director for Research Kate Schuetze said on 6 January, 2025: “The charges against Yu Wensheng and his wife, activist Xu Yan – who was convicted of the same offence – are entirely baseless. They reveal the authorities’ inability to provide any legitimate justification for their imprisonment.
“The Chinese government has used Yu’s online comments and his numerous international human rights awards as an excuse to label him a threat to national security. But all this really demonstrates is Beijing’s deep fear of human rights defenders who dare to dissent.
“Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan have been imprisoned solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression and they must be released immediately and unconditionally.”
The prominent Nigerian atheist, who was freed on 8 January 2024 after serving more than four years in prison for blasphemy, is now living in a safe house as his legal team fear his life may be in danger…
In 2024, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) released its opinion that the Nigerian State violated international law by detaining Bala. Concluding that he was wrongfully imprisoned for exercising his right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and that because of this violation no trial should have taken place.
Humanists International welcomes news of the release of Mubarak Bala, however, it reiterates that he should never have been detained in the first place. The organization once again thanks all those individuals and organizations without whose support this work would not have been possible. The organization hopes that Bala will one day be able to return to his homeland, and resume his work.
Andrew Copson, President of Humanists International stated:
“Today, we celebrate Mubarak Bala’s release – a hard-won victory that fills us with immense joy and relief. This triumph would not have been possible without the unwavering dedication of Humanists International’s staff, the tireless advocacy of Leo Igwe, the expertise of James Ibor and Bala’s legal team, and the invaluable support of our partner organizations. We extend our deepest gratitude to each and every one of them. While we rejoice in Mubarak’s freedom, we remain committed to fighting for the countless others who remain unjustly imprisoned for their beliefs. Their struggle is our struggle, and we will not relent until they too are free.”
I wrote in October that Joe Biden, in his four years as president, did literally nothing to improve the situation in prisons and jails across the country, either through the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), over which he has direct authority, or through enlightened policies that might filter down or set the standard in state prisons and in local jails.
As we bump up against the end of the Biden administration, I wanted to take a look at this president’s final year in office and at what legacy he’s leaving in criminal justice.
In ‘potentially trailblazing’ decision, European court of human rights finds country engaging in illicit deportations
The European court of human rights has found Greece guilty of conducting “systematic” pushbacks of would-be asylum seekers, ordering it to compensate a woman forcibly expelled back to Turkey despite her attempts to seek protection in the country.
In a judgment described as potentially trailblazing, the Strasbourg-based tribunal awarded the complainant damages of €20,000 (£16,500), citing evidence that the frontline EU state was engaging in the illicit deportations when she was removed.
A former director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Alon Liel, has warned over a “dangerous” attitude of younger generations in Israel towards the war on Gaza.
“They’re accepting the fact that there is no alternative to fighting, and this is the majority, especially the young people today,” he told Al Jazeera in an interview.
He added that as part of the older generation in Israel, he could remember a time when even the right wing used to say they wanted peace.
“Now young people . . . say we don’t want peace. We will not benefit from peace,” he said.
Liel said that he believed it ws “a very dangerous attitude that is developing” and there needed to be “a very fundamental change in the thinking of Israel, and maybe a fundamental change in the attitude of the international community to the conflict, too”.
He also said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had so far failed to achieve his goals in the 15-month war — “destroying” Hamas and freeing the hostages.
Israelis were frustrated that captives remained in Gaza and surprised that, in recent weeks, Israeli military activity there had intensified, Liel said.
‘Surprised’ over military intensity
“Generally speaking, Israelis are quite surprised that the intensity of the military activity is growing. I think the general feeling here was a month or two ago that [the war] will fade away and slow down, but it is not,” he said.
Two Israeli soldiers were killed and six wounded yesterday in further battles with the Palestinian resistance in northern Gaza.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, still faced the problems of looking like he had no victory in the war, and that any prisoner exchange with Hamas could topple him, he added.
“Any exchange will involve the release of many prisoners we have in our jails, and might — and probably will — topple his government,” Liel said.
“So he’s trying to manoeuvre and trying to find the point in time in which we will not be seeing the Hamas people and their supporters dancing in Gaza when they get the prisoners back and describing the result as a victory.”
Brazil court order over Israeli soldier
Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur on Palestine, hailed a decision by a court in Brazil to order a probe against a visiting Israeli soldier, saying legal actions against Israelis suspected of crimes in Gaza were “necessary and overdue”.
The remarks on X came in response to the Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) announcing that a Brazilian court had acted on a complaint it had filed against Israeli solider Yuval Vagdani and ordered the country’s police to launch an investigation.
Israeli media later reported that Vagdani had fled the South American country.
The Hind Rajab Foundation was established to breaking the cycle of Israeli impunity and honouring the memory of Hind Rajab and all those who have perished in the Gaza genocide.
Hind Rajab was a five-year-old girl murdered by Israeli soldiers on 29 January 2024 in a car in which six family members were also killed, and two would-be paramedic rescuers were also slaughtered. She died with 335 bullet wounds in her body.
“Apartheid Israel will go to great lengths to shield its soldiers since a conviction abroad for crimes against Palestinians is a precedent it cannot afford,” Albanese wrote on X.
“Yet, justice is unstoppable,” she said.
In #Brazil and elsewhere, legal actions against Israelis suspected of crimes in Gaza are necessary and overdue. #Apartheid Israel will go to great lengths to shield its soldiers since a conviction abroad for crimes against Palestinians is a precedent it cannot afford. Yet,… https://t.co/y9nNd9GqN3
— Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt (@FranceskAlbs) January 5, 2025
Israeli plans to help accused soldiers The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports Israel’s government was preparing to assist soldiers who may face arrest for participating in war crimes in Gaza when they travel abroad.
So far, more than 50 complaints have been filed against Israeli soldiers in South Africa, Sri Lanka, Belgium, France and Brazil.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) ban on Al Jazeera is part of a broader attempt to silence criticism of its security operation in the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, say activists and analysts.
The ban came almost a month after the PA launched a crackdown on a coalition of armed groups that call themselves the Jenin Brigades, reports Al Jazeera.
Since early December, the PA has besieged the Jenin camp and cut off water and electricity to most of its residents in an ostensible attempt to restore “law and order” across the West Bank.
An Israeli apartheid placard at last Saturday’s Auckland solidarity for Gaza health professionals . . . the crime against humanity includes the “intent to maintain domination of one racial group over another”. Image: APR
indiscriminate Jenin tactics
However, its indiscriminate tactics in Jenin coincide with a wider attack on free speech, activists and human rights groups told Al Jazeera.
Critics have claimed that the PA crackdown due to pressure by the Israeli authorities which have also imposed recent bans on Al Jazeera.
The PA originated with the Oslo Accords between Palestinian and Israeli leaders in 1993. It mandated that the PA recognise Israel and eliminate Palestinian armed groups in exchange for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel by 1999.
Israel, however, has used the last 30 years block statehood while to expanding illegal settlements on large swathes of stolen Palestinian land, nearly tripling the number of settlers in the occupied West Bank to 700,000.
As an occupying power, it still controls most aspects of Palestinian life and frequently carries out raids, killings and arrests in the West Bank, even in areas where the PA is supposed to be in full control.
In the words of the United Nations, “human rights” range from “the most fundamental—the right to life—to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.” These rights are supposed to be “inherent to us all.” But this lofty ambition has become distorted, not only by the UN itself but by the whole of what Alfred de Zayas calls the “Human Rights Industry.”
This industry, headed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), has multiple layers that include UN “expert groups” and “rapporteurs,” regional commissions like (in the Western Hemisphere) the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and tens of thousands of other non-governmental organizations.
Honolulu police have announced the death of a fourth person due to the New Year’s Eve fireworks explosion in Aliamanu, Hawai’i — a 3-year-old boy who has died in hospital.
Six people with severe burn injuries from the explosion were flown to Arizona on the US mainland for further treatment.
“We’re angry, frustrated and deeply saddened at this uneccessary loss of life and suffering,” Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi told a news conference.
Three people died on New Year’s Eve after a Honolulu fireworks explosion. Image: Hawaii Governor/Josh Green FB
“No one should have to endure such pain due to reckless and illegal activity.”
He said this incident was a painful reminder of the danger posed by illegal fireworks.
“They put lives at risk, they drain our first responders, and they disrupt our neighbourhoods.
“Every aerial firework is illegal and this means we need to shut down the root cause — shutting down the pipeline of illegal fireworks entering our islands.”
The Illegal Fireworks Task Force seized 103,000 kilos of fireworks in the last year and a half, yet those cases have resulted in zero criminal charges.
Hawaii News Now obtained the state’s illegal fireworks task force’s 2025 report to lawmakers, revealing the big financial windfall for those who deal in illegal aerials.
The report said “the return on investment for those who smuggle illegal fireworks into Hawai’i is a rate of five to one”.
It also said law enforcement doesn’t have enough money or staff to interdict smuggling at points of entry.
It added that: “the task force is part-time and members have a primary job they must do in addition to task force work.”
The investigation into the explosion continues.
A fifth person died after a separate fireworks blast in Kalihi on New Year’s Eve.
He sustained multiple traumatic injuries, including a severe arm injury, according to Emergency Medical Services.
Meanwhile, five people died across Germany and a police officer was seriously injured from accidents linked to the powerful fireworks Germans traditionally set off to celebrate the new year, police said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Doctors and health care providers across the globe are engaging in a day of action, calling in sick and taking part in other demonstrations against Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The “Sick From Genocide” global vigil, organized by Doctors Against Genocide (DAG) and several other organizations demonstrating against Israel’s thus-far 15-month genocidal war on Gaza…
In October 2024, Israel’s Knesset passed legislation banning the UNRWA from operating in Israeli-occupied territories, marking a critical shift in the history of Palestinian humanitarian aid. Eltayeb Bashar argues that the ban, set to take effect in January 2025, will hinder UNRWA’s ability to provide essential services to millions of Palestinian refugees who are facing atrocious human rights violations. This move is viewed as a violation of international law and will have a devastating impact on Palestinian lives.
In late October 2024, the Israeli Knesset enacted two bills prohibiting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from operating in its occupied territories. This development elicited widespread condemnation from governments, international organisations and activists, who multilaterally expressed concern regarding its implications for crucial humanitarian relief and the welfare of Palestinian refugees.
The ban, scheduled to take effect in late January, will revoke UNRWA’s diplomatic privileges and bar Israeli authorities from cooperating with the agency. The agency, which has been considered the vital response mechanism to the extreme humanitarian suffering of displaced and vulnerable Palestinian refugees since the beginning of the Israeli offensive, has been supporting and providing essential aid to millions of Palestinian refugees since 1947. Hence, its ban marks a turning point in both the current crisis and the broader history of the occupation.
UNRWA is uniquely mandated to provide humanitarian relief and to deliver development assistance to Palestinian refugees. It was established on 8 December 1949, to assist the 700,000 displaced Palestinian refugees after the 1948 war. Currently 5.9 million Palestinian refugees across its operational zones—Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem—qualify for its essential services, which encompass education, healthcare, relief and social services, camp infrastructure, microfinance and emergency assistance, including in times of armed conflict.
The agency is instrumental in advancing the protection and human rights of Palestinian refugees, functioning as their most reliable provider of life-saving aid for over nearly eight decades of brutal occupation, despite the significant risks they face in executing their responsibilities. Israel, which has a contentious history with UNRWA, claimed its employees were implicated in the 7 October 2023 attacks. They claimed that the agency had compromised its neutrality, describing it as a terrorist organisation, and using this as justification for the ban.
UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini disputed this, stating, “We must distinguish the behaviour of individuals from the agency’s mandate to serve Palestinian refugees.” Lazzarini’s view has been widely echoed by the vast majority of the international community, with governments and heads of state releasing statements condemning the ban and reaffirming support for UNRWA.
In a year marked by Israel’s consistent violations of international law and human rights standards, the UNRWA ban risks becoming overlooked, an outcome that must be avoided. Its humanitarian and legal consequences are immense, as it threatens the protection of future vulnerable populations and influences the relationship of occupying powers with aid agencies. This severely undermines the credibility of the international law project, causing immeasurable harm to Palestinians. Consequently, it is imperative for human rights advocates and scholars alike to critically address this ban and its broader implications.
The governments of Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Spain issued a joint statement condemning the Knesset legislation, warning that it sets “a very serious precedent for the United Nations and all multilateral organizations.” Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Dr Agnès Callamard, stated that the legislation represents the “criminalisation of humanitarian aid,” emphasising UNRWA’s crucial role in providing essential support to millions of Palestinians during “Israel’s relentless offensive.” The United States notably criticised the ban, noting its impact on “millions of Palestinians” and pointing out that UNRWA’s role “cannot be filled by anyone else.”
This multilateral condemnation underscores the significant threat that the ban poses to human rights. It marks a new chapter in the suffering of millions of Palestinian refugees, currently subjected to horrific human rights violations, including daily bombardment, mass violence and starvation. The ban would deprive them of the amenities necessary for their survival and further hinder their ability to persist. If this vital lifeline is severed amidst such a catastrophe, it could have profound implications for future vulnerable populations in conflicts, potentially reducing humanitarian aid to a luxury reliant on the occupying powers.
Discussions critiquing the ban have predominantly revolved around its humanitarian implications, with its legal consequences receiving less scrutiny. This is especially noteworthy given its substantial violation of international law. United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres affirmed that the implementation of the ban would violate international law, referencing Israel’s obligations as an occupying power in a letter to Netanyahu. Guterres noted that the ban contravenes the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN, by denying UNRWA its diplomatic privileges. Guterres also referenced Article Two of the UN Charter, which requires Israel to “give the United Nations every assistance” in its operations.
The ban may also violate Article 55 of the Geneva Conventions, which necessitates occupying powers to “ensure the food and medical supplies of the population” to “the fullest extent of the means available to it.” It likely also contravenes the fourth provision of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) landmark provisional ruling, which outlines Israel’s obligation to provide “access to humanitarian assistance” and other necessary amenities.
Israel’s ban on the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees constitutes a violation of its obligations as an occupying power and as a UN member state under international law. Such flagrant disregard of its obligations severely undermines the integrity of the international law project, setting a dangerous precedent for future occupying powers to emulate, potentially leading them to reject their own obligations in favour of strategic interests.
The UNRWA ban signifies a critical turning point in the history of the occupation. It arguably marks Israel’s formal departure from the international community and criminalises the sole humanitarian lifeline for Palestinian refugees. This ban further exacerbates their suffering by depriving them of essential services and by creating a climate of hopelessness amidst genocide. A response from the international community, prioritising actionable measures over rhetoric, is essential to deterring its disastrous effects.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
The Boston-based Patrick J. McGovern Foundation has announced on 23 December 2024 grants totaling $73.5 million in 2024 in support of human-centered AI.
Awarded to 144 nonprofit, academic, and governmental organizations in 11 countries, the grants will support the development and delivery of AI solutions built for long-term societal benefit and the creation of institutions designed to address the opportunities and challenges this emerging era presents. Grants will support organizations leveraging data science and AI to drive tangible change in a variety of areas with urgency, including climate change, human rights, media and journalism, crisis response, digital literacy, and health equity.
Gifts include $200,000 to MIT Solveto support the 2025 AI for Humanity Prize; $364,000 to Clear Globalto enable scalable, multilingual, voice-powered communication and information channels for crisis-affected communities; $1.25 million to the Aspen Instituteto enhance public understanding and policy discourse around AI; and $1.5 million to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) to advance ethical AI governance through civil society networks, policy frameworks, and knowledge resources.
Amnesty Internationalto support Amnesty’s Algorithmic Accountability Lab to mobilize and empower civil society to evaluate AI systems and pursue accountability for AI-driven harms ($750,000)
HURIDOCSto use machine learning to enhance human rights data management and advocacy ($400,000)
“This is not a moment to react; it’s a moment to lead,” said McGovern Foundation president Vilas Dhar. “We believe that by investing in AI solutions grounded in human values, we can harness technology’s immense potential to benefit communities and individuals alike. AI can amplify human dignity, protect the vulnerable, drive global prosperity, and become a force for good.”
On 2 January 2025 Amnesty Tech – a global collective of advocates, hackers, researchers, and technologists – announced the launch of the third Digital Forensics Fellowship (DFF).
This innovative Fellowship is an opportunity for 5 – 7 human rights defenders (HRDs), journalists, and/or technologists working in civil society organisations around the world to train with Amnesty Tech’s Security Lab to build skills and knowledge on advanced digital threats and forensic investigation techniques. This is a part-time Fellowship that will last 3-4 months and will come with a stipend.
Fellowship start and end date: The Fellowship is expected to run from April – July 2025.
Application Deadline, 23 January 2025 Location: dependent upon the suitable applicant’s location.
Remuneration: Successful applicants will be given a stipend of £500/month for their time.
Background
Across the world, hard-won rights are being weakened and denied every day. Increasingly, much of the repression faced by HRDs and journalists begins online. Since 2017, Amnesty Tech’s investigations have exposed vast and well-orchestrated digital attacks against activists and journalists in countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Qatar, Serbia, Mexico and Pakistan.
Advanced technical capacity is needed in all world regions to tackle the mercenary spyware crisis. By fostering a more decentralised, global, and diverse network of well-trained incident responders and investigators, we can jointly contribute to more timely and effective protection of HRDs and journalists against unlawful surveillance.
Participants in the Digital Forensics Fellowship will be expected to:
Attend an in-person, week-long convening where the majority of trainings will be conducted. This training will take place in June 2025, the exact location is set to be confirmed shortly.
Dedicate approximately 10 – 12 hours per month to the Fellowship, outside of the convening, by participating in remote training sessions and through independent work outside of scheduled sessions to deepen understanding of training topics.
Engage with the programme cohort and the Security Lab during the in-person and remote trainings, and in discussion groups on an ad-hoc basis.
Essential Requirements
An understanding of the technical threats, digital attacks and challenges faced by journalists, HRDs, and civil society organisations in their local contexts.
Demonstrated interest in conducting investigations to identify digital attacks against civil society, with the goal of building resilience among civil society actors in the face of surveillance after the Fellowship.
Familiarity using command line tools and basic knowledge of scripting languages like Bash and Python to analyse data.
An understanding of how internet infrastructure works, for example the role of IP addresses, TLS certificates, and DNS queries.
Technical familiarity with GNU/Linux operating systems, as well as Android and iPhone systems.
Engaging with the English language as the primary language throughout the Fellowship.
Application instructions:
To apply, applicants will be required to submit the following via our recruitment system eArcu – please upload all relevant documents to the CV section of the application portal.
A copy of your most recent CV.
A cover letter explaining your motivation and interest in the Fellowship and outlining how you meet the essential requirements outlined in the job description.
Applications must be in PDF, Word, PowerPoint or Excel format.
Application Process:
Shortlisted applicants will be invited to complete a record video interview week commencing 10th February, answering a series of pre-set questions via video, which allows us to learn more about you and your suitability for the Fellowship. Successful applicants from this process will be invited to a Microsoft Teams interview with the panel week commencing 3rd March.
on 31 December 2024 the UN Human Rights Podcast showcases the stories of five of the members of the Youth Advisory Board. The board is made up of young people who work on issues that mobilize and empower others to stand up for human rights. The Board is in partnership with Education Above All and Silatech, to empower young people, especially those in conflict and vulnerable situations.
United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) provisional government interim president Benny Wenda has warned that since Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto took office in October, he has been proven right in having remarked, after the politician’s last February election, that his coming marks the return of “the ghost of Suharto” — the brutal dictator who ruled over the nation for three decades.
Wenda, an exiled West Papuan leader, outlined in a December 16 statement that at that moment the Indonesian forces were carrying out ethnic cleansing in multiple regencies, as thousands of West Papuans were being forced out of their villages and into the bush by soldiers.
Prabowo coming to top office has a particular foreboding for the West Papuans, who have been occupied by Indonesia since 1963, as over his military career — which spanned from 1970 to 1998 and saw rise him to the position of general, as well as mainly serve in Kopassus (special forces) — the current president perpetrated multiple alleged atrocities across East Timor and West Papua.
According to Wenda, the incumbent Indonesian president can “never clean the blood from his hands for his crimes as a general in West Papua and East Timor”. He further makes clear that Prabowo’s acts since taking office reveal that he is set on “creating a new regime of brutality” in the country of his birth.
Enhancing the occupation “Foreign governments should not be fooled by Prabowo’s PR campaign,” Wenda made certain in mid-December.
“He is desperately seeking international legitimacy through his international tour, empty environmental pledges and the amnesty offered to various prisoners, including 18 West Papuans and the remaining imprisoned members of the Bali Nine.”
Former Indonesian President Suharto ruled over the Southeast Asian nation with an iron fist from 1967 until 1998.
In the years prior to his officially taking office, General Suharto oversaw the mass murder of up to 1 million local Communists, he further rigged the 1969 referendum on self-determination for West Papua, so that it failed and he invaded East Timor in 1975.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto (left) and West Papuan exiled leader Benny Wenda . . . “Foreign governments should not be fooled by Prabowo’s PR campaign.” Image: SCL montage
Wenda maintains that the proof Prabowo is something of an apparition of Suharto is that he has set about forging “mass displacement, increased militarisation” and “increased deforestation” in the Melanesian region of West Papua.
And he has further restarted the transmigration programme of the Suharto days, which involves Indonesians being moved to West Papua to populate the region.
Wenda considers the “occupation was entering a new phase”, when former Indonesian president Joko Widodo split the region of West Papua into five provinces in mid-2022.
Oksop displaced villagers seeking refuge in West Papua. Image: ULMWP
And the West Papuan leader advises that Prabowo is set to establish separate military commands in each province, which will provide “a new, more thorough and far-reaching system of occupation”.
West Papua was previously split into two regions, which the West Papuan people did not recognise, as these and the current five provinces are actually Indonesian administrative zones.
“By establishing new administrative divisions, Indonesia creates the pretext for new military posts and checkpoints,” Wenda underscores.
“The result is the deployment of thousands more soldiers, curfews, arbitrary arrests and human rights abuses. West Papua is under martial law.”
Ecocide on a formidable scale Prabowo paid his first official visit to West Papua as President in November, visiting the Merauke district in South Papua province, which is the site of the world’s largest deforestation project, with clearing beginning in mid-2024, and it will eventually comprise of 2 million deforested hectares turned into giant sugarcane plantations, via the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands.
Five consortiums, including Indonesian and foreign companies, are involved in the project, with the first seedlings having been planted in July. And despite promises that the megaproject would not harm existing forests, these areas are being torn down regardless.
And part of this deforestation includes the razing of forest that had previously been declared protected by the government.
A similar programme was established in Merauke district in 2011, by Widodo’s predecessor President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who established rice and sugarcane plantations in the region, aiming to turn it into a “future breadbasket for Indonesia”.
However, the plan was a failure, and the project was rather used as a cover to establish hazardous palm oil and pulpwood plantations.
“It is not a coincidence Prabowo has announced a new transmigration programme at the same time as their ecocidal deforestation regime intensifies,” Wenda said in a November 2024 statement. “These twin agendas represent the two sides of Indonesian colonialism in West Papua: exploitation and settlement.”
Wenda added that Jakarta is only interested in West Papuan land and resources, and in exchange, Indonesia has killed at least half a million West Papuans since 1963.
And while the occupying nation is funding other projects via the profits it has been making on West Papuan palm oil, gold and natural gas, the West Papuan provinces are the poorest in the Southeast Asian nation.
Indonesian military forces on patrol in the Oksop regency of the West Papua region. Image: ULMWP
And part of the agreement was that West Papuans undertake the Act of Free Choice, or a 1969 referendum on self-determination.
So, if the West Papuans did not vote to become an autonomous nation, then Indonesian administration would continue.
However, the UN brokered referendum is now referred to as the Act of “No Choice”, as it only involved 1026 West Papuans, handpicked by Indonesia. And under threat of violence, all of these men voted to stick with their colonial oppressors.
Wenda presented The People’s Petition to the UN Human Rights High Commissioner in January 2019, which calls for a new internationally supervised vote on self-determination for the people of West Papua, and it included the signatures of 1.8 million West Papuans, or 70 percent of the Indigenous population.
The exiled West Papuan leader further announced the formation of the West Papua provisional government on 1 December 2020, which involved the establishment of entire departments of government with heads of staff appointed on the ground in the Melanesian province, and Wenda was also named the president of the body.
But with the coming of Prabowo and the recent developments in West Papua, it appears the West Papuan struggle is about to intensify at the same time as the movement for independence becomes increasingly more prominent on the global stage.
“Every element of West Papua is being systematically destroyed: our land, our people, our Melanesian culture identity,” Wenda said in November, in response to the recommencement of Indonesia’s transmigration programme and the massive environment devastation in Merauke.
“This is why it is not enough to speak about the Act of No Choice in 1969: the violation of our self-determination is continuous, renewed with every new settlement programme, police crackdown, or ecocidal development.”
In a significant shift, talks between the Israel Innovation Authority (IIA) and tech giants Amazon and Google regarding the development of a government supercomputer have collapsed.
Following the breakdown in negotiations, the Israeli government has opened up the project to other bidders, signaling a shift toward an alternative technological partnership.
As reported by Globes, the tender for the supercomputer project is valued at NIS 290 million (approximately $79.4 million), with the winning bidder set to receive a government grant of NIS 160 million ($44 million).
