On Human Rights Day, HURIDOCS hosted a webinar to showcase the critical role of documentation and technology in protecting defenders, advocating for the rights of those who are wrongfully detained and supporting those who are detained to claim their rights. This webinar featured four initiatives that recently collaborated with HURIDOCS to safeguard those who champion human rights:
The Observatory for Human Rights Defenders in Chiapas
SOS-Defenders
Detention Landscapes
Papuans Behind Bars
Welcoming remarks: Danna Ingleton, Executive Director, HURIDOCS Speakers:
Karla Jiménez Montoya, Movilidades Libres y Elegidas (CoLibres)
Giuseppe Scirocco, World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
A broad coalition of civil society organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand have signed an open letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters urging the coalition government to refuse to accept the credentials of a new Israeli ambassador while the state continues to disregard international law and to commit war crimes.
The ICJ has made it clear that all states parties — including New Zealand — have obligations not to recognise, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by measures that are illegal under international law.
The international community has failed to hold Israel to account for its actions.
Kate Stone from Justice for Palestine, one of the signatory organisations, said in a statement: “As we say in the letter, while ambassadors usually provide an important avenue for dialogue, it is clear that the Israeli regime is not prepared to respond to the concerns of the New Zealand government, or the international community more broadly, and intends to continue to disregard international law.
“This is about demonstrating that there are consequences for Israel’s actions in breach of international law, and at the expense of Palestinian human rights.”
Clearly, Israel is not prepared to maintain diplomatic relations with states that seek to uphold international law.
Those who have signed the letter are urging the New Zealand government to not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel until it is prepared to comply with international law.
“New Zealand should stand with those seeking to uphold international law and human rights, not with those seeking to avoid accountability for their actions which have resulted in the deaths of over 40,000 Palestinians.” said Kate Stone.
We are aware that the term of the current Israeli ambassador is coming to an end. We, the undersigned organisations, urge you, on behalf of the New Zealand government, to refuse to accept the credentials of a replacement ambassador while Israel continues to disregard international law.
The Israeli regime is currently committing a genocide in Gaza and the International Criminal Court has issued warrants for the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion from July 2024 declared Israel’s occupation of Palestine illegal and identified numerous international law obligations that Israel is violating, manifesting in systematic breaches of Palestinians’ fundamental human rights.
The current Israeli regime, and any representative of that regime, is flagrantly flouting international law and has ignored all calls for it to cease its illegal activities in Gaza and the wider Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is quite clear that Israel intends to continue expanding its illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and to re-settle Gaza — changing the facts on the ground to such an extent that a two-state solution, or any just solution, becomes an impossibility.
The ICJ makes it clear that all states parties — including New Zealand – have obligations not to recognize, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by measures that are illegal under international law. The failure of the international community to hold Israel to account for its actions is undermining the integrity of the rules-based international order that New Zealand relies upon.
While ordinarily a diplomatic mission provides an avenue for dialogue, it is clear that the Israeli regime is not prepared to respond to the concerns of the New Zealand government.
Therefore, we urge you to announce that New Zealand will not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel until it demonstrates that it is prepared to comply with its international obligations. Please do not accept diplomatic credentials from a regime carrying out war crimes.
Nā mātou noa, nā
Justice for Palestine
ActionStation
Alternative Jewish Voices (NZ)
Aotearoa Christians for Peace in Palestine
Aotearoa Healthcare Workers for Palestine
Asians Supporting Tino Rangatiratanga
Auckland Action Against Poverty
Auckland Peace Action
The Basket Hauraki – Social and Environmental Justice
Ceasefire Now Hawkes Bay
Dayenu: New Zealand Jews Against Occupation
DECOL Collective Whanganui
Falastin Tea Collective
First Union – Dennis Maga, General Secretary, on behalf of First Union Kaiāwhina Tāmaki
Matika mō Paretinia
Mauri o te Moana
NZCTU – Te Kauae Kaimahi
Otago Staff for Palestine
Otago Students for Justice in Palestine
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa Whanganui
Palestine Solidarity Network Whangārei
Palestine Solidarity Taranaki
Palestine Human Rights Campaign Waikato
Peace Action Wellington
Peace Movement Aotearoa
People Against Prisons Aotearoa
Professor Richard Jackson, Co-Director Te Ao O Rongomaraeroa – The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago
Protect Pūtiki
Rainbow Youth
Reanga Taketake
Satellites
Stand with Palestine Waiheke
Student Justice for Palestine Pōneke
Students for Justice in Palestine Canterbury
Tauranga Moana for Palestine
Te Kuaka
Te Tau Ihu Palestine Solidarity
University of Auckland Student Justice for Palestine
Suit claims state department is deliberately bypassing the Leahy Law by failing to sanction Israeli units accused of widespread atrocities in Palestinian territories
The state department is facing a new lawsuit brought by Palestinians and Palestinian Americans accusing the agency of deliberately circumventing a decades-old US human rights law to continue funding Israeli military units accused of widespread atrocities in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The lawsuit, which was filed on Tuesday, marks the first time that victims of alleged human rights abuses are challenging the state department’s failure to ever sanction an Israeli security unit under the Leahy Law, a 1990s-era law that prohibits US military assistance to forces credibly implicated in gross human rights violations.
On Human Rights Day 2024, in the year of its 35th anniversary, the North-South Centre celebrated the invaluable contributions of young people to the promotion and protection of Human Rights. Over the years, youth have played important roles as experts, multipliers, representatives, and active participants in our initiatives.
Young people are essential stakeholders in any meaningful effort to protect and strengthen Human Rights. The new Human Rights Education for Youth (HEY) programme is a reflection of that approach. It seeks to contribute to an increased youth capacity to engage in Human Rights protection through further awareness about European and International standards, and how they can be used by young people to protect themselves and their communities.
HEY joins a series of initiatives by the North South Centre where young people lead the way in championing Human Rights. These include the Rule of Law Youth Network, and the many activities in the field of Global Education and Youth Cooperation, such as the Youth Summer Universities that have engaged thousands of young people from all over the world. The youth focus was also present at the 2024 North-South intercultural conference, which resulted in the Kotor Declaration, with recommendations on youth initiatives to combat racist and xenophobic acts through computer systems.
As the world marked Human Rights Day, Canada reiterated the importance of the protection and promotion of human rights defenders and their critical work. Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced $1.85 million in funding for two projects that support child human rights defenders and a free and independent media worldwide.
Canada is contributing $850,000 to a three-year project led by Child Rights Connect to empower, to protect and promote the rights of child human rights defenders, who are increasingly engaged in global human rights challenges, without the same legal protections as adults. This funding will help Child Rights Connect promote safe and sustainable human rights advocacy by child human rights defenders in Togo, Thailand, Moldova and Brazil.
Canada will also contribute an additional $1 million to the Global Media Defence Fund, bringing Canada’s total contribution to the fund to $4 million. Administered by UNESCO, the Global Media Defence Fund works to enhance the protection of journalists and media organizations so they can carry out their critical work without fear of violence, censorship or intimidation. The fund will also ensure public access to diverse and reliable sources of news and information. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/02/12/investigative-journalism-in-arab-states-the-threats-to-journalists/]
“In the face of growing challenges to human rights globally, the work of human rights defenders and the protection of media freedom are more important than ever. Canada stands unwavering in its commitment to working with partners to safeguard and expand the protection and promotion of human rights defenders and journalists around the world.” – Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs
The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has written to the Department for Energy, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) calling for stronger government policy on ensuring that UK supermarkets don’t sell products from illegal Israeli settlements. It comes just as supermarkets enter their busiest period of the year – not least around Christmas pudding, which could contain a law-breaking ingredient.
The development comes after ICJP wrote to eight national supermarket chains, notifying Directors and Executives of their individually criminal liability for enabling criminal offences under domestic law.
Is your Christmas pudding breaking the law?
The initial notices were issued on the 30 October 2024 to Asda, Aldi, Lidl GB, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose & Partners, asking for clarity on what products they sell from illegal settlements and what steps they are taking to end the sale of these products.
Now, ICJP has written to DEFRA Secretary of State Steve Reed MP asking for the department to table legislation and implement clear, robust and enforceable guidelines prohibiting the import and sale of products from illegal Israeli settlements in the UK.
The urgency of such guidelines are even more evident following the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 Advisory Opinion, which found that the continued occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to be unlawful.
The Opinion also obligates States such as the UK to refrain from entering into trade dealings with Israel. Specifically, this is any concerning the occupied Palestinian territory which may entrench Israel’s unlawful presence.
Supermarkets making a killing
Over the 2023 festive period, a record £13.7 billion was spent at British supermarkets. So, the average household spent £447 over the four-week lead up to Christmas.
Supermarkets are preparing for yet another windfall following the festive season. However, they cannot be allowed to brush over the fact that some of these profits come from the sale of goods produced in illegal settlements. All this is at the expense of Palestinians’ human rights.
Some of the key companies that export illegal Israeli settlement goods to the UK include:
Mehadrin.
Miriam.
Shoham.
Galilee.
Hadiklaim.
Achdut-Achva.
Moreover, these suppliers export many illegal goods including: #
Dates (often found in Christmas puddings).
Mangos.
Avocados.
Tahini.
Halva.
Bakery products.
ICJP Legal Officer Mira Naseer said:
Supermarkets are set to make record profits in the coming weeks and want the public to focus on polished Christmas adverts rather than the origins of the products they are selling. Illegal Israeli settlement goods have no place on the shelves of British supermarkets and the British public has the right to transparency about the origins of their groceries.
If supermarkets cannot be trusted to implement their human rights obligations, DEFRA must step in with clear, robust and enforceable guidelines to ensure that supermarkets do not sell products from illegal settlements.
The A$140 million aid agreement between Australia and Nauru signed last week is a prime example of the geopolitical tightrope vulnerable Pacific nations are walking in the 21st century.
The deal provides Nauru with direct budgetary support, stable banking services, and policing and security resources. In return, Australia will have the right to veto any pact Nauru might make with other countries — namely China.
The veto terms are similar to the “Falepili Union” between Australia and Tuvalu signed late last year, which granted Tuvaluans access to Australian residency and climate mitigation support, in exchange for security guarantees.
In exchange for investment in military infrastructure development, training and equipment, the US gains unrestricted access to six ports and airports.
Also last week, PNG signed a 10-year, A$600 million deal to fund its own team in Australia’s NRL competition. In return, “PNG will not sign a security deal that could allow Chinese police or military forces to be based in the Pacific nation”.
These arrangements are all emblematic of the geopolitical tussle playing out in the Pacific between China and the US and its allies.
This strategic competition is often framed in mainstream media and political commentary as an extension of “the great game” played by rival powers. From a traditional security perspective, Pacific nations can be depicted as seeking advantage to leverage their own development priorities.
But this assumption that Pacific governments are “diplomatic price setters”, able to play China and the US off against each other, overlooks the very real power imbalances involved.
The risk, as the authors of one recent study argued, is that the “China threat” narrative becomes the justification for “greater Western militarisation and economic dominance”. In other words, Pacific nations become diplomatic price takers.
Defence diplomacy Pacific nations are vulnerable on several fronts: most have a low economic base and many are facing a debt crisis. At the same time, they are on the front line of climate change and rising sea levels.
The costs of recovering from more frequent extreme weather events create a vicious cycle of more debt and greater vulnerability. As was reported at this year’s United Nations COP29 summit, climate financing in the Pacific is mostly in the form of concessional loans.
At the country level, government systems often lack the capacity to manage increasing aid packages, and struggle with the diplomatic engagement and other obligations demanded by the new geopolitical conditions.
In August, Kiribati even closed its borders to diplomats until 2025 to allow the new government “breathing space” to attend to domestic affairs.
In the past, Australia championed governance and institutional support as part of its financial aid. But a lot of development assistance is now skewed towards policing and defence.
Kiribati: threatened by sea level rise, the nation closed its borders to foreign diplomats until 2025. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation
Lack of good faith At the same time, many political parties in Pacific nations operate quite informally and lack comprehensive policy manifestos. Most governments lack a parliamentary subcommittee that scrutinises foreign policy.
The upshot is that foreign policy and security arrangements can be driven by personalities rather than policy priorities, with little scrutiny. Pacific nations are also susceptible to corruption, as highlighted in Transparency International’s 2024 Annual Corruption Report.
Since 2019, my country has become a hotbed for diplomatic tensions and foreign interference, and undue influence.
Similarly, Pacific affairs expert Distinguished Professor Steven Ratuva has argued the Australia–Tuvalu agreement was one-sided and showed a “lack of good faith”.
Behind these developments, of course, lies the evolving AUKUS security pact between Australia, the US and United Kingdom, a response to growing Chinese presence and influence in the “Indo-Pacific” region.
The response from Pacific nations has been diplomatic, perhaps from a sense they cannot “rock the submarine” too much, given their ties to the big powers involved. But former Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Meg Taylor has warned:
Pacific leaders were being sidelined in major geopolitical decisions affecting their region and they need to start raising their voices for the sake of their citizens.
Unless these partnerships are grounded in good faith and genuine sustainable development, the grassroots consequences of geopolitics-as-usual will not change.
Rescue workers, children, and journalists are among the civilians killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza on Sunday, as the death toll continues to mount in a military campaign Amnesty International earlier this month said has all the markings of an active and ongoing genocide. “Due to the rising Israeli bombings and killings in northern Gaza, we have run out of body bags to bury the dead…
Berlinale head, Tricia Tuttle, says some artists fear criticism of Israeli actions will be condemned as antisemitism
A polarised debate about Gaza in Germany is leading some artists to shun one of the world’s top film festivals, its new director has said.
Tricia Tuttle, the head of the Berlin international film festival, said a perception that Germany had been overzealous in its policing of speech about the Middle East conflict, and controversy over this year’s awards ceremony, were having an impact as she planned her first edition.
An Israeli air strike has killed Palestinian photojournalist Ahmed Al-Louh and five Palestinian Civil Defence workers in central Gaza’s Nuseirat camp as Tel Aviv announces that it will double illegal settlements in the Golan Heights.
Al-Louh, who worked as a cameraman for Al Jazeera alongside other media outlets, was killed yesterday in the strike on the Civil Defence post in the central Gaza camp, according to medics and local journalists.
The attack occurred as Israeli military strikes across the Gaza Strip killed at least 28 Palestinians on Sunday, medics said. Allouh is the third journalist killed in Gaza in the last 24 hours.
Meanwhile, the Israeli government has approved a plan to increase the number of settlers in the illegally occupied Golan Heights, days after seizing more Syrian territory following the ousting of Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, reports Al Jazeera.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said the government had “unanimously approved” the “demographic development” of the occupied territory, which would seek to double the Israeli population there.
This new settlement plan is only for the portion of the Golan Heights that Israel has occupied since 1967. In 1981, Israel’s parliamentary Knesset moved to impose Israeli law over the territory, in an effective annexation.
Al Jazeera Arabic reported that journalist Al-louh was working while he was killed, wearing a “press” vest and helmet. He was taken to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Gaza’s city of Deir el-Balah.
Al Jazeera condemns ‘heinous crime’ Al Jazeera Media Network condemned Al-Louh’s killing, and called on human rights and media organisations “to condemn the Israeli Occupation’s systematic killing of journalists in cold blood, the evasion of responsibilities under international humanitarian law, and to bring the perpetrators of this heinous crime to justice”.
Israeli strike kills Al Jazeera journalist. Video: CNN News
“We urge relevant international legal institutions to take practical and urgent measures to hold the Israeli authorities and all those who are responsible accountable for their heinous crimes and to adopt mechanisms to put an end to the targeting and killing of journalists,” the network added.
Al-Louh had been covering Israel’s war on Gaza when it first began in October 2023, embedded with the Gaza Strip’s Palestinian Civil Defence teams, Al Jazeera reporter Hind Khoudary said.
“It’s another heartbreaking day for Palestinians, Civil Defence teams, journalists. We [have been] wondering, how many times are we going to continue reporting on the killing[s] of our colleagues and beloved ones?” Khoudary said, reporting from Deir el-Balah.
Gaza’s media office said the head of the civil emergency service in Nuseirat, Nedal Abu Hjayyer, was also killed in Sunday’s attack.
“The civil emergency headquarters in Nuseirat camp was hit during the crews’ presence. They work around the clock to serve the people,” said Zaki Emadeldeen from the civil emergency service to reporters at the hospital.
“The civil emergency service is a humanitarian service and not political. They work in war and peace times for the service of the people,” he said, adding that the place was hit directly by an Israeli air strike.
The Israeli military said they were looking into the attack.
Journalists ‘paying highest price’
“Since the war in Gaza started, journalists have been paying the highest price — their lives – for their reporting. Without protection, equipment, international presence, communications, or food and water, they are still doing their crucial jobs to tell the world the truth,” said Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) programme director Carlos Martinez de la Serna in New York.
“Every time a journalist is killed, injured, arrested, or forced to go to exile, we lose fragments of the truth. Those responsible for these casualties face dual trials: one under international law and another before history’s unforgiving gaze.”
Several other Palestinian journalists were killed this past week, with 195 killed in Gaza since Israel’s war began, Khoudary said.
Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud said earlier on Sunday that Palestinian journalist Mohammed Jabr al-Qrinawi was killed along with his wife and children in an Israeli air attack that targeted their home in Bureij refugee camp, in central Gaza, late on Saturday.
Earlier on Saturday, Al Mashhad Media said its journalist Mohammed Balousha was killed in an Israeli attack in Gaza.
Several AJ journalists killed
Several Al Jazeera journalists have been killed since the start of Israel’s war on Gaza, including Ismail al-Ghoul, Rami al-Rifi, Samer Abudaqa and Hamza Dahdouh.
Also on Sunday, an air strike hit people protecting aid trucks west of Gaza City. Medics said several were killed or wounded but exact figures were not yet available.
Residents also said at least 11 people were killed in three separate Israeli air strikes in Gaza City. Nine were killed in the towns of Beit Lahiya, Beit Hanoon and Jabalia camp when clusters of houses were bombed or set ablaze, and two were killed by drone fire in Rafah.
Advanced mobile forensics products being used to illegally extract data from mobile devices, Amnesty finds
Police and intelligence services in Serbia are using advanced mobile forensics products and previously unknown spyware to illegally surveil journalists, environmental campaigners and civil rights activists, according to a report.
The report shows how mobile forensic products from the Israeli firm Cellebrite are used to unlock and extract data from individuals’ mobile devices, which are being infected with a new Android spyware system, NoviSpy.
A global civil society watchdog has condemned Fiji for blocking protest marches over the Palestine genocide by Israel and clamping down on a regional Pacific university demonstration with threats.
However, while the Civicus Monitorrates the state of civic space in Fiji as “obstructed” it has acknowledged the country for making some progress over human rights.
“While the government took steps in 2023 to repeal a restrictive media law and reversed travel bans on critics, the Public Order (Amendment) Act, which has been used to restrict peaceful assembly and expression and sedition provisions in the Crimes Act, remains in place,” said the Civicus Monitor in a statement on its website.
“The police have also restricted pro-Palestinian marches” — planned protests against Israel’s genocide against Gaza in which more than 44,000 people have been killed, mostly women and children.
The monitor said the Fiji government had “continued to take steps to address human rights issues in Fiji”.
In July 2024, it was reported that the Fiji Corrections Service had signed an agreement with the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission to provide them access to monitor inmates in prison facilities.
In August 2024, a task force known as Fiji’s National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting, and Follow-up (NMIRF) was launched by the Attorney-General Graham Leung.
The establishment of the human rights task force is to coordinate Fiji’s engagement with international human rights bodies, including the UN human tights treaty bodies, the Universal Periodic Review and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council.
In September 2024, it was announced that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) would be established to investigate and address human rights violations since 1987.
TRC steering committee chair and Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran said that they were working on drafting a piece of legislation on this and that the commission would operate independently from the government.
“In recent months, the police once again blocked an application by civil society groups to hold a march for Palestine, while university unions were threatened with a pay dock for their involvement in a strike,” the Civicus Monitor said.
Police deny Palestine solidarity march “The authorities have continued to restrict the right to peaceful assembly, particularly around Palestine.”
On 7 October 2024, the police denied permission for a march in the capital Suva by the NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji.
Fiji’s Assistant Commissioner of Police Operations Livai Driu . . . “The decision [to ban a pro-Palestine march] was made based on security reasons.” Image: FB/Radio TaranaThe Fiji Police Force ACP Operations Livai Driu was quoted as saying: “The decision was made based on security reasons.”
“The march was intended to express solidarity with the Palestinian people amidst the ongoing genocide and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The coalition’s application to hold the march was met with repeated delays and questioning by government authorities,” said the Civicus Monitor.
“The coalition said that this was ‘reminiscent of a dictatorial system of the past’.
The coalition added: “It is shameful that the Fiji Coalition Government which has lauded itself internationally and regionally as being a promoter of human rights and peace has continued to curtail the rights of its citizens by denying permit applications calling for an end to the genocide in Gaza.”
Today, a group was given a permit to march through Suva in support of Israel + wave Israeli flag but Fijians calling for an end to #GazaGenocide for 1 year gathered @ the FWCC compound due to ongoing arbitrary restrictions on marches on #GazaGenocide & the use of Palestine flags pic.twitter.com/hOvG5y8Bwj
“The restriction around protests on Palestine and waving the Palestinian flag has persisted for over a year.
“As previously documented, the activists have had to hold their solidarity gatherings in the premises of the FWCC office as the police have restricted solidarity marches, under the Public Order (Amendment) Act 2014.
“The law allows the government to refuse permits for any public meeting or march deemed to prejudice the maintenance of peace or good order.
“It has often been misused by the authorities to restrict or block peaceful gatherings and demonstrations, restricting the right to peaceful assembly and association.
The UN Human Rights Council and human rights groups have called for the repeal of restrictive provisions in the law, including the requirement for a police permit for protests, which is inconsistent with international standards.
These restrictions on solidarity marches for Palestine are inconsistent with Fiji’s international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which guarantees freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
These actions also contravene Fiji’s constitution that guarantees these rights.
University threatens union members In October 2024, members of the Association of the University of the South Pacific (USP) and the University of the South Pacific Staff Union who went on strike were reportedly threatened by the university, reported the Civicus Monitor.
The human resource office said they would not be paid if they were not in office during the strike.
The unions commenced strike action on 18 October 2024 in protest against the alleged poor governance and leadership at the university by vice-chancellor Pal Ahluwalia and the termination of former staff union (AUSPS) president Dr Tamara Osborne Naikatini, calling for her to be reinstated.
“The unions expressed dissatisfaction following the recent release of the Special Council meeting outcome, which they say misleadingly framed serious grievances as mere human resource issues to be investigated rather than investigating [Professor] Ahluwalia.
“The unions say they have been raising concerns for months and called for Ahluwalia to be suspended and for a timely investigation.”
Alongside the staff members currently standing in protest were also several groups of students.
On 24 October 2024, the students led a march at the University of the South Pacific Laucala campus that ended in front of the vice-chancellor’s residence. The students claimed that Professor Ahluwalia did not consider the best interests of the students and called for his replacement.
The USP is owned by 12 Pacific nations, which contribute a total 20 percent of its annual income, and with campuses in all the member island states.
New Orleans, LA – On the night of December 11, organizers and activists marched towards the Audubon Tea Room at the beginning of “FedFest 2024,” a fundraiser hosted by the Jewish Federation, an organization dedicated to supporting the apartheid state of Israel.
The protest commemorated Human Rights Day (December 10). Among the groups organizing the noise demonstration were Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and New Orleans Stop Helping Israel’s Ports (NOSHIP).
The event began at 7 p.m., with protesters arriving soon after and staying for roughly two hours.
Laila Soueif to sit outside Foreign Office over Cairo’s extended detention of her British-Egyptian dissident son
A woman on hunger strike to secure the release of her son, the British-Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd el-Fattah, is to protest outside the Foreign Office each day to remind diplomats of his plight.
Laila Soueif is on the 77th day of a hunger strike in which she drinks only tea and which has led her to lose 22kg. The start of her daily protest came as more than 100 MPs and peers wrote to the foreign secretary, David Lammy, expressing their alarm about Abd el-Fattah’s continued imprisonment. The letter is the largest intervention by MPs about his fate since Labour came to power.
Israeli soldiers have been denied visas to enter Australia over war crime concerns — and the New Zealand government is now being called on by Palestine solidarity activists to act immediately to stop Israeli soldiers visiting.
Some Israeli soldiers have been denied visas to enter Australia after being required to fill in a 13-page form designed to determine if they had been involved in war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza.
The Middle East Eye reports Israeli visa applicants are asked about their involvement in physical or psychological abuse, their roles as guards or officials in detention facilities, and whether they had participated in war crimes or genocide.
This follows last month’s ruling from the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity over atrocities committed since October 7 last year.
However, Israelis coming to New Zealand face no such requirements, says the Palestine Solidarity Network (PSNA)
Since 2019, Israelis have been able to enter New Zealand for three months without needing a visa. This visa-waiver is used by Israeli soldiers today for “rest and recreation” from the genocide in Gaza.
“We face having Israeli soldiers rejected by Australia over war crime concerns jumping on a plane to New Zealand,” said PSNA national chair John Minto in a statement.
‘Suspend all IDF visas’ call
“We cannot depend on Israeli soldiers to give accurate reports of their involvement in war crimes so we have asked the government to suspend all visas for Israelis who are serving or who have served in the Israeli Defence Force [IDF].”
United Nations officials, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and now Amnesty International have all used the term genocide to describe the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza where more than 45,000 People – mostly women and children – have been slaughtered by the IDF.
“Last month, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity,” Minto said.
“All the red flags for genocide have been visible for months but our National-led coalition government is giving the green light to those responsible for war crimes to enter New Zealand.
“New Zealand’s response to genocide in Gaza has been a cowardly refusal to stand up for the Genocide Convention which requires us to ‘prevent and punish’ the crime of genocide.
“This needs to change today.”
Former Israeli justice minister barred
Australia’s recent denial of visas to two Israeli soldiers — siblings in one family — follows a similar case involving the former Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who was denied a visa last month over fears of “incitement”, reports the Middle East Eye.
The Australian Department of Home Affairs told the former Israeli justice minister she had been denied a visa to travel to the country under the Migration Act.
The act allows the government to deny entry to individuals likely to “vilify Australians” or “incite discord” within the local community.
Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country is a ‘Bill of Temporary Privileges.’ And if you read the news, even badly, you know that the list gets shorter and shorter.
—George Carlin
Disguising its power grabs in the self-righteous fervor of national security, the Deep State has mastered the art of the bait-and-switch.
It works like this: first, the government foments fear about some crisis or threat to national security, then they capitalize on it by seizing greater power and using those powers against the American people.
We’ve seen this play out over and over again.
The government used its so-called War on Terror to transform itself into a police state.
Then the police state used its War on COVID-19 to claim lockdown powers.
All indications are that the government’s promised War on Illegal Immigration will be yet another sleight of hand that allows the powers-that-be to engage in greater power grabs while weakening the Constitution.
Therein lies the danger of the government’s growing addiction to power.
Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again—inevitably, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
The slippery slope that starts with illegal immigration has all the makings of a thinly veiled plot to empower the government to become the arbiter of who is deserving of rights and who isn’t.
That quickly, we could find ourselves navigating a world in which the rights enshrined in the Constitution for all persons living in the United States are transformed into privileges enjoyed only by those whom the government chooses to recognize as legitimate.
By persuading the public that non-citizens, particularly illegal immigrants, do not enjoy the same inalienable rights as law-abiding citizens (a fact refuted by the Constitution and every credible legal scholar in the country), the Deep State is leading us down a road in which all rights are transitory.
This is how you establish a hierarchy of rights, contingent on whether you belong to a favored political class.
Be warned.
At such a time as the government is emboldened to flip that switch and appoint itself the ultimate authority on which protected class of individuals gets to enjoy the rights enshrined within the Constitution, the dividing line will not be between legal citizens and illegal immigrants.
It will not even be between Republicans and Democrats.
Rather, the purpose of that line of demarcation will be to distinguish the compliant, obedient, subservient vassal of the American police state (the so-called Loyalists) from everyone else.
We’re almost at that point now.
This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.
Here are some of the inherent dangers in allowing the government to become the arbiter of who is deserving of rights:
It leads to the erosion of universal rights. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the fundamental rights of all persons within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status, race, religion, or any other factor. When the government starts making distinctions about who is entitled to these rights, it undermines the universality that makes them so powerful. This creates a slippery slope where rights become privileges, subject to the whims of those in power.
It gives rise to authoritarianism. History is replete with examples of governments that consolidated power by first stripping away the rights of marginalized groups. Once the principle of universal rights is breached, it becomes easier to target other groups deemed “undesirable” or “unworthy.” This paves the way for authoritarianism, where the government dictates who enjoys freedom and who does not.
It creates a two-tiered society. A hierarchy of rights inevitably leads to a two-tiered society, where some individuals enjoy full protection under the law while others are relegated to second-class status. This fosters resentment, division, and social unrest. It also creates a vulnerable population that can be easily exploited and abused.
It undermines the rule of law. The rule of law is a fundamental principle of a just society. It means that everyone is subject to the same laws and that no one is above the law. When the government selectively applies the law based on arbitrary criteria, it undermines the rule of law and erodes trust in the legal system.
It chills free speech and dissent, i.e., the right to criticize the government. When people fear that their rights are contingent on their political views or social status, they are less likely to speak out against injustice or challenge the government. This chilling effect on dissent stifles free speech and creates a climate of fear and conformity.
It contributes to the loss of moral authority. A nation that claims to champion liberty and justice for all loses its moral authority when it denies those principles to certain groups within its borders. This undermines its standing in the world and diminishes its ability to promote human rights abroad.
Remember, the erosion of inalienable rights often starts subtly, with the government chipping away at the edges of those rights for specific groups.
The pattern is subtle at first, with government officials exploiting fear and prejudice in order to target groups that are already marginalized or perceived as “outsiders.” Incrementally, the net is cast wider and wider, so that by the time the injustice is widespread enough to inspire outrage in the greater populace, it’s too late to resist.
Historic examples abound of how the government has manufactured a blatantly unjust hierarchy of rights in order to diminish certain segments of society. These run the gamut from slavery and the persecution of Native Americans to the Japanese internment camps and segregation.
More recently, we’ve seen this tactic deployed in order to justify policies that run afoul of the Constitution, ranging from immigration policies and mass surveillance programs to SWAT team raids, voting rights, and the erosion of due process.
Clearly, Martin Niemöller’s warning about the widening net that ensnares us all, a warning issued in response to the threat posed by Nazi Germany’s fascist regime, still applies.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
This is how the slippery slope to all-out persecution starts.
Such civic illiteracy lays the groundwork for all manner of tyrannies to follow. After all, how can you defend your rights if you don’t know what those rights are?
Then again, civic illiteracy among government officials, who are entrusted with upholding and protecting the Constitution, doesn’t appear to be much better.
It was ten years ago on December 15, National Bill of Rights Day, that the U.S. Supreme Court in its 8-1 ruling in Heien v. State of North Carolina gave police in America one more ready excuse to routinely violate the laws of the land, this time under the guise of ignorance.
The Heien case, which started with an improper traffic stop based on a police officer’s ignorance of the law and ended with an unlawful search, seizure and arrest, was supposed to ensure that ignorance of the law did not become a ready excuse for government officials to routinely violate the law.
It failed to do so.
In failing to enforce the Constitution, the Court gave police the go-ahead to justify a laundry list of misconduct, from police shootings of unarmed citizens to SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, and the tasering of vulnerable individuals with paltry excuses such as “they looked suspicious” and “she wouldn’t obey our orders.”
Ignorance of the law has become an all-too-convenient cover for all manner of abuses by government officials who should know better.
I’m not sure which is worse: government officials who know nothing about the laws they have sworn to uphold, support and defend, or a constitutionally illiterate citizenry so clueless about their rights that they don’t even know when those rights are being violated.
This much I do know, however: for anyone to advocate terminating or suspending the Constitution is tantamount to a declaration of war against the founding principles of our representative government and the rule of law.
If there is one point on which there should be no political parsing, no legal jockeying, and no disagreement, it is this.
Then again, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, one could well make the case that the Constitution has already been terminated after years on life support, given the extent to which the safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights—adopted 233 years ago as a means of protecting the people against government overreach and abuse—have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.
History provides chilling examples of how quickly rights can vanish, even in a nation such as ours founded on the principles of freedom. As George Carlin astutely observed:
If you think you do have rights, next time you’re at the computer, get on the internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, I want you to type in ‘Japanese Americans 1942’ and you’ll find out all about your precious … rights. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had: ‘right this way’ into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away. And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away.
Remember you were warned, folks.
At the point that rights become privileges, then the Constitution and the government’s adherence to the rule of law will become optional.
Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, has condemned Israel’s extensive airstrikes on Syrian installations — reportedly 500 times in 72 hours, comparing them to historic Israeli actions justified as “security measures”.
He criticised the hypocrisy of Israel’s security pretext endorsed by Western powers.
Asked why Israel was bombing Syria and encroaching on its territory just days after the ousting of the Bashar al-Assad regime after 54 years in power, he told Al Jazeera: “Because it can get away with it.”
Al Jazeera analyst Marwan Bishara . . . Israel aims to destabilise and weaken neighbouring countries for its own security. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Bishara explained that Israel aimed to destabilise and weaken neighbouring countries for its own security.
He noted that the new Syrian administration was overwhelmed and unable to respond effectively.
Bishara highlighted that regional powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia had condemned Israel’s actions, even though Western countries had been largely silent.
He said Israel was “taking advantage” of the chaos to “settle scores”.
“One can go back 75 years, 80 years, and look at Israel since its inception,” he said.
“What has it been? In a state of war. Continuous, consistent state of war, bombing countries, destabilising countries, carrying out genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing.
“All of it for the same reason — presumably it’s security.
A “Palestine will be free” placard at today’s Auckland solidarity rally for Palestine. Image: David Robie/APR
“Under the pretext of security, Israel would carry [out] the worst kind of violations of international law, the worst kind of ethnic cleansing, worst kind of genocide.
“And that’s what we have seen it do.
“Now, certainly in this very particular instance it’s taking advantage of the fact that there is a bit of chaos, if you will, slash change, dramatic change in Syria after 50 years of more of the same in order to settle scores with a country that it has always deemed to be a dangerous enemy, and that is Syria.
“So I think the idea of decapitating, destabilising, undercutting, undermining Syria and Syria’s national security, will always be a main goal for Israel.”
“They tried to erase Palestine from the world. So the whole world became Palestine.” . . . a t-shirt at today’s Auckland solidarity rally for Palestine. Image: David Robie/APR
In an Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau solidarity rally today, protesters condemned Israel’s bombing of Syria and also called on New Zealand’s Christopher Luxon-led coalition government to take a stronger stance against Israel and to pressure major countries to impose UN sanctions against Tel Aviv.
A prominent lawyer, Labour Party activist and law school senior academic at Auckland University of Technology, Dr Myra Williamson, spoke about the breakthrough in international law last month with the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants being issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Lawyer and law school academic Dr Myra Williamson speaking at the Auckland rally today. Video: Asia Pacific Report
“What you have to be aware of is that the ICC is being threatened — the individuals are being threatened and the court itself is being threatened, mainly by the United States,” she told the solidarity crowd in Te Komititanga Square.
“Personal threats to the judges, to the prosecutor Karim Khan.
“So you need to be vocal and you need to talk to people over the summer about how important that work is. Just to get the warrants issued was a major achievement and the next thing is to get them on trial in The Hague.”
ICC Annual Meeting — court under threat. Video: Al Jazeera
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show in Syria, where tens of thousands of people gathered at the Great Mosque of Damascus for the first Friday prayers since longtime authoritarian President Bashar al-Assad was toppled by opposition fighters.
DAMASCUS RESIDENT: [translated] Hopefully this Friday is the Friday of the greatest joy, a Friday of victory for our Muslim brothers. This is a blessed Friday.
AMY GOODMAN: Syria’s new caretaker Prime Minister Mohammed al-Bashir was among those at the mosque. He’ll act as prime minister until March.
This comes as the World Food Programme is appealing to donors to help it scale up relief operations for the approximately 2.8 million displaced and food-insecure Syrians across the country. That includes more than 1.1 million people who were forcibly displaced by fighting since late November.
Israel’s Defence Minister has told his troops to prepare to spend the winter holding the demilitarized zone that separates Syria from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Earlier today, Prime Minister Netanyahu toured the summit of Mount Haramun in the UN-designated buffer zone. Netanyahu said this week the Golan Heights would “forever be an inseparable part of the State of Israel”.
On Thursday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for an urgent deescalation of airstrikes on Syria by Israeli forces, and their withdrawal from the UN buffer zone.
In Ankara, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Turkey’s Foreign Minister and the President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Blinken said the US and Turkey would [work] to prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State group in Syria. Meanwhile, Erdoğan told Blinken that Turkey reserves the right to strike the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Turkey considers “terrorist”.
For more, we go to Damascus for the first time since the fall of longtime authoritarian President Bashar al-Assad, where we’re joined by the Associated Press investigative reporter Sarah El Deeb, who is based in the Middle East, a region she has covered for two decades.
Sarah, welcome to Democracy Now! You are overlooking —
SARAH EL DEEB: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: — the square where tens of thousands of Syrians have gathered for the first Friday prayers since the fall of Assad. Describe the scene for us.
Report from Damascus: Searching for loved ones in prisons and morgues. Video: Democracy Now!
SARAH EL DEEB: There is a lot of firsts here. It’s the first time they gather on Friday after Bashar al-Assad fled the country. It’s the first time everyone seems to be very happy. I think that’s the dominant sentiment, especially people who are in the square. There is ecstasy, tens of thousands of people. They are still chanting, “Down with Bashar al-Assad.”
But what’s new is that it’s also visible that the sentiment is they’ve been, so far, happy with the new rulers, not outpour — there is no criticism, out — loud criticism of the new rulers yet. So, I’d say the dominant thing is that everyone is happy down there.
HAYAT AL-TURKI: [translated] I will show you the photo of my missing brother. It’s been 14 years. This is his photo. I don’t know what he looks like, if I find him. I don’t know what he looks like, because I am seeing the photos of prisoners getting out. They are like skeletons.
But this is his photo, if anyone has seen him, can know anything about him or can help us. He is one of thousands of prisoners who are missing. I am asking for everyone, not only my brother, uncle, cousin and relatives.”
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about this mad search by Syrians across the country.
SARAH EL DEEB: This is the other thing that’s been dominating our coverage and our reporting since we arrived here, the contrast between the relief, the sense of relief over the departure of Bashar al-Assad but then the sadness and the concern and the no answers for where the loved ones have gone.
Thousands — also, tens of thousands of people have marched on Sednaya [prison]. It’s the counter to this scene, where people were looking for any sign of where their relatives have been. As you know really well, so many people have reported their relatives missing, tens of thousands, since the beginning of the revolt, but also before.
I mean, I think this is a part of the feature of this government, is that there has been a lot of security crackdown. People were scared to speak, but they were — because there was a good reason for it. They were picked up at any expression of discontent or expression of opinion.
So, where we were in Sednaya two, three days ago, it feels like one big day, I have to say. When we were in Sednaya, people were also describing what — anything, from the smallest expression of opinion, a violation of a traffic light. No answers.
And they still don’t know where their loved ones are. I mean, I think we know quite a lot from research before arriving here about the notorious prison system in Syria. There’s secret prisons. There are security branches where people were being held. I think this is the first time we have an opportunity to go look at those facilities.
What was surprising and shocking to the people, and also to a lot of us journalists, was that we couldn’t find any sign of these people. And the answers are — we’re still looking for them. But what was clear is that only a handful — I mean, not a handful — hundreds of people were found.
Many of them were also found in morgues. There were apparent killings in the last hours before the regime departed. One of them was the prominent activist Mazen al-Hamada. We were at his funeral yesterday. He was found, and his family believes that — he was found killed, and his family believes his body was fresh, that he was killed only a few days earlier. So, I think the killing continued up until the last hour.
AMY GOODMAN: I was wondering if you can tell us more about —
SARAH EL DEEB: What was also — what was also —
AMY GOODMAN: — more about Mazen. I mean, I wanted to play a clip of Mazen’s nephew, Yahya al-Hussein.
YAHYA AL-HUSSEIN: [translated] In 2020, he was taken from the Netherlands to Germany through the Syrian Embassy there. And from there, they brought him to Syria with a fake passport.
He arrived at the airport at around 2:30 a.m. and called my aunt to tell her that he arrived at the airport, and asked for money. When they reached out to him the next day, they were told that air intelligence had arrested him.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Mazen’s nephew, Yahya al-Hussein. Sarah, if you can explain? This was an activist who left Syria after he had been imprisoned and tortured — right? — more than a decade ago, but ultimately came back, apparently according to assurances that he would not be retaken. And now his body is found.
SARAH EL DEEB: I think it’s — like you were saying, it’s very hard to explain. This is someone who was very outspoken and was working on documenting the torture and the killing in the secret prisons in Syria. So he was very well aware of his role and his position vis-à-vis the government. Yet he felt — it was hard to explain what Mazen’s decision was based on, but his family believes he was lured into Syria by some false promises of security and safety.
His heart was in Syria. He left Syria, but he never — it never left him. He was working from wherever he was — he was in the Netherlands, he was in the US — I think, to expose these crimes. And I think this is — these are the words of his family: He was a witness on the crimes of the Assad government, and he was a martyr of the Assad government.
One of the people that were at the funeral yesterday was telling us Mazen was a lesson. The Assad government was teaching all detainees a lesson through Mazen to keep them silent. I think it was just a testimony to how cruel this ruling regime, ruling system has been for the past 50 years.
People would go back to his father’s rule also. But I think with the revolution, with the protests in 2011, all these crimes and all these detentions were just en masse. I think the estimates are anywhere between 150,000 and 80,000 detainees that no one can account for. That is on top of all the people that were killed in airstrikes and in opposition areas in crackdown on protest.
So, it was surprising that at the last minute — it was surprising and yet not very surprising. When I asked the family, “Why did they do that?” they would look at me and, like, “Why are you asking this question? They do that. That’s what they did.” It was just difficult to understand how even at the last minute, and even for someone that they promised security, this was — this would be the end, emaciated and tortured and killed, unfortunately.
AMY GOODMAN: Sarah, you spoke in Damascus to a US citizen, Travis Timmerman, who says he was imprisoned in Syria. This is a clip from an interview with Al Arabiya on Thursday in which he says he spent the last seven months in a prison cell in Damascus.
TRAVIS TIMMERMAN: My name is Travis.
REPORTER: Travis.
TRAVIS TIMMERMAN: Yes.
REPORTER: So, [speaking in Arabic]. Travis, Travis Timmerman.
TRAVIS TIMMERMAN: That’s right.
REPORTER: That’s right.
TRAVIS TIMMERMAN: But just Travis. Just call me Travis.
REPORTER: Call you Travis, OK. And where were you all this time?
TRAVIS TIMMERMAN: I was imprisoned in Damascus for the last seven months. … I was imprisoned in a cell by myself. And in the early morning of this Monday, or the Monday of this week, they took a hammer, and they broke my door down. … Well, the armed men just wanted to get me out of my cell. And then, really, the man who I stuck with was a Syrian man named Ely. He was also a prisoner that was just freed. And he took me by the side, by the arm, really. And he and a young woman that lives in Damascus, us three, exited the prison together.
SARAH EL DEEB: I spent quite a bit of time with Travis last night. And I think his experience was very different from what I was just describing. He was taken, he was detained for crossing illegally into Syria. And I think his description of his experience was it was OK. He was not mistreated.
He was fed well, I mean, especially when I compare it to what I heard from the Syrian prisoners in the secret prisons or in detention facilities. He would receive rice, potatoes, tomatoes. None of this was available to the Syrian detainees. He would go to the bathroom three times a day, although this was uncomfortable for him, because, of course, it was not whenever he wanted. But it was not something that other Syrian detainees would experience.
His experience also was that he heard a lot of beating. I think that’s what he described it as: beating from nearby cells. They were mostly Syrian detainees. For him, that was an implicit threat of the use of violence against him, but he did not get any — he was not beaten or tortured.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Sarah, if you could also —
SARAH EL DEEB: He also said his release was a “blessing.” Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: If you could also talk about Austin Tice, the American freelance journalist? His family, his mother and father and brothers and sisters, seem to be repeatedly saying now that they believe he’s alive, held by the Syrian government, and they’re desperately looking for him or reaching out to people in Syria. What do you know?
SARAH EL DEEB: What we know is that people thought Travis was Tice when they first saw him. They found him in a house in a village outside of Damascus. And I think that’s what triggered — we didn’t know that Travis was in a Syrian prison, so I think that’s what everyone was going to check. They thought that this was Tice.
I think the search, the US administration, the family, they are looking and determined to look for Tice. The family believes that he was in Syrian government prison. He entered Syria in 2012. He is a journalist. But I think we have — his family seems to think that there were — he’s still in a Syrian government prison.
But I think, so far, we have not had any sign of Tice from all those released. But, mind you, the scenes of release from prisons were chaotic, from multiple prisons at the same time. And we’re still, day by day, finding out about new releases and people who were set free on that Sunday morning.
U.N. Calls on Israel to Stop Bombing Syria and Occupying Demilitarized Zone https://t.co/iHNIkKKOrs
I want to turn to Gaza. Tell us about the Palestinians searching for their family members who went missing during raids and arrests by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip. And talk about the lack of accountability for these appearances. You begin your piece with Reem Ajour’s quest to find her missing husband and daughter.
SARAH EL DEEB: I talked to Reem Ajour for a long time. I mean, I think, like you said, this was a pivot, but the themes have been common across the Middle East, sadly. Reem Ajour last saw her family in March of 2024. Both her husband and her 5-year-old daughter were injured after an Israeli raid on their house during the chaotic scenes of the Israeli raids on the Shifa Hospital.
They lived in the neighborhood. So, it was chaotic. They [Israeli military] entered their home, and they were shooting in the air, or they were shooting — they were shooting, and the family ended up wounded.
But what was striking was that the Israeli soldiers made the mother leave the kid wounded in her house and forced her to leave to the south. I think this is not only Reem Ajour’s case. I think this is something we’ve seen quite a bit in Gaza. But the fact that this was a 5-year-old and the mom couldn’t take her with her was quite moving.
And I think what her case kind of symbolises is that during these raids and during these detentions at checkpoints, families are separated, and we don’t have any way of knowing how the Israeli military is actually documenting these detentions, these raids.
Where do they — how do they account for people who they detain and then they release briefly? The homes that they enter, can we find out what happened in these homes? We have no idea of holding — I think the Israeli court has also tried to get some information from the military, but so far very few cases have been resolved.
And we’re talking about not only 500 or 600 people; we’re talking about tens of thousands who have been separated, their homes raided, during what is now 15 months of war in Gaza.
AMY GOODMAN: Sarah El Deeb, we want to thank you for being with us, Associated Press investigative reporter based in the Middle East for two decades, now reporting from Damascus.
Next up, today is the 75th day of a hunger strike by Laila Soueif. She’s the mother of prominent British Egyptian political prisoner Alaa Abd El-Fattah. She’s calling on British officials to pressure Egypt for the release of her son. We’ll speak to the Cairo University mathematics professor in London, where she’s been standing outside the Foreign Office. Back in 20 seconds.
If the world knew about the extent of the brutality of Assad’s regime against its own people, it was in part because of Mazen, an activist who was an outspoken critic of the regime. On Sunday 8 December 2024, his body was found in the notorious “slaughterhouse”, Seydnaya prison in Damascus. It bore signs of horrific torture. A doctor who examined it told the BBC he had fractures, burn marks and contusions all over his body, allegations corroborated by Mazen’s family.
“It’s impossible to count the wounds on his body. His face was smashed and his nose was broken,” his sister Lamyaa said.
A protester when the uprising in Syria began in 2011, Mazen Al-Hamada was arrested and tortured. Released in 2013, he was given asylum in the Netherlands. He began to speak openly about what he was subjected to in prison. In the documentary Syria’s Disappeared by Afshar Films, Mazen describes how he was raped, his genitals clamped, and how his ribs were broken by a guard jumping on his chest over and over again.
While in asylum, Mazen’s nephew Jad Al-Hamada says he began suffering from severe depression and other mental health issues. …In 2020, he decided to return to Syria.
“The government told him he had a deal and that he would be safe. He was also told that his family would be arrested and killed if he didn’t return,” Lamyaa said. He was arrested as soon as he arrived in the country. And his family believes he was killed after rebels took Hama last week, shortly before the regime fell.
Hamada was detained and tortured alongside tens of thousands of people after the 2011 uprising against Assad’s rule. “Mazen had endured torture so cruel, so unimaginable, that his retellings carried an almost otherworldly weight. When he spoke, it was as if he stared into the face of death itself, pleading with the angel of mortality for just a little more time,” wrote Hamada’s friend, the photographer and director Sakir Khader. He “became one of the most important witnesses against Assad’s regime”, he said.
The Syrian network for human rights (SNHR) recorded 15,102 deaths caused by torture in prisons run by the regime between March 2011 and July this year. It said 100,000 more people were missing and thought to be detained, and some might be found now that prison populations have been set free.
Fadel Abdulghany, the head of SNHR, which tracks people who have been “forcibly disappeared”, broke down on live television this week as he said that all 100,000 people had probably “died under torture” in prison.
Hamada was released in 2013 and granted asylum in the Netherlands in 2014, after which he began touring western capitals, bringing audiences to tears as he showed them his scars and described what he had endured at the hands of the Syrian authorities. Then, in a decision that terrified and confused his friends and rippled through the community of dissident exiles, Hamada disappeared in early 2020 after seemingly deciding to return to Syria.
That someone who had experienced the worst of Syria’s torture chambers would choose to return led many to believe he was enticed to do by elements of Assad’s regime to prevent him from speaking out.
Rebel forces said they found 40 corpses piled in the morgue at Sednaya showing signs of torture, with an image circulating online showing Hamada among them.
The discovery of his body indicated he was probably killed shortly before prison inmates were liberated by insurgents. Khader described his friend’s suffering as “the unimaginable agony of a man who had risen from the dead to fight again, only to be condemned to a slow death in the west”.
This week on CounterSpin: The New York Timessays that Amnesty International recently became “the first major international human rights organization to accuse Israel of carrying out genocide in Gaza.” That makes sense if you ignore the otherhumanrightsgroups and internationalbodies that have said Israel’s actions in the wake of Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, meet that definition.
The Times account notes that genocide is hard to prove because it involves showing the specific intent to destroy a group, “in whole or in part”—something that, they say, Israeli leaders have persistently denied is their intent in Gaza. Declarations like that by Israeli President Isaac Herzog that “it is an entire nation out there that is responsible” appear nowhere in the piece.
The Times tells readers that Amnesty’s “contention” and “similar allegations” have been “at the heart of difficult debates about the war around the world.” So far, 14 countries have joined or signaled they will join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the World Court.
Gallup polling from March found the majority of the US public—55%, up from 45% last November—saying they disapprove of Israel’s siege of Gaza. And that support for Israel is dropping among all political affiliations.
A May survey from a private Israeli think tank says nearly a third of Jewish people in the US agree with the charge of “genocide,” and 34% view college campus protests as anti-war and pro-peace, compared with 28% who see them as primarily “anti-Israel.” More recently, the Israel Democracy Institute reports its survey from late November, finding that the majority of Jews in Israel—52%—oppose settlement in Gaza, vs. 42% in support.
There is absolutely debate around the world about Israel’s actions; outlets like the Times make that debate more “difficult” by misrepresenting it.
While not the first to ask us to see the assault on Palestinians as genocide, Amnesty’s report offers an opening, for those journalists who are interested, to ask why some are so invested in saying it isn’t. Iman Abid is the director of advocacy and organizing at the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR). We’ll talk with her today.
Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at recent press coverage of the minimum wage.
This post was originally published on CounterSpin.
Each year the Rafto award goes to a person or an organization who stands up for human rights and democracy. Please make a nomination. Annual deadline is 1 February.
Each year we announce the recipient of the Rafto Prize in the end of September at a press conference at the Rafto House in Bergen. The announcement is live streamed on our website and on Facebook.
Questions?
For questions regarding nominations, please contact the Secretary of the Committee, Liv Unni Stuhaug, livunni.stuhaug@rafto.no
This week on CounterSpin: The New York Timessays that Amnesty International recently became “the first major international human rights organization to accuse Israel of carrying out genocide in Gaza.” That makes sense if you ignore the otherhumanrightsgroups and internationalbodies that have said Israel’s actions in the wake of Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, meet that definition.
The Times account notes that genocide is hard to prove because it involves showing the specific intent to destroy a group, “in whole or in part”—something that, they say, Israeli leaders have persistently denied is their intent in Gaza. Declarations like that by Israeli President Isaac Herzog that “it is an entire nation out there that is responsible” appear nowhere in the piece.
The Times tells readers that Amnesty’s “contention” and “similar allegations” have been “at the heart of difficult debates about the war around the world.” So far, 14 countries have joined or signaled they will join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the World Court.
Gallup polling from March found the majority of the US public—55%, up from 45% last November—saying they disapprove of Israel’s siege of Gaza. And that support for Israel is dropping among all political affiliations.
A May survey from a private Israeli think tank says nearly a third of Jewish people in the US agree with the charge of “genocide,” and 34% view college campus protests as anti-war and pro-peace, compared with 28% who see them as primarily “anti-Israel.” More recently, the Israel Democracy Institute reports its survey from late November, finding that the majority of Jews in Israel—52%—oppose settlement in Gaza, vs. 42% in support.
There is absolutely debate around the world about Israel’s actions; outlets like the Times make that debate more “difficult” by misrepresenting it.
While not the first to ask us to see the assault on Palestinians as genocide, Amnesty’s report offers an opening, for those journalists who are interested, to ask why some are so invested in saying it isn’t. Iman Abid is the director of advocacy and organizing at the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR). We’ll talk with her today.
Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at recent press coverage of the minimum wage.
The global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has revealed an “alarming intensification of attacks on journalists” in its 2024 annual roundup — especially in conflict zones such as Gaza.
Gaza stands out as the “most dangerous” region in the world, with the highest number of journalists murdered in connection with their work in the past five years.
Since October 2023, the Israeli military have killed more than 145 journalists, including at least 35 whose deaths were linked to their journalism, reports RSF.
Also 550 journalists are currently imprisoned worldwide, a 7 percent increase from last year.
“This violence — often perpetrated by governments and armed groups with total impunity — needs an immediate response,” says the report.
“RSF calls for urgent action to protect journalists and journalism.”
Asia second most dangerous
Asia is the second most dangerous region for journalists due to the large number of journalists killed in Pakistan (seven) and the protests that rocked Bangladesh (five), says the report.
“Journalists do not die, they are killed; they are not in prison, regimes lock them up; they do not disappear, they are kidnapped,” said RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin.
“These crimes — often orchestrated by governments and armed groups with total impunity — violate international law and too often go unpunished.
“We need to get things moving, to remind ourselves as citizens that journalists are dying for us, to keep us informed. We must continue to count, name, condemn, investigate, and ensure that justice is served.
“Fatalism should never win. Protecting those who inform us is protecting the truth.
A third of the journalists killed in 2024 were slain by the Israeli armed forces.
A record 54 journalists were killed, including 31 in conflict zones.
In 2024, the Gaza Strip accounted for nearly 30 percent of journalists killed on the job, according to RSF’s latest information. They were killed by the Israeli army.
More than 145 journalists have been killed in Palestine since October 2023, including at least 35 targeted in the line of duty.
RSF continues to investigate these deaths to identify and condemn the deliberate targeting of media workers, and has filed four complaints with the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes committed against journalists.
RSF condemns Israeli media ‘stranglehold’
Last month, in a separate report while Israel’s war against Gaza, Lebanon and Syria rages on, RSF said Israel’s Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi was trying to “reshape” Israel’s media landscape.
Between a law banning foreign media outlets that were “deemed dangerous”, a bill that would give the government a stranglehold on public television budgets, and the addition of a private pro-Netanyahu channel on terrestrial television exempt from licensing fees, the ultra-conservative minister is augmenting pro-government coverage of the news.
RSF said it was “alarmed by these unprecedented attacks” against media independence and pluralism — two pillars of democracy — and called on the government to abandon these “reforms”.
On November 24, two new proposals for measures targeting media critical of the authorities and the war in Gaza and Lebanon were approved by Netanyahu’s government.
The Ministerial Committee for Legislation validated a proposed law providing for the privatisation of the public broadcaster Kan.
On the same day, the Council of Ministers unanimously accepted a draft resolution by Communications Minister Shlomo Kahri from November 2023 seeking to cut public aid and revenue from the Government Advertising Agency to the independent and critical liberal newspaper Haaretz.
‘Al Jazeera’ ban tightened
The so-called “Al-Jazeera law”, as it has been dubbed by the Israeli press, has been tightened.
This exceptional measure was adopted in April 2024 for a four-month period and renewed in July.
On November 20, Israeli MPs voted to extend the law’s duration to six months, and increased the law’s main provision — a broadcasting ban on any foreign media outlet deemed detrimental to national security by the security services — from 45 days to 60.
“The free press in a country that describes itself as ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’ will be undermined,” said RSF’s editorial director Anne Bocandé.
RSF called on Israel’s political authorities, starting with Minister Shlomo Karhi and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, to “act responsibly” and abandon these proposed reforms.
Inside Israel, journalists critical of the government and the war have been facing pressure and intimidation for more than a year.
Activist/educator Tina Ngata (Ngati Porou) has warned proposed changes to Aotearoa New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi principles would undermine indigenous Māori sovereignty, rights, and protections, and risk corporate exploitation and environmental harm.
Ngata is a member of Koekoeā, a tāngata whenua and tāngata tiriti rōpu which brings accessible information and workshops for select committee submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill.
“[ACT leader and Minister for Regulation] David Seymour is saying, ‘it’s just the principles, not the text, so is it really a big deal?’” Ngata said.
Advocate Tina Ngata (Ngati Porou) . . . “The principles are enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which came about in 1975 as a result of that generation undertaking hīkoi and protests calling for our land rights and for the Crown to honour Te Tiriti.” Image: Michelle Mihi Keita Tibble
“The Crown commitments are framed within the principles so, when you affect the principles, it has the same legal effect as redefining the Treaty itself.”
Ngata said the principles were the strongest tool to ensure the Crown as a Treaty partner was including and consulting with Māori.
What are the Treaty principles Seymour hopes to redefine? “The principles are enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which came about in 1975 as a result of that generation undertaking hīkoi and protests calling for our land rights and for the Crown to honour Te Tiriti,” Ngata said.
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 introduced the concept of treaty principles, which were commitments for the Crown to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The act established the Waitangi Tribunal.
The principles were often referred to as the “three P’s” — partnership, participation and protection — but there were others such as tino rangatiratanga, ōritetanga as duty to act reasonably.
Over time the principles became more and more defined, particularly in 1987 in a court case where the Māori Council took the Crown to court for trying to sell Aotearoa’s natural assets and privatise them, which was where the principle of consultation came about.
There are no two versions of the Treaty Ngata said the principleswere put into the act to resolve the conflict between what were believed to be two versions that were equally valid but conflicted — often known as the English version, which only 39 Māori signed, and the Māori version, which between 530 and 540 signed.
She said the idea of two versions had a flawed premise.
The Treaty of Waitangi drafted by Captain William Hobson was supposedly translated into Te Tiriti o Waitangi but Ngata said it didn’t qualify as a translation as the two were radically different.
“Even our Māori activists in 1975 were calling the English text the ‘Treaty of fraud’. They were very clear that there was only one valid treaty,” Ngata said.
By valid she means valid by definition where a treaty is an agreement signed between two sovereign nations, and she said the only definition that applied to was Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Incremental journey towards treaty justice Ngata said the principles themselves did not represent Treaty justice but were reflective of the time.
In 1989 Ngāti Whātua leader and respected scholar Sir Hugh Kawharu translated the te reo Māori document into English. She said even that translation was caught up in the time because it said Te Tiriti gave permission for the Crown to form a government. But more recent research had found Te Tiriti allowed for a limited level of governance and not a government.
Ngata described the principles as the strongest tool to ensure the Crown as Treaty partner was upholding its commitments but, even with those principles, there were consistent breaches.
“Even though [the principles] are not truly justice, Māori have taken them and used them to protect ourselves, protect our families, protect our mokopuna rights,” Ngata said.
“Often many times to protect Aotearoa’s natural resources from corporate exploitation.”
She said that point was important to remember, that the principles had been a road block. Arguably, the drive to replace those principles was to make it easier for corporate exploitation.
Overall, the Treaty Principles Bill was taking New Zealand back before 1975 and in reverse from that journey towards treaty justice, Ngata said
The principles in the new bill The Treaty Principles Bill dumps the old principles and introduces three new ones. The proposed principles are below, and Ngata explained the problems in each principle.
Civil government — the government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Rights of hapū and iwi Māori — the Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in Treaty settlements.
Right to equality — everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.
Māori never ceded sovereignty In 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal found Māori never ceded sovereignty.
Thus the first principle, “the government has full power to govern and Parliament has full power to make laws” negated Māori sovereignty, Ngata said.
In article one, Te Tiriti o Waitangi gave a limited level of governance for the Queen to make laws through a governor but it was not a cessation of sovereignty.
She argued that article three said Māori had the same rights and privileges as those who were British subjects of the Queen.
“If article 1 was a cessation of sovereignty to the Queen over Māori, then why would we need to explicitly say that we then get the same rights and privileges as those who are subjects of the Queen? That would have been inherent within that article.”
Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination She said this principle was also not in alignment with how the international community understood human rights.
“The second principle the bill is suggesting is that the Crown will recognise the rights of hapū and iwi but only in so far as they are the same rights as everybody else, unless they are rights that have been enshrined within a settlement act,” Ngata said.
But Ngata said Māori rights did not stem from the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and Māori rights did not stem from Te Tiriti. Instead they were inherent.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognised the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination.
UNDRIP included rights for Indigenous people to freely determine their political status, maintain distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, and participate in decision-making processes that affected them.
“It’s preposterous to say that our rights can only come into effect if they’ve been subject to a Treaty settlement.”
Earlier in the year, Ngata told Te Ao Māori News the government was implementing assimilation policies, which Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide”, included as part of the broader spectrum of genocide.
One of the examples of assimilation policy was the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, which was created to ensure better health outcomes for Māori and provide te ao Māori approaches, meaning cultural differences rather than simply based on race.
She said the Crown had a long-standing history of treating Māori unequally: “Colonial governments will only deliver unequal treatment.”
“If you were treating the Treaty with Maori equally, you would not be undertaking this process in the first place.”
The impacts the bill would have Ngata said Māori would be impacted in a “whole ecosystem impact of te ao Māori — across housing, whenua, natural resources, waterways, transport and health”.
She said the bill would impact other marginalised groups and the environment and, therefore, everybody.
She said the bill was being pushed to remove the roadblock to protect the natural environment from corporate exploitation.
It was clear the bill was being driven by multinational corporate interests in accessing natural resources and thus once enacted, there would be environmental degradation.
Ngata said the language and rhetoric David Seymour was using on the topic was reminiscent of and in some cases a direct import of the same rhetoric used to negate treaty rights in Canada and the US.
She cited New Zealand having one of the world’s largest exclusive economic zones (EEZ) (the maritime area a nation has exclusive rights to explore, use and manage natural resources). That zone would be of interest to corporates and, in the past, the Treaty principles had blocked corporations from extracting natural resources.
Ngata said there were international dimensions, and there were parallels with other colonial governments, such as France in Kanaky and Indonesia in West Papua, who “ran roughshod” over Indigenous rights to extract natural resources for profit.
My poems were written in anger after Tiananmen Square. But what motivates most prison writing is a fear of forgetting. Today I am free, but the regime has never stopped its war on words. By Liao Yiwu
Because of industrial action taking place by members of the National Union of Journalists at the Guardian and Observer this week, we are re-running an episode from earlier in the year. For more information please head to theguardian.com. We’ll be back with new episodes soon.
My poems were written in anger after Tiananmen Square. But what motivates most prison writing is a fear of forgetting. Today I am free, but the regime has never stopped its war on words. By Liao Yiwu
Because of industrial action taking place by members of the National Union of Journalists at the Guardian and Observer this week, we are re-running an episode from earlier in the year. For more information please head to theguardian.com. We’ll be back with new episodes soon.
Amnesty International (12/5/24) found that “Israel has persisted in committing genocidal acts, fully aware of the irreparable harm it was inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza.”
Imagine for a moment that a magnitude 8 earthquake occurred somewhere in the world, and the Western corporate media refused to use the word “earthquake” in reporting it, instead talking ambiguously of a “tectonic incident” that had caused buildings to collapse and people to die.
Obviously, reporters would be called out for deliberate linguistic ineptness and a bizarre obfuscation of truth. And yet just such a verbal sleight of hand has been on display for more than 14 months in the Gaza Strip, where corporate media outlets continue to dance around the word “genocide” while the Israeli military carries out the systematic mass killing of Palestinians.
Since October 2023, nearly 45,000 people have officially been killed in Gaza—although as a letter to the Lancet medical journal (7/20/24) pointed out back in July, the true death toll at that time was likely to exceed 186,000. A new report (BBC, 11/8/24) from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights indicates that almost 70% of the over 8,000 Palestinian fatalities verified by the UN over a six-month period were women and children; a survey of medical volunteers in Gaza found that “44 doctors, nurses and paramedics saw multiple cases of preteen children who had been shot in the head or chest in Gaza” (New York Times, 10/9/24).
From the beginning of the Israeli assault, officials like President Isaac Herzog (HuffPost, 10/13/23) made it clear that they saw themselves as being at war with a population.
As per Article II of the Genocide Convention, “genocide means…acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These include “killing members of the group,” “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,” and “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
Israeli leaders again and again have effectively admitted genocidal intent. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (Times of Israel, 10/9/23), at the beginning of Israel’s assault, declared:
I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed…. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog (HuffPost, 10/13/23) likewise insisted, “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible…. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Mother Jones, 11/3/23) invoked a biblical justification for genocide: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.” The Bible (1 Samuel 15:3) says of the Amalekites: “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants.”
And Deputy Knesset speaker Nissim Vaturi couldn’t have been more clear (X, 10/7/23), posting the following comment to X at the outset of hostilities in October 2023: “Now we all have one common goal—erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the Earth.”
In other words, Gaza is a pretty textbook case of genocide. But the term “genocide” is ostracized by the corporate media world because it violates the political line of the United States, the global superpower that is currently enabling Israel’s genocidal behavior—to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in aid and weaponry. And the media’s refusal to call a spade a spade has produced all manner of linguistic gymnastics.
‘Blistering retaliatory offensive’
A New York Times memo (Intercept, 4/15/24) said of the word “genocide,” “We should…set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not.” The same memo declared, “It is accurate to use ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ in describing the attacks of October 7.”
In the eyes of the Associated Press (12/4/24), for example, the genocide in Gaza is merely “Israel’s blistering retaliatory offensive,” while Fox News (11/3/24) detects a “fight against terrorists” and the Washington Post (12/3/24) sees “one of the most deadly and destructive wars in recent memory.”
Or take the New York Times, where a memo (Intercept, 4/15/24) leaked earlier this year explicitly instructed journalists to avoid using words like “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “occupied territory” when discussing “Palestine”—another word whose use was highly discouraged. On October 7, the one-year anniversary of Israel’s ongoing assault, the US newspaper of record headlined the affair as “The War That Won’t End,” with the G-word appearing only in a fleeting reference to “accusations of genocide and war crimes.”
This particular Times dispatch begins with Yaniv Hegyi, an Israeli who “fled his home last October 7, after terrorists from Gaza overran his village in southern Israel.” As ever, the selectivity with which US media deploys the T-word safely obliterates the chance that domestic audiences will be confronted with the fact that the state of Israel has literally been terrorizing Palestinians since the moment of its foundation on Palestinian land in 1948—or that Zionist terrorism preceded even that moment.
Only after we’ve been introduced to Hegyi, victim of “terrorists,” do we meet Mohammed Shakib Hassan, a Palestinian who “fled his home on October 12, after the Israeli Air Force responded by striking his city in northern Gaza.” Which brings us to another tactic that has been institutionalized in the US political and media establishment alike: the perennial Israeli monopoly on “responding,” “retaliating” and generally engaging in “self-defense” no matter what it does—including genocide.
Never mind that Israel would have nothing to “retaliate” against if it hadn’t up and invented itself on other people’s land, and then spent the next 76 years (and counting) occupying, forcibly displacing and slaughtering Palestinians en masse. Fortuitously for Israel, the corporate media are ever standing by to set the record askew.
‘Propaganda war never stops’
The Wall Street Journal (12/5/24) calls for ethnic cleansing as an alternative to genocide: “Not one of the groups yelling genocide calls on Egypt to let women and children escape to safety by opening its border with Gaza.”
That said, the media have been increasingly unable to abide by a de facto blanket ban on the word “genocide,” given, inter alia, Amnesty International’s recent determination (12/5/24) that Israel is committing just that in the Gaza Strip. In such cases, then, the term inevitably finds its way into news reports—but only as an allegation.
CNN (12/5/24), for instance, reported that Amnesty had “said that it had gathered ‘sufficient evidence to believe’ that Israel’s conduct during the war in Gaza amounts to genocide against the Palestinian people—a charge the Israeli government has vehemently denied.” The rest of the article similarly alternates between Amnesty’s charges and Israel’s vehement rebuttals.
This template was also followed by AP (via ABC, 12/4/24), NBC News (12/5/24) and the other usual suspects. Significantly, this sort of rebuttal option is never extended to Palestinians; you’d never see Yaniv Hegyi fleeing his home from “conduct by Gazans that the Israeli government says amounts to terrorism—a charge the government of Gaza has vehemently denied.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board (12/5/24) took it upon themselves to pen a diatribe against the organization that had chosen to “lend…its once-good name to the genocide lie,” and thereby “assure… its good standing in the anti-Israel herd.” Bearing the headline “The Propaganda War on Israel Never Stops,” the rant came accompanied by an entirely irrelevant 23-minute documentary on “the worst antisemitic riot in American history” in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, which took place in 1991.
According to the Journal, Amnesty has committed an “inversion of reality”: It’s actually Hamas that is the “genocidal” actor—and, by the way, there are “terrorist headquarters in hospitals” in Gaza. This is just about the most unabashed apology for war crimes you can ask for. Israel has pulverized the bulk of Gaza’s medical infrastructure, and an October UN press release noted that
Israeli security forces have deliberately killed, detained and tortured medical personnel and targeted medical vehicles, while tightening their siege on Gaza and restricting permits to leave the territory for medical treatment.
By converting Israel into the victim not only of “terrorists” but also of a “propaganda war,” the Journal is engaging in its own criminal “inversion of reality.” But for a corporate media committed to complicity in genocide by linguistic omission, it’s all in a day’s work.
New Plymouth has admitted it has investments in companies active in illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, contrary to New Zealand government foreign policy and United Nations rulings.
The revelation comes a week after Mayor Neil Holdom refused a request from Parihaka Pā and all the district’s iwi to make sure the council was not invested in companies profiting from the settlements.
The shareholdings sparked a hostile debate with Holdom accusing councillor Bali Haque of politicising the district’s nest-egg for virtue signalling, and Haque in turn questioning the mayor’s honesty and integrity.
The investments were made from New Plymouth District Council’s $400 million Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF).
The money is managed by Mercer in a passive fund, which automatically follows an index of companies and chooses which shares to buy.
Eight companies invested in by Mercer have been named by the UN as enabling and profiting from the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian Occupied Territories:
Motorola Solutions — the security arm of the mobile phone maker.
Travel companies Expedia, Airbnb, and Booking Holdings which owns Booking.com and other sites.
French multinational railways manufacturer Alstom
Three Israeli banks, including the country’s first and third biggest — which often offer concessionary loans to settlers.
Less than $1m involved
Less than a million dollars is involved, just a quarter of one percent of New Plymouth’s PIF.
Haque wanted Mercer to be told that NPDC strongly disagrees with investing in companies active in the settlements and wants the investments ended as soon as possible.
He also proposed that the council-owned company overseeing the fund — the PIF Guardians — bring more advice on the process and cost of divestment if Mercer did not act.
“We need to do something,” Haque said.
“It’s small, I understand less than a million we’re talking about, but it is significant in terms of the impact . . . This is something we can actually do and control.”
Mayor Neil Holdom repeated his explanation to the Parihaka delegation for opposing any action.
“Given the deeply sensitive and complex nature of the Israeli-Palestine conflict we’ve gotta approach this with a great deal of care and it’s my view that supporting this could be seen as taking a position in a dispute that has profound emotional and personal significance for members of our community on both sides.”
‘A terrible conflict’
The Mayor then turned to Haque.
“It is clear councillor Haque cares deeply about this issue and wants this debate and in the desperation to signal his personal conviction now wants to start playing politics with the PIF.
“It’s a terrible conflict, it’s a disaster for everybody involved but now someone wants to drag our community’s $400 million investment fund into this and make it a political football, to make a political point.”
Haque, clearly shocked, said it was Holdom himself who had told him to bring the motion to the Council Controlled Organisations committee.
“I’m staggered that now you have now done an about face and turned the tables . . . You were the very person who encouraged me to put this very motion to this committee and now you are attacking me personally for actually acting on the basis of what you asked me to do.
“So my respect — with respect — has declined in your honesty and integrity.”
Neil Holdom: “Wow! Wow, unbelievable.”
Chair Marie Pearce: “Yeah”
Councillor Murray Chong “He didn’t attack you at all
Councillor Anneke Carlson Mathews: “That was a full-on attack!”
Pearce barely kept control of the meeting.
‘Getting out of hand’
“This is getting totally out of hand.”
Councillor Bali Haque is questioning the mayor’s integrity over the council’s treatment of investments. Image: RNZ/John Gerritsen
Once tempers cooled, the Mayor explained that advice from the PIF Guardians was that the low-cost passive fund offered no control over Mercer’s decision and putting the funds in different management could cost up to $3.2 million a year in higher fees.
Holdom said he had told Haque of the advice.
Haque said that he had adjusted his proposal in response and read Holdom’s text message advising him to bring a proposal to instruct Mercer to comply with UN resolutions.
“We heard that it might be expensive but I’d quite like to know what it is we’re up for if Mercer decides not to act on the basis of what we’re saying,” said Haque.
Councillors Haque, Carson Matthews, and Bryan Vickery voted for Haque’s proposal.
They were defeated by Mayor Holdom and councillors Pearce, Murray Chong and Max Brough.
Councillor David Bublitz abstained, wanting the PIF to divest shares linked to any conflict anywhere in the world.
NZ co-sponsored Resolution 2334
New Zealand in 2016 co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2334, declaring Israeli settlements in Palestine a violation of international law.
The resolution obliges states and entities “to withdraw all recognition, aid and assistance to Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestine territory.”
In July this year, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s settlements in Gaza and West Bank are illegal and ordered Israel to stop building new settlements and evacuate existing ones.
In September, the UN General Assembly — including Foreign Minister Winston Peters — called on all States to make sure their people, companies and entities and authorities “do not act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a community partner of both RNZ and LDR.
One of Fasky’s photographs at sn exhibition showcasing his work during the Récréâtrales festival. In this photo, a young woman is weaving a traditional Burkinabe loincloth. Photo by Joel Hevi, used with permission.
Across Africa, art events serve as powerful platforms for activists seeking to raise awareness about social issues and human rights.
Zerbo Siaka, also known as Fasky, is a photographic artist from Burkina Faso operating at the intersection of artistic expression and activist movements. The artist is also the director of the association Photo’age. Through this association, he is dedicated to passing on his photographic expertise to the next generation. His exhibition at the 13th edition of the cultural festival ‘Les Récréâtrales’ — a pan-African space for writing, creation, research, and theatrical dissemination — exemplifies the positive impact art can have on society.
A long-time participant in this significant gathering, Fasky shared his perspectives with Global Voices during Les Récréâtrales, explaining how he uses his photography as a tool to foster resilience and encourage social engagement.
Fasky. Photo by Joel Hevi, used with permission.
Joel Hevi (JH): Could you tell us about what inspired your journey into photography and your role within the Photo’Age association?
Fasky (F): I am Zerbo Siaka, also known as Fasky, a photographer from Bobo-Dioulasso in Burkina Faso. My journey into photography happened by chance. Initially, I aspired to be a rapper, but my path changed when I discovered photography while accompanying some French friends who were part of an association in Burkina Faso. They gifted me a camera, and that’s when photography became my passion. Today, through Photo’Age, I share this art with the younger generation, including internally displaced children, helping them to express themselves and showcase their realities.
JH: You presented a series of portraits of women at Les Récréâtrales. What message are you hoping to share through these woman-centric pieces?
F: For four years now, I have taken part in Les Récréâtrales. During this time, I have been fortunate to build strong connections with the women I photograph, most of whom are internally displaced [due to the widespread violence caused by terrorist attacks]. The theme of my exhibition, ‘We Shall Overcome,’ reflects their resilience in the face of crisis. These are women who, despite everything, hold on to hope and fight for their dignity. Through their portraits, I invite visitors to witness their strength and vulnerability. My hope is that beyond their faces, one can see a moving and inspiring humanity.
JH: Do you hope to initiate a dialogue about gender equality? What potential impacts could arise beyond the aesthetic appeal of your work?
F: Definitely, photography is for me a political and social act. These portraits are a statement advocating for gender equality and a tribute to these strong women and their struggles. I hope to raise awareness, to showcase their strength, and to emphasize the urgency of achieving equality. If my photographs can spark a debate and motivate others to stand up for these women’s rights, they will have achieved their goal.
JH: Your photographic style conveys an intimate connection with your subjects. How do you manage to establish this trust, especially in often challenging situations?
F: Trust is at the heart of my work. The women I photograph know me; we have built relationships over time. The Terre Ceinte project allowed me to understand their lives and earn their trust. Before taking their pictures, I listen and respect their stories. This bond is reflected in their expressions in my photos — a sincerity that only patience and attentive listening can bring to life.
