President Donald on Friday made good on his pledge to sue The Wall Street Journal over its reporting that he wrote a “bawdy” letter for a leather-bound album that Ghislaine Maxwell prepared for the 50th birthday of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender who allegedly killed himself in jail while facing federal sex trafficking charges. Maxwell, who is now serving a 20…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
After months of a confected furore over a BBC documentary supposedly demonstrating pro-Hamas bias, followed by the shelving of a second film on Gaza, an independent review found last week that the broadcaster had not breached impartiality guidelines.
A long list of complaints against Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone – all pushed for months by the Israel lobby, and amplified by the British establishment media – were dismissed one after the other by Peter Johnston, director of the editorial complaints and review body that reports to the BBC director general.
Not that you would know any of this from the eagerness of BBC executives to continue apologising profusely for the failings the corporation had just been cleared of. It almost sounded as if they wanted to be found guilty.
The row is now set to drag on for many months more after Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, announced it too would investigate the programme.
All of this is exactly what the Israel lobby and the billionaire-owned media had hoped for.
The aim of manufacturing this protracted storm in a teacup was twofold.
First, the furore was designed to distract from what the documentary actually showed: the horrors facing children in Gaza as they have had to navigate a tiny strip of land in which Israel has trapped them, bombed their homes, levelled their schools, exposed them to relentless carnage for 21 months, destroyed the hospitals they will need in time of trouble, and is starving them and their loved ones.
Second, it was intended to browbeat the BBC into adopting an even more craven posture towards Israel than it had already. If it was reluctant before to give Palestinians a voice, now it will avoid doing so at all costs.
True to form, executives hurriedly removed How to Survive a Warzone from its iPlayer catch-up service the moment the lobby went into action.
The BBC’s ever greater spinelessness has real-world, and dangerous, consequences.
Israel will feel even freer to intensify what the International Court of Justice already suspected back in January 2024 was a genocide and what leading genocide and Holocaust scholars have subsequently concluded is a genocide.
There will be even less pressure on the British government to stop partnering Israel in its genocide by supplying weapons, intelligence and diplomatic cover.
The enduring row will also hand a bigger stick to Rupert Murdoch and other media moguls with which to beat the BBC, making it cower even further.
Signs of the BBC’s defensiveness were already all too evident. While it was waiting for the Johnston report, the corporation ditched a separate documentary, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, on Israel’s systematic destruction of Gaza’s hospitals and murder of some 1,600 health workers.
It has since been shown by Channel 4.
The BBC argued that – even though this second programme had repeatedly passed its editorial checks – airing it risked contributing to a “perception of partiality”.
What that bit of BBC gobbledygook actually meant was that the problem was not “partiality”. It was the perception of it by vested interests – Israel, its apologists, the Starmer government and the British corporate media – who demand skewed BBC coverage of Gaza so that Israel can carry on with a genocide the British establishment is utterly complicit in.
In other words, truth and accuracy be damned. This is about Israel – and the Starmer government – dictating to the BBC the terms of what can be said about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Which brings us back to the Johnston report. The only significant finding against the BBC was on a single issue in its documentary on Gaza’s children, How to Survive a Warzone.
The film had not disclosed that its 13-year narrator was the son of an official in Gaza’s Hamas-run government.
Even in the current febrile atmosphere, Johnston found no grounds to uphold the manifold accusations of a breach by the BBC of impartiality rules. Nothing in the film, he concluded, was unfair to Israel.
Instead, he stated that it was a breach of “full transparency” not to have divulged the child-narrator’s tenuous connection to Hamas through his father’s governmental work.
Paradoxically, the BBC’s coverage of Johnston’s findings has been far more inaccurate about the child-narrator than the original documentary. But there has been no uproar because this particular inaccuracy from the BBC squarely benefits Israel.
On the News at Ten last week, reporting on the Johnston report, presenter Reeta Chakrabati claimed that the film’s narrator was “the son of an official in the militant group Hamas.”
He is nothing of the sort. He is the son of a scientist who directed agricultural policy in Gaza’s government, which is run by Hamas.
There is zero evidence that Ayman Alyazouri was ever a member of the militant wing of Hamas. He doesn’t even appear to have been a member of its political wing.
In fact, since 2018 Israel had set up a system to vet most officials in Gaza like Alyazouri to ensure they were not linked to Hamas before they were able to receive salaries funded by Qatar.
Johnston himself concedes as much, noting that the programme makers failed to inform the BBC of 13-year-old Abdullah’s background because their checks showed Alyazouri was a civilian technocrat in the government, not involved in its military or political arms.
The team’s only failing was an astounding ignorance of how the Israel lobby operates and how ready the BBC is to cave in to its pressure tactics.
In reality, Johnston’s finding against the BBC was over little more than an editorial technicality, one intentionally blown up into a major scandal.
Johnston himself gave the game away when he noted in his executive summary the need for “full transparency” when the BBC makes programmes “in such a contested setting”.
In other words, special, much stricter editorial rules apply when the corporation intends to make programmes likely to upset Israel.
From now on, that will mean that, in practice, such programmes are not made at all.
The double standard is glaring. The BBC aired a documentary last year, Surviving October 7: We Will Dance Again, offering eyewitness testimony from Israeli survivors of 7 October 2023 at the Nova music festival, where hundreds of Israelis were killed during Hamas’ one-day break-out from Gaza.
Did the BBC insist that the backgrounds of the Israelis interviewed were checked and disclosed to the audience as part of the broadcast? Were viewers told whether festivalgoers had served in the Israeli military, which for decades has been enforcing an illegal occupation and a system of apartheid over Palestinians, according to a ruling last year by the world’s highest court?
And what would it have indicated to audiences had the BBC included such contextual information about its Israeli eyewitnesses? That their testimonies had less validity? That they could not be trusted?
If it was not necessary to include such background details for Israeli eyewitnesses, why is it more important to do so for a 13-year-old Palestinian?
And even more to the point, if the BBC needs to give details of 13-year-old Abdullah Alyazouri’s background before he can be allowed to read a script written by the programme makers, why is the BBC not also required to give important background about Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he appears in reports: such as that he is wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Exactly how trustworthy a narrator of events in the devastated enclave does the BBC consider Netanyahu to be that it does not think this context needs including?
The gain from this manufactured row for the Israel lobby – and for a Starmer government desperate to silence criticism of its complicity in genocide – were set out in stark detail last week by the makers of the second documentary, about Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s health sector.
In an article in the Observer newspaper, they recounted a series of startling admissions and demands from BBC executives made in script meetings.
The corporation insisted that Doctors Under Attack could not be aired so long as the award-winning investigative reporter leading the programme, Ramita Navai, was given top billing. They demanded that she be downgraded to a mere “contributor” – her role effectively disappeared – because she had supposedly made “one-sided” social media posts criticising Israel for breaking international law.
She was considered unacceptable, according to the BBC, because she had not been “supportive enough of the other side”: that is, of Israel and its military carrying out systematic war crimes by destroying Gaza’s hospitals, as documented in great detail in her film.
In a statement to Middle East Eye on its decision to shelve the documentary, the BBC spokesperson stated that, after Navai appeared on its Today radio programme and “called Israel a ‘rogue state that’s committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass murdering Palestinians’, it was impossible for the BBC to broadcast the material without risking our impartiality.
“The BBC holds itself to the highest standards of impartiality and it would never be acceptable for any BBC journalist to express a personal opinion in this way. We believe this is one of the reasons we’re the world’s most trusted news provider. We were left with no choice but to walk away.”
Seen another way, offering apologias for genocide, as the BBC has been doing for the past 21 months, is apparently a requirement before the corporation is willing to give journalists a platform to criticise Israel.
Also revealing is who the state broadcaster looks to when deciding how to apply its editorial standards.
BBC executives told the film-makers they should not reference the United Nations or Amnesty International because they were supposedly not “trusted independent organisations”.
Meanwhile, the corporation openly and obsessively worried to the film-makers about what fanatically pro-Israel lobbyists – such as social media activist David Collier and Camera, a pro-Israel media monitoring organisation – would say about their film on Gaza.
The team were told BBC News executives were “very jumpy and paranoid” about coverage of Gaza.
This follows a long and dishonorable tradition at the state broadcaster. In their 2011 book More Bad News from Israel, media scholars Greg Philo and Mike Berry reported a BBC producer telling them: “We all fear the phone call from the Israeli embassy.”
If you had been wondering why the BBC has been reflexively both-sidesing a genocide, here is a large part of the answer.
A damning report by the Centre for Media Monitoring last month analysed in detail the BBC’s Gaza coverage in the year following Hamas’ one-day attack on 7 October 2023.
It found a “pattern of bias, double standards and silencing of Palestinian voices”.
These included the BBC running over 30 times more victim profiles of Israelis than Palestinians; interviewing more than twice as many Israelis as Palestinians; asking 38 interviewees to condemn Hamas but asking no one to condemn Israel’s mass killing of civilians, or its attacks on hospitals and schools; and shutting down more than 100 interviewers who tried to refer to events in Gaza as a genocide.
Only 0.5% of BBC articles provided any context for what was happening before 7 October 2023: that Israel had been illegally occupying the Palestinian territories for decades and besieging the enclave for 17 years.
Similarly, the BBC has barely reported the endless stream of genocidal statements from Israeli political and military leaders – a crucial ingredient in legally determining whether military actions constitute genocide.
Nor has it mentioned other vital context: such as Israel’s invocation of the Hannibal directive on 7 October 2023, licensing it to kill its own citizens to prevent them being taken captive; or its military’s long-established Dahiya doctrine, in which the mass destruction of civilian infrastructure – and with it, the likelihood of slaughtering civilians – is viewed as an effective way to deter resistance to its aggressions.
In the specified time period, the BBC covered Ukraine with twice as many articles as Gaza, even though the Gaza story was newer and Israeli crimes even graver than Russian ones. The corporation was twice as likely to use sympathetic language for Ukrainian victims than it was for Palestinian victims.
Palestinians were usually described as having “died” or been “killed” in air strikes, without mention of who launched those strikes. Israeli victims, on the other hand, were “massacred”, “slaughtered” and “butchered”.
None of these were editorial slip-ups. They were part of a systematic, long-term skewing of editorial coverage in Israel’s favour – a clear breach of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines and one that has created a permissive environment for genocide.
Journalists at the BBC are known to be in revolt. More than 100 signed a letter – anonymously for fear of reprisals – condemning the decision to censor the documentary Doctors under Attack. They said it reflected a mix of “fear” and “anti-Palestinian racism” at the corporation.
The BBC told MEE: “Robust discussions amongst our editorial teams about our journalism are an essential part of the editorial process. We have ongoing discussions about coverage and listen to feedback from staff, and we think these conversations are best had internally.”
The journalists, it seems, would prefer that these discussions are had out in the open. They wrote: “As an organisation we have not offered any significant analysis of the UK government’s involvement in the war on Palestinians. We have failed to report on weapons sales or their legal implications. These stories have instead been broken by the BBC’s competitors.”
And they added: “All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military.”
They could have added, even more pertinently, that in the process the BBC has been doing PR for the British establishment too.
A former BBC press officer, Ben Murray, last week gave broader context to the meaning of the corporation’s famed editorial “impartiality”. His role, he wrote, had been a rearguard one to placate the Times, Telegraph, Sun, and most of all, the Daily Mail.
Those establishment outlets are owned by corporations and billionaires heavily invested in the very oil, “defence” and tech industries Israel is central to lubricating.
BBC executives, Murray noted, “were rightfully fearful of these publications’ influence, and often reacted in ways to appease them. Their task was to protect the BBC’s funding model, and by extension, their prestigious jobs and generous salaries.”
None of this went against the grain. As Murray pointed out, most senior BBC staff enjoyed private educations, have Oxbridge degrees, and have been “fast-tracked up the corporate ladder”. They see their job as being “to reinforce and maintain establishment viewpoints”.
If this weren’t enough, senior BBC staff also have to look over their shoulders to the British government, which sets the corporation’s funding through the TV licence fee.
The government, no less than the BBC, needs to keep its main constituencies happy.
No, not voters. Ministers, keen for favourable coverage, similarly dare not antagonise Israel-aligned media moguls. And equally they cannot afford to alienate powerful US administrations that pledge an undying, unshakeable bond to Israel as it projects western power into the oil-rich Middle East.
Which is precisely why Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, was only too keen to jump on the Daily Mail bandwagon in calling for heads to roll at the BBC over the supposed “failings” in its Gaza coverage.
“It makes me angry on behalf of the BBC staff and the whole creative industries in this country,” she said, apparently oblivious to the fact that many BBC journalists’ fury is not over the confected scandals generated by the Israel lobby and billionaire-owned media.
They are appalled at the corporation’s refusal to hold Israel or Nandy’s own government accountable for the genocide in Gaza.
In such circumstances, the BBC’s professed commitment to “impartiality” serves as nothing more than a smokescreen.
In reality, the corporation acts as an echo chamber, amplifying and legitimising the interests of media tycoons, the British government and the Washington consensus, however much they flout the foundational principles of international law, human rights and basic decency.
Anybody who stands outside that circle of influence – such as the Palestinians and their supporters, anti-genocide activists, human rights advocates, and increasingly the UN and its legal organs, such as the International Criminal Court – is assumed by the BBC to be suspect.
Such voices are likely to be marginalised, silenced or vilified.
The BBC has not failed. It has done exactly what it is there to do: help the British government conceal the fact that there is a genocide going on in Gaza, and one that the UK has been knee-deep in assisting.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
“Those people … ” Donald said, trailing off. “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.” — Donald TRUMP
Trump’s buddy:
This figure corresponds to the number of inmate deaths since the “State of Emergency” was implemented in March 2022. “These were people awaiting trial who had not been convicted,” said the Salvadoran NGO, which provides legal assistance to the families of detainees.
According to SJH, 94% of those who died “had no gang affiliation,” and the organization warned that the total number of deaths in state custody “could surpass 1,000,” noting that “there is information being concealed in mass trials.”
A criminal justice reform passed in 2023 by the Legislative Assembly—controlled by President Nayib Bukele’s party—eliminated individual criminal proceedings and authorized the implementation of mass and collective trials based on gang affiliation. To date, no verdicts have been issued under this procedure, which human rights defenders have repeatedly denounced as violating the right to due process.
[El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, sitting next to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, said on Monday he will not return Kilmar Abrego García, a migrant from Maryland who was wrongfully deported.
“I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele said when a reporter asked.
“How could I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” he added, repeating the Trump administration’s claim that Abrego García is a “terrorist” gang member of MS-13 — which it has not claimed in the court battle over his fate.
Bukele, the self-described “world’s coolest dictator” who has become a key partner in Trump’s controversial deportations, called it a “preposterous question,” saying “of course, I’m not going to do it,” as Trump nodded in agreement.]
Tax all these fucking continuing criminal enterprises? Check it out: UN Special Rapporteur Issues Report Detailing Corporate Machinery that Profits Off Immiseration of Palestinians
Italians Call for Nobel Peace Prize for Francisca Albanese
The Italian attorney, who has served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has directly and explicitly accused Israel of committing war crimes and genocide in the Gaza Strip.
During his weekly television show Con Maduro +, the Bolivarian leader said that Albanese “produced a report with conclusive and reliable evidence of the genocide being committed against the Palestinian people.”
“The criminals and the accomplices of the genocide will pay,” Maduro said, emphasizing that human rights defenders like Albanese “will be remembered in the future for their bravery.”
[Caterpillar bulldozer destroying Palestinian home in West Bank. ]
[I.G. Farben executives on trial at 1947 Nuremberg trials. I.G. Farben was a chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas used at Auschwitz and other concentration camps.]
[IDF helicopter at Tel Nof air base that is being upgraded by the U.S.]
[Glastonbury is far from perfect. Tickets are increasingly unaffordable making it largely inaccessible for many working class people. Its demographics remain overwhelmingly white. Its insurer—Allianz—invests in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. The contradictions are real.]
Shit dawg, the outsized number of Chosen People at this Utah fun fun fun felony camp:
A full guest list of the Allen and Co. gathering is below:
Big Tech
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple
Eddy Cue, senior vice president of services at Apple
Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet
Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft
Jeff Bezos, executive chairman of Amazon
Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft
Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber
Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb
Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir
Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify
Evan Spiegel, CEO of Snap
Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision Blizzard
Media and entertainment
David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery
Bruce Campbell, chief revenue and strategy officer of Warner Bros. Discovery
Bob Iger, CEO of The Walt Disney Company
Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment
Alan Bergman, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment
Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences
Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN
Michael Eisner, former CEO of The Walt Disney Company
Rupert Murdoch, former chairman of News Corp
Lachlan Murdoch, chairman of News Corp
Robert Thompson, CEO of News Corp
Barry Diller, chairman of IAC
Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix
Greg Peters, co-CEO of Netflix
Reed Hastings, chairman of Netflix
Neal Mohan, CEO of YouTube
Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast
Jason Blum, CEO of Blumhouse Productions
Brian Grazer, film and television producer
Bryan Lourd, CEO of Creative Artists Agency
Michael Ovitz, co-founder of Creative Artists Agency
Ynon Keri, CEO of Mattel
Charles Rivkin, CEO of the Motion Picture Association
Ravi Ahuja, CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment
John Malone, chairman of Liberty Media
Derek Chang, CEO of Liberty Media
Mike Fries, CEO of Liberty Global
Jeffrey Katzenberg, co-founder of DreamWorks
Michael Rapino, CEO of Live Nation Entertainment
Casey Wasserman, CEO of Wasserman Media Group
Corporate media
Michael Bloomberg, majority owner of Bloomberg L.P.
Diane Sawyer, anchor for ABC News
Anderson Cooper, anchor of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360
Erin Burnett, anchor of CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront
Andrew Ross Sorkin, financial columnist for The New York Times and co-anchor of CNBC’s Squawk Box
Becky Quick, co-anchor of CNBC’s Squawk Box
Bari Weiss, editor of The Free Press
Bret Baier, chief political anchor for FOX News
Evan Osnos, staff writer for The New Yorker
David Ignatius, columnist for The Washington Post
Gayle King, co-host of CBS Mornings
David Begnaud, contributor for CBS News
Bill Cowher, analyst for CBS Sports
Politics
Glenn Youngkin, governor of Virginia
Wes Moore, governor of Maryland
Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader
Gina Raimondo, former commerce secretary
Others
Ivanka Trump
Diane von Furstenberg, fashion designer
Ruth Rogers, owner of The River Café
[Summer camp for billionaires’ begins in Sun Valley with the arrival of 165 private jets]
Look at the degradation in AmeriKKKa, the headlines for this Mafia Meet-Up:
I will belabor the point — AmeriKKKa, AKA LaLaLandia, AKA, UnUnited Snake$ of Israel First, that fucking parasitic country, that ONE, is a tale of five bloody cities:
Annual Incomes of Top Earners
Data from tax year 2021 (as reported on Americans’ 2022 tax returns) shows that taxpayers in the top 1% had adjusted gross income (AGIs) of at least $682,577, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation. Those in the top 5% had AGIs of at least $252,840, while breaking into the top 10% required an income of at least $169,800.1
Those numbers are averages and can vary widely across the country. According to GoBankingRates, also using 2021 data but adjusting it for inflation, qualifying for the top 1% now requires an AGI of over $1 million in five states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington), with Connecticut having the highest threshold, of $1,192,947.
Meanwhile, residents of Mississippi, New Mexico, and West Virginia could qualify with less than $500,000 in AGI, with West Virginia setting the lowest bar at $435,302.
Oh, those house negroes: Malcolm describes the difference between the “house Negro” and the “field Negro.”
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 23 January 1963.
So you have two types of Negro. The old type and the new type. Most of you know the old type. When you read about him in history during slavery he was called “Uncle Tom.” He was the house Negro. And during slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro.
The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master’s second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master’s house–probably in the basement or the attic–but he still lived in the master’s house.
So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. When his master said, “We have good food,” the house Negro would say, “Yes, we have plenty of good food.” “We” have plenty of good food. When the master said that “we have a fine home here,” the house Negro said, “Yes, we have a fine home here.” When the master would be sick, the house Negro identified himself so much with his master he’d say, “What’s the matter boss, we sick?” His master’s pain was his pain. And it hurt him more for his master to be sick than for him to be sick himself. When the house started burning down, that type of Negro would fight harder to put the master’s house out than the master himself would.
But then you had another Negro out in the field. The house Negro was in the minority. The masses–the field Negroes were the masses. They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he’d die. [Laughter] If his house caught on fire, they’d pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze.
If someone came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” naturally that Uncle Tom would say, “Go where? What could I do without boss? Where would I live? How would I dress? Who would look out for me?” That’s the house Negro. But if you went to the field Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” he wouldn’t even ask you where or how. He’d say, “Yes, let’s go.” And that one ended right there.
So now you have a twentieth-century-type of house Negro. A twentieth-century Uncle Tom. He’s just as much an Uncle Tom today as Uncle Tom was 100 and 200 years ago. Only he’s a modern Uncle Tom. That Uncle Tom wore a handkerchief around his head. This Uncle Tom wears a top hat. He’s sharp. He dresses just like you do. He speaks the same phraseology, the same language. He tries to speak it better than you do. He speaks with the same accents, same diction. And when you say, “your army,” he says, “our army.” He hasn’t got anybody to defend him, but anytime you say “we” he says “we.” “Our president,” “our government,” “our Senate,” “our congressmen,” “our this and our that.” And he hasn’t even got a seat in that “our” even at the end of the line. So this is the twentieth-century Negro. Whenever you say “you,” the personal pronoun in the singular or in the plural, he uses it right along with you. When you say you’re in trouble, he says, “Yes, we’re in trouble.”
But there’s another kind of Black man on the scene. If you say you’re in trouble, he says, “Yes, you’re in trouble.” [Laughter] He doesn’t identify himself with your plight whatsoever. — SOURCE: X, Malcolm. “The Race Problem.” African Students Association and NAACP Campus Chapter. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 23 January 1963.
Look, I am taking adults with low income lives, adults with Medicaid lives, adults living with intellectual and developmental disabilities lives, adults who need to take in those 10 cents a pop beer and soda cans just to make ends meet lives, adults on food (SNAP) stamps lives, adults with no transportation options lives … taking them on road trips so they can have some sort of activities of daily living that go beyond watching the TV and playing on Smart/Dumb phones.
Intellectual disability1 starts any time before a child turns 18 and is characterized by differences with both:
The term “developmental disabilities” is a broader category of often lifelong challenges that can be intellectual, physical, or both.2
“IDD” is the term often used to describe situations in which intellectual disability and other disabilities are present.3
It might be helpful to think about IDDs in terms of the body parts or systems they affect or how they occur. For example4:
The exact definition of IDD, as well as the different types or categories of IDD, may vary depending on the source of the information.
For example, within the context of education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a law that aims to ensure educational services to children with disabilities throughout the nation, the definition of IDD and the types of conditions that are considered IDD might be different from the definitions and categories used by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide services and support for those with disabilities. These definitions and categories might also be different from those used by healthcare providers and researchers.
Jewish elite values. More room temperature IQ’s:
Oz began by saying that programs like Medicare and Medicaid “were a promise to the American people to take care of you if you’re having problems financially or you’re having an issue because you’re older and need health care.”
But he also told Fox host Stuart Varney that Americans should also do the most they can to stay healthy.
“We’ll be there for you, the American people, when you need help with Medicare and Medicaid, but you’ve got to stay healthy as well,” Oz said. “Be vital. Do the most that you can do to really live up to the potential, the God-given potential, to live a full and healthy life.”
It was his next piece of advice, however, that inspired waves of social media mockery.
“You know, don’t eat carrot cake. Eat real food,” he said.
And, yes, Oz had brought a whole carrot cake for Varney.
“I couldn’t find a healthy cake, so I brought the closest thing, a carrot cake,” Oz said.
These people DO NOT care about you, me, my clients, those I write about, none of us.
Forget about FDR’s legacy: November 12, 2013/ How Franklin D. Roosevelt Botched Social Security/ Alan Nasser
My Uncle Donald Trump Told Me Disabled Americans Like My Son ‘Should Just Die’
Do you know how many MAGA maggots receiving Medicaid, VA benefits, SNAP, DD/ID services, and those getting bedpans changed via the public offers.
The barriers are everywhere, even in communities that are generally supportive, like ours. There are still doorways that can’t accommodate wheelchairs. It is still hard to find meaningful day programs that foster independence with learning, socialization, and assistive technology. The whole narrative still needs to change.
I knew that acceptance and tolerance would only come with public education and awareness. Donald might never understand this, but at least he had been open to our advocating through the White House. That was something. If we couldn’t change his feelings about William, that was his loss. He would never feel the love and connection that William offered us daily. By Fred C. Trump III/ July 24, 2024
And it was this that got me going just now: THE PARASITE TAX: The Central Element of Any Tax Code by Emanuel Pastreich
You red Pastreich’s piece and you be the judge. My comments?
Taxing a continuing criminal enterprises? Taxing the Mafia? Taxing a few million hitmen? Contract killers, tax them? Oh, tax the polluters and the toxin producers? Tax the pedophiles? Tax the manslaughter queens and kings? Tax the AI guys and AGI LGBTQA folk? Tax the mining companies? Tax Boeing and Raytheon? Oh, tax tax tax?
Sure, that is the peaceful revolution, no, the monsters still in charge. Oh, that’s right, where to start with the taxation? Hmm, I do a kilo of coke in my house, selling grams to dentists and doctors and professionals, but, alas, a Good Little German with Loose Lips lets the Nazis of the DEA kind know, and, bam, my house, my guns, my bank accounts, my investments, my retirement, my SS, gone gone gone. Forfeited?
But we will tax these mother fuckers? Nah, you need some training with AK-47’s and Molotovs and Claymore mines and, well, Anarchist Cookbook revised.
You digging this headline? Trump’s BBB busts the budget to benefit arms makers, AI warlords
Yeah.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
COMMENTARY: By Refaat Ibrahim
“If words shape our consciousness, then the media holds the keys to minds.”
This sentence is not merely a metaphor, but a reality we live daily in the coverage of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, where the crimes of the occupation are turned into “acts of violence”, the siege targeting civilians into “security measures”, and the legitimate resistance into “terrorist acts”.
This linguistic distortion is not innocent; it is part of a “systematic mechanism” practised by major Western media outlets, through which they perpetuate a false image of a “conflict between two equal sides”, ignoring the fact that one is an occupier armed with the latest military technology, and the other is a people besieged in their land for decades.
Here, the ethical question becomes urgent: how does the media shift from conveying truth to becoming a tool for justifying oppression?
Western media institutions promote a colonial narrative that reproduces the discourse of Israeli superiority, using linguistic and legal mechanisms to justify genocide.
But the rise of global awareness through social media platforms and documentaries like We Are Not Numbers, produced by youth in Gaza, exposes this bias and brings the Palestinian narrative back to the forefront.
Selective coverage . . . when injustice becomes an opinion
“Terrorism”, “self-defence”, “conflict” . . . are all terms that place the responsibility for violence on Palestinians while presenting Israel as the perpetual victim. This linguistic shift contradicts international law, which considers settlements a war crime (according to Article 8 of the Rome Statute), yet most reports avoid even describing the West Bank as “occupied territory”.
More dangerously, the issue is reduced to “violent events” without mentioning their contexts: how can the Palestinian people’s resistance be understood without addressing 75 years of displacement and the siege of Gaza since 2007? The media is like someone commenting on the flames without mentioning who ignited them.
The Western media coverage of the Israeli war on Gaza represents a blatant model of systematic bias that reproduces the Israeli narrative and justifies war crimes through precise linguistic and media mechanisms. Below is a breakdown of the most prominent practices:
Stripping historical context and portraying Palestinians as aggressor
Ignoring the occupation: Media outlets like the BBC and The New York Times ignored the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories since 1948 and focused on the 7 October 2023 attack as an isolated event, without linking it to the daily oppression such as home demolitions and arrests in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Misleading terms: The war has often been described as a “conflict between Israel and Hamas”, while Gaza is considered the largest open-air prison in the world under Israeli siege since 2007. Example: The Economist described Hamas’s attacks as “bloody”, while Israeli attacks were called “military operations”.
Dehumanising Palestinians
Language of abstraction: The BBC used terms like “died” for Palestinians versus “killed” for Israelis, according to a quantitative study by The Intercept, weakening sympathy for Palestinian victims.
Victim portrayal: While Israeli death reports included names and family ties (like “mother” or “grandmother”), Palestinians were shown as anonymous numbers, as seen in the coverage of Le Monde and Le Figaro.
Israeli political rhetoric: Media outlets reported statements by Israeli leaders such as dismissed defence minister Yoav Gallant, who described Palestinians as “human animals”, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who called them “children of darkness”, without critically analysing this rhetoric that strips them of their humanity.
Distorting resistance and linking it to terrorism
Misleading comparisons: The October 7 attack was compared to “9/11” and described as a “terrorist attack” in The Washington Post and CNN, reinforcing the “war on terror” narrative and justifying Israel’s excessive response.
Fake news: Papers like The Sun and Daily Mail promoted the story of “beheaded Israeli babies” without evidence, a story even adopted by US president Joe Biden, only to be disproven later by videos showing Hamas’ humane treatment of captives.
Selective coverage and suppression of the Palestinian narrative
Silencing journalists: Journalists such as Zahraa Al-Akhras (Global News) and Bassam Bounni (BBC) were dismissed for criticising Israel or supporting Palestine, while others were pressured to adopt the Israeli narrative.
Defaming Palestinian institutions: The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal claimed the Palestinian death toll figures were “exaggerated”, ignoring UN and human rights organisations’ reports that confirmed their accuracy.
Manipulating legal and ethical terms
Denying war crimes: Deutsche Welle stated that Israeli attacks are “not considered war crimes”, despite the destruction of hospitals and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.
Legal misinformation: The BBC referred to Israeli settlements in the West Bank as “disputed territories”, despite the UN declaring them illegal.
The Israeli military joins settlers in attacks because terrorizing Palestinians is state policy. But Western media doesn’t report it that way.
This is what decades of occupation looks like. pic.twitter.com/PwHxad4vCV
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) July 18, 2025
Double standards in conflict coverage
Comparison with Ukraine: Western media linked support for Ukraine and Israel as “victims of aggression”, while ignoring that Israel is an occupying power under international law. Terminology shifted immediately: “invasion”, “war crimes”, “occupation” were used for Ukraine but omitted when speaking of Palestine.
According to a 2022 study by the Arab Media Monitoring Project, 90 percent of Western reports on Ukraine used language blaming Russia for the violence, compared to only 30 percent in the Palestinian case.
This contradiction exposes the underlying “racist bias”: how is killing in Europe called “genocide”, while in Gaza it is termed a “complicated conflict”? The answer lies in the statement of journalist Mika Brzezinski: “The only red line in Western media is criticising Israel.”
False neutrality: Sky News claimed it “could not verify” the Baptist Hospital massacre, despite video documentation, yet quickly adopted the Israeli narrative.
Consequences: legitimising genocide and marginalising Palestinian rights
Western media practices have contributed to normalising Israeli violence by portraying it as “legitimate defence”, while resistance is labelled as “terrorism.”
Deepening Palestinian isolation: By stripping them of the right to narrate, as shown in an academic study by Mike Berry (Cardiff University), which found emotional terms used exclusively to describe Israeli victims.
Undermining international law: By ignoring reports from organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which confirm Israel’s commission of war crimes.
Violating journalistic ethics . . . when the journalist becomes the occupation’s lawyer
Journalistic codes of ethics — such as the charter of the “International Federation of Journalists” — unanimously agree that the media’s primary task is “to expose the facts without fear”. But the reality proves the opposite:
In 2023, CNN deleted an interview with a Palestinian survivor of the Jenin massacre after pressure from the Israeli lobby (according to an investigation by Middle East Eye).
The Guardian was forced to edit the headline of an article that described settlements as “apartheid” after threats of legal action.
This self-censorship turns journalism into a “copier of official statements”, abandoning the principle of “not compromising with ruling powers” emphasised by the “International Journalists’ Network”.
Toward human-centred journalism
Fixing this flaw requires dismantling biased language: replacing “conflict” with “military occupation”, and “settlements” with “illegal colonies”.
Relying on international law: such as mentioning Articles 49 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention when discussing the displacement of Palestinians.
Giving space to victims’ voices: According to an Amnesty report, 80% of guests on Western TV channels discussing the conflict were either Israeli or Western.
Holding media institutions accountable: through pressure campaigns to enforce their ethical charters (such as obligating the BBC to mention “apartheid” after the HRW report).
Conclusion
The war on Gaza has become a stark test of media ethics. While platforms like Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye have helped expose violations, major Western media outlets continue to reproduce a colonial discourse that enables Israel. The greatest challenge today is to break the silence surrounding the crimes of genocide and impose a human narrative that restores the stolen humanity of the victims.
“Occupation doesn’t just need tanks, it needs media to justify its existence.” These were the words of journalist Gideon Levy after witnessing how his camera turned war crimes into “normal news”.
If Western media is serious about its claim of neutrality, it must start with a simple step: call things by their names. Words are not lifeless letters, they are ticking bombs that shape the consciousness of generations.
Refaat Ibrahim is the editor and creator of The Resistant Palestinian Pens website, where you can find all his articles. He is a Palestinian writer living in Gaza, where he studied English language and literature at the Islamic University. He has been passionate about writing since childhood, and is interested in political, social, economic, and cultural matters concerning his homeland, Palestine. This article was first published at Pearls and Irritations social policy journal in Australia.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
China is a modern superpower, as is the US, but a qualitatively different superpower. The US uses military aggression, coups, and sanctions to impose US corporate interests worldwide. China is a peaceful power that respects national sovereignty, mutual development, and non-interference.
Despite opposing imperialism, a tendency in the Western left is to recycle Western anti-China narratives that liken Chinese trade relations to Western imperial conduct, as in Sri Lanka and the Congo. Others have written of Chinese investments in the Occupied West Bank, and even criticize China for lack of aid to Cuba – clearly not issues the Western powers have problems with.
The post Revolutionary Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
We speak with Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna about his bipartisan bill calling for the full release of federal documents pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal charges for sexual trafficking and abuse, which is also currently backed by nine Republicans and every House Democrat. Khanna explains why he’s calling for transparency and accountability regarding the Epstein case, and how Trump is…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
Reporter’s arrest–on charges that have since been dropped–poses grave threat to press freedom and the public’s right to know
New York, July 18, 2025—Lawyers representing Mario Guevara, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Free Press, and the Georgia First Amendment Foundation will hold a press conference on Tuesday, July 22, 2025, at 10 a.m. to reaffirm calls for the release of the Atlanta-based journalist from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.
The press conference will highlight the troubling implications Guevera’s case has for First Amendment rights in Georgia and across the nation.
Guevara, an Emmy-winning, Spanish-language journalist, who frequently filmed ICE and law enforcement raids, was originally arrested on First Amendment-related charges while livestreaming a “No Kings” protest in an Atlanta suburb on June 14. He is currently the only journalist in custody in the U.S. whose arrest was in relation to the work of newsgathering.
The journalist, who has lawfully resided in the U.S. for over 20 years, was placed in ICE custody on June 18 where he remains, despite being in the country legally.
Guevara arrived legally in the United States from El Salvador in April 2004. He has remained in the country lawfully since, applying for asylum in 2005 due to the dangers he faced as a journalist in El Salvador. Over the next twenty years, Guevara developed a large following in the Atlanta area, as well as national recognition, for his reporting on immigration issues.
WHO:
Opening remarks from Senator Josh McLaurin and José Zamora, CPJ Americas Director
Speakers:
WHAT: Press conference on journalist Mario Guevara’s continued ICE detention
WHEN: Tuesday, July 22, 2025, 10 a.m. EDT. Please arrive ahead of time. ID required.
WHERE: Georgia State Capitol, South Wing.
RSVP: Please register here to attend.
###
About the Committee to Protect Journalists
The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide. We defend the right of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal.
Media contact: press@cpj.org
About Free Press
Free Press is a nonprofit organization that advocates for equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what’s actually happening in their communities.
Media contact: tkarr@freepress.net
This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
We speak to Loris Taylor, president of Native Public Media, about the Trump administration’s drastic defunding of public media and its impact on tribal nations. Fifty-nine tribal radio stations and one tribal television station that depend on federal funding will be among the first to face possible closure, putting some of the essential services that public broadcasting provides, including warning systems for missing Indigenous women and girls, at risk. Taylor shares how Native-led public media helps preserve Indigenous languages and helped keep communities informed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. She fears that without these same resources and “with the climate crisis increasing, [we] are going to be operating on the margins of information and are not going to have real lifesaving information available to our citizens when they need it most.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
We speak with Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna about his bipartisan bill calling for the full release of federal documents pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal charges for sexual trafficking and abuse, which is also currently backed by nine Republicans and every House Democrat. Khanna explains why he’s calling for transparency and accountability regarding the Epstein case, and how Trump is working to prevent the same.
Ro Khanna also discusses the massive loss to public media and local news as the Trump administration has successfully stripped $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds over 1,500 NPR and PBS stations across the country. The major cut to funding is possible thanks to the rare process of rescission, which allows the president to request Congress to rescind already-allocated federal funding. Trump’s OMB Director Russell Vought has indicated that the administration intends to expand its use of rescission in future legislative sessions. “It’s a devastating blow to the education of our children in America and to our democracy,” says Khanna, who notes that the cut to public media comes just one week after Republicans voted to pass Trump’s deficit-enlarging budget bill. “It’s just not true that this has anything to do with fiscal responsibility,” Khanna adds.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle
Nobody has a bad word to say about the French Resistance in the Second World War, right? Who would criticise a group confronting fascism, right?
Yet this month the UK group Palestine Action has been proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation by their government for their non-violent direct action against UK-based industries supplying technology to fuel Israel’s destruction of the Palestinian people.
Are they terrorists or the very best of us in the West?
Stéphane Hessel, a leading member of the French Resistance, survived time in Nazi concentration camps, including Buchenwald. After the war he was one of the co-authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), a pillar of international law to this day.
The Declaration affirms the inherent dignity and equal rights of all humans. In later years Hessel (d. 2013), who was Jewish, saw the treatment of the Palestinians as an affront to this and repeatedly called Israel out for crimes against humanity.
Hessel argued people needed to be outraged just as he and his fellow fighters had been during the war.
In 2010, he said: “Today, my strongest feeling of indignation is over Palestine, both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The starting point of my outrage was the appeal launched by courageous Israelis to the Diaspora: you, our older siblings, come and see where our leaders are taking this country and how they are forgetting the fundamental human values of Judaism.”
In his book Indignez-vous (Time for Outrage!) he called for a “peaceful insurrection” and pointed to some of the non-violent forms of protests Palestinians had used over the years.
“The Israeli authorities have described these marches as ‘nonviolent terrorism’. Not bad . . . One would have to be Israeli to describe nonviolence as terrorism.”
How wrong Stéphane Hessel was on this point. The British Parliament has just proscribed Palestine Action as “terrorists” despite them having never attacked anyone, never used weapons, but only undertaken destruction of property linked to the arms industry.
Does Palestine Action really bear resemblance to Al Qaeda or ISIS, or Israel’s Stern Gang or the IDF? Or, like the French Resistance, will they eventually be recognised as heroes of our time? Will Hollywood romanticise them in their usual tardy way in 50 years time?
In respect to the Palestinians, Hessel was clear that resistance could take many forms: “We must recognise that when a country is occupied by infinitely superior military means, the popular reaction cannot be only nonviolent,” he said.
In his time, he lived by those words.
Resistance – a precious band of brothers and sisters
Here’s a statistic that should make you think. In the Second World War less than 2 percent of French people played any active role in the Resistance. Most people just sat back and got on with their lives whether they liked the Germans or didn’t.
The Jews and others were dealt to, stamped on and shipped out, while most of the French could trundle on unharassed. The heavy lifting of resistance was done by a small band of brothers and sisters who took it to the enemy.
History salutes them, as we now salute the Suffragettes, the anti-Apartheid activists, the American civil rights groups and Irish liberation fighters. We’re living through something similar now — and our governments are the bad guys.
I first learned that shocking fact about the composition of the Resistance from my history teacher at l’Université de Franche-Comté, in France in the 1980s. He was the distinguished historian Antoine Casanova, a specialist on Napoleon, Corsica and the Resistance.
Perhaps the low level of resistance is not surprising. Most of the people who put their bodies on the line in Occupied France during the Second World War were either communists or Jews. Good on them. Jewish people made up as much as 20 percent of the French Resistance despite numbering only about 1 percent of the population. This massive over-representation can, understandably, be explained as recognition of the existential threat they faced — but many were also passionate communists or socialists, the ideological enemies of the racist, fascist ideology of their occupiers.
Looking at the Israeli State today, many of those same Jewish Resistance fighters would instantly recognise the racism and fascism that they opposed in the 1940s. We should remember our leaders tell us we share values with Israel.
For anyone not in the United Kingdom (where it is illegal to show any support for Palestine Action) I highly recommend the recently released documentary To Kill A War Machine which gives an absolutely riveting account of both the direct action the group has undertaken and the moral and ideological underpinnings of their actions.
Having seen the documentary I can see why the British Labour government is doing everything in its power to silence and censor them. They really do expose who the true terrorists are. Stéphane Hessel would be proud of Palestine Action.
This week a former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made clear what is going on in Gaza.
The “humanitarian city” Israel is planning to build on the ruins of Rafah would be, in his words, a concentration camp. Others have described it as a Warsaw-ghetto or a “death camp”. Olmert says Israel is clearly committing war crimes in both Gaza and the West Bank and that the concentration camp for the Gazan population would mark a further escalation.
It would go beyond ethnic cleansing and take the Jewish State of Israel shoulder-to-shoulder with other regimes that built such camps. Israel, we should never forget, is our close ally.
Millions of people have hit the streets in Western countries. A majority clearly repudiate what the US and Israel are doing. But the political leadership of the big Western countries continues to enable the racist, fascist genocidal state of Israel to do its evil work. Lesser powers of the white-dominated broederbond, like Australia and New Zealand, also provide valuable support.
Until our populations in the West mobilise in sufficient numbers to force change on our increasingly criminal ruling elites, the heavy-lifting done by groups like Palestine Action will remain powerful forms of the resistance.
I grew up in the Catholic faith. One of the lines indelibly printed on my consciousness was: “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Palestine Action is doing that. Francesca Albanese is doing that. Justice for Palestine and Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa are doing this.
The real question, the burning question each of us must answer is — given there is no middle ground, there is no fence to sit on when it comes to genocide — whose side are you on? And what are you going to do about it? Vive la Resistance! Vive the defenders of the Palestinian cause!
Rest in Peace Stéphane Hessel. Le temps passe, le souvenir reste.
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.
The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.
A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.
Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.
She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.
Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.
The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.
Effective activists
In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”
“In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.
“Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”
The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).
Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific. Video: Talanoa TV
Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.
The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.
“It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.
“They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.
“The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”
The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.
Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.
The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.
The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
On Aug. 21, 2021, the editorial board of Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) published its support for “Cop City”—a then-proposed $90 million training facility for police and fire personnel; the cost of which has since ballooned to over $109 million, according to the most recently available reports. The Atlanta City Council had tabled a vote on a lease agreement for the proposed Cop City facility just days earlier after receiving tremendous opposition from residents, activists, and environmentalists. In its letter, which ran in the legacy paper’s Sunday edition, the editorial board—whose members included Kevin Riley, the paper’s editor-in-chief—argued that a “crime wave” necessitated the facility’s quick approval and pleaded with the city council to revisit the vote as early as its next meeting.
The post From The Atlanta Race Massacre To Cop City: The AJC Incites Harm appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
The New York Times has published an op-ed by a genocide scholar who says that he resisted acknowledging the truth of what Israel is doing in Gaza for as long as he could, but can no longer deny the obvious.
It’s an admission that may as well have come from The New York Times itself.
In an article titled “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.”, a Brown University professor of Holocaust and genocide studies named Omer Bartov argues that “Israel is literally trying to wipe out Palestinian existence in Gaza,” and denounces his fellow Holocaust scholars for failing to acknowledge reality.
“My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people,” Bartov writes. “Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. as a soldier and officer, and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.”
And resist he did. In November 2023, Bartov wrote another op-ed for The New York Times saying, “As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.”
Apparently, he is seeing the proof now and has stopped resisting what has been clear from the very beginning. And it would seem the editors of the Gray Lady have ceased resisting as well.
The New York Times, which has an extensively documented pro-Israel bias, has frenetically avoided the use of the g-word on its pages from the very beginning of the Gaza onslaught. Even in its opinion and analysis pieces the NYT Overton window has cut off at framing the issue as a complex matter of rigorous debate, with headlines like “Accused of Genocide, Israelis See Reversal of Reality. Palestinians See Justice.” and “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” representing the closest thing to the pro-Palestinian side of the debate you’d see. During the same time, we’ve seen headlines like “From the Embers of an Old Genocide, a New One May Be Emerging” used in reference to Sudan.
In an internal memo obtained by The Intercept last year, New York Times reporters were explicitly told to avoid the use of the word “genocide”, as well as terms like “ethnic cleansing” and “occupied territory”.
“‘Genocide’ has a specific definition in international law,” the memo reads. “In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, whether in quotations or not, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.”
Earlier this year, the American Friends Service Committee cancelled its paid advertisement in The New York Times calling for an end to the genocide in Gaza, saying the outlet had wanted them to change the word “genocide” to “war” in order for their ad to be published.
So there has been a significant change.
To be clear, this analysis by Omer Bartov is not significant in and of itself. He is only joining the chorus of what has already been said by human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations human rights experts, and the overwhelming majority of leading authorities on the subject of genocide.
What is significant is that even experts who’ve been resisting acknowledging the reality of the genocide in Gaza because of their bias toward Israel have stopped doing so, and that even the imperial media outlets most fiendishly devoted to running propaganda cover for that genocide have run out of room to hide.
The Israel apologists have lost the argument. They might not know it yet, but they have. Public sentiment has turned irreversibly against them as people’s eyes are opened to the truth of what’s happening in Gaza, and more and more propagandists are choosing to rescue what’s left of their tattered credibility instead of going down with the sinking ship.
Truth is slowly beginning to get a word in edgewise.
Keep pushing. Keep fighting. Keep resisting.
It’s working.
The post The New York Times Finally Stops Avoiding The G-Word first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is on the verge of stripping more than a billion dollars from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which could decimate local news stations. On Tuesday, the chamber voted 50-50, with a tie broken by Vice President JD Vance to move forward with debate on the package, which is underway as of Wednesday morning. Three Republicans — Sens.
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
During President Donald Trump’s second term, education has remained a central battleground in American politics. Republicans claim that classrooms have become hotbeds of “woke” indoctrination, accusing educators of promoting progressive agendas and tolerating antisemitism. In contrast, Democrats argue that conservatives are systematically defunding and dismantling public and higher education precisely because it teaches values like diversity, equity, and inclusion. While these partisan skirmishes dominate headlines, they obscure a much deeper and more enduring issue that encompasses all of these issues and more: the influence of corporate and military power on public education.
For decades, scholars have warned that corporations have steadily infiltrated the classroom—not to promote critical thinking or democratic values, but to cultivate ideologies that reinforce capitalism, nationalism, and militarism. Critical media literacy educators, in particular, have drawn attention to the convergence of tech firms and military entities in education, offering so-called “free” digital tools that often serve as Trojan horses for data collection and ideological control.
One striking example is the rise of programs like NewsGuard, which uses public fears over fake news to justify increased surveillance of students’ online activity. Relatedly, in 2018, the Atlantic Council partnered with Meta to perform “fact-checking” on platforms such as Facebook. In 2022, the US Marine Corps discussed developing media literacy training. It remains to be seen what training, if any, they will develop. However, what is known is that a large global player has entered the media literacy arena: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While NATO presents its initiatives as supportive of media literacy and democratic education, these efforts appear to be oriented more toward reinforcing alignment with its strategic and political priorities than to fostering critical civic engagement.
NATO was created in 1949, during the Cold War, as a military alliance to contain communism. Although the war officially ended in 1991, NATO has expanded both its mission and membership. Today, it encompasses more than thirty member nations and continues to frame itself as a global force for peace, democracy, and security. But this self-image masks real conflicts of interest.
NATO is deeply intertwined with powerful nation-states and corporate actors. It routinely partners with defense contractors, tech firms, think tanks, and Western governments—all of which have a vested interest in maintaining specific political and economic systems. These relationships raise concerns when NATO extends its reach into education. Can a military alliance—closely linked to the defense industry and state propaganda—credibly serve as a neutral force in media education?
In 2022, NATO associates collaborated with the US-based Center for Media Literacy (CML) to launch a media literacy initiative framed as a strategic defense against misinformation. The initiative included a report titled Building Resiliency: Media Literacy as a Strategic Defense Strategy for the Transatlantic, authored by CML’s Tessa Jolls. It was accompanied by a series of webinars featuring military personnel, policy experts, and academics.
On the surface, the initiative appeared to promote digital literacy and civic engagement. But a closer look reveals a clear ideological agenda. Funded and organized by NATO, the initiative positioned media literacy not as a means of empowering students to think critically about how power shapes media, but as a defense strategy to protect NATO member states from so-called “hostile actors.” The curriculum emphasized surveillance, resilience, and behavior modification over reflection, analysis, and democratic dialogue.
Throughout their webinars, NATO representatives described the media environment as a battlefield, frequently using other war metaphors such as “hostile information activities” and “cognitive warfare.” Panelists argued that citizens in NATO countries were targets of foreign disinformation campaigns—and that media literacy could serve as a tool to inoculate them against ideological threats.
A critical review of NATO’s media literacy initiative reveals several troubling themes. First, it frames media literacy as a protectionist project rather than an educational one. Students are portrayed less as thinkers to be empowered and more as civilians to be monitored, molded, and managed. In this model, education becomes a form of top-down, preemptive defense, relying on expert guidance and military oversight rather than democratic participation.
Second, the initiative advances a distinctly neoliberal worldview. It emphasizes individual responsibility over structural analysis. In other words, misinformation is treated as a user error, rather than the result of flawed systems, corporate algorithms, or media consolidation. This framing conveniently absolves powerful actors, including NATO and Big Tech, of their role in producing or amplifying disinformation.
Third, the initiative promotes a contradictory definition of empowerment. While the report and webinars often use the language of “citizen empowerment,” they ultimately advocate for surveillance, censorship, and ideological conformity. Panelists call for NATO to “dominate” the information space, and some even propose systems to monitor students’ attitudes and online behaviors. Rather than encouraging students to question power—including NATO itself—this approach rewards obedience and penalizes dissent.
Finally, the initiative erases the influence of corporate power. Although it criticizes authoritarian regimes and “hostile actors,” it fails to examine the role that Western corporations, particularly tech companies, play in shaping media environments. This oversight is especially problematic given that many of these corporations are NATO’s partners. By ignoring the political economy of media, the initiative offers an incomplete and ideologically skewed version of media literacy.
NATO’s foray into media literacy education represents a new frontier in militarized pedagogy. While claiming to promote democracy and resilience, its initiative advances a narrow, protectionist, and neoliberal approach that prioritizes NATO’s geopolitical goals over student empowerment.
This should raise red flags for educators, policymakers, and advocates. Media literacy is not a neutral practice. The organizations that design and fund media literacy programs inevitably shape the goals and methods of those programs. When a military alliance like NATO promotes media education, it brings with it a strategic interest in ideological control.
Educators must ask: What kind of media literacy are we teaching—and whose interests does it serve? If the goal is to produce informed, critically thinking citizens capable of questioning power in all its forms, then NATO’s approach falls short. Instead of inviting students to explore complex media systems, it simplifies them into a binary struggle between “us” and “them,” encouraging loyalty over literacy.
True media literacy must begin with transparency about who and what is behind the curriculum. It must empower students to question all forms of influence—governmental, corporate, and military alike. And it must resist the creeping presence of militarism in our classrooms. As educators, we must defend the right to question, not just the messages we see, but the institutions that shape them.
This essay was originally published here:
The post The Militarization and Weaponization of Media Literacy: NATO Invades the Classroom first appeared on Dissident Voice.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
In today’s more integrated world, content is king. But for those independent creators of media – filmmakers and documentarians, podcasters and YouTubers – language barriers have been a prohibitive fortress. Traditional audio dubbing, with its high prices, long turnaround times, and complicated logistical requirements, has been beyond their reach. This has kept incredible, powerful stories in their original languages, drastically reducing their global reach and potential impact. But an extraordinary revolution is brewing: free and extremely accessible AI-driven audio dubbing. This technology is no marginal upgrade; it is an earth-shattering disruptor, equalizing international content distribution and evening the playing field for individual voices.
For far too long, the independent media sector has faced serious hurdles when reaching international targets. Resource limitations, access to capital, and sheer logistics of localization have historically limited growth. Independent filmmakers, journalists, and content producers typically work with limited budgets, meaning thousands of dollars spent on professional human dubbing is a pipe dream. This was a reality that ensured impressive storytelling, diverse viewpoints, and crucial information created beyond mainstream studios hardly crossed their initial language boundaries. This meant that a tremendous international audience, hungry for varied content, went largely without, and independent producers lacked important revenue channels and greater reach.
Here comes AI audio dubbing. This state-of-the-art technology uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to translate dialogue into numerous languages and generate voiceovers. In contrast to its conventional version, AI dubbing streamlines a lot of the process, significantly minimizing the required huge studio time and costly voice actors. The outcome? Localization is not only substantially quicker – 30 times faster than traditional practices – but also much cheaper, bringing it within reach of nearly anyone with access to the internet. This historic cost-effectiveness is where the real potential of AI dubbing free tools (or at least extremely cheap freemium models) resides. It converts an exorbitantly costly luxury into a real, daily tool for free creators, enabling them to invest in other key areas such as boosting visual effects or promotions.
The most direct and far-reaching effect of free audio dubbing is its capacity to erase language boundaries. Content providers can now convert their material into various languages with ease, opening doors for them to international audiences hitherto inaccessible. Picture a low-budget indie movie out of India with deep cultural undertones made available to audiences in Spain, Germany, or Japan. Or an educational niche podcast, in French to begin with, suddenly engaging listeners in English-speaking territories. This broadening of audience reach is no longer a fantasy but a concrete reality, promoting cultural exchange and facilitating diverse tales to resonate across the globe.
This media democratization goes beyond simple translation. AI dubbing systems are getting highly advanced, allowing for reproductions of voice tone and pitch nuances and even emotional expression so that the original performance loses no expressiveness. While human dubbing remains a luxury for high-budget productions calling for subtle emotional complexity, AI solutions offer a great, scalable, and adjustable alternative that is continually improving. This allows independent creators to keep their distinct brand voice and personality intact throughout all language versions, creating greater connections to their newly expanded international communities.
For independent media, where every hour and every dollar matters, the cost and time-saving benefits of AI dubbing are a lifeline. The old-fashioned methods of dubbing take weeks or months, looking more like original production workflows in their complexity and cost. AI dubbing facilitates this significantly, cutting down production time to just hours or days from weeks, which is perfect for time-critical projects such as news, episodic shows, or live events. This enables solo creators to concentrate more on their primary content, edit their storytelling, and interact with their viewers instead of being overwhelmed by the lengthy and expensive process of localization.
In addition, AI dubbing scalability is paramount to independent organizations. Either a single video or a full library of content, AI can dub multiple languages at the same time. This gives independent media the capability to roll out content across the world significantly quicker, leveraging current events and growing their marketplace presence without the investment hurdle historically necessary. Case studies, even from business AI dubbing solutions, emphasize how this technology facilitates new streams of revenue and lowers time-to-market considerably for different types of media, such as news and episodic programming.
The future of independent media is deeply influenced by available AI voice technology. Beyond translation, AI dubbing boosts accessibility for all audiences, including the visually impaired, with sophisticated text-to-speech. AI dubbing also provides content personalization beyond any other technology, adapting voices to regional accents and tastes – a capability previously unimaginable for independent producers. As AI tools improve in realism and integrate smoothly into workflows, they enable a new generation of creators. This revolution is not merely technological; it’s about making the world more heard, seen, and understood and enriching our media culture with many varied voices.
This post was originally published on Canary.
One might naively think that a national public-service broadcaster would inform the public about matters of national interest. Surely no reasonable person would deny that the public has a right to know what the government is doing in our name. But, over and above this basic requirement, a responsible public-service broadcaster should also scrutinize the government’s actions and statements, and challenge them robustly.
Instead, as Declassified UK has reported, Britain’s ‘obedient’ defence correspondents, including BBC journalists, are covering up British spy flights for Israel. The RAF has carried out more than 500 surveillance flights over Gaza since December 2023. The Ministry of Defence insists that the flights, undertaken by aircraft based at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, are solely to assist in providing information about Israeli hostages taken by Hamas on 7 October 2023. But the British ‘mainstream’ media, which largely serves state-corporate interests, not the public interest, have not carried out a single investigation into the extent, impact, or legal status of these flights.
Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), a London-based charity that records, investigates, and disseminates evidence of armed violence against civilians worldwide, has analysed flight-tracking data over or close to Gaza. They found that between 3 December 2023 and 27 March 2025, the RAF carried out at least 518 Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) flights in or near Gaza’s airspace.
AOAV found that the RAF conducted 24 flights in the two weeks leading up to and including the day of Israel’s deadly attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp on 8 June 2024, which reportedly killed 274 Palestinians and injured over 700. Four Israeli hostages were rescued in the operation.
Iain Overton, the Executive Director of AOAV, noted that:
‘This is not the only instance where UK ISR flights have coincided with major Israeli military assaults. In the two weeks leading up to Israel’s attack on Rafah on 12 February 2024, which killed at least 67 Palestinians, the RAF flew 15 ISR missions over Gaza. Flights continued even during the so-called “limited ceasefire” in early 2025, with six flights recorded in February alone.’
He added:
‘With no parliamentary oversight or public scrutiny, it remains unclear how much British intelligence gathered from these flights has been shared with Israel.’
This is surely a significant question that responsible journalists should be raising, particularly the national broadcaster. But, as Declassified UK has observed, the BBC has essentially remained ‘silent’ on whether these flights are contributing to the UK’s complicity in Israel’s genocide and war crimes in Gaza.
In an article jointly published by Declassified UK and The National newspaper in Scotland, Des Freedman, Professor of Media & Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London, wrote:
‘thanks to dogged work by campaigners, independent journalists and pro-Palestine MPs, we know both that the flights are continuing to operate (as they did even throughout the ceasefire) and that spikes in the number of flights have coincided with especially deadly Israeli attacks on Gaza.
‘The lack of curiosity on the part of mainstream media is perhaps not surprising but it is deeply troubling.’
He added:
‘It’s hard to reconcile this silence with the energy with which mainstream media have investigated Russian spy planes flying over Ukraine and other military manoeuvres related to Putin’s invasion.’
On 7 July, we challenged Jonathan Beale, the BBC’s defence correspondent, via X, linking to Freedman’s article:
‘Hello @bealejonathan,
‘As @BBCNews defence correspondent, why are you covering up British spy flights for Israel?’
Beale was clearly irked and posted this reply:
‘Why are you claiming “cover-up” – without a shred of evidence of what’s supposed to have been covered up? I’m curious as to how a media lecturer at Goldsmiths seems to have knowledge of “intelligence” that no other journalist has seen?’
A few minutes later, having now been alerted to the Declassified UK article, he confronted Freedman:
‘Please tell us Des as to how we can get the classified intelligence only you seem to know about. Why teach media studies when you can clearly scoop us all?’
Freedman responded reasonably:
‘As you know Jonathan, I don’t have access to classified files but to open news databases. Is any of the story incorrect? Instead of a snippy response, surely it would be better to use your contacts to investigate a story that’s in the public interest?’
As Declassified UK said in a follow-up post on X:
‘In a bizarre admission he [Beale] suggests that open source information on military flights is “classified”, raising the question – how do BBC journalists investigate the British military?’
The answer, of course, is that BBC journalists, along with other state stenographers, have learned not to investigate too deeply if they are to retain their privileged position.
When Declassified UK challenged Richard Burgess, the BBC’s director of news content, he gave this response befitting a senior news apparatchik:
‘I don’t think we should overplay the UK’s contribution to what’s happening in Israel.’
Why did Burgess say, ‘in Israel’? Did he just erase Palestine? Is he actually unaware that Gaza is an occupied Palestinian territory?
As if that was not already a bizarre and misleading form of words, consider this. Nobody is asking the BBC to ‘overplay’ what the UK is doing; but simply to report it, rather than bury it to the point of invisibility. Whitewashing genocide as ‘what’s happening in Israel’ is wretched BBC newspeak.
Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour Party leader, has called for a public inquiry to determine what the UK government is hiding about its role in Israel’s genocide, including RAF flights from Cyprus. In an article for the Morning Star, he wrote:
‘We have also repeatedly asked for the truth regarding the role of British military bases in Cyprus, concerning the transfer of arms and the supply of military intelligence.
‘When the Prime Minister visited RAF Akrotiri in December 2024, he was filmed telling troops: “The whole world and everyone back at home is relying on you.” He added: “Quite a bit of what goes on here can’t necessarily be talked about all of the time. We can’t necessarily tell the world what you’re doing.” What does the government have to hide?’
Corbyn continued:
‘Over the past 18 months, our questions have been met with evasion, obstruction and silence, leaving the public in the dark over the ways in which the responsibilities of government have been discharged. Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of democracy. The British public deserves to know the full scale of Britain’s complicity in crimes against humanity.’
And the British public-service broadcaster, along with the UK’s other major news outlets, should have been reporting this since October 2023. As Mark Curtis, co-director of Declassified UK, commented:
‘Britain’s national media are doing a wonderful job covering up the extent of British support for Israel during a genocide. It’s their most impressive performance since destroying the prospects of a decent government under Jeremy Corbyn in 2015-19.’
The BBC’s Richard Burgess, quoted above, was speaking in parliament at the launch of a study by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) into the BBC’s coverage of Israel and Gaza. The report examined BBC content from 7 October 2023 to 7 October 2024. A total of 3,873 BBC articles and 32,092 segments broadcast on BBC television and radio were analysed.
CfMM’s key findings were:
These findings show that the BBC values the lives of Israelis much more than the lives of Palestinians. This is part of a bigger picture of BBC News coverage conforming to the Israeli narrative, a key feature of BBC journalism going back decades. The CfMM report is a devastating indictment of the BBC’s endlessly repeated, robotic claim of ‘impartiality’.
At the parliamentary launch of the CfMM report, Burgess was also challenged by Peter Oborne, the former chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph. The exchange was filmed by someone at the meeting. Oborne robustly confronted Burgess with as many as six ways in which BBC News has misled its audiences. Independent journalist Jonathan Cook helpfully detailed these six points, while providing crucial context, which can be summarised as follows:
1. The BBC has never mentioned the Hannibal directive, implemented by Israel on 7 October 2023, that permitted the Israeli killing of Israeli civilians, often by Apache helicopter fire, to prevent them from being taken captive by Hamas. See our media alert about this from February 2025.
2. The BBC has never mentioned Israel’s Dahiya doctrine, which underlies Israel’s murderous ‘mowing the lawn’ Gaza strategy over the past two decades: repeated devastating assaults on the Palestinians in Gaza to weaken their resistance to the brutal and illegal Israeli occupation, and to make it easier to ethnically cleanse them.
3. The BBC has not reported the many dozens of genocidal statements from Israeli officials since 7 October. In particular, the BBC buried Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s biblically-inspired comparison of the Palestinians to ‘Amalek’ – a people the Jews were instructed by God to wipe from the face of the earth.
4. By contrast, as reported in the CfMM study, on more than 100 occasions when guests have tried to refer to what is happening in Gaza as genocide, BBC staff have immediately shut them down on air.
5. The BBC has largely ignored Israel’s campaign of murdering Palestinian journalists in Gaza.
6. Finally, Oborne observed that the distinguished Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, who lives in the UK and teaches at Oxford University, has never been invited to appear on the BBC.
Cook noted:
‘Unlike the Israeli spokespeople familiar to BBC audiences, who are paid to muddy the waters and deny Israel’s genocide, Shlaim is both knowledgeable about the history of Israeli colonisation of Palestine and truly independent. […] His research has led him to a series of highly critical conclusions about Israel’s historical and current treatment of the Palestinians. He calls what Israel is doing in Gaza a genocide.’
Cook added:
‘He is one of the prominent Israelis we are never allowed to hear from, because they are likely to make more credible and mainstream a narrative the BBC wishes to present as fringe, loopy and antisemitic. Again, what the BBC is doing – paid for by British taxpayers – isn’t journalism. It is propaganda for a foreign state.’
When the BBC dropped the powerful documentary, ‘Gaza: Doctors Under Attack’, it compounded its complicity in Israel’s genocide. The Corporation’s earlier withdrawal of ‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone’, had already epitomised how much the UK’s national broadcaster is beholden to the Israel lobby (see our media alert here).
‘Gaza: Doctors Under Attack’ details how Israel has systematically targeted hospitals, health care centres, medics themselves, and even their families. Doctors told the filmmakers of how they had been detained, beaten, and tortured by the Israelis, as confirmed by an anonymous Israeli whistleblower. The nonsensical reason given by the BBC for cancelling the film, which it had itself commissioned from Basement Films, was the risk that broadcasting it would create ‘a perception of partiality’. Reporting the truth about Israel’s crimes would be ‘partial’? Such inversion of reality has become standard for the national broadcaster.
The film was instead shown by Channel 4 on 2 July. After watching it, Gary Lineker, who had essentially been pushed out of the BBC for his honesty on Gaza and other issues, said that, ‘The BBC should hang its head in shame.’
Yanis Varoufakis, the economist and former Greek finance minister, said:
‘I can’t see how the BBC will ever recover from its headlong leap into this ethical void, all in the name of not upsetting the perpetrators of the most horrific genocide since the end of the 2nd World War.’
Ben de Pear, the documentary’s executive producer for Basement Films and a former Channel 4 News editor, accused the BBC of trying to gag him and others over its decision not to show the documentary. In a statement that he posted to LinkedIn, de Pear said the film had passed through many ‘BBC compliance hoops’ and that the BBC were now attempting to stop him talking about the film’s ‘painful journey’ to the screen:
‘I rejected and refused to sign the double gagging clause the BBC bosses tried multiple times to get me to sign. Not only could we have been sued for saying the BBC refused to air the film (palpably and provably true) but also if any other company had said it, the BBC could sue us.
‘Not only could we not tell the truth that was already stated, but neither could others. Reader, I didn’t sign it.’
At a conference in Sheffield, de Pear criticised Tim Davie, the BBC director-general, over the BBC’s decision to drop the film:
‘All the decisions about our film were not taken by journalists, they were taken by Tim Davie. He is just a PR person. Tim Davie is taking editorial decisions which, frankly, he is not capable of making.’
De Pear added:
‘The BBC’s primary purpose is TV news and current affairs, and if it’s failing on that it doesn’t matter what drama it makes or sports it covers. It is failing as an institution. And if it’s failing on that then it needs new management.’
Of course, as Media Lens has long argued and demonstrated with copious examples since our inception in 2001, the BBC isn’t ‘failing’. It is doing precisely what it was set up to do: namely, act as a mouthpiece for establishment power and as an enabler of state crimes.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
COMMENTARY: By Bruce King
Almost two months ago, a UN special rapporteur, Dr Michael Fakhri, penned an opinion article in The Guardian newspaper warning that “if aid doesn’t enter Gaza now, 14,000 babies may die.”
“UN peacekeepers must step in,” he added.
Dr Fakhri is the UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food and an associate professor of international law at the University of Oregon.
His article came 15 days after a long list of UN experts — including Dr Fakhri and beginning with the outspoken Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese — published an extraordinary joint statement declaring: “End unfolding genocide or watch it end life in Gaza: UN experts say States face defining choice.”
The joint statement said humanity was descending into “a moral abyss”, and Dr Fakhri decried the response so far of nations as “slow and ghastly”.
On the other hand, he praised the individuals who “mobilise and enforce international law through their own hands”, particularly the Gaza Freedom Flotillas and the land marchers attempting to reach the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza.
Dr Fakhri appears to consider the deployment by the UN General Assembly of UN Peacekeepers as the only feasible option that is practical and also fast enough and vigorous enough to properly address the gravity of the situation in Gaza.
Many others have expressed similar sentiments. For instance, just days after The Guardian article, Ireland’s Labour Party asked the Irish government “to use every lever at its disposal to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza through a UN-mandated peacekeeping force”.
Dr Fakhri makes his case for UN peacekeepers action. Video: Badil Resource Centre
As another example, DAWN, a group promoting democracy and human rights in the Middle East and North Africa has long advocated for UN Peacekeepers for Gaza and has just started a petition.
DAWN’s petition may have been timed to influence the “emergency summit”
on the crisis being held today and tomorrow in Bogota, Colombia. It is co-hosted by Colombia and South Africa and will be attended by representatives from more than 30 nations and prominent actors such as Albanese.
A crucial point is that Dr Fakhri and others have explained how the UN General Assembly can rapidly deploy a UN Peacekeeping Force for this purpose. This is important because of the widespread, but erroneous, belief that only the UN Security Council — the UN’s other main legislative organ — can authorise UN peacekeeping missions.
An example of this falsehood being spread by the corporate news media is shown by this New York Times claim.
Whereas all UN member states are equally represented in the General Assembly, the Security Council is dominated by its five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain, and France — with each having the power to veto all proposals.
But the US is actively supporting Israel’s activities in occupied Palestine, and it would surely block any such peacekeeping initiative if submitted to the Security Council. This leaves it up to the UN General Assembly to organise any UN Peacekeeping Force for Gaza.
As indicated by Dr Fakri, the founding UN Charter of 1945 provides for the General Assembly to step in to restore peace where the Security Council has failed in its primary responsibility to act.
As shown above, primary responsibility was given to the Security Council under the UN Charter for practical reasons only, “to ensure prompt and effective action”.
Formal protocols for the General Assembly to take over from the Security Council were added in 1950, in what is widely referred to as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution. It explicitly provides the option of setting up an armed force, as shown below.
As also shown, Uniting for Peace resolutions are addressed in Emergency Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly. These can be called within 24 hours and from a request by any member state. To be passed, a resolution requires a two-thirds majority of the states that voted either for, or against, the resolution.
Historically, the very first UN Peacekeeping force was set up in this way in response to the Suez Crisis of 1956-7 — see below. Those UN Peacekeepers oversaw the prompt retreat from Egypt of Israel and of the Security Council permanent members, Britain and France. Eventually, in 1957 they were present for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza itself, then a protectorate of Egypt.
Returning to the current circumstances, Dr Fakhri says that if a UN peacekeeping force is formed then Israel’s permission is not required for its deployment in Gaza.
The actual main impediment to the success of the plan may come from covert bullying of UN member nations by the US and Israel. As explained by prominent law professor Francis Boyle: “The US government will bribe, threaten, intimidate and blackmail all members of the UN General Assembly not to [act against] Israel.”
Dr King is a physicist researching topics in renewable energy, with an interest in humanitarian issues.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on the New Zealand government to not follow Australia’s policy moves which would effectively criminalise the Palestine solidarity movement.
The Australian government has announced plans to implement recommendations from its anti-semitism envoy which PSNA says creates a “hierarchy of racism” with anti-semitism at the top, while Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism hardly feature.
At least some of the appalling anti-semitic attacks in Sydney have been bogus, said the PSNA in a statement.
Co-chair John Minto said PSNA had no tolerance for anti-semitism in Aotearoa New Zealand, or anywhere else.
“But equally there should be no place for any other kind of racism, such as Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. Our government must speak out against all forms of discrimination and support all communities when racism rears its ugly head,” he said.
“Let’s not forget the murderous attacks on the Christchurch mosques.”
Minto said the Australian measures would “inevitably” be used to criminalise the Palestinian solidarity movement across the country.
Trump ‘demonising’ support
“We see it happening in the US, to attack and demonise support for Palestinian human rights by the Trump administration. We see it orchestrated in the UK to shut down any speech which Prime Minister Starmer and the Israeli government don’t like.”
The PSNA statement said that it agreed with the Jewish Council of Australia which has warned the Australian government adopting these measures could result in
“undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms, inflaming community divisions, and entrenching selective approaches to racism that serve political agendas.”
Minto said the free speech restrictions in the US, UK and Australia had nothing to do with what people usually understand as anti-semitism.
“The drive comes from the Israeli government. They see making anti-semitism charges as the most effective means of preventing anyone publicly pointing to the genocide its armed forces are perpetrating in Gaza,” he said.
“The definition of anti-semitism, usually inserted into codes of ethics or legislation, is from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The IHRA definition includes 11 examples. Seven of the examples are about criticising Israel.”
“It’s quite clear the Israeli campaign is to distract the community from Israel’s horrendous war crimes, such as the round-the-clock mass killing and mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, and deflect calls for sanctions against Israel.
“Already we can see in both the UK and US, that people have been arrested for saying things about Israel which would not have been declared illegal if they’d said it about other countries, including their own.”
Worrying signs
Minto said there were already worrying signs that the New Zealand government, media and police were “falling into the trap”.
“Just over the past few weeks, there has been an unusually wide-ranging mainstream media focus on anti-semitism,” Minto said citing:
However, New Zealand politicians and media had been silent about:
‘Silence on mass killings’
Minto said that in each of the cases above there would have been far more attention from politicians, the police and the media had the victims been Israeli supporters.
“Meanwhile, both our government and the New Zealand Jewish Council have refused to condemn Israel’s blatant war crimes. There is silence on the mass killing, mass starvation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza,” he said.
“The Jewish Council and our government stand together and refuse to hold Israel’s racist apartheid regime to account in just about any way.
“This refusal to condemn what genocide scholars, including several Israeli genocide academics, have labelled as a ‘text-book case of genocide’, brings shame on both the New Zealand Jewish Council and the New Zealand government.”
“Adding to the clear perception of appalling bias on the part of our government, both the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs have met with New Zealand Jewish Council spokespeople over the war in Gaza.
“But both have refused to meet with representatives of Palestinian New Zealanders, or the huge number of Jewish supporters of the Palestine solidarity movement.”
Minto said New Zealand must “stand up and be counted against genocide” wherever it appeared and no matter who the victims were.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
A FAIR study found that CNN’s primetime coverage of the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests in early June rarely included the voices of the protesters themselves. Instead, the network’s sources were overwhelmingly current and former government and law enforcement officials. The resulting coverage rarely took issue with Trump’s desire to silence the people who were defending their undocumented neighbors—but mainly debated his decision to deploy the California National Guard to do so.
The post On CNN, Los Angeles’ ICE Protesters Were Seen And Not Heard appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
KJ Noh, peace activist, journalist and co-host of The China Report on @BreakThroughNews joins us to dismantle the ideological architecture of U.S. empire. He exposes how atrocity becomes infrastructure and propaganda becomes profession. From the Ford Foundation’s role in Indonesia’s Cold War genocide to the rise of figures like Orville Schell and Johnny Harris, KJ unpacks how soft power functions as a weapon: manufacturing consent, laundering imperial violence, and shaping global narratives. He exposes how US think tanks, journalism schools, and digital platforms are not just media ecosystems, but actually, ideological battlegrounds built atop bloodshed.
The post Mass Killings, Media Control, And The Machinery Of US Soft Power appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
Asia Pacific Report
An opposition Labour Party MP today paid tribute to the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement, saying it should inspire Aotearoa New Zealand to maintain its own independence, embrace a strong regionalism, and be a “voice for peace and demilitarisation”.
But Phil Twyford, MP for Te Atatu and spokesperson on disarmament, warned that the current National-led coalition government was “rapidly going in the other direction”.
“It mimics the language of the security hawks in Washington and Canberra that China is a threat to our national interests,” he said.
READ MORE
“That is then the springboard for a foreign policy ‘reset’ under the current government to a closer strategic alignment with the United States and with what are often more broadly referred to as the ‘traditional partners’.
“For that read the Five Eyes members, but particularly the United States.”
Speaking at the opening of the week-long “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995” exhibition at the Ellen Melville Centre, Twyford referred to the 40th anniversary of the Rainbow Warrior bombing by French secret agents on 10 July 2025.
“Much has been made in the years since of what a turning point this was, and how it crystallised in New Zealanders a commitment to the anti-nuclear cause,” he said.
However, he said he wanted to talk about the “bigger regional phenomenon” that shaped activism, public attitudes and official policies across the region, and what it could “teach us today about New Zealand’s place in the world”.
“I am talking about the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement.
“Activists and leaders from across the Pacific built a movement that challenged neocolonialism and colonialism, put the voices of the peoples of the Pacific front and centre, and held the nuclear powers to account for the devastating legacy of nuclear testing.”
The NFIP movement led to the creation of the Treaty of Rarotonga, the Pacific’s nuclear weapons free zone, Twyford said. It influenced governments and shaped the thinking of a generation.
However, he stressed the “storm clouds” that were gathering as indicated by former prime minister Helen Clark in her prologue to journalist and author David Robie’s new book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior just published this week.
Twyford said that with increasing great power rivalry, the rise of authoritarian leaders, and the breakdown of the multilateral system “the spectre of nuclear war has returned”.
New Zealand faced some stark choices about how it made its way in the world, kept their people and the region safe, and remained “true to the values we’ve always held dear”.
The public debate about the policy “reset” reset had focused on whether New Zealand would be part of AUKUS Pillar Two, “the arrangement to share high end war fighting technology that would sit alongside the first pillar designed to deliver Australia its nuclear submarines”.
While the New Zealand government had had little to say on AUKUS Pillar Two since the US elections, the defence engagement with the US had “escalated”.
It now included participation in groupings around supply chains, warfighting in space, interconnected naval warfare, and projects on artificial intelligence and cyber capabilities.
China’s growing assertiveness as a great power was not the main threat to New Zealand.
“The biggest threat to our security and prosperity is the possibility of war in Asia between the United States and China,” he said.
“Rising tensions could conceivably affect trade, and that would be disastrous for us. All-out war, especially if it went nuclear, would be catastrophic for the region and probably for the planet.”
Labour’s view was that security for New Zealand and the Pacific could be pursued through active engagement with the country’s partners across the Tasman and in the Pacific, and Asia — and be a voice for peace and demilitarisation.
Twyford acknowledged Dr Robie’s “seminal book” Eyes of Fire, thanking him for “a lifetime’s work of reporting important stories, exposing injustice and holding the powerful to account”.
Dr Robie spoke briefly about the book as a publishing challenge following his earlier speech at the launch on Thursday.
Other speakers at the opening of the nuclear-free Pacific exhibition included veteran activist such as Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Bharat Jamnadas, an organiser of the original Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) conference in Suva, Fiji, in 1975; businessman and community advocate Nikhil Naidu, previously an activist for the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); and Dr Heather Devere, peace researcher and chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).
The Te Vaerua O Te Rangi dance group also performed Cook Islands items.
The exhibition has been coordinated by the APMN in partnership with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, with curator Tharron Bloomfield and Antony Phillips; Ellen Melville Centre; and the Whānau Communty Centre and Hub.
It is also supported by Pax Christi, Quaker Peace and Service Fund, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
The exhibition recalls New Zealand’s peace squadrons, a display of activist tee-shirt “flags”, nuclear-free buttons and badges, posters, and other memorabilia. A video storytelling series about NFIP “legends” such as Hilda Halyard-Harawira and Dr Vijay Naidu is also included.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
The elite liberal class are having a collective fit of hysteria at the prospect of Zohran Mamdani becoming mayor of New York City. The hand wringing caused by Mamdani’s victory in the recent Democratic Party primary proves to anyone who wasn’t paying attention, that the people allegedly represented by the democrats in fact have no representation at all. The possibility of even a small amount of liberal reformism is terrifying to the ruling class and that can clearly be seen in the way Mamdani has been treated not just by Democratic Party elected officials who don’t want to support him, but by corporate media as well.
The post New York Times Joins White Supremacist In Attacking Mamdani appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
And so it has come to pass: US President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” has set the stage for tax cuts for the rich, slashed services for the poor, and a host of other things that qualify as “beautiful” in the present dystopia. Some cuts, like those to Medicaid, have been heavily covered by the corporate media. But one key piece of the bill has gotten much less media scrutiny: The preposterous sum of $175 billion has been allocated to fund Trump’s signature mass deportation campaign, which, as a Salon article (7/3/25) points out, exceeds the military budget for every single country in the world aside from the US and China.
The post Massive Expansion Of Deportation Machine Passes With Little Press Notice appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
Asia Pacific Report
Nuclear-free and independent Pacific advocates are treating Aucklanders to a lively week-long exhibition dedicated to the struggle for nuclear justice in the region.
It will be opened today by the opposition Labour Party’s spokesperson on disarmament and MP for Te Atatu, Phil Twyford, and will include a range of speakers on Aotearoa New Zealand’s record as a champion of a nuclear-free Pacific and an independent foreign policy.
Speaking at a conference last month, Twyford said the country could act as a force for peace and demilitarisation, working with partners across the Pacific and Asia and basing its defence capabilities on a realistic assessment of threats.
The biggest threat to the security of New Zealanders was not China’s rise as a great power but the possibility of war in Asia, Twyford said.
Although there have been previous displays about the New Zealand nuclear-free narrative, this one has a strong focus on the Pacific.
it is called the “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-free Moana 1975-1995” and will run from tomorrow, July 13 until Friday, July 18.
Veteran nuclear-free Pacific spokespeople who are expected to speak at the conference include Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Bharat Jamnadas, an organiser of the original Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) conference in Suva, Fiji, in 1975; businessman and community advocate Nikhil Naidu, previously an activist for the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG) and Dr Heather Devere, peace researcher and chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).
A group of Cook Islands young dancers will also take part.
Knowledge to children
One of the organisers, Nik Naidu, told Asia Pacific Report, it was vital to restore the enthusiasm and passion around the NFIP movement as in the 1980s.
“It’s so important to pass on our knowledge to our children and future generations,” he said.
“And to tell the stories of our on-going journey and yearning for true independence in a world free of wars and weapons of mass destruction. This is what a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific is.”
The exhibition is is coordinated by the APMN in partnership with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, with curator Tharron Bloomfield and coordinator Antony Phillips; Ellen Melville Centre; and the Whānau Communty Centre and Hub.
It is also supported by Pax Christi, Quaker Peace and Service Fund, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).
It recalls New Zealand’s peace squadrons, a display of activist tee-shirt “flags”, nuclear-free buttons and badges, posters, and other memorabilia.
Timely exhibition
Author Dr David Robie, deputy chair of the APMN, who wrote the book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior just published on Thursday, and dedicated to the NFIP movement, said the the exhibition was timely.
“It is a sort of back to the future situation where the world is waking up again to a nuclear spectre not really seen since the Cold War years,” he said.
“With the horrendous Israeli genocide on Gaza — it is obscene to call it a war, when it is continuous massacres of civilians; the attacks by two nuclear nations on a nuclear weapons-free country, as is the case with Iran; and threats against another nuclear state, China, are all extremely concerning developments.”
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
Asia Pacific Report
A journalist who was on the Rainbow Warrior voyage to Rongelap last night condemned France for its “callous” attack of an environmental ship, saying “we haven’t forgotten, or forgiven this outrage”.
David Robie, the author of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, said at the launch that the consequences of almost 300 US and French nuclear tests – many of them “dirty bombs” — were still impacting on indigenous Pacific peoples 40 years after the bombing of the ship.
French saboteurs had killed “our shipmate Fernando Pereira” on 10 July 1985 in what the New Zealand prime minister at the time, David Lange, called a “sordid act of international state-backed terrorism”.
Although relations with France had perhaps mellowed over time, four decades ago there was a lot of hostility towards the country, Dr Robie said.
“And that act of mindless sabotage still rankles very deeply in our psyche,” he said at the launch in Auckland Central’s Ellen Melville Centre on the anniversary of July 10.
About 100 people gathered in the centre’s Pioneer Women’s Hall for the book launch as Dr Robie reflected on the case of state terrorism after Greenpeace earlier in the day held a memorial ceremony on board Rainbow Warrior III.
“One of the celebrated French newspapers, Le Monde, played a critical role in the investigation into the Rainbow Warrior affair — what I brand as ‘Blundergate’, in view of all the follies of the bumbling DGSE spy team,” he said.
Plantu cartoon
“And one of the cartoons in that newspaper, by Plantu, who is a sort of French equivalent to Michael Leunig, caught my eye.
“You will notice it in the background slide show behind me. It shows François Mitterrand, the president of the French republic at the time, dressed in a frogman’s wetsuit lecturing to school children during a history lesson.
“President Mitterrand says, in French, ‘At that time, only presidents had the right to carry out terrorism!’
He noticed that in the Mitterrand cartoon there was a “classmate” sitting in the back of the room with a moustache. This was none other than Edwy Plenel, the police reporter for Le Monde at the time, who scooped the world with hard evidence of Mitterrand and the French government’s role at the highest level in the Rainbow Warrior sabotage.
Dr Robie said that Plenel now published the investigative website Mediapart, which had played a key role in 2015 revealing the identity of the bomber that night, “the man who had planted the limpet mines on the Rainbow Warrior — sinking a peace and environmental ship, and killing Fernando Pereira.”
Jean-Luc Kister, a retired French colonel and DGSE secret agent, had confessed to his role and “apologised”, claiming the sabotage operation was “disproportionate and a mistake”.
“Was he sincere? Was it a genuine attempt to come to terms with his conscience. Who knows?” Dr Robie said, adding that he was unconvinced.
French perspective
Dr Robie said he had asked Plenel for his reflections from a French perspective 40 years on. Plenel cited three main take ways.
“First, the vital necessity of independent journalism. Independent of all powers, whether state, economic or ideological. Journalism that serves the public interest, the right to know, and factual truths.
“Impactful journalism whose revelations restore confidence in democracy, in the possibility of improving it, and in the usefulness of counterbalancing powers, particularly journalism.”
Secondly, this attack had been carried out by France in an “allied country”, New Zealand, against a civil society organisation. This demonstrated that “the thirst for power is a downfall that leads nations astray when they succumb to it.
“Nuclear weapons epitomise this madness, this catastrophe of power.”
Finally, Plenel expressed the “infinite sadness” for a French citizen that after his revelations in Le Monde — which led to the resignations of the defence minister and the head of the secret services — nothing else happened.
“Nothing at all. No parliamentary inquiry, no questioning of François Mitterrand about his responsibility, no institutional reform of the absolute power of the president in a French republic that is, in reality, an elective monarchy.”
‘Elective monarchy’ trend
Dr Robie compared the French outcome with the rapid trend in US today, “a president who thinks he is a monarch, a king – another elective monarchy.”
He also bemoaned that “catastrophe of power” that “reigns everywhere today – from the horrendous Israeli genocide in Gaza to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, from Trump to Putin to Netanyahu, and so many others.”
The continuous Gaza massacres were a shameful indictment of the West that had allowed it to happen for more than 21 months.
Dr Robie thanked many collaborators for their help and support, including drama teacher Hilari Anderson, an original crew member of the Rainbow Warrior, and photographer John Miller, “who have been with me all the way on this waka journey”.
He thanked his wife, Del, and family members for their unstinting “patience and support”, and also publisher Tony Murrow of Little Island Press.
Launching the book, Greenpeace Aotearoa programme director Niamh O’Flynn said one thing that had stood out for her was how the legacy of the Rainbow Warrior had continued despite the attempt by the French government to shut it down 40 years ago.
“We said then that ‘you can’t sink a rainbow’, and we went on to prove it.
“When the Rainbow Warrior was bombed in Auckland harbour, it was getting ready to set sail to Moruroa Atoll, to enter the test exclusion zone and confront French nuclear testing head-on.”
So threatened
The French government had felt so threatened by that action that it had engaged in a state-sanctioned terror attack to prevent the mission from going ahead.
“But we rebuilt, and the Rainbow Warrior II carried on with that mission, travelling to Moruroa three times before the French finally stopped nuclear testing in the Pacific.
“That spirit and tenacity is what makes Greenpeace and what makes the Rainbow Warrior so special to everyone who has sailed on her,” she said.
“It was the final voyage of the Rainbow Warrior to Rongelap before the bombing that is the focus of David Robie’s book, and in many ways, it was an incredibly unique experience for Greenpeace — not just here in Aotearoa, but internationally.
“And of course David was a key part in that.”
O’Flynn said that as someone who had not even been born yet when the Rainbow Warrior was bombed, “I am so grateful that the generation of nuclear-free activists took the time to pass on their knowledge and to build our organisation into what it is today.
“Just as David has by writing down his story and leaving us with such a rich legacy.”
Other speakers
Among other speakers at the book launch were teacher Hilari Anderson, publisher Tony Murrow of Little Island Press, Ena Manuireva, a Mangarevian scholar and cultural adviser, and MC Antony Phillips of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.
Anderson spoke of the Warrior’s early campaigns and acknowledged the crews of 1978 and 1985.
“I have been reflecting what these first and last crews of the original Rainbow Warrior had in common, realising that both gave their collective, mostly youthful energy — to transformation.
“This has involved the bonding of crews by working hands-on together. Touching surfaces, by hammer and paint, created a physical connection to this beloved boat.”
She paid special tribute to two powerful women, Denise Bell, who tracked down the marine research vessel in Aberdeen that became the Rainbow Warrior, and the indomitable Susi Newborn, who “contributed to naming the ship and mustering a crew”.
Manuireva spoke about his nuclear colonial experience and that of his family as natives of Mangareva atoll, about 400 km from Muroroa atoll, where France conducted most of its 30 years of tests ending in 1995.
He also spoke of Tahitian leader Oscar Temaru’s pioneering role in the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement, and played haunting Tahitian songs on his guitar.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
After the observance of Muharram on July 6, 2025, a video showing a man seated atop what appeared to be a stack of loudspeakers caught the attention of some news channels. The man held a large flag bearing a crescent and star motif. The footage was aired in news bulletins with the claim that the Pakistani national flag had been carried in a Muharram procession in Jamui, Bihar.
News18 Bihar aired the video on July 6, with anchors highlighting the incident and identifying the flag as Pakistan’s national flag. Remarking that the Pakistani flag drew inspiration from the Islamic flag, News18 clarified that the video had not been independently verified by the channel. The location of the incident, was, however, identified as Pairamatihana village in Sono block of Jamui district in Bihar.
During the bulletin, the anchors described the act as potentially problematic and turned to an on-ground reporter for an update. The reporter stated that a formal complaint had been lodged, and police had initiated an investigation. Authorities were currently reviewing the footage, and efforts were underway to identify the individual seen waving the flag, he further reported, adding, once the person was identified, appropriate legal action would be taken.
It is worth noting that News18 Bihar has since deleted both the video and the corresponding post on X. One can watch the relevant part of the bulletin below. An archived version of the X post by the media outlet can be seen here.
Dainik Bhaskar, on July 7, published a report on this in which the headline described the flag as an Islamic flag, but the photo caption and the story itself said it was a Pakistani flag. The story stated that on the evening of Sunday, July 6, during a Muharram procession in Sono, a man was seen waving a flag of Pakistan while being seated over the sound system. The report further claimed that Sono police station-in-charge Dharmendra Kumar acknowledged that the flag had not been noticed by officers at the time. However, he assured that efforts were underway to identify the individual, and appropriate legal action would be taken.
Bhaskar also made a voice-over video report on this which is embedded in the above-mentioned article. At the 5-second mark, the reporter can be heard saying, “Ek yuvak Pakistani Jhandda lehrate huye dikh rahe hai” (A young man is seen waving a Pakistani flag). Again, at the 20-second mark in the video, the reporter alleges the flag in question was the Pakistani national flag. Watch it here:
Right-wing propaganda website OpIndia published an article detailing instances of violence reported during several Muharram processions in Bihar. The article referenced the incident and claimed that the Pakistani national flag had been waved in Jamui. Although police were present at the location, they did not take any action, the article added.
Upon closer examination of the video, it becomes evident that the flag held by the man is an Islamic flag, not the national flag of Pakistan. The flag in question appears black in colour, featuring a crescent and a star, common Islamic symbols. In contrast, Pakistan’s national flag is bright green with a white vertical stripe towards the mast, also bearing a white crescent and a star.
A visual comparison has been done below for clarity.
Alt News reached out to the Sono police station-in-charge Dharmendra Singh, who clarified that the flag seen in the viral video was not the national flag of Pakistan, but an Islamic flag. He further stated that no formal complaint or FIR had been registered in connection with the incident. Singh also noted that the authenticity of the video’s location — whether it was indeed filmed in Sono — was still under investigation.
To sum up, the flag waved by a man at a Muharram procession reportedly in Bihar’s Jamui was not Pakistan’s national flag; it was the Islamic flag. Several media outlets and propaganda website OpIndia misreported the incident and falsely claimed that the Pakistani national flag had been waved.
The post Media misreport: Islamic flag waved at Muharram rally falsely described as Pakistani national flag appeared first on Alt News.
This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Ankita Mahalanobish.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
SPECIAL REPORT: By Te Aniwaniwa Paterson of Te Ao Māori News
Forty years ago today, French secret agents bombed the Greenpeace campaign flagship Rainbow Warrior in an attempt to stop the environmental organisation’s protest against nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll in Mā’ohi Nui.
People gathered on board Rainbow Warrior III to remember photographer Fernando Pereira, who was killed in the attack, and to honour the legacy of those who stood up to nuclear testing in the Pacific.
The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before the bombing was Operation Exodus, a humanitarian mission to the Marshall Islands. There, Greenpeace helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing.
The dawn ceremony was hosted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and attended by more than 150 people. Speeches were followed by the laying of a wreath and a moment of silence.
Tui Warmenhoven (Ngāti Porou), the chair of the Greenpeace Aotearoa board, said it was a day to remember for the harm caused by the French state against the people of Mā’ohi Nui.
Warmenhoven worked for 20 years in iwi research and is a grassroots, Ruatoria-based community leader who works to integrate mātauranga Māori with science to address climate change in Te Tai Rāwhiti.
She encouraged Māori to stand united with Greenpeace.
“Ko te mea nui ki a mātou, a Greenpeace Aotearoa, ko te whawhai i ngā mahi tūkino a rātou, te kāwanatanga, ngā rangatōpū, me ngā tāngata whai rawa, e patu ana i a mātou, te iwi Māori, ngā iwi o te ao, me ō mātou mātua, a Ranginui rāua ko Papatūānuku,” e ai ki a Warmenhoven.
A defining moment in Aotearoa’s nuclear-free stand
“The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a defining moment for Greenpeace in its willingness to fight for a nuclear-free world,” said Dr Russel Norman, the executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.
He noted it was also a defining moment for Aotearoa in the country’s stand against the United States and France, who conducted nuclear tests in the region.
In 1987, the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act officially declared the country a nuclear-free zone.
This move angered the United States, especially due to the ban on nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships entering New Zealand ports.
Because the US followed a policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons, it saw the ban as breaching the ANZUS Treaty and suspended its security commitments to New Zealand.
The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before it was bombed was Operation Exodus, during which the crew helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll in the Marshall Islands, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing between 1946 and 1958.
The legacy of Operation Exodus
Between 1946 and 1958, the United States carried out 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.
For decades, it denied the long-term health impacts, even as cancer rates rose and children were born with severe deformities.
Despite repeated pleas from the people of Rongelap to be evacuated, the US government failed to act until Greenpeace stepped in to help.
“The United States government effectively used them as guinea pigs for nuclear testing and radiation to see what would happen to people, which is obviously outrageous and disgusting,” Dr Norman said.
He said it was important not to see Pacific peoples as victims, as they were powerful campaigners who played a leading role in ending nuclear testing in the region.
Between March and April this year, Rainbow Warrior III returned to the Marshall Islands to conduct independent research into the radiation levels across the islands to see whether it’s safe for the people of Rongelap to return.
What advice do you give to this generation about nuclear issues?
“Kia kotahi ai koutou ki te whai i ngā mahi uaua i mua i a mātou ki te whawhai i a rātou mā, e mahi tūkino ana ki tō mātou ao, ki tō mātou kōkā a Papatūānuku, ki tō mātou taiao,” hei tā Tui Warmenhoven.
A reminder to stay united in the difficult world ahead in the fight against threats to the environment.
Warmenhoven also encouraged Māori to support Greenpeace Aotearoa.
Dr Norman believed the younger generations should be inspired to activism by the bravery of those from the Pacific and Greenpeace who campaigned for a nuclear-free world 40 years ago.
“They were willing to take very significant risks, they sailed their boats into the nuclear test zone to stop those nuclear tests, they were arrested by the French, beaten up by French commandos,” he said.
Republished from Te Ao Māori News with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
