Category: Opinion

  • COMMENTARY: By Phil Goff

    “What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.”

    This statement was made not by a foreign or liberal critic of Israel but by the former Prime Minister and former senior member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s own Likud party, Ehud Olmet.

    Nightly, we witness live-streamed evidence of the truth of his statement — lethargic and gaunt children dying of malnutrition, a bereaved doctor and mother of 10 children, nine of them killed by an Israeli strike (and her husband, another doctor, died later), 15 emergency ambulance workers gunned down by the IDF as they tried to help others injured by bombs, despite their identity being clear.

    Statistics reflect the scale of the horror imposed on Palestinians who are overwhelmingly civilians — 54,000 killed, 121,000 maimed and injured. Over 17,000 of these are children.

    This can no longer be excused as regrettable collateral damage from targeted attacks on Hamas.

    Israel simply doesn’t care about the impact of its military attacks on civilians and how many innocent people and children it is killing.

    Its willingness to block all humanitarian aid- food, water, medical supplies, from Gaza demonstrates further its willingness to make mass punishment and starvation a means to achieve its ends. Both are war crimes.

    Influenced by the right wing extremists in the Coalition cabinet, like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s goal is no longer self defence or justifiable retaliation against Hamas terrorists.

    Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36
    Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    Making life unbearable
    The Israeli government policy is focused on making life unbearable for Palestinians and seeking to remove them from their homeland. In this, they are openly encouraged by President Trump who has publicly and repeatedly endorsed deporting the Palestinian population so that the Gaza could be made into a “Middle East Riviera”.

    This is not the once progressive pioneer Israel, led by people who had faced the Nazi Holocaust and were fighting for the right to a place where they could determine their own future and be safe.

    Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.

    New Zealand recently joined 23 other countries calling out Israel and demanding a full supply of foreign aid be allowed into Gaza.

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters called Israel’s actions “ intolerable”. He said that we had “had enough and were running out of patience and hearing excuses”.

    While speaking out might make us feel better, words are not enough. Israel’s attacks on the civilian population in Gaza are being increased, aid distribution which has restarted is grossly insufficient to stop hunger and human suffering and Palestinians are being herded into confined areas described as humanitarian zones but which are still subject to bombardment.

    People living in tents in schools and hospitals are being slaughtered.

    World must force Israel to stop
    Like Putin, Israel will not end its killing and oppression unless the world forces it to. The US has the power but will not do this.

    The sanctions Trump has imposed are not on Israel’s leaders but on judges in the International Criminal Court (ICC) who dared to find Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu guilty of war crimes.

    New Zealand’s foreign policy has traditionally involved working with like-minded countries, often small nations like us. Two of these, Ireland and Sweden, are seeking to impose sanctions on Israel.

    Both are members of the European Union which makes up a third of Israel’s global trade. If the EU decides to act, sanctions imposed by it would have a big impact on Israel.

    These sanctions should be both on trade and against individuals.

    New Zealand has imposed sanctions on a small number of extremist Jewish settlers on the West Bank where there is evidence of them using violence against Palestinian villagers.

    These sanctions should be extended to Israel’s political leadership and New Zealand could take a lead in doing this. We should not be influenced by concern that by taking a stand we might offend US president Donald Trump.

    Show our preparedness to uphold values
    In the way that we have been proud of in the past, we should as a small but fiercely independent country show our preparedness to uphold our own values and act against gross abuse of human rights and flagrant disregard for international law.

    We should be working with others through the United Nations General Assembly to maximise political pressure on Israel to stop the ongoing killing of innocent civilians.

    Moral outrage at what Israel is doing has to be backed by taking action with others to force the Israeli government to end the killing, destruction, mass punishment and deliberate starvation of Palestinians including their children.

    An American doctor working at a Gaza hospital reported that in the last five weeks he had worked on dozens of badly injured children but not a single combatant.

    He noted that as well as being maimed and disfigured by bombing, many of the children were also suffering from malnutrition. Children were dying from wounds that they could recover from but there were not the supplies needed to treat them.

    Protest is not enough. We need to act.

    Phil Goff is Aotearoa New Zealand’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article was first published by the Stuff website and is republished with the permission of the author.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Phil Goff

    “What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.”

    This statement was made not by a foreign or liberal critic of Israel but by the former Prime Minister and former senior member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s own Likud party, Ehud Olmet.

    Nightly, we witness live-streamed evidence of the truth of his statement — lethargic and gaunt children dying of malnutrition, a bereaved doctor and mother of 10 children, nine of them killed by an Israeli strike (and her husband, another doctor, died later), 15 emergency ambulance workers gunned down by the IDF as they tried to help others injured by bombs, despite their identity being clear.

    Statistics reflect the scale of the horror imposed on Palestinians who are overwhelmingly civilians — 54,000 killed, 121,000 maimed and injured. Over 17,000 of these are children.

    This can no longer be excused as regrettable collateral damage from targeted attacks on Hamas.

    Israel simply doesn’t care about the impact of its military attacks on civilians and how many innocent people and children it is killing.

    Its willingness to block all humanitarian aid- food, water, medical supplies, from Gaza demonstrates further its willingness to make mass punishment and starvation a means to achieve its ends. Both are war crimes.

    Influenced by the right wing extremists in the Coalition cabinet, like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s goal is no longer self defence or justifiable retaliation against Hamas terrorists.

    Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36
    Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    Making life unbearable
    The Israeli government policy is focused on making life unbearable for Palestinians and seeking to remove them from their homeland. In this, they are openly encouraged by President Trump who has publicly and repeatedly endorsed deporting the Palestinian population so that the Gaza could be made into a “Middle East Riviera”.

    This is not the once progressive pioneer Israel, led by people who had faced the Nazi Holocaust and were fighting for the right to a place where they could determine their own future and be safe.

    Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.

    New Zealand recently joined 23 other countries calling out Israel and demanding a full supply of foreign aid be allowed into Gaza.

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters called Israel’s actions “ intolerable”. He said that we had “had enough and were running out of patience and hearing excuses”.

    While speaking out might make us feel better, words are not enough. Israel’s attacks on the civilian population in Gaza are being increased, aid distribution which has restarted is grossly insufficient to stop hunger and human suffering and Palestinians are being herded into confined areas described as humanitarian zones but which are still subject to bombardment.

    People living in tents in schools and hospitals are being slaughtered.

    World must force Israel to stop
    Like Putin, Israel will not end its killing and oppression unless the world forces it to. The US has the power but will not do this.

    The sanctions Trump has imposed are not on Israel’s leaders but on judges in the International Criminal Court (ICC) who dared to find Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu guilty of war crimes.

    New Zealand’s foreign policy has traditionally involved working with like-minded countries, often small nations like us. Two of these, Ireland and Sweden, are seeking to impose sanctions on Israel.

    Both are members of the European Union which makes up a third of Israel’s global trade. If the EU decides to act, sanctions imposed by it would have a big impact on Israel.

    These sanctions should be both on trade and against individuals.

    New Zealand has imposed sanctions on a small number of extremist Jewish settlers on the West Bank where there is evidence of them using violence against Palestinian villagers.

    These sanctions should be extended to Israel’s political leadership and New Zealand could take a lead in doing this. We should not be influenced by concern that by taking a stand we might offend US president Donald Trump.

    Show our preparedness to uphold values
    In the way that we have been proud of in the past, we should as a small but fiercely independent country show our preparedness to uphold our own values and act against gross abuse of human rights and flagrant disregard for international law.

    We should be working with others through the United Nations General Assembly to maximise political pressure on Israel to stop the ongoing killing of innocent civilians.

    Moral outrage at what Israel is doing has to be backed by taking action with others to force the Israeli government to end the killing, destruction, mass punishment and deliberate starvation of Palestinians including their children.

    An American doctor working at a Gaza hospital reported that in the last five weeks he had worked on dozens of badly injured children but not a single combatant.

    He noted that as well as being maimed and disfigured by bombing, many of the children were also suffering from malnutrition. Children were dying from wounds that they could recover from but there were not the supplies needed to treat them.

    Protest is not enough. We need to act.

    Phil Goff is Aotearoa New Zealand’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article was first published by the Stuff website and is republished with the permission of the author.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Meet Joe Black (1998) is basically a 2 1/2 hr anecdote, where an angelic Brad Pitt, the angel of death, comes and saves the day by impersonating an IRS agent investigating and exposing the vile young suitor Drew, as Brad takes fiancee Allison’s father (Anthony Hopkins) to heaven. Brad quotes money-grubbing Drew: You can’t avoid ‘death and taxes’.

    Yes, Death gets us all in the end, smokers and nonsmokers, smokers statistically earlier but not nearly everyone, and not all that much sooner in any case. And there are lots more causes of lung cancer.

    *asbestos
    *air pollution
    *radon
    *genetics
    *alcohol
    *high carb diet
    *viruses

    I can attest to smoking – in moderation – as a perk in my life which I don’t begrudge my younger self or me now. Life is hard, and then you die. And I politely demure when I’m told by doctor after doctor to give it up. One cigarette a day is not going to kill me. As an avid cyclist, a car/truck is much more likely to do that.

    Speaking of giving up, I seem to have done that with alcohol without any sense of loss. Alcohol was an endless source of headache and nausea in my wild youth. Ramadan helps, and this year, when I could drink (moderately) freely again, I tried and found it did virtually nothing. A brief buzz. It’s good (one drink) to break the ice, but when you’re old, there aren’t any parties or mixers anymore so what’s the use?

    That’s one of Islam’s perks: pushing you to give up alcohol. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:219): They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say, ‘In both is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit.’

    I get angry hearing calls to ban smoking completely. Another great Quran quote: Surah Al-Baqarah (2:)256 Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. Already cigarette adverts are gone, sponsorships. Fair enough. Far enough!

    So why not the same puritanism with respect to alcohol? Alcohol is far, far more lethal, disruptive, a real killer, and yet ads everywhere complete with sexy models or rugged men, everyone happily celebrating whatever. Sadly, prohibition doesn’t work, but take a leaf from the war against smoking: no ads, more taxes, more rigorous legal penalities for the many crimes ‘under the influence’. Make drinking clearly a dangerous vice. That would be a huge step forward.

    Don’t take my words as a prescription. I envy people who don’t need a crutch like smoking or alcohol to be happy. And keep in mind, one cigarette is my norm. It’s the anticipation of that calm as much as the smoking. As a general rule in life: it’s the thought that counts. And 90% of joy is in the anticipation.

    Like most pleasures/poisons, there are good and bad qualities to tobacco.

    Health

    Leaving aside its poisonous quality and the heightened risk of lung cancer, the major upside is its calming effect. I know when some crisis hits, I can always take refuge in a smoke. Anything used to excess is harmful. Unlike alcohol, which often leads to more and more and then acting dangerously and foolishly, you quickly reach a limit in smoking. You can die of alcohol poisoning, but it takes years to die from smoking, if at all.

    Like all natural poisons, it has medicinal uses:

    *Insect repellant against all garden parasites (many a mosquitoey camping trip benefited from a few puffs).

    *Indigenous people used tobacco as a pain reliever for ear aches, toothaches and as a poultice.

    *Indigenous people believed that the nicotine in the tobacco would help relieve pain as well as help draw out the poison and heal the snake wound. After the poison had been sucked out, chewed leaves could be applied to cuts or bound on the bite with a bandage.

    *To alleviate symptoms of ADHD, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s and dementia.

    It’s not a cure, but a powerful pain reliever, with some magical (i.e., we don’t understand) effects.

    Social psychology

    If you are nervous, again it is calming. Then there’s Freud and what a cigarette represents, its role as a fetish, a substitute for sex. A smoke can be a nice icebreaker. Many of my friendships have begun over sharing a smoke. It’s cheap and less harmful that a few drinks. It’s communal, especially for boys/men. Worldwide, a third of men smoke, only 6% of women, 5x less, do. Canadian men much less (14%), Canadian women much more (10%) — a negative spin-off from feminism?

    I remember my first smoke as a teen, out the window but immediately detected by sentry-mother, guilt-tripping me, as if that’s any way to make me stop. As pacifier in my nervous early teaching days. Graduating to Drum rolling tobacco while living abroad. Then reverting to cheap manufactured cigarettes in Egypt, eventually returning to rolling my own in retirement. A cigarette has been a comforting companion throughout my life. I’m loathe to despise and reject this simple, economical pleasure totally. I don’t like fanatics of any stripe.

    Religion

    Everything is spiritual. Sadly, tobacco was captured by capitalism and most smoking is now industrial – packaged in plastic, filled with chemicals to burn faster so you smoke more. You take them for granted. Rolling my daily cigarette is done with reverence, a ritual akin to prayer. I thank the Lord for His generous gifts to be used responsibly.

    North American natives considered it sacred, e.g., the ‘peace pipe’. The sweat lodge relies on heat and wood smoke to cleanse the spirit, recalling early Man’s smokey cave dwelling.

    Judaism, Christianity and Islam are undecided, as tobacco only became an issue in the 17th century. In short, moderation is called for, but while Islam proscribes alcohol, smoking (in moderation) is acceptable. Early on in the Hasidic movement, the Baal Shem Tov taught that smoking tobacco can be used as a religious devotion, and can even help bring the Messianic Era. Rabbi Levi Yiztchak of Berditchev is quoted as saying that ‘a Jew smokes on the weekdays and sniffs tobacco on the Sabbath.’

    My conclusion after a lifetime of cogitating: one cigarette a day keeps the doctor away. (Also one toke a day but that’s for another article.)

    The post Tobacco: Death Sentence with Perks first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ian Powell

    When I despairingly contemplate the horrors and cruelty that Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to, I sometimes try to put this in the context of where I live.

    I live on the Kāpiti Coast in the lower North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand.

    Geographically it is around the same size as Gaza. Both have coastlines running their full lengths. But, whereas the population of Gaza is a cramped two million, Kāpiti’s is a mere 56,000.

    The Gaza Strip
    The Gaza Strip . . . 2 million people living in a cramped outdoor prison about the same size as Kāpiti. Map: politicalbytes.blog

    I find it incomprehensible to visualise what it would be like if what is presently happening in Gaza occurred here.

    The only similarities between them are coastlines and land mass. One is an outdoor prison while the other’s outdoors is peaceful.

    New Zealand and Palestine state recognition
    Currently Palestine has observer status at the United Nations General Assembly. In May last year, the Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of Palestine being granted full membership of the United Nations.

    To its credit, New Zealand was among 143 countries that supported the resolution. Nine, including the United States as the strongest backer of Israeli genocide  outside Israel, voted against.

    However, despite this massive majority, such is the undemocratic structure of the UN that it only requires US opposition in the Security Council to veto the democratic vote.

    Notwithstanding New Zealand’s support for Palestine broadening its role in the General Assembly and its support for the two-state solution, the government does not officially recognise Palestine.

    While its position on recognition is consistent with that of the genocide-supporting United States, it is inconsistent with the over 75 percent of UN member states who, in March 2025, recognised Palestine as a sovereign state (by 147 of the 193 member states).

    NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon
    NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon . . . his government should “correct this obscenity” of not recognising Palestinians’ right to have a sovereign nation. Image: RNZ/politicalbytes.blog/

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s government does have the opportunity to correct this obscenity as Palestine recognition will soon be voted on again by the General Assembly.

    In this context it is helpful to put the Hamas-led attack on Israel in its full historical perspective and to consider the reasons justifying the Israeli genocide that followed.

    7 October 2023 and genocide justification
    The origin of the horrific genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the associated increased persecution, including killings, of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank (of the River Jordan) was not the attack by Hamas and several other militant Palestinian groups on 7 October 2023.

    This attack was on a small Israeli town less than 2 km north of the border. An estimated 1,195 Israelis and visitors were killed.

    The genocidal response of the Israeli government that followed this attack can only be justified by three factors:

    1. The Judaism or ancient Jewishness of Palestine in Biblical times overrides the much larger Palestinian population in Mandate Palestine prior to formation of Israel in 1948;
    2. The right of Israelis to self-determination overrides the right of Palestinians to self-determination; and
    3. The value of Israeli lives overrides the value Palestinian lives.

    The first factor is the key. The second and third factors are consequential. In order to better appreciate their context, it is first necessary to understand the Nakba.

    Understanding the Nakba
    Rather than the October 2023 attack, the origin of the subsequent genocide goes back more than 70 years to the collective trauma of Palestinians caused by what they call the Nakba (the Disaster).

    The foundation year of the Nakba was in 1948, but this was a central feature of the ethnic cleansing that was kicked off between 1947 and 1949.

    During this period  Zionist military forces attacked major Palestinian cities and destroyed some 530 villages. About 15,000 Palestinians were killed in a series of mass atrocities, including dozens of massacres.

    Nakba Day in Auckland this week
    The Nakba – the Palestinian collective trauma in 1948 that started ethnic cleansing by Zionist paramilitary forces. Image: David Robie/APR

    During the Nakba in 1948, approximately half of Palestine’s predominantly Arab population, or around 750,000 people, were expelled from their homes or forced to flee. Initially this was  through Zionist paramilitaries.

    After the establishment of the State of Israel in May this repression was picked up by its military. Massacres, biological warfare (by poisoning village wells) and either complete destruction or depopulation of Palestinian-majority towns, villages, and urban neighbourhoods (which were then given Hebrew names) followed

    By the end of the Nakba, 78 percent of the total land area of the former Mandatory Palestine was controlled by Israel.

    Genocide to speed up ethnic cleansing
    Ethnic cleansing was unsuccessfully pursued, with the support of the United Kingdom and France, in the Suez Canal crisis of 1956. More successful was the Six Day War of 1967,  which included the military and political occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

    Throughout this period ethnic cleansing was not characterised by genocide. That is, it was not the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying them.

    Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
    Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians began in May 1948 and has accelerated to genocide in 2023. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    In fact, the acceptance of a two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) under the ill-fated Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 put a temporary constraint on the expansion of ethnic cleansing.

    Since its creation in 1948, Israel, along with South Africa the same year (until 1994), has been an apartheid state.   I discussed this in an earlier Political Bytes post (15 March 2025), When apartheid met Zionism.

    However, while sharing the racism, discrimination, brutal violence, repression and massacres inherent in apartheid, it was not characterised by genocide in South Africa; nor was it in Israel for most of its existence until the current escalation of ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

    Following 7 October 2023, genocide has become the dominant tool in the ethnic cleansing tool kit. More recently this has included accelerating starvation and the bombing of tents of Gaza Palestinians.

    The magnitude of this genocide is discussed further below.

    The Biblical claim
    Zionism is a movement that sought to establish a Jewish nation in Palestine. It was established as a political organisation as late as 1897. It was only some time after this that Zionism became the most influential ideology among Jews generally.

    Despite its prevalence, however, there are many Jews who oppose Zionism and play leading roles in the international protests against the genocide in Gaza.

    Zionist ideology is based on a view of Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ
    Zionist ideology is based on a view of Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ. Image: politicalbytes.blog

    Based on Zionist ideology, the justification for replacing Mandate Palestine with the state of Israel rests on a Biblical argument for the right of Jews to retake their “homeland”. This justification goes back to the time of that charismatic carpenter and prophet Jesus Christ.

    The population of Palestine in Jesus’ day was about 500,000 to 600,000 (a little bigger than both greater Wellington and similar to that of Jerusalem today). About 18,000 of these residents were clergy, priests and Levites (a distinct male group within Jewish communities).

    Jerusalem itself in biblical times, with a population of 55,000, was a diverse city and pilgrimage centre. It was also home to numerous Diaspora Jewish communities.

    In fact, during the 7th century BC at least eight nations were settled within Palestine. In addition to Judaeans, they included Arameans, Samaritans, Phoenicians and Philistines.

    A breakdown based on religious faiths (Jews, Christians and Muslims) provides a useful insight into how Palestine has evolved since the time of Jesus. Jews were the majority until the 4th century AD.

    By the fifth century they had been supplanted by Christians and then from the 12th century to 1947 Muslims were the largest group. As earlier as the 12th century Arabic had become the dominant language. It should be noted that many Christians were Arabs.

    Adding to this evolving diversity of ethnicity is the fact that during this time Palestine had been ruled by four empires — Roman, Persian, Ottoman and British.

    Prior to 1948 the population of the region known as Mandate Palestine approximately corresponded to the combined Israel and Palestine today. Throughout its history it has varied in both size and ethnic composition.

    The Ottoman census of 1878 provides an indicative demographic profile of its three districts that approximated what became Mandatory Palestine after the end of World War 1.

    Group Population Percentage
    Muslim citizens 403,795 86–87%
    Christian citizens 43,659 9%
    Jewish citizens 15,011 3%
    Jewish (foreign-born) Est. 5–10,000 1–2%
    Total Up to 472,465 100.0%

    In 1882, the Ottoman Empire revealed that the estimated 24,000 Jews in Palestine represented just 0.3 percent of the world’s Jewish population.

    The self-determination claim
    Based on religion the estimated population of Palestine in 1922 was 78 percent Muslim, 11 percent Jewish, and 10 percent Christian.

    By 1945 this composition had changed to 58 percent Muslim, 33 percent Jewish and 8 percent Christian. The reason for this shift was the success of the Zionist campaigning for Jews to migrate to Palestine which was accelerated by the Jewish holocaust.

    By 15 May 1948, the total population of the state of Israel was 805,900, of which 649,600 (80.6 percent) were Jews with Palestinians being 156,000 (19.4 percent). This turnaround was primarily due to the devastating impact of the Nakba.

    Today Israel’s population is over 9.5 million of which over 77 percent are Jewish and more than 20 percent are Palestinian. The latter’s absolute growth is attributable to Israel’s subsequent geographic expansion, particularly in 1967, and a higher birth rate.

    Palestine today
    Palestine today (parts of West Bank under Israeli occupation). Map: politicalbytes.blog

    The current population of the Palestinian Territories, including Gaza, is more than 5.5 million. Compare this with the following brief sample of much smaller self-determination countries —  Slovenia (2.2 million), Timor-Leste (1.4 million), and Tonga (104,000).

    The population size of the Palestinian Territories is more than half that of Israel. Closer to home it is a little higher than New Zealand.

    The only reason why Palestinians continue to be denied the right to self-determination is the Zionist ideological claim linked to the biblical time of Jesus Christ and its consequential strategy of ethnic cleansing.

    If it was not for the opposition of the United States, then this right would not have been denied. It has been this opposition that has enabled Israel’s strategy.

    Comparative value of Palestinian lives
    The use of genocide as the latest means of achieving ethnic cleansing highlights how Palestinian lives are valued compared with Israeli lives.

    While not of the same magnitude appropriated comparisons have been made with the horrific ethnic cleansing of Jews through the means of the holocaust by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Per capita the scale of the magnitude gap is reduced considerably.

    Since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry (and confirmed by the World Health Organisation) more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed. Of those killed over 16,500 were children. Compare this with less than 2000 Israelis killed.

    Further, at least 310 UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) team members have been killed along with over 200 journalists and media workers. Add to this around 1400 healthcare workers including doctors and nurses.

    What also can’t be forgotten is the increasing Israeli ethnic cleansing on the occupied West Bank. Around 950 Palestinians, including around 200 children, have also been killed during this same period.

    Time for New Zealand to recognise Palestine
    The above discussion is in the context of the three justifications for supporting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians strategy that goes back to 1948 and which, since October 2023, is being accelerated by genocide.

    • First, it requires the conviction that the theology of Judaism in Palestine in the biblical times following the birth of Jesus Christ trumps both the significantly changing demography from the 5th century at least to the mid-20th century and the numerical predominance of Arabs in Mandate Palestine;
    • Second, and consequentially, it requires the conviction that while Israelis are entitled to self-determination, Palestinians are not; and
    • Finally, it requires that Israeli lives are much more valuable than Palestinian lives. In fact, the latter have no value at all.

    Unless the government, including Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, shares these convictions (especially the “here and now” second and third) then it should do the right thing first by unequivocally saying so, and then by recognising the right of Palestine to be an independent state.

    Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Stanley Simpson in Suva

    I am saddened by the death of one of the most inspirational Pacific women and leaders I have worked with — Motarilavoa Hilda Lini of Vanuatu.

    She was one of the strongest, most committed passionate fighter I know for self-determination, decolonisation, independence, indigenous rights, customary systems and a nuclear-free Pacific.

    Hilda coordinated the executive committee of the women’s wing of the Vanuatu Liberation Movement prior to independence and became the first woman Member of Parliament in Vanuatu in 1987.

    Hilda became director of the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) in Suva in 2000. She took over from another Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) giant Lopeti Senituli, who returned to Tonga to help the late ‘Akilisi Poviha with the pro-democracy movement.

    I was editor of the PCRC newsletter Pacific News Bulletin at the time. There was no social media then so the newsletter spread information to activists and groups across the Pacific on issues such as the struggle in West Papua, East Timor’s fight for independence, decolonisation in Tahiti and New Caledonia, demilitarisation, indigenous movements, anti-nuclear issues, and sustainable development.

    On all these issues — Hilda Lini was a willing and fearless chief taking on any government, corporation or entity that undermined the rights or interests of Pacific peoples.

    Hilda was uncompromising on issues close to her heart. There are very few Pacific leaders like her left today. Leaders who did not hold back from challenging the norm or disrupting the status quo, even if that meant being an outsider.

    Banned over activism
    She was banned from entering French Pacific territories in the 1990s for her activism against their colonial rule and nuclear testing.

    She was fierce but also strategic and effective.

    "Hilda Lini was a willing and fearless chief taking on any government, corporation or entity
    “Hilda Lini was a willing and fearless chief taking on any government, corporation or entity that undermined the rights or interests of Pacific peoples.” Image: Stanley Simpson/PCRC

    We brought Jose Ramos Horta to speak and lobby in Fiji as East Timor fought for independence from Indonesia, Oscar Temaru before he became President of French Polynesia, West Papua’s Otto Ondawame, and organised Flotilla protests against shipments of Japanese plutonium across the Pacific, among the many other actions to stir awareness and action.

    On top of her bold activism, Hilda was also a mother to us. She was kind and caring and always pushed the importance of family and indigenous values.

    Our Pacific connections were strong and before our eldest son Mitchell was born in 2002 — she asked me if she could give him a middle name.

    She gave him the name Hadye after her brother — Father Walter Hadye Lini who was the first Prime Minister of Vanuatu. Mitchell’s full name is Mitchell Julian Hadye Simpson.

    Pushed strongly for ideas
    We would cross paths several times even after I moved to start the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) but she finished from PCRC in 2004 and returned to Vanuatu.

    She often pushed ideas on indigenous rights and systems that some found uncomfortable but stood strong on what she believed in.

    Hilda had mana, spoke with authority and truly embodied the spirit and heart of a Melanesian and Pacific leader and chief.

    Thank you Hilda for being the Pacific champion that you were.

    Stanley Simpson is director of Fiji’s Mai Television and general secretary of the Fijian Media Association. Father Walter Hadye Lini wrote the foreword to Asia Pacific Media editor David Robie’s 1986 book Eyes Of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ultra processed foods climate change
    4 Mins Read

    Dr Sarah Ison, global director of research at Madre Brava, argues that the ultra-processed food discourse is helping worsen climate change.

    Ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, are dominating news sites, opinion pages and influencers’ social posts. They are a tempting subject for posts that have a fraction of a second to get your attention, given they relate to food and health, something we are all interested in to some extent.

    But, beyond health, UPFs could also be a key climate and environment issue, and the lack of nuance in the debate swirling around them could be slowing progress in a vital area of climate action. 

    It’s not often arguing for balance is considered radical, but in the case of UPFs, attempts at nuance are increasingly difficult as the debate becomes ultra-polarised and ‘UPF’ becomes a dirty acronym. And this polarisation is eroding confidence in a type of food which can help reduce emissions from food. 

    Food generates around one-third of greenhouse gas emissions, with animal foods producing twice the emissions of plant foods, around 20% of all human-induced emissions. Animal agriculture also has a huge impact on wildlife decline and freshwater use. It contributes to an increased risk of future pandemics, antibiotic resistance, and can cause immense suffering to farmed animals.

    Globally, 58% of protein comes from plants and 42% from animals. High-income countries get 65% from animals, compared with 20% in low-income countries. And in most nations, people consume more protein than health experts say they need.

    Too much red and processed meat and not enough plants is stoking levels of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and certain types of cancer. So dietary change, most importantly, protein diversification, can improve health, as well as tackle climate change and restore nature.

    Plant-based meat alternatives, are a sustainable alternative to meat, in addition to whole plant protein foods such as legumes, nuts and seeds and minimally processed tofu and tempeh.

    But there are signs that these products, which had soared in popularity, have started to fall victim to the polarising debate around UPFs.

    Plant-based alternatives should be compared to meat

    plant based meat nutrition
    Courtesy: ProVeg International

    The first, and most obvious, issue with the UPF label is that it doesn’t discriminate. Not all UPFs are created equal. There is a vast difference between cookies and sweets on the one hand and wholewheat breakfast cereals fortified with vitamins on the other, but they can fall into the same category in many people’s minds. 

    Looking at meat analogues, they are classified as ultra-processed due to the multiple types of ingredients they contain. This has led to concerns about their health credentials.

    But we should not be comparing them to whole grains; we should be comparing them to their meat-based counterparts. When we do that, we see clearly that they have better nutrition profiles (higher fibre, less fat and saturated fat) and can equal the protein content of your ‘regular’ burger or sausage. 

    Expanding this to include soy milk, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses demonstrate health benefits when substituting plant-based meats for conventional meat and soy for cow’s milk. For meat substitutes, key benefits were reductions in cholesterol and modest weight loss, with more pronounced benefits with mycoprotein-based products like Quorn. Soy milk substitution reduced bad and increased good cholesterol, as well as decreased blood pressure and a marker of inflammation.

    Importantly, neither showed negative health impacts. For soy milk, these benefits were consistent regardless of whether products contained added sugars.

    These findings suggest plant-based alternatives can play a positive role in cardiovascular health by reducing cholesterol, with soy milk offering additional benefits for blood pressure and inflammation, and meat substitutes for weight loss.

    Read Green Queen’s FAQ guide on ultra-processed foods and plant-based meat.

    The misinformation cycle has left consumers confused

    plant based meat ultra processed
    Illustration by Green Queen

    The evidence supports their inclusion in healthy diets, particularly given the need to address the climate, nature and human health crises by reducing meat and dairy.

    Again, nuance is crucial here: inclusion in healthy diets. They are not designed to be a dominant part of one’s diet. More research is needed to understand why UPFs are linked to poor health – the mechanisms are still not clear.

    Plant-based meat manufacturers should also be following the science. Keep added salt and sugar to a minimum, keep up with the evidence and adjust accordingly.

    Finally, there are those who benefit from the lack of nuance in the conversation around meat alternatives. Questioning the health credentials of plant-based meat and milk, while ignoring the evidence about those of their animal-based counterparts, is becoming a tried and tested tactic, most spectacularly demonstrated in this 2020 Super Bowl advert.

    So what are consumers supposed to do? People who want to introduce more plants to their plates could be forgiven for feeling confused by the avalanche of competing messages around plant-based meat.

    Research in this area is exploding, so it is incumbent on all to act in the best interests of people’s health, and that of the planet, by contributing to high-quality information that helps us understand the effect of different foods and not seek to cherry-pick or weaponise individual studies. 

    After all, our health – and that of the planet – is at stake.

    The post Op-Ed: Ultra-Processed Foods Are A Health Issue… for the Planet appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • In one episode of the Simpsons, Marge Simpson tells Homer that one day he’ll regret not spending time with the kids.
    “That’s a problem for Future Homer,” he dismisses. “Man, I don’t envy that guy.” Before mixing himself a vodka and mayonnaise drink.
    Behavioural economists call it “discounting the future”. Smokers choose endorphins now over the health risks later. Most of us know we should do more exercise. And I think every parent has told their kids, “do you homework now and get it out of the way.”
    It’s in our DNA to think a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Our Stone Age ancestors faced death daily. Predators, food shortages, and sepsis from wounds made living for today a sound long-term strategy. In short, we often make decisions because they feel good, rather than because we’ve checked the facts.

    Corbyn hinted at it – but is a new political party realistic?

    So when it comes to building a new political party – as Jeremy Corbyn recently mentioned – we should check we’re not just after a quick emotional fix. First, let’s have some sober thinking, and examine some of our assumptions.

    I worry for my kids. Potentially catastrophic climate breakdown. The rise of government oppression. An extreme wealth gap driving us towards fascism. We owe it to all the future Homers to get this right.

    So let’s ask ourselves some tough questions.

    Are we serious about winning state power? Is it enough that someone is speaking for the politics you believe? If so, launching a progressive party will be easy. If fact, you’re spoilt for choice. You could join Transform, the Communist Party, or any of a dozen Trotskyist parties. I know good people in all of them.

    Do you just want a party you can vote for? Workers Party GB stood 152 candidates in the 2024 general election.

    Victory or change?

    Do you want hope from some victories? In Majority, we are targeting Newcastle City Council in the 2026 all-out local elections as part of a progressive alliance. Last May, I polled 25,000 votes, to Labour’s 26,000. If we win control of a major UK city, people will start to believe in a big way. And although we’re concentrated in the North East, we have members as far as the South Coast, the Welsh Valleys, and Glasgow.

    Or do you want to actually change the world in a big way? Matthew Brown has worked wonders with the Preston Model. Joe Cullinane did something similar in North Ayreshire. Modesty aside, I achieved a lot in the North of Tyne. But you have to go back to 1945 for anything that could reasonably be called transformative.

    Wealth taxes, public ownership of utilities, ethical foreign policy, and serious climate action all require the levers in No 10. We have to walk before we can run, but we are not doing this to let off steam. A handful of MPs is not enough, nor is a few dozen. The LibDems went from 12 to 72 MPs in 2024, but are no closer to government.

    Ask yourself, are you willing to run the marathon of delayed gratification that this requires? Building an electoral project of that magnitude requires money and professionalism.

    Will a new party even work?

    In 2023, a non-election year, Labour spent £59 million. The Tories £41 million. LibDems £8 million. SNP and the Greens £4 million each. No US healthcare company is going to give us large donations. Our money will come from members. Allowing for a proportion of low income members, £5 a month needs 1.3 million members to match Labour. That’s not going to happen.

    For all the talk of 300,000 people leaving Labour after Corbyn, there’s no guarantee they’ll give money to a new project. Workers Party GB reported 7,469 members. The CPGB, 1,308. At its peak, Momentum never passed 40,000 paying members, even when belief and excitement was at its highest in 2017, and annual membership was £10.

    It took Reform years to build up to winning some councils. That’s an argument for getting on with it. It’s also an argument for sound planning. They get £millions from dodgy donors.  They have their own TV station. They have a season ticket on Question Time.

    Will we get a free run from the press? Not a chance. We are out-funded and outgunned. If we try electoralism – publishing a programme, and waiting for people to vote for us – we will lose. People don’t trust political parties. We will have to do the hard yards of community engagement, building trust and relationships.

    Like the hundreds we had in our Newcastle People’s Manifesto event. Food Poverty campaigners, public transport users, disabled rights activists. Sean Halsall in Southport also makes the case for listening to people. Faiza Shaheen builds community power in her constituency.

    Optics, politics, and ideology

    So that’s another decision we have to make. Will we go out and tell people we have the answers to their problems if only they will vote for us? Or will we listen to them and ask what they want? I’m in touch with independent socialist councillors up and down the country, and I’ve heard both sides.

    “If we have a bold socialist programme, people will flock to us.”

    I wish it were that easy.

    The evidence suggests otherwise. The 2015 Green Party manifesto called for a Wealth Tax and more radical investment than Corbyn’s Labour 2017 manifesto. They still only returned one MP. TUSC had the definition of a bold socialist programme. They averaged 285 votes per candidate, losing their deposits.

    Liking your programme is not enough. Remember the Funny Tinge Party? They called themselves Change UK. Launched in February 2019. In theory, they had a large voter coalition.  Moderate Labour, moderate Tory, Lib Dems. All the People’s vote/second referendum supporters. They said “politics is broken” and that parties should work together.  73% of people agreed with them. They started with 11 MPs. Their press launch was a car crash. They were dissolved after 10 months.

    You get one chance to make a first impression. We have to decide, is this party of the left, for the left? Or is it a party with left policies that intends to win support across the board?  Including the five million self-employed and small business owners.

    Corbyn may have hinted – but the wheels may well be in motion

    Boil it down, and voters want two things. Almost no one reads manifestos. They will look instead at political leaders and ask two questions. One, can these people run the country? And two, do these people have my back?

    At the moment, millions think no one can run the country. So they vote for those shouting the loudest, or no one at all. To win with a socialist programme, against a hostile media, you have to look credible. Wish lists won’t get you very far.

    When Nick Robinson asks you on the Today programme, “how will you pay for this?”, you need the figures at your fingertips. You need to articulate how we will build council homes, and support that with evidence. How we will overcome the legal barriers to public ownership of water. How we will stop billionaires dodging a wealth tax. That needs movement-wide political education and training, so our members can be our human microphone.

    Building a new party in a single bound, from whole cloth, with a rule book and democratic structures is not realistic. Corbyn knows this. It will have to start as an alliance, so independents can come in and build trust. So you can join and shape it.

    Many watching, including trade unions, want to see that it is professional before they will commit. If you want to get cracking now, and be on the front foot, you can join Majority.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Birte Leonhardt, Folker Hanusch and Shailendra B. Singh

    The role of journalism in society is shaped not only by professional norms but also by deeply held cultural values. This is particularly evident in the Pacific Islands region, where journalists operate in media environments that are often small, tight-knit and embedded within traditional communities.

    Our survey of journalists across Pacific Island countries provides new insight into how cultural values influence journalists’ self-perceptions and practices in the region. The findings are now available as an open access article in the journal Journalism.

    Cultural factors are particularly observable in many collectivist societies, where journalists emphasise their intrinsic connection to their communities. This includes the small and micro-media systems of the Pacific, where “high social integration” includes close familial ties, as well as traditional and cultural affiliations.

    The culture of the Pacific Islands is markedly distinct from Western cultures due to its collectivist nature, which prioritises group aspirations over individual aspirations. By foregrounding culture and values, our study demonstrates that the perception of their local cultural role is a dominant consideration for journalists, and we also see significant correlations between it and the cultural-value orientations of journalists.

    We approach the concept of culture from the viewpoint of journalistic embeddedness, that is, “the extent to which journalists are enmeshed in the communities, cultures, and structures in which and on whom they report, and the extent to which this may both enable and constrain their work”.

    The term embeddedness has often been considered undesirable in mainstream journalism, given ideals of detachment and objectivity which originated in the West and experiences of how journalists were embedded with military forces, such as the Iraq War.

    Yet, in alternative approaches to journalism, being close to those on whom they report has been a desirable value, such as in community journalism, whereas a critique of mainstream journalism has tended to be that those reporters do not really understand local communities.

    Cultural detachment both impractical and undesirable
    What is more, in the Global South, embeddedness is often viewed as an intrinsic element of journalists’ identity, making cultural detachment both impractical and undesirable.

    Recent research highlights that journalists in many regions of the world, including in unstable democracies, often experience more pronounced cultural influences on their work compared to their Western counterparts.

    To explore how cultural values and identity shape journalism in the region, we surveyed 206 journalists across nine countries: Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru and the Marshall Islands.

    The study was conducted as part of a broader project about Pacific Islands journalists between mid-2016 and mid-2018. About four in five of journalists in targeted newsrooms agreed to participate, making this one of the largest surveys of journalists in the region.

    Respondents were asked about their perceptions of journalism’s role in society and the extent to which cultural values inform their work.

    Our respondents averaged just under 37 years of age and were relatively evenly split in terms of gender (49 percent identified as female) with most in full-time employment (94 percent). They had an average of nine years of work experience. Around seven in 10 had studied at university, but only two-thirds of those had completed a university degree.

    The findings showed that Pacific Islands journalists overwhelmingly supported ideas related to a local cultural role in reporting. A vast majority — 88 percent agreed that it was important for them to reflect local culture in reporting, while 75 percent also thought it was important to defend local traditions and values.

    Important to preserve local culture
    Further, 71 percent agreed it was important for journalists to preserve local culture. Together, these roles were considered substantially more important than traditional roles such as the monitorial role, where journalists pursue media’s watchdog function.

    This suggests Pacific islands journalists see themselves not just as neutral observers or critics but as active cultural participants — conveying stories that strengthen identity, continuity and community cohesion.

    To understand why journalists adopt this local cultural role, we looked at which values best predicted their orientation. We used a regression model to account for a range of potential influences, including socio-demographic aspects such as work experience, education, gender, the importance of religion and journalists’ cultural-value orientations.

    Our results showed that the best predictor for whether journalists thought it was important to pursue a local cultural role lay in their own value system. In fact, the extent to which journalists adhered to so-called conservative values like self-restraint, the preservation of tradition and resistance to change emerged as the strongest predictors.

    Hence, our findings suggest that journalists who emphasise tradition and social stability in their personal value systems are significantly more likely to prioritise a local cultural role.

    These values reflect a preference for preserving the status quo, respecting established customs, and fostering social harmony — all consistent with Pacific cultural norms.

    While the importance of cultural values was clear in how journalists perceive their role, the findings were more mixed when it came to reporting practices. In general, we found that such practices were valued.

    Considerable consensus on customs
    There was considerable consensus regarding the importance of respecting traditional customs in reporting, which 87 percent agreed with. A further 68 percent said that their traditional values guided their behaviour when reporting.

    At the same time, only 29 percent agreed with the statement that they were a member of their cultural group first and a journalist second, whereas 44 percent disagreed. Conversely, 52 percent agreed that the story was more important than respecting traditional customs and values, while 27 percent disagreed.

    These variations suggest that while Pacific journalists broadly endorse cultural preservation as a goal, the practical realities of journalism — such as covering conflict, corruption or political issues — may sometimes create tensions with cultural expectations.

    Our findings support the notion that Pacific Islands journalists are deeply embedded in local culture, informed by collective values, strong community ties and a commitment to tradition.

    Models of journalism training and institution-building that originated in the West often prioritise norms such as objectivity, autonomy and detached reporting, but in the Pacific such models may fall short or at least clash with the cultural values that underpin journalistic identity.

    These aspects need to be taken into account when examining journalism in the region.

    Recognising and respecting local value systems is not about compromising press freedom — it’s about contextualising journalism within its social environment. Effective support for journalism in the region must account for the realities of cultural embeddedness, where being a journalist often means being a community member as well.

    Understanding the values that motivate journalists — particularly the desire to preserve tradition and promote social stability — can help actors and policymakers engage more meaningfully with media practitioners in the region.

    Birte Leonhardt is a PhD candidate at the Journalism Studies Center at the University of Vienna, Austria. Her research focuses on journalistic cultures, values and practices, as well as interventionist journalism.

    Folker Hanusch is professor of journalism and heads the Journalism Studies Center at the University of Vienna, Austria. He is also editor-in-chief of Journalism Studies, and vice-chair of the Worlds of Journalism Study.

    Shailendra B. Singh is associate professor of Pacific journalism at the University of the South Pacific, based in Suva, Fiji, and a member of the advisory board of the Pacific Journalism Review.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ian Powell

    In February 2025, Dr Diana Sarfati resigned, not unexpectedly, as Director-General of Health after only two years into her five-year term.

    As a medical specialist, and in her role as developing the successful cancer control agency, she had extensive experience in New Zealand’s health system.

    However, she did not conform to the privately expressed view of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon: That the problem with the health system is that it is led by health.

    Responsibility for the appointment of public service chief executives rests with the Public Service Commissioner.

    In carrying out this function, Brian Roche had two choices for the process of selecting Sarfati’s replacement — run a contestable hiring process (the usual method) or appoint someone without this process.

    With the required approval of Attorney-General Judith Collins and Health Minister Simeon Brown, Roche opted for the exception rather than the rule.

    This suggests a degree of pre-determination to appoint someone without the “hindrance” of health system experience, consistent with Luxon’s view.

    An appointment from outside health
    Consequently, on April 1, Audrey Sonerson was appointed the new Director-General of Health for a five-year term.

    She had been the Ministry of Transport chief executive (including when Brown was transport minister). She also had senior positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in the Police and Treasury.

    Though she had been part of the Treasury’s health team and has a master’s in health economics, her only health system experience was in the brief hiatus between Sarfati’s resignation when acting director-general and becoming the confirmed replacement.

    ‘For a minister with no experience of the complexity of health care delivery to choose a director-general who herself has no health experience is extremely concerning.’

    — Dr David Galler, former intensive care specialist

    This is unprecedented for the director-general position. Sonerson is the 18th person to hold this position. The first 10 had been medical doctors. In 1992, the first non-doctor holder was appointed (a Canadian with some health management experience).

    The subsequent six appointees all had extensive health system experience. Three were medical doctors (two in population health), two had been district health board chief executives, and one had been the director-general in Scotland and a medical geographer.

    Dr David Galler is well-placed to comment on the significance of this extraordinary change of direction. He is a retired intensive care specialist and former President of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists.

    He held the unique position of principal medical adviser to the health minister, the ‘eyes and ears’ of the health system for three health ministers in the mid to late 2000s. He also worked closely with two director-generals.

    Drawing on this experience, Galler observes that: “Director-generals of health must be respected, influential, knowledgeable, connected and trusted, to ensure that good policy goes into practice and good practice informs policy . . .  For a minister with no experience of the complexity of health care delivery to choose a director-general who herself has no health experience is extremely concerning.”

    Breadth of the health system
    As the director-general heads up the Health Ministry, she is responsible for being the “steward” of our health system. In this context she is the lead adviser to the government on health. In the context of seeking to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders, the organisation Sonerson now leads is responsible for:

    • the stewardship and leadership of the health system; and
    • advising her minister and government on health and disability matters.

    These responsibilities have to be considered in the context of how extensive the health system is beginning with its complexity, highly specialised range of health professional occupational groups, and its breadth.

    This breadth ranges from community healthcare (predominantly general practices), local 24/7 acute hospitals, tertiary hospitals (lower volume, high complexity) and quaternary care services (national services for very uncommon or highly complex even lower volume procedures and treatments, including experimental medicine, uncommon surgical procedures, and advanced trauma care).

    Another way of looking at this breadth is that it ranges in treatment from medical to surgical to mental health to diagnostic. And then there is population health such as epidemiology.

    Population health and the Health Act
    However, responsibility extends further to specific obligations under the Health Act 1956, many of which are operational. Although it is nearly 60 years old, this act has been updated by legislative amendments many times and as recently as 2022 with the passing of the Pae Ora Act that disestablished district health boards and established Health New Zealand.

    The Health Act gives Sonerson’s health ministry the function of improving, promoting and protecting public health (as distinct from personal diagnostic and treatment health). Public health is legislatively defined as meaning either the health of all New Zealanders or a population group, community, or section of people within New Zealand.

    A critical part of this role is the responsibility for ensuring that local government authorities improve, promote, and protect public health within their districts in appointing key positions (such as medical officers of health, environmental health officers and health protection officers); food and water safety; regular inspections for any nuisances, or any conditions likely to be injurious to health or offensive and, where necessary, secure their abatement or removal; make bylaws for the protection of public health; and provide reports on diseases and sanitary conditions within each district.

    The population function under the Health Act of improving, promoting, and protecting public health means that how well the health ministry under Sonerson’s leadership performs directly affects the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.

    This is an immense responsibility that cannot be minimised.

    Understanding universal health systems
    Universal health systems such as ours are characterised by being highly complex, adaptive and labour intensive and innovative (innovation primarily comes from its workforce). They provide a public good (rather than commodities) and their breadth is considerable.

    But, despite appearances to the contrary, the different parts of this breadth don’t function separately from each other. They are not just interconnected; they are interdependent.

    As a result, each part makes up a highly integrated system. Consequently, relationships are critical. The more relational the culture, the better the system will perform; the more contractual the culture, the poorer it will perform.

    Galler’s experience-based above-mentioned observation needs to be seen in the context of the challenging nature of universal health systems.

    In a wider discussion on health system leadership, Auckland surgeon Dr Erica Whineray Kelly got to the core of the issue very well: “You’d never have a conductor of an orchestra who’d never played an instrument.”

    Audrey Sonerson comes into the director-general position with a deficit. It will help her performance if she first recognises that there are many unknowns for her and then proceeds to listen to those within the system who possess the experience of knowing well these unknowns.

    It might go some way to alleviating the legitimate concerns of Galler and Whineray Kelly and many others.

    Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes. This article was first published by Newsroom and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Vijay Narayan, news editor of Fijivillage News

    Today marks the 25th anniversary of the May 19, 2000, coup led by renegade businessman George Speight.

    The deposed Prime Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, says Speight’s motive had less to do with indigenous rights and a lot more to do with power, greed, and access to the millions likely to accrue from Fiji’s mahogany plantation.

    On this day 25 years ago, the elected government was held hostage at the barrel of the gun, the Parliament complex started filling up with rebels supporting the takeover, Suva City and other areas in Fiji were looted and burnt, and innocent people were attacked just because of their race.

    Chaudhry said indigenous emotions were “deliberately ignited to beat up support for the treasonous actions of the terrorists”.

    He said the coup threw the nation into chaos from which it had not fully recovered even to this day.

    Chaudhry said using George Speight as a frontman, the “real perpetrators” of the coup, assisted by a group of armed rebels from the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), held Chaudhry and members of his government hostage for 56 days as they plundered, looted and terrorised the Indo-Fijian community in various parts of the country.

    The Fiji Labour Party leader said that, as with current Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who led the first two coups in 1987, so with Speight in May 2000, that the given reason for the treason and the mayhem that followed was to “protect the rights and interests of the indigenous community”.

    Chaudhry said today that it was widely acknowledged that the rights of the indigenous community was not endangered either in 1987 or in 2000.

    He added that they were simply used to pursue personal and political agendas.

    Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka with former prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry
    Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka with former prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry . . . apology accepted during the Girmit Day Thanksgiving and National Reconciliation church service at the Vodafone Arena in Suva. Image: Jonacani Lalakobau/The Fiji Times

    The FLP leader said those who benefitted were the elite in Fijian society, not ordinary people.

    Chaudhry said this was obvious from current statistics which showed that currently the iTaukei surveyed made up 75 percent of those living in poverty.

    He said poverty reports in the early 1990s showed practically a balance in the number of Fijians and Indo-Fijians living in poverty.

    Prisoner George Speight speaking to inmates in 2011
    Prisoner George Speight speaking to inmates in 2011 . . . he and his rogue gunmen seized then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and his government hostage in a 2000 crisis that lasted for 56 days. Image: Fijivillage News/YouTube screenshot

    The former prime minister says it was obvious that the coups had done nothing to improve the quality of life of the ordinary indigenous iTaukei.

    Instead, he said the coups had had a devastating impact on the entire socio-economic fabric of Fiji’s society, putting the nation decades behind in terms of development.


    Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre coordinator Shamima Ali reflects on the 2000 coup.

    Chaudhry said the sorry state of Fiji today — “the suffering of our people and continued high rate of poverty, deteriorating health and education services, the failing infrastructure and weakened state of our economy” — were all indicators of how post-coup governments had failed to deliver on the expectations of the people.

    He said: “It is time for us to rise above discredited notions of racism and fundamentalism and embrace progressive, liberal thinking.”

    Chaudhry added that leaders needed to be judged on their vision and performance and not on their colour and creed.

    Republished with permission from FijiVillage News.

    2000 attempted coup leader George Speight with a bodyguard
    2000 attempted coup leader George Speight with a bodyguard and supporters during the siege drama in May 2000. Image: Fijivillage News

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    American film star celebrity John Cusack, who describes himself on his x-page bio as an “apocalyptic shit-disturber”, has posted an open letter to the world denouncing the Israeli “mass murder” in Gaza and calling for “your outrage”.

    While warning the public to “don’t stop talking about Palestine/Gaza”, he says that the “hollow ‘both sides’ rhetoric is complicity with power”.

    “This is not a debate with two sides that can be normalised — and all the hired bullshit in print and on tv will never change the narrative,” he said.

    Palestinian freelance photojournalist Fatma Hassouna
    Palestinian freelance photojournalist Fatma Hassouna . . . murdered in an Israeli air strike on after it was announced about her film on Gaza being screened at the Cannes Film Festival. Image: Fatma Hassouna

    His statement comes as hundreds of directors, writers, actors have denounced Israeli genocide in Gaza and the film industry’s “silence,” “indifference” and “passivity” coinciding with the Cannes Film Festival.

    More than 350 prominent directors, writers and actors signed an open letter condemning the genocide and the “official inaction” of the film industry in regard to the mass suffering.

    The industry open letter was published on the first day of the Cannes festival. It began by calling attention to the fate of 25-year-old Fatma Hassouna, a Palestinian freelance photojournalist, who was murdered in an Israeli air strike on April 16.

    She was assassinated after it was announced that Iranian director Sepideh Farsi’s film Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk, in which she Hassouna was the star, had been selected in the ACID parallel, independent film section of the festival.

    She was about to get married.

    Cusack’s own open letter, offered as a template at X@JohnCusack last week, said:

    “To Whom it May Still Concern

    “There is a genocide unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. Not a metaphor, not a tragedy in the abstract — a genocide. Carried out in real time, in front of satellites, smartphones, and sanitized press conferences. And what has the so-called “land of the free” done? Applauded. Armed. Rationalised. Looked away.


    London protest: ‘No to another Nakba”    Video: Al Jazeera

    “The blood in Gaza does not just stain the hands of those launching the missiles. It stains every hand that signs off on the bombs, every hand that wrings itself in liberal anguish but does nothing, and every hand that beats its chest in right-wing bloodlust cheering it all on.

    “The American far right sees in this mass killing a projection of its own fantasies — walls, camps, and the unrelenting dehumanisation of the “other.” No surprise there. And where are the liberals? Their silence is violence. Their hollow “both sides” rhetoric is complicity with power. And mass murder. And the machine of empire—greased with our taxes, shielded by our media, and excused by our moral debauchery .
    How’s everybody at the Met gala doing tonight ?

    American actor John Cusack
    American actor John Cusack . . . “If you claim to care about justice – if you ever marched, ever lit a candle for any cause – then your voice should be raised now.” Image: Wikipedia

    “If you claim to care about justice — if you ever marched, ever lit a candle for any cause — then your voice should be raised now. Or it means nothing. The children of Gaza do not need your sorrow. They need your outrage. Your pressure. Your courage.

    “End the siege. End the weapons shipments. End the lies. Call this what it is: a genocide.

    “And if your politics cannot confront that—then your politics are worthless.

    “In furious solidarity

    “John Cusack”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • If you can’t beat them, join them. Right? If Keir Starmer hasn’t joined them, he certainly has just made the daunting prospect of a Farage-led government just that bit more likely.

    Addressing the nation this past Monday, Keir Starmer finally came up with his response to the advance of the reactionist right and claimed that Britain risks “becoming an island of strangers” if net migration doesn’t come down.

    The wholly unedifying spectacle of a Labour, I repeat LABOUR PARTY Prime Minister, desperately attempting to out-Farage, Farage himself by using language designed to provocatively enflame rather than enlighten doesn’t sit well with me.

    Does Keir Starmer even know what he is ‘protecting’?

    This deeply unpleasant amoral tabloid-speak, aping the rhetoric of the far-right, doesn’t deliver the change that Keir Starmer promised, but it does quite clearly guarantee a path of continuity with the demonisation of migrants set to intensify for the foreseeable future.

    Does anyone with just a degree of sensibility honestly believe a care worker from Cameroon or a bus driver from Bangladesh is a risk to the British way of life?

    What is this British way of life that Keir Starmer thinks that he is protecting?

    A tin of beans costs nearly as much as a pint, and if you do your weekly shop at Waitrose you might want to consider selling a kidney on the black market.

    We used to have wet springs. Do you remember something called “April showers”? That’ll be the title of a Bonnie Blue movie these days. Bognor is the new Benidorm, thanks to climate change.

    The notion of a generous benefits system is a whopping great lie. If I can find that out with a quick Google, so can a migrant, so can an ignorant right-wing headbanger with the likability of haemorrhoids.

    For the record, the UK has the third lowest welfare value across the OECD and is no more than a middle ranker when it comes to welfare spending (as a percent of GDP).

    Britain does not have a generous benefits system.

    The poorest parts of the UK are now poorer than the poorest parts of Malta and Slovenia. You won’t hear Keir Starmer scream that from the rooftops, front door ablaze.

    What other British values is he trying to protect? Record NHS waiting times? We love a queue, after all.

    Illusion – or delusion?

    Starmer seems to have this illusion of a Britain that is characterised by politeness, social etiquette, and individual liberty. Perhaps it’s supposed to be that way, maybe it used to be that way (although I doubt it), but this isn’t a Britain that I recognise in 2025.

    Keir Starmer isn’t interested in protecting the British way of life, however you may define it. Keir Starmer is only interested in protecting himself and the assets of those that pull his strings.

    This disastrous immigration speech — which even had the liberal media screaming “rivers of blood” — felt very anti-British, if like me you also feel that tolerance and compassion are amongst our greatest unspoken strengths.

    We mobilise in our hundreds of thousands for Palestine. We are good people and we are so much better than the way our compromised politicians represent us on the global stage.

    While Starmer himself must always take ultimate responsibility for his government and what they stand for, surely there must be someone in power that needs to take his speechwriter to one side and help them clear their desk?

    The substance of the speech was entirely lost in the hateful and divisive language of the speech. That didn’t happen by accident. How bad does it have to be to receive a nod of approval from the far-right Orban Hungarian government?

    I remember one of Jeremy Corbyn’s speechwriters, a very talented man named Alex Nunns. I got a mention, and a signed copy of his fantastic book The Candidate once upon a time.

    Alex used to write about togetherness, peace, decency, the importance of community, solidarity with the oppressed, dignity for the vulnerable, and every single speech that Jeremy delivered had hope at its very core.

    This felt like patriotism to me, not this overt hostility that has been scrambled together with the help of Grok and some highly questionable and completely dishonest data from a shitty right-wing clickbait website.

    We’re a little over ten months into the Starmer era and barely a day goes by without me feeling just a bit more disgusted by their behaviour than I was the day before.

    There was never any doubt that we were in for a very bumpy ride under neoliberal Labour, but even I thought this Reform-esque rhetoric might be beneath the Labour leader.

    Starmer’s Britain: where racists are the victims

    Talking of hate speech, I came across the case of Lucy Connolly, this past week.

    Mrs Connolly, who is married to a former Tory Councillor, was jailed for 31 months for a hateful social media post, much to the anger of the hard-right and that irrelevant attention whore, Dan Wootton.

    By the time you get around to reading this, Lucy may well be free, but has she learned the very simple difference between free speech and hate speech?

    The criminal, Connolly, got no less than what she deserved, and yes, I have read the notes from the appeal and I feel nothing but absolute sympathy for any parent that has lost a child.

    But let’s turn the content of Connolly’s ugly social media post around for a moment.

    What if Mrs Connolly was instead a British Muslim, calling for hotels full of white “bastards” to be burned to the ground?

    Would we all gather outside of the Court of Appeal to hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah until the British Muslim was released from prison to a sea of ISIS flags and Kalashnikov gun fire?

    I rest my case, your honour.

    Featured image via Rachael Swindon

    By Rachael Swindon

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • The Golden Calf – Jewish Achilles Heel

    My first thought on seeing Peter Beinhart’s title — Being Jewish after the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning (2025) — was: Argh. More Jewish angst, holier-than-thou hand-wringing, but leading nowhere. Half-way through I had completely changing my mind. Angst, yes. But lots of meat to chew on, ok, spitting out some grissle, but it was mostly intelligent, informative, and even inspiring (for a goy no less). Beinhart marshalls statistics that confirm my own extreme anger at not just Jews but anyone who does not mobilize themselves to fight this ongoing, LIVE, genocide.

    The West’s indifference to an ongoing genocide is more than shameful. Israel participates in Eurovision, its sports teams compete with only the occasional MUSLIM refusing to spar with his/her competitor from the genocidal state. Almost no one besides Muslims is concerned, donating charity, actively opposing Israel.

    None of my five siblings can be bothered, unless buying Palestinian olive oil counts. All of us are ‘rich’. I’m rich, even if I go to a food bank. It’s all in your mind. The poor are always more generous than the rich. Shame on anyone who ignores genocide just because they feel helpless to stop it. Beinhart’s ashamed to be Jewish. I’m just as ashamed as a non-Jew. One of my favourite Muslim hadiths (in my free-verse version): Speak truth to an unjust ruler; if that’s impossible, then talk about it with others; if that’s impossible, then at least think about it, write about it, use any chance to protest.

    The whole world is reliving 1930s-40s Germany, 1960s US deep south and Vietnam, though it probably feels even worse now to anyone who cares, as we watch live, day after day, already two years, the IDF deliberately slaughtering civilans (even beheading babies while falsely claiming it is Hamas doing this). How can Israelis, Jews, being so consciously, conscientiously EVIL?

    And guess what? Anti-Jewish feelings, acts have gone through the roof. Nice educated college students angrily call out kippa-wearing Jewish classmates as supporters of genocide. Which they are. I’m too polite to ‘speak truth’ there (there is a 0.1% chance the kippa-wearer doesn’t actually like the horrors being perpetrated IN HIS NAME). The Zionist lobby has locked up free speech in the interests of genocide. If you criticize Israel, you are ANTI-SEMITIC, so kippa-wearers are walking targets. Beware. Take it off till the genocide stops or you are fair victim. Better yet, join an encampment, a demo.

    Beinhart would be shocked at my savagery. Tsk, tsk. He protests this conflation, but, sorry, the tyrants in power aren’t listening to your sweet nothings. But my bitching and anger will turn to love if Israel stops acting like Nazi Germany. So don’t blame angry goys for not dotting your ‘i’s.

    That is one of his weaknesses as a fervent, practicing Jew. Haven’t you figured out yet, Peter, that Judaism is dead? Israel killed it, along with (still counting) millions of dead, millions crippled and millions more displaced Palestinians, not to mention Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. Neturei karta and Satmar are nice but have no effect. They are the token anit-Zionists to prove that all Jews aren’t evil, but what good does that do except hobble what should be fierce pressure on all Jews to do something to stop the madness?

    Silver bullet for peace

    Beinhart grew up in South Africa under apartheid so he doesn’t need the Israeli version to understand the evil at play. Afrikaners saw black Africa as barbarism and dysfunction, and justified themselves, their violent repression of blacks as second class drudges(not citizens), by arguing the blacks would kill the whites otherwise.

    Now, looking back, he sees the same false story in northern Ireland and in the US south. And the proof that this story is false is that in each case, when the oppression ends with liberation, the armed resistance movements of the blacks in Africa and the US, the Catholics in northern Ireland melted away. That’s what even our pathetic Conciliation Commission in Canada with our genocided natives was all about. We Canadians have done a half-assed job of reconciliation, but still the natives don’t slit our throats.

    He sees the proof in Israeli Palestinians, who are still second class drudges but CITIZEN drudges. That’s the key. They have a vote, political parties, even representation in the government on rare occasions. That’s all the Gazans and West Bankers want. To be treated like human beings, citizens, even if still second class. That is still wrong, but is a huge step forward. Imagine if Israel made everyone citizens. The thought of a liberated Middle East (NOT Trump’s Club Med) is exhilarating. Do Israelis need reeducation camps, like in Vietnam after the liberation in 1975? Maybe. Certainly new history books. Not their perverse history of victimhood, as Beinhart jokingly summarized in his chapter one title: They tried to kill us, we survived, let’s eat.

    Beinhart was/is himself a Zionist, though now recondite. He loves Buber and others who promoted a caring Zionism. Sorry, Peter. That gentle version never had a chance before Israel was declared the Jewish State, and certainly has no chance now. There were similarly National Socialists who promoted a less toxic Nazism, Strasserism, but they were purged by Netanyahu (sorry, Hitler) or fled abroad. Speaking of which, Toronto has the largest Israeli population outside the ‘fatherland’. Now hundred(s) of thousands of Israelis are abandoning ship, the nicer ones, who, if they had stayed, might have tried stopping the madness. Instead they leave behind the bloodthirsty, murderous settlers, toxic American, British and Russian fanatics, not taking any responsibility themselves as Jews for their Jewish tribe’s crimes.

    You can’t have your Purim cookie and eat it

    Purim celebrations: Israelis’ love of genocide derives from the Purim story of the slaughter of 75,000 Persians ‘in self-defense’, using Esther (concubine/ prostitute) as a honey-trap. The cookies represent tyrant Haman and his sons’ ears.

    Judaism used to be the exalted granddaddy of monotheism. Christians took the Old Testament (OT) with all its Jewish supremacism as the truth. Though Jews were feared and reviled as outsiders, usurers, schemers, the religion was always respected, along with the prophecy that Jews will ‘go back’ in the endtimes.

    This vague notion became a fact in the 1820s, a British imperial project, a 9th Crusade, a proto-Israel in the minds of British Christian Zionists, whose love-hate for Judaism-Jews convinced them to export all Jews to the Holy Land. Israel was conceived as the pet project of (very anti-Jewish) Christian-Zionist Lord Palmerston, which came to life with the invention of the steamship, the leading-edge tech. Palmerston immediately used it to — guess what? — wage war, obliterating Akka (Crusader Acre, Hebrew Akko) in 1840 with British cannons and this new fangled hot air machine (the Brits needed Mount Lebanon’s high-grade coal to fuel their steamships). ‘Not a sign of endtimes but as a new era of prosperity.’1

    The new war-tech allowed Britain to seize control of Egypt (the Suez Canal) by the 1870s. Capitulations to French, British, Russian and US trade and Christian agents in the Levant under the Ottomans prepared the way for divvying up the Ottoman spoils when the time was ripe (1918). So when wealthy Rothschilds-type Jews decided they would like to dabble in creating their own nation, it was readily accepted by imperial Britain. From the first Zionist conference in 1897 to the Balfour declaration in 1917, Israel became the key actor in a new Crusade to ‘free’ the Holy Land (and its oil riches).

    The Brits could get rid of their Jews, and those rich Jews could have their very own Jewish state. Win-win. WWII was the final touch, the get-out-of-jail card, a passport to a racial state for the Chosen People, a state without morals, i.e., f*#k the world, international law, kill, kill, steal, steal, dispossess, trick, torture until – poof! – no more natives standing in your way. That was more or less British colonial policy anyway. There were no ‘nays’, or at least none that got any traction in Westminster or the mainstream press.

    In the process, Judaism has been reduced to just an old boy’s club, a way to get the edge over goys, who have no rich, influential tribe to help them move up the greasy pole. Hillel House won’t have a speaker who criticizes Israel, Zionism, but undermining belief, promotion of atheism? No problemo.

    Wake up Peter! You admit that even US Jews, the heretics, are arrested now, deplatformed, kicked out of university for protesting Israel, excommunicated from the tribe, but still argue that there is no justification for targeting Jews as A TRIBE. But Israel preempted you. Israel wants kippa-wearers to be targetted. Which means that kippa-wearing Jews who parade their Jewishness (Israel-lovers) are by default part of the problem – unless they are vocal opponents of Israeli war crimes and their kippa is to defy the craven kippa-wearing Zios. You can’t eat your blood-soaked Purim cookies, shaped as heads of the decapitated Palestinians (sorry, Persians) and have them too.

    Beinhart argues eloquently in his dynamite last chapter, Korach’s children, that Moses’s opponent, Korach (All the community are holy, all of them, and God is in their midst.), was indeed wrong for claiming that the tribe’s chosenness meant a ‘free pass’. That they didn’t need Moses and his tiresome commandments demanding that they be good Jews. For Moses, chosenness meant responsibility for your own sins. Korach is identical to the Zionists today. Your genes (or very rigorous conversion, including Zionism) give you a ‘free pass’. Your only ‘responsibility’ is to defend the state of Israel, which can do no wrong as it’s, well, ISRAEL. So just shut up and let’s eat our bloody cookies!

    This is idol worship. The Jewish state replaces God in a secular Israel. This isn’t the first time Jews have been called on the carpet for worshipping idols. The Golden Calf is just the most colourful biblical story, and the consequences are always dire. Lots of exile as punishment. In fact, Jewish ‘history’ is one long litany of Jews screwing up and God getting very angry and punishing them. So stop playing victim. Own up to your sins. Stop worshipping idols.

    The other jewcy bits are the OT genocides. The Zionist Mephistopheles Ze’ev Jabotinsky, and Israel’s first Prime Minister Ben Gurion, both atheists, both loved the story of Joshua, who delivered the ‘promised land’ by wiping out all the Palestinians of the day, the Amalek.2 The Zionists celebrate this original sin/theft and use it to justify their present-day genocide. Purim is the icing on the cake.

    Beinhart mentions Jewish supremacists of the past – 11th century Spanish poet Yehuda Halevi (living happily under Islamic rule in Andalou), the 16th century rabbi Maharal of Prague, 18thc Hasids in Poland, the list goes on. Idols are the Jews’ downfall. Hello, Israel. And hello, anti-Jewish prejudice. When you see yourself as superior to the goys around you, you invite resentment. Beinhart doesn’t go the extra mile here, dismissing a few dreamers in Moorish Spain or the Silesian shtetl. They didn’t have the power to do anything about it. Sure, but their supremacist behaviour continually bred resentment. Pogroms against Jews? Yes, but by isolating your tribe, insisting on being superior, when things go wrong, Jews make great scapegoats. Surprise, surprise.

    Enter, stage right

    Jews live in a different world now, where they are the richest and most powerful tribe around, with steel-plated armour against criticism, and where you can’t say any of this in mainstream media without being roasted, sliced and eaten like a Purim cookie. So Beinhart’s soul-searching and his new-found Palestinian friends is all very well, but not enough. He just can’t give up his youthful devotion to Israel as the Jewish state. Pigs really can fly.

    *He quotes IF Stone: Israel is creating a kind of moral schizophrenia in world Jewry, depending on the maintenance of secular, non-racial, pluralistic societies but championing a Jewish state in which the ideal is racial and exclusionist.3

    *bemoans Brandeis University for banning a pro-Palestine group, so students could ‘feel safe in their Jewish identity.’

    *is appalled at how Israel is cozying up to neo-fascists in Europe and America, abandoning Jewish progressives.

    And still doesn’t see that an ethnic state is exactly what Hitler created, that the problem is with Zionism. An ethnic state stinks of colonialism or worse. That era ended in the 1960s-1980s with the liberation of Africa. Israel is dragging the whole world back into the worst form of that nightmare world, Hitler’s Germany, bent on wiping out Amalek/Untermenschen and colonizing the world. But then Beinhart is already pilloried and denied his soapbox in Hillel House and other Jewish-controlled places, so thank you Peter for going as far as you go.

    As I read, I couldn’t help comparing Judaism and Islam. While Judaism is a closed religion, not seeking converts, Islam actively promotes conversion. When you become a Muslim (born or converted, it’s the fastest growing religion), you become part of the ‘chosen’. But Islam means ‘submission’. And all colours are welcome. O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.(49.13). Of course there are bigoted Muslims, tribal Muslims, oily Muslims, but arrogance and racism are universally frowned on. There is no celebration in the Quran or Hadith of massacring Amalek as a template for committing genocide. It’s the OT that is genocidal, jingoistic.

    There are ‘Islamic states’, which are riddled with problems, but unlike in Israel, there are no Untermenschen. All states are suspect in both Judaism and Islam, especially monarchies, which were the normal state structure of two millennia ago, and which often ended up with ‘divine right’ kings who acted like God, idols, and brought about their own demise. The Prophet Muhammad presciently warned against kings, not anointing his blood relative Ali as his inheritor, calling on his followers to elect their own ‘caliph’. Islam was almost destroyed when a later caliph Muawiya appointed his incompetent son Yazid to succeed him. As for Muslim rule, Jews have always lived well under Islamic rule, from Spain to Afghanistan.

    Until Israel reared its ugly head. That angered all Muslims, which delighted Zionists, whose plan was to scare all diaspora Jews into coming to Israel. We killed them, let’s eat. It didn’t work, but it did destroy precious ancient Jewish cultures throughout the Middle East, and brought suddenly unhappy Mizrahi Jews to live as second class Jewish citizens, learn an artificial Hebrew, under ‘white’ European Jews as masters.

    So, for all the backsliding of Muslims over the past millennium and a half, idol worship was never one of its failings. Muslims know that being ‘chosen’ means hard work. Fasting, praying, charity, pilgrimage, study. Lazy Muslims don’t brag about their failings. An atheist Muslim is an oxymoron. This contrasts sharply with not only Jewish centres like Hillel, but even Christian churches, some of which preach atheism.

    2025 – Palestine’s year

    Palestine has finally made the bestseller list. Another fine book, Andreas Malm’s The Destruction of Palestine Is the Destruction of the Earth, relates the origins of Israel, how the British invention of the steamship was the technological breakthrough of the day, giving British a few decades of ocean supremacy, feeding the new racial supremacism that saw European smarts capturing (literally) the entire world, to colonize, exploit, destroy cultures, peoples, genocide, all the great things that made us westerners the new ‘chosen race’. Israel should be celebrating its bicentennial, with Akko the capital.

    Malm poignantly goes the extra miles on the environmental destruction that Israel is responsible for. Nice irony: Israel is poisoning itself by dropping toxic bombs just a few miles from Tel Aviv. Nature knows no bounds. It also is the incentive for all the Arab oil sheikhs to blow $100s of billions on weapons of mass destruction — which all our high-faluting hypersonic things are in fact. US-Israel is the world’s incentive to arm yourself to the teeth, ironically, with US-Israeli weapons intended to protect them from US-Israel. Imagine a world with no Israel, or rather with Palestine-Israel. No need for the military industrial complex. We might actually save planet Earth.

    And Egyptian emigre Omar El Akkad’s One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This. A tweet by El Akkad, a slightly longer version of his catchy title, got 10m hits, so Omar understandably whipped off a book. Cool. He came to the West like all immigrants, thinking it would be heaven, but found it was a big pile of you-know-what. You don’t have to be Palestinian, Arab, Muslim to be the brunt of the lies and bigotry.

    Beinhart is still naval-gazing, the nice little Jewish boy, top marks, loved granny (who loathed what he wrote to the bitter end). Has he bothered reading up on Islam? He never considers the possibility that the real reason Israel MUST be Jews-only is because Islam is a far better version of monotheism, alive and well despite two centuries of imperialist occupation and, now, genocide. No racism, no idols, real chosenness a la original Judaism, where it means responsibility, humility before God, genuine service to ‘the nations’. He finally started making Palestinian Muslim friends and was delighted to find them warm, generous, and spiritual. He was recently on a panel with UCLA law prof Khaled Abou El Fadl. I felt I was in the presence of a profound religious voice. I think, hope Beinhart is still a work in progress.

    ENDNOTES:

    1 Andreas Malm, The destruction of Palestine is the Destruction of the Earth, 2025.

    2 Possibly derived from the Egyptian term *ꜥꜣm rqj “hostile Asiatic”, possibly referring to Bronze Age semitic Shasu tribesmen from around Edom.

    3 Peter Beinhart, Being Jewish after the destruction of Gaza, 104.

    The post Israeli Jews’ Love of Genocide first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In 1988 I was travelling from NYC to Arizona by plane one night. It was a long 5 hour flight, and we were on a jumbo jet. I was standing alongside this man, early 40s perhaps, who said he was an Israeli engineer. During our conversation, I asked about his feelings on the Palestinian situation, and please remember that this was 1988. He began explaining things as he saw it, and then said the following, with no emotion at all:

    You have to understand that we Israelis see the Palestinians as you in the USA see your blacks. Quite honestly, they breed like rabbits, and if this continues they will outnumber us with their excess population. As much as I hate to admit it, the only recourse we have is to push them into the sea before  they totally overwhelm us!

    This writer has been a student of both WW2 and the Jewish Holocaust for most of my adult life.  I believe it was 1988 or 89 and I was home watching the made for television movie Murderers Among Us: The Simon Wiesenthal Story. A scene from the film caused me great consternation. In it, Wiesenthal, played by Ben Kingsley, is searching for his mother at the railroad station. He had heard that she was going to be ‘deported,’ and he knew what that really meant. She was obviously in one of the crowded ‘cattle cars’ ready to depart the station. He was on the platform yelling out her name. There was a German guard off in the near distance. Wiesenthal was desperate. Who wouldn’t be, knowing your mother, the woman who nurtured you and loved you unconditionally, was most likely being sent to her death. Suddenly, he heard a cry from one of the cattle cars: “Simon!” He looked in the direction of the car that the cry came from. The train began to pull away, and the guard was between Wiesenthal and his mother’s cattle car. He fell to his knees and silently wept, so as not to startle the German soldier.

    I quickly wiped my own eyes and grabbed a pen and notepad. This is what I wrote within a few minutes:

    Never Again

    To be a Jew
    and outcast with nothing
    neither the dignity of a cell
    nor the honor of a soldier
    hunted, tormented shamelessly
    JUST FOR BEING A JEW!

    To be a Jew
    homeless, loved by no one
    godless, but in memory
    of a Father so forgiving
    yet turned away once more
    JUST FOR BEING A JEW!

    To be a Jew
    a creature of the day
    for the night has eyes
    eyes that can condemn
    eyes that can haunt
    JUST FOR BEING A JEW!

    To be a Jew
    standing proud in cattle cars
    marching silently towards death
    for only God holds redemption
    for those who are the chosen
    JUST FOR BEING A JEW!

    My poem was laser engraved onto a plaque and sent to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, where it remains today as part of the holocaust museum’s archives. This is just how affected I was by my study of that horrific era in the history of the 20th Century.

    Well, sadly I must state that many of my fellow Jewish brethren (I just found out, through Ancestry.com , that I am 12.5% Jewish, and interestingly, 12.5% Middle Eastern) have failed to understand what the Holocaust really meant. To forcefully remove perhaps as many as 750,000 Palestinians from THEIR HOMES in 1948 to finalize the Jewish state of Israel makes one recall similar such actions by the Germans at the outset of WW2. Is the ghetto that Gaza had become that much different than the  ghettos created in Warsaw and Krakow? The Germans allowed for their citizens to move into areas in Poland and other Eastern countries, after displacing the natives of those areas (many being Jewish) under the guise of Lebensraum or ‘living space.’ How is that any different from many of my Jewish fellow citizens from Borough Park, Brooklyn and other places moving to Israel and forming settlements in former Palestinian areas? How in the hell does a Jewish person from another country have such living rights over a Palestinian whose family has lived there for countless generations?

    As I write the IDF (Israel Defense Forces, what a joke for a name) continue to bomb the **** out of Gaza, killing countless Palestinians, many little children and the elderly. I can recall being at Brooklyn College, circa late 1960s, and running into what we called ‘Yami boppers,’ right-wing Jewish students wearing skull caps. They spoke with vitriol about the Arabs and in defending their ‘homeland.’ As if Israel was their home! It is most likely those folks and their children and grandchildren who now make up the ‘settler class’ in what was once Arab East Jerusalem and other areas. You can notice these brave settlers by the AK 15s and AK 45s they carry as they intimidate. Sadly, the only difference between those people and the German settlers in Poland and Ukraine are those skull caps.

    The post To Be a (REAL) Jew first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • COMMENTARY: By Saige England in Christchurch

    “RNZ is failing in its duty to inform the public of an entirely preventable humanitarian catastrophe.”

    Tautoko to Jeremy Rose, Ramon Das and Eugene Doyle for this critique of a review of RNZ’s coverage of a genocide.

    Sadly, this highlights RNZ’s failure to report the genocide from the perspective of the very real victims — more journalists killed in Gaza than the whole of World War Two, aid workers murdered and buried, 17,000 children, including babies, who will never ever grow.

    I respect so many RNZ journalists and have always supported this important national broadcaster but it is time for it to pull up its pants, ditch the propaganda and report from the field of truth.

    I carry my Jewish ancestors in standing against genocide and calling for reports that show the truth of the travesty.

    For reporting on protests I have been pepper sprayed by thugged-up police donning US-style gloves and glasses (illegally carrying pepper spray and tasers).

    I was banned from my own town hall when I tried — with my E Tu press card — to attend the deputy leader Winston Peters’ media conference.

    This government does not want the truth reported, it seems.

    I have reported from the fields of invasion and conflict. I’ve taught journalism and communications. Good journalists remember journalism ethics. Reports from the point of view of the oppressor support the oppressor.

    Humanitarianism means not reporting from the perspective of a mercenary army — an army that has been enforcing apartheid for decades, and which is invoking a policy of extermination for expansion.

    Please read this media review and think of how you would feel if someone demanded that you leave your home. Palestinians have faced oppression and apartheid and “unhoming” for decades.

    Think of the intolerable weight of grief you would carry if a sniper put a bullet between the eyes of a child you love and know.

    Report on the victims. And stop subscribing to propaganda.

    Saige England is a journalist and author, and a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). She is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This was first published as a social media post.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Nakba Day today marks 15 May 1948 — the day after the declaration of the State of Israel — when the Palestinian society and homeland was destroyed and more than 750,000 people forced to leave and become refugees.  The day is known as the “Palestinian Catastrophe”. 

    By Soumaya Ghannoushi

    US President Donald Trump’s tour of Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Doha is not diplomacy. It is theatre — staged in gold, fuelled by greed, and underwritten by betrayal.

    A US president openly arming a genocide is welcomed with red carpets, handshakes and blank cheques. Trillions are pledged; personal gifts are exchanged. And Gaza continues to burn.

    Gulf regimes have power and wealth. They have Trump’s ear. Yet they use none of it — not to halt the slaughter, ease the siege or demand dignity.

    In return for their riches and deference, Trump grants Israel bombs and sets it loose upon the region.

    This is the real story. At the heart of Trump’s return lies a project he initiated during his first presidency: the erasure of Palestine, the elevation of autocracy, and the redrawing of the Middle East in Israel’s image.

    “See this pen? This wonderful pen on my desk is the Middle East, and the top of the pen — that’s Israel. That’s not good,” he once told reporters, lamenting Israel’s size compared to its neighbours.

    To Trump, the Middle East is not a region of history or humanity. It is a marketplace, a weapons depot, a geopolitical ATM.

    His worldview is forged in evangelical zeal and transactional instinct. In his rhetoric, Arabs are chaos incarnate: irrational, violent, in need of control. Israel alone is framed as civilised, democratic, divinely chosen. That binary is not accidental. It is ideology.

    Obedience for survival
    Trump calls the region “a rough neighbourhood” — code for endless militarism that casts the people of the Middle East not as lives to protect, but as threats to contain.

    His $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 2017 was marketed as peace through prosperity. Now, he wants trillions more in Gulf capital. As reported by The New York Times, Trump is demanding that Saudi Arabia invest its entire annual GDP — $1 trillion — into the US economy.

    Riyadh has already offered $600 billion. Trump wants it all. Economists call it absurd; Trump calls it a deal.

    This is not negotiation. It is tribute.

    And the pace is accelerating. After a recent meeting with Trump, the UAE announced a 10-year, $1.4 trillion investment framework with the US.

    This is not realpolitik. It is a grotesque spectacle of decadence, delusion and disgrace

    Across the Gulf, a race is underway — not to end the genocide in Gaza, but to outspend one another for Trump’s favour, showering him with wealth in return for nothing.

    The Gulf is no longer treated as a region. It is a vault. Sovereign wealth funds are the new ballot boxes. Sovereignty — just another asset to be traded.

    Trump’s offer is blunt: obedience for survival. For regimes still haunted by the Arab Spring, Western blessing is their last shield. And they will pay any price: wealth, independence, even dignity.

    To them, the true threat is not Israel, nor even Iran. It is their own people, restless, yearning, ungovernable.

    Democracy is danger; self-determination, the ticking bomb. So they make a pact with the devil.

    Doctrine of immunity
    That devil brings flags, frameworks, photo ops and deals. The new order demands normalisation with Israel, submission to its supremacy, and silence on Palestine.

    Once-defiant slogans are replaced by fintech expos and staged smiles beside Israeli ministers.

    In return, Trump offers impunity: political cover and arms. It is a doctrine of immunity, bought with gold and soaked in Arab blood.

    They bend. They hand him deals, honours, trillions. They believe submission buys respect. But Trump respects only power — and he makes that clear.

    He praises Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Is Putin smart? Yes . . .  that’s a hell of a way to negotiate.” He calls Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “a guy I like [and] respect”. Like them or not, they defend their nations. And Trump, ever the transactional mind, respects power.

    Arab rulers offer no such strength. They offer deference, not defiance. They don’t push; they pay.

    And Trump mocks them openly. King Salman “might not be there for two weeks without us”, he brags. They give him billions; he demands trillions.

    It is not just the US Treasury profiting. Gulf billions do not merely fuel policy; they enrich a family empire. Since returning to office, Trump and his sons have chased deals across the Gulf, cashing in on the loyalty they have cultivated.

    A hotel in Dubai, a tower in Jeddah, a golf resort in Qatar, crypto ventures in the US, a private club in Washington for Gulf elites — these are not strategic projects, but rather revenue streams for the Trump family.

    Reward for ethnic cleansing
    The precedent was set early. Former presidential adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, secured $2 billion from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund shortly after leaving office, despite internal objections.

    The message was clear: access to the Trumps has a price, and Gulf rulers are eager to pay.

    Now, Trump is receiving a private jet from Qatar’s ruling family — a palace in the sky worth $400 million.

    This is not diplomacy. It is plunder.

    And how does Trump respond? With insult: “It was a great gesture,” he said of the jet, before adding: “We keep them safe. If it wasn’t for us, they probably wouldn’t exist right now.”

    That was his thank you to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar; lavish gifts answered with debasement.

    And what are they rewarding him for? For genocide. For 100,000 tonnes of bombs dropped on Gaza. For backing ethnic cleansing in plain sight. For empowering far-right Israeli politicians, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as they call for Gaza’s depopulation.

    For presiding over the most fanatically Zionist, most unapologetically Islamophobic administration in US history.

    Still, they ask nothing, while offering everything. They could have used their leverage. They did not.

    The Yemen precedent proves they can act. Trump halted the bombing under Saudi pressure, to Netanyahu’s visible dismay. When they wanted a deal, they struck one with the Houthis.

    And when they sought to bring Syria in from the cold, Trump complied. He agreed to meet former rebel leader turned President Ahmed al-Sharaa — a last-minute addition to his Riyadh schedule — and even spoke of lifting sanctions, once again at Saudi Arabia’s request, to “give them a chance of greatness”.

    No US president is beyond pressure. But for Gaza? Silence.

    Price of silence
    While Trump was being feted in Riyadh, Israel rained American-made bombs on two hospitals in Gaza. In Khan Younis, the European Hospital was reportedly struck by nine bunker-busting bombs, killing more than two dozen people and injuring scores more.

    Earlier that day, an air strike on Nasser Hospital killed journalist Hassan Islih as he lay wounded in treatment.

    As Trump basked in applause, Israel massacred children in Jabalia, where around 50 Palestinians were killed in just a few hours.

    This is the bloody price of Arab silence, buried beneath the roar of applause and the glitter of tributes.

    This week marks the anniversary of the Nakba — and here it is again, replayed not through tanks alone, but through Arab complicity.

    With every cheque signed, Arab rulers do not secure history’s respect. They seal their place in its sordid footnotes of shame

    The bombs fall. The Gaza Strip turns to dust. Two million people endure starvation. UN food is gone.

    Hospitals overflow with skeletal infants. Mothers collapse from hunger. Tens of thousands of children are severely malnourished, with more than 3500 on the edge of death.

    Meanwhile, Smotrich speaks of “third countries” for Gaza’s people. Netanyahu promises their removal.

    And Trump — the man enabling the annihilation? He is not condemned, but celebrated by Arab rulers. They eagerly kiss the hand that sends the bombs, grovel before the architect of their undoing, and drape him in splendour and finery.

    While much of the world stands firm — China, Europe, Canada, Mexico, even Greenland – refusing to bow to Trump’s bullying, Arab rulers kneel. They open wallets, bend spines, empty hands — still mistaking humiliation for diplomacy.

    They still believe that if they bow low enough, Trump might toss them a bone. Instead, he tosses them a bill.

    This is not realpolitik. It is a grotesque spectacle of decadence, delusion and disgrace.

    With every cheque signed, every jet offered, every photo op beside the butcher of a people, Arab rulers do not secure history’s respect. They seal their place in its sordid footnotes of shame.

    Soumaya Ghannoushi is a British Tunisian writer and expert in Middle East politics. Her journalistic work has appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, Corriere della Sera, aljazeera.net and Al Quds. This article was first published by the Middle East Eye. A selection of her writings may be found at: soumayaghannoushi.com and she tweets @SMGhannoushi.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The ingredients for any community should start with the basics: active and informed citizens. Participants in a community’s past (context, knowledge), present (all those factors tied to the weakest and most vulnerable, are they included?) and future (getting to a place where climate chaos, predatory capitalism, neofascism doesn’t completely pull all the loose strings of a threadbare set of safety nets). There are plethora of planning books on the smalltown.

    Then what about a sustainable city? Unfortunately, when planners and politicians talk about making cities more sustainable, they are thinking of large urban centers like Portland or Seattle. Oh, the buzz phrases: walkable neighborhoods, traditional architecture, and diverse land uses. It’s neighborhoods that sort of look like small towns. The fix is in for those large cities as planners and developers are B.S.-ing introducing a “small-town feel” into large cities and suburbs. This will never ever create a sense of community, nor will it reduce the use of automobiles.

    From the promo stuff on the book, The New American Small Town: “So, what of small towns themselves? We don’t talk about these places as much. They are often assumed to be utopias of the past or crumbling ghost towns of the present day rather than places with potential for sustainable living. This book critically examines narratives of American small towns, contrasting them with lived experiences in these places, and considers both the myth and reality in the context of current urban challenges. Interweaving stories from and about U.S. small towns, the book offers lessons in sustainable urbanism that can be applied both in the towns themselves and to the larger cities and suburbs where most Americans now live.”

    Like I stated above, there are dozens of books for planning students and developers and chambers of commerce and policy wonks on how to jigger things for smalltowns.

    “The book offers hope-filled portraits of small towns as livable, sustainable, and diverse places and serves as an important corrective to the media narrative of alienated, left-behind rural voters.”

    —Mark Bjelland, author of Good Places for All

    New American Small Town cover

    Thinking of community from that large urban space, Jane Jacobs approached cities as living beings and ecosystems. She suggested that over time, buildings, streets and neighborhoods function as dynamic organisms, changing in response to how people interact with them. She explained how each element of a city – sidewalks, parks, neighborhoods, government, economy – functions together synergistically, in the same manner as the natural ecosystem. This understanding helps us discern how cities work, how they break down, and how they could be better structured.

    She was looking at big urban places, like her home, New York:

    “Whenever and wherever societies have flourished and prospered rather than stagnated and decayed, creative and workable cities have been at the core of the phenomenon. Decaying cities, declining economies, and mounting social troubles travel together. The combination is not coincidental.” (source)

    In my small town, population 2,300, we look toward the sea and the forest as reminders of how vital ecosystems are. The county becomes a network of towns along the coast and inland — Lincoln City, Depoe Bay, Newport, Seal Rock, Waldport, Yahcats.

    We drive a lot, and the traffic during tourist summer season balloons. The town of Lincoln City is around 10,000, but on some weekends, it swells to 50,000. All that infrastructure, all that water, all those restaurants and beaches, well, think of five times the impact, or more, since locals do not all swarm to the beaches or the restaurants all in one fell swoop.

    We are living on unceded land, and in many cases, sacred burial land: Indigenous Communities in Oregon.

    The links below are the websites of Oregon’s nine federally recognized tribal communities:

    The story of a community is all wrapped up in its context, history, and in this age of a memory hole crazy presidency —  with white supremacists like Jewish Stephen Miller running the Trump team’s Gestapo and Big Brother training camp —  we will see history literally erased.

    Communities that are small are more vulnerable than those large urban areas Jacobs wrote about, and studied.

    From my urban and regional-planning graduate-student days (looking at concepts of small is better and scaling down) there are so many quotable axioms tied to communities that are considered small. Here are some notes from one of my planning classes looking at regional smalltown planning:

    • “A small town is where everyone knows everyone, and everyone has a secret.”
    • “In the quiet of the village, the soul finds its reflection.”
    • “A village is a symphony of nature and humanity.”
    • “Simplicity and serenity find their home in village life.”
    • “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.”
    • “If it is to be successful it must be folk-planning. This means that its task is … to find the right places for each sort of people; places where they will really flourish.”

    For me, big ideas and a global perspective capture where I live. There is a deep economic tie to tourism and Air B & B sort of lifestyle out here. Fishing as an industry is big. Logging and a pulp mill in the town of Toledo are still big economic drivers. A big brewery, Rogue, gobbles up precious freshwater, as does the pink fish industry of Pacific Seafoods.

    We have the NOAA station and the Oregon State University Hatfield Marine Sciences Center, as well as the Oregon Coast Aquarium. Many highly educated (college) retirees end up here since many worked for those two large entities listed above. I’ve written about “this place” for Dissident Voice, capturing my old gig as a columnist for Oregon Coast Today. I write for the local rag, called the Newport News Times, with a name change of Lincoln County Leader.

    Conference celebrates how the ocean connects to all of us — coastlines, people, cultures

    This one captures my day in and day out life on the wrack line:

    Respite: Smart People, Concerned Environmentalists, Talking Whales, Kelp, Tidepools.”

    I’ve worked with poor people and homeless folk, with developmental delayed clients, and I have had columns in two newspapers, one of which became a book out there, to be purchased on Amazon — Coastal People inside a Deep Dive: stories about people living on the Central Coast and other places in Oregon.

    Here’s an interesting one, while I was training to be a bus driver, but alas, that fell through because of bad HR, MAGA co-workers, and a multinational company, First Student, ruling over the local school system’s transportation:

    More and More Boys are Coming Home from School with Behavior Sheets!

    Here’s a weird idea of mine, a letter to Jeff Bezos’ ex, billionaire  MacKenzie Scott Tuttle. “Another 400 Acres Up for Sale!

    The big idea around homelessness. That was more than three  years ago, and today, those first 100-plus days in this DOGE — Department of Oppression Greed Excrement — nightmare, and the signs of fascism, “at the foothills of fascism” as professor Gerald Horne calls it, I see the major trauma cracks in this smalltown existence.

    Daily, the Meals on Wheels delivery route I volunteer for shows America in a microcosm — old people, alone aging in place, many in homes or apartments that are long in the tooth, with major repair issues facing them. The TV “news” is usually blaring in the background. And the people energy is thankfulness and fear.

    Just a few minutes with each free meals recepient will help them feel somehow connected to the outside world, a world not wrapped up in medical visits and isolation. The Meals on Wheels programs get state and federal grants. The MOW programs are on the DOGE chopping block, part of the billionaires’ scheme to hobble the weak, vulnerable, the 80 Percenters.

    Just put in your Google-Gulag search, “Paul Haeder Newport News Times,” and you’ll find the thousand word Op-Eds that are still getting published in the local rag, though after a few looks at the stories, the PayWall comes into play. Some of those pieces have been republished in Dissident Voice.

    You can search Dissident Voice for those, or Muck Rack.

    “Community” includes all those puzzle pieces, from education, health care, environment, economics, people, transportation, etc. From an urban planning point of view, the boiler plate definition of planning encompasses a broad range of fields and specializations focused on shaping the built environment and improving the quality of life in urban and regional areas. This interdisciplinary field taps into various disciplines, including geography, economics, sociology, and public policy.

    The rise of sustainability as a force to critique, celebrate and co-modify

    And I did the “sustainability” thing, even going to Vancouver for the University of British Columbia’s summer sustability program.

    Fourteen years ago, and boy have I changed on that green is the new black and new green deal mentality:

    The rise of sustainability as a force to critique, celebrate and co-modify.”

    Journalism seems to be one avenue into a MURP degree, as I ended up in the Eastern Washington University program in 2001, just new to the Pacific northwest coming from El Paso. The program included tribal planning, looking at scenic by-ways, neighborhood planning, even planning principles around farmer’s markets and sustainable businesses.

    I was teaching English at community colleges and Gonzaga when the advisors at EWU said I should get into that master’s program, emphasizing that many journalists have entered into the field of planning.

    One dude, James Howard Kunstler, I brought to Spokane, putting him through a whirlwind set of speaking engagements. Here, myew of him on my radio show, Tipping Points: James Howard Kunstler calls suburban sprawl “the greatest misallocation of resources the world has ever known.” His arguments bring a new lens to urban development, drawing clear connections between physical spaces and cultural vitality. Books like The Long Emergency and The Geography of Nowhere made him famous.

    In Spokane, I created local and regional news interest, with a column in the monthly magazine, Spokane Living — Metro Talk. Dozens of columns: “Go Tell It on the Mountain” is just one example of that journalism. Music Therapy? Check that out: “Music to the Ears.” And  then a column in the weekly, Pacific Northwest Inlander (“War and Peace In Vietnam“), and had a column in the Spokesman Review, tied to Down to Earth (“You Never Know a Place is Unique Until the Story Gets Told“), and then a radio show, Tipping Points.

    The guests on that show were varied in background, political leanings and creative impetus. See those shows here at Paul Haeder (dot) com.

    Now? At age 68? I teach a memoir writing class for the community college, and even that gig is all messed up with MAGA, or the fear of MAGA, as I was warned this spring quarter that a student who received an email from me along with the other enrolled students complained that she thought the class was misrepresented in the Oregon Coast Community College catalogue. The class is about writing, including memoir writing, fiction, poetry, long and short form creative non-fiction, editorial writing, and flash fiction and flash essays.

    My email to the class, all blind copied, included articles from the Chronicle of Higher Education and articles in literary magazine around the cuts to humanities, including the cuts to journalism, writing programs, etc. This person wanted her money back and she wrote to a vice president who, like most in educatoin, are spineless creatures.

    Can you issue a full refund for my registration to the “Writing As Gift Class” in Waldport which starts this afternoon?  This class is not as described in the Catch the Wave catalgue.  I write about nature and short stories of personal experiences.  This class appears to be biased towards politics.  Can you also let the instructor know to delete my email and contact information permanently?  I do not give the instructor permission to forward my contact information or use it for any other purposes.

    Well well, you have read plenty of my work at Dissident Voice around the decay-rot-putridity in higher education, part-time faculty organizing, and the rise of the administrative class in education.

    See: “Disposable Teachers

    Fifteen Dollars and Teaching for Scraps

    Hoodwinked — Hook-Line-and-Sinker the School is Drowning

    So, yes, big towns like Seattle or Portland or El Paso, where I worked as a journalist, educator, activist, and social services person, all the while writing novels and essays, they too are bastions of that mean as cuss Americanism. Seattle and Portland? “Death by a Thousand Cuts: Vaccines, Non-Profits, and the Dissemination of Medical Information“;   “Falling into the Planned Parenthood Gardasil Snake Pit.”

    I deploy D.H. Lawrence in setting the stage for this brutish culture, America:

    America is neither free nor brave, but a land of tight, iron-clanking little wills, everybody trying to put it over everybody else, and a land of men absolutely devoid of the real courage of trust, trust in life’s sacred spontaneity. They can’t trust life until they can control it.

    — D. H. Lawrence  (Studies in Classic American Literature. Ed. Ezra Greenspan, Lindeth Vasey & John Worthen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.)

    So, here is part of that smalltown community college sort of fearful letter from the spineless administrator, the same sort of spinelessness I received decades ago from the University of Texas, or Gonzaga University or Clark College or Greenriver College:

    I’m going to ask that you not bulk email the students henceforth. Our team will send emails on your behalf about any announcements – assignments, presentations, date/time changes, etc. Just send those to us and we’ll distribute. (Of course, any student who wishes to hear from you directly can tell you so and provide their preferred email address; we have no interest in interfering with that.)

    Time is short, but we’re forced to consider canceling the class this morning for two reasons: First, in your email, you introduce an experience far from what we advertised in our catalog. Second, in my estimation it doesn’t conform to our Academic Freedom policy. Based on your email, the class certainly does not appear to be an examination of issues, but presents a singular political agenda. (Note that I’m setting aside here the fact that you and I may share many viewpoints raised in your email to students; this isn’t about my personal beliefs and concerns.) If you wanted to present a workshop focused on your personal opinions, and your past writings, about the current or former administrations or other political issues, one alternative would have been to rent a room from the College or a Library and delivered the event without being tethered by the College’s commitment to freedom of expression of all viewpoints. That may be an option to consider in the future.

    Ahh, my class will/is explore/exploring writing in a time of “community and societal and family estrangement”  which is the blurb at the top of the description printed in the Oregon Coast Community College catalogue. Utilizing fiction and non-fiction.

    Writing As A Gift

    …to yourself, and to the world

    We’ll tackle fiction and non-fiction. We’ll explore writing in a time of community and societal and family estrangement. Personal essay or hard hitting poetry. Writing is an act of internal dialogue ex-pressed to an audience. We will start off with class input on where individuals are in this process. Beginner fiction writer or aficionado of creative non-fiction? We’ll discover through writing who we are as a creative community. Paul Haeder’s been in this game of teaching and publishing and editing writing  for five decades.

    And so it goes, so it goes. You know that being a dissident, or a voice of dissidence, well, it has always been a Joe McCarthy moment for those of us in academic-journalism who would date challenge people to think.

    And the language of the administrator or provost or gatekeeper will always sound like a two-bit lawyer’s verbiage:

    01/21/2015: Institutions of higher education exist for the common good, and the unfettered search for truth and its free exploration is critical to the common good. The college seeks to educate its students in the democratic tradition, to foster recognition of individual freedoms and social responsibility, and to inspire meaningful awareness of and respect for a collaborative learning environment. Freedom of expression will be guaranteed to instructors to create a classroom atmosphere that allows students to raise questions and consider all sides of issues. OCCC instructors are responsible for exercising judgment in selecting topics of educational value for discussion and learning consistent with course requirements, goals, and desired outcomes.   (Emphasis added, DP)

    Not sure how my email exploring higher education’s fear of losing all of the humanities, losing all the Diversity Equity Inclusion courses, and gutting liberal arts in general, how all of that is “not allowing” students to raise questions and consider all sides of issues.

    Small towns or big towns, pick your institution and Kafkaesque poison.

    But part of my role in community consciousness raising is primarily community journalism, also known as solutions journalism, so in this most recent iteration of Haeder, I have a fairly new show, one hour a week, dealing with public affairs, but truly an interview show, a deep dive with a guest or guests, and alas, all shows, all topics, all of it derives from my own deep well of experience, exploration, education and emancipation — the Four E’s, man, of life!

    KYAQ Home -

    Some upcoming shows, Wednesday, on the air, 6 to 7 PM, Finding Fringe: Voice from the Edge, KYAQ.org (streaming live) and 91.7 FM, Lincoln County.

    I’m shifting some of the program dates around since we have current news around the mayor of a small town, Waldport, being arrested and removed from her position as elected mayor. That’s May 14.

    You have to listen to her. May 14. 6 pm. again, stream the show, kyaq.org

    • Then, have you ever heard of the Amanda Trail in Yachats?
    • Do you know what it is like to be incarcerated and then put on 6 years house arrest? Part I & II.
    • Rick Bartow, the famous artist, will be a living reflection at the Yakona Nature Preserve.
    • The Rights of Nature and the Community Bill of Rights? Kai of CELDF will tell us all about that.
    • Siletz is the Home of the Elakha Alliance, a non-profit to work with stakeholders of every sort to reintroduce sea otters to Oregon’s coast.
    • So you leave prison and you have a farm to work on to heal, to reorient oneself, to let the soil salve the PTSD. Freedom Farms.
    May 14 — Heide Lambert, Waldport Mayor controversy
    May 21 — Amanda Trail,  Joanne Kittel
    May 28 — Prisons, Incarceration, Probation — Kelly Kloss
    June 4 — Prisons, Incarceration, Alcoholism — Kelly Kloss
    June 11 — Three women from Yakona Nature Preserve & Learning Center — Anna, Rena, JoAnn
    June 18 — CELDF, Rights of Nature & Community Rights — Kai  Huschke
    June 25 — Chanel Hason, Elakha Alliance, sea otters
    July 2–  Freedom Farms — Sean O Ceallaigh

    Past shows are on the website, but only in limited form. Go to archives, and then put in Finding Fringe.

    Try listening to a smalltown radio station, tuning into a smalltown resident’s take on what it TAKES to be a citizen of the world in a small town, this one called Waldport.

    Here, yet another global thing attached to Waldport — a former Georgia slave paid for his freedom and ended up out here!  You Can’t Have Your Mule and Forty Acres, Too!

    How about the legacy of genocide out here? Not Just One of those Tales of Another Dead Indian

    You’ll get the picture that Waldport or Vancouver, BC, or El Paso or Mexico City, we all face the same problems that the rich and the militarists and the oligarchs force us to fight.

    Tune in, KYAQ.org, streaming worldwide, Wednesdays, 6 PM, PST.

    The post What Does It Take to Make Community? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Russel Norman

    The iconic Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will return to Aotearoa this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original campaign ship at Marsden Wharf in Auckland by French secret agents on 10 July 1985.

    The return to Aotearoa comes at a pivotal moment — when the fight to protect our planet’s fragile life-support systems has never been as urgent, or more critical.

    Here in Aotearoa, the Luxon government is waging an all-out war on nature, and on a planetary scale, climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa's Dr Russel Norman
    Greenpeace Aotearoa’s Dr Russel Norman . . . “Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective.” Image: Greenpeace

    As we remember the bombing and the murder of our crew member, Fernando Pereira, it’s important to remember why the French government was compelled to commit such a cowardly act of violence.

    Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a very real threat to the French government’s military programme and colonial power.

    It’s also critical to remember that they failed to stop us. They failed to intimidate us, and they failed to silence us. Greenpeace only grew stronger and continued the successful campaign against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

    Forty years later, it’s the oil industry that’s trying to stop us. This time, not with bombs but with a legal attack that threatens the existence of Greenpeace in the US and beyond.

    We will not be intimidated
    But just like in 1985 when the French bombed our ship, now too in 2025, we will not be intimidated, we will not back down, and we will not be silenced.

    We cannot be silenced because we are a movement of people committed to peace and to protecting Earth’s ability to sustain life, protecting the blue oceans, the forests and the life we share this planet with,” says Norman.

    In the 40 years since, the Rainbow Warrior has sailed on the front lines of our campaigns around the world to protect nature and promote peace. In the fight to end oil exploration, turn the tide of plastic production, stop the destruction of ancient forests and protect the ocean, the Rainbow Warrior has been there to this day.

    Right now the Rainbow Warrior is preparing to sail through the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life, continuing a decades-long tradition of defending ocean health.

    This follows the Rainbow Warrior spending six weeks in the Marshall Islands where the original ship carried out Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace crew evacuated the people of Rongelap from their home island that had been made uninhabitable by nuclear weapons testing by the US government.

    In Auckland this year, several events will be held on and around the ship to mark the anniversary, including open days with tours of the ship for the public.

    Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Russel Norman

    The iconic Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will return to Aotearoa this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original campaign ship at Marsden Wharf in Auckland by French secret agents on 10 July 1985.

    The return to Aotearoa comes at a pivotal moment — when the fight to protect our planet’s fragile life-support systems has never been as urgent, or more critical.

    Here in Aotearoa, the Luxon government is waging an all-out war on nature, and on a planetary scale, climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa's Dr Russel Norman
    Greenpeace Aotearoa’s Dr Russel Norman . . . “Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective.” Image: Greenpeace

    As we remember the bombing and the murder of our crew member, Fernando Pereira, it’s important to remember why the French government was compelled to commit such a cowardly act of violence.

    Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a very real threat to the French government’s military programme and colonial power.

    It’s also critical to remember that they failed to stop us. They failed to intimidate us, and they failed to silence us. Greenpeace only grew stronger and continued the successful campaign against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

    Forty years later, it’s the oil industry that’s trying to stop us. This time, not with bombs but with a legal attack that threatens the existence of Greenpeace in the US and beyond.

    We will not be intimidated
    But just like in 1985 when the French bombed our ship, now too in 2025, we will not be intimidated, we will not back down, and we will not be silenced.

    We cannot be silenced because we are a movement of people committed to peace and to protecting Earth’s ability to sustain life, protecting the blue oceans, the forests and the life we share this planet with,” says Norman.

    In the 40 years since, the Rainbow Warrior has sailed on the front lines of our campaigns around the world to protect nature and promote peace. In the fight to end oil exploration, turn the tide of plastic production, stop the destruction of ancient forests and protect the ocean, the Rainbow Warrior has been there to this day.

    Right now the Rainbow Warrior is preparing to sail through the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life, continuing a decades-long tradition of defending ocean health.

    This follows the Rainbow Warrior spending six weeks in the Marshall Islands where the original ship carried out Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace crew evacuated the people of Rongelap from their home island that had been made uninhabitable by nuclear weapons testing by the US government.

    In Auckland this year, several events will be held on and around the ship to mark the anniversary, including open days with tours of the ship for the public.

    Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • “But is he capable of murder, doc?” asks the hard-bitten TV detective. You’ve seen the shows.
    It’s really two questions. “Does he have the wherewithal?”: the strength, the skill, the capacity to plan. And, “Is he callous enough to kill?”: the absence of any restraint, compassion or conscience.

    It’s a toss-up whether Keir Starmer will be defined by his “Island of Strangers” speech, as Enoch Powell was defined by Rivers of Blood. Powell’s speech was objectively far more racist. I read an interview with Powell where he denied his speech was racist at all. His defence boiled down to “I am not claiming racial superiority”. Refusing to house, employ, or even interact with people based on ethnicity was not racist in his worldview.

    Our detective would have his answer: yes, he is capable of gross inhumanity. There is no internal restraint. The only thing stopping atrocity is whether he thinks he can get away with it.

    Keir Starmer’s ‘Island of Strangers’ speech: channeling the racist rhetoric of Enoch Powell

    I watched the whole of the “Island of Strangers” speech. Keir Starmer, the golden boy who championed a second referendum to prevent Brexit, referred to free movement as “squalid”. The former human rights lawyer said:

    some people think immigration is some kind of freedom

    And that it:

    for years seems to have muddled our thinking.

    He’s talking about you, Labour voters, who voted for him to stop the xenophobia of Braverman and Farage. It’s your thinking that’s muddled, not the xenophobes, according to him.

    Starmer said:

    Settlement is a privilege that’s earned, not a right.

    The same Keir Starmer who changed the Labour Party rule book so that:

    the rules of natural justice do not apply.

    Facts don’t seem to matter. Sir Keir banged on about a million extra people. Importing cheap labour. Downward pressure on wages.

    But like a good detective, I like to check. The Office of National Statistics data on net migration tells a different story.

    42% of the total increase in visa grants was from overseas students. Well, Sir Keir, overseas students contribute £41.9bn to the UK economy each year. That’s all paid in foreign currency. It’s one of Britain’s most successful exports. You didn’t mention that in your speech.

    A quarter of a million immigrants have come from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Sir Keir is very keen to get photographed with tanks and Ukrainians when it suits him. But apparently he’s not so keen on Ukrainians fleeing a war zone. They make us feel like strangers on our own island.

    The data on migration tells a different story to Starmer’s rancid xenophobia…

    Work visas account for 27% of the post 2019 increase in visa grants. The health and care sector accounts more than every other sector combined, 59.7% of that increase. In February 2022, the Johnson government made care workers eligible for skilled work visas.

    Around 57,000 overseas care workers were recruited that year. They all pay £1,035 a year NHS surcharge, plus a £2,885 immigration fee. They also pay visa fees between £710 and £1,639. In total, it costs from £11,200 to £38,000 to settle in the UK.

    There’s a crisis in social care. The wages are low. The work is hard. Terms and conditions are poor. If you haven’t seen it, watch Ken Loach’s 2019 film Sorry We Missed You.

    What is Labour’s response? Do nothing. Have a review. Report back in 2028. And now blame foreigners for driving down wages.

    Councils should take the initiative here. They are legally allowed to use social value requirements in their contracts. They can enforce good terms and conditions on suppliers. Some councils do. If you are a councillor, or know someone who is, start asking your council about becoming a Real Living Wage employer. It includes being paid for the actual time you work, and secure employment. I implemented that for the North of Tyne in 2019, shortly after I was elected Mayor.

    If the government wanted higher wages, it could do it. It’s pretty simple. End privatisation, implement a wealth tax, and just pay higher wages.

    Keir Starmer has the capacity to kill and he’s following through on it

    Sir Keir said he’s:

    not doing this targeting these voters, responding to that party. I’m doing this because it’s right… It is what I believe in.

    Our detective has his answer. Starmer has the capacity to kill. Through austerity. Through supplying arms for genocide. Through poverty and diseases of despair.

    When he praised Thatcher those in denial said it was just a ploy to win over Tory voters. Well it wasn’t. This is a Thatcherite government. When Starmer says he wants control, he means it. Next in line is your right to protest. Your right to privacy. Your right to own your own information. All up for sale, to Sir Keir’s donors.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Israel’s genocide is in its 19th month. Overnight, as airstrikes kept targeting hospitals and refugee camps, the apartheid state murdered 22 more children. UN officials are saying it is “deliberately and unashamedly” using starvation as a weapon of war amid imminent famine in occupied Gaza. But genocide apologists would rather get angry about Gary Lineker resharing an Instagram post with a questionable emoji on it. This is the utter absurdity we’re living through right now.

    Emojis are never more offensive than ACTUAL FUCKING GENOCIDE (unless you’re attacking Gary Lineker)

    Gary Lineker reshared an Instagram post about Zionism. As Jewish Voice for Peace has explained:

    Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism, and is the primary ideology that drove the establishment of Israel.

    It adds that:

    While it had many strains historically, the Zionism that took hold and stands today is a settler-colonial movement, establishing an apartheid state where Jews have more rights than others.

    The Instagram post focused on a powerful speech from lawyer Diana Buttu critiquing Zionism as “the idea of not only creating a Jewish state, but at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population” – of “privileging and giving exclusive rights to one group of people at the expense of another group of people”. The account – Palestine Lobby – has insisted that:

    every individual deserves the right to self-determination, freedom, and equality, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or religion.

    However, it had apparently added a rat emoji on top of the video. And genocide apologists have jumped on that fact to go after Lineker, who later unshared it.

    Nothing is more dehumanising than genocide itself

    Genocide requires dehumanisation of the target population. Nazis famously did that by portraying Jewish people as rats before the Holocaust, and Zionists have done the same with Palestinians both before and during the current genocide in Gaza. Supporters of Israel’s actions have called Palestinians “roaches” and “rats”, for example. Israeli occupation forces actually ran a Telegram account which celebrated images of the massacres in Gaza with text saying things like:

    Exterminating the roaches… exterminating the Hamas rats

    Western mainstream media outlets have even joined in with dehumanising propaganda to support Israel’s efforts.

    Language absolutely matters. And to truly take the moral high ground, we must refuse to dehumanise our enemies (even indirectly) despite the barbaric depths of their atrocities.

    Gary Lineker has his heart in the right place, and rightly took action when he became aware of the rat emoji (and its negative connotations) on the post he’d shared. But as he’s previously stressed:

    the mass murder of thousands of children is probably something that we should have a little opinion on

    And that must absolutely be the focus. Because emojis don’t kill. Indiscriminate airstrikes from genocidal war criminals do.

    Emojis haven’t killed at least one Palestinian child every hour in Gaza since October 2023. Israel has. Emojis haven’t murdered around 17,492 children in that time, including about 825 babies, 895 one-year-olds, 3,266 preschoolers, and 4,032 six-to-10-year-olds. Israel has. So if genocide apologists think we should get angry about emojis but not the actual mass murder of children, they can fuck right off.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The idea to separate from Canada appeared with the Social Credit Party of Alberta in 1930s, but it failed to win widespread support there and then. Separatist sentiment in the province strengthened only in 1980s, after the Canadian government introduced the National Energy Program trying to tighten federal control over the sector. Being the largest producer of crude oil in the country, Alberta suffered great losses, leaving a huge number of locals unemployed.

    The election victory of Mark Carney’s Liberal Party on April 28, 2025, provoked fresh strain and already rigid posing of Alberta’s separation question. “For the last 10 years, successive Liberal Governments in Ottawa have unleashed a tidal wave of laws, policies and political attacks aimed directly at Alberta’s free economy – and in effect – against the future and livelihoods of our people,” wrote the province’s Premier Danielle Smith. The implementation of the No new pipelines law Bill C-69 as well as the oil tanker ban, increase of taxes on carbon emissions and imposing restrictions on oil and gas industry are just several examples of the liberal governments’ actions that cost Alberta billions of dollars.

    It should be emphasized that the province contributes great sums of money to the federal budget of Canada, some hundreds of billions of dollars more, then other parts of the country. Despite this fact, the money is not allocated between provinces in proportion to their contribution. Thus, the Albertans give several times more, than they get.

    It’s no surprise that, according to the data reported for May, 2025, the idea of independent Alberta is supported by approximately 36% of the locals. Their desire to leave Canada is quite reasonable as independence will open up new horizons to the current Canadian province and will help to avoid the limits set by Ottawa. Among other advantages Alberta will gain an opportunity to export its natural resources not only to the USA but also to other countries, all money it earns will stay within Alberta that will substantively increase the living standards of the population.

    Premier Danielle Smith says she is ready to hold a referendum on provincial separation already in 2026 if citizens gather the required signatures on a petition. Taking into account that Ottawa demonstrates no intention to change its policy towards Alberta as well as to meet the demands voiced by the province’s Premier, there is no doubt the task will be implemented within a short period of time. By the way, it’s important to stress that the Albertans are not the first who started to talk about separation in Canada. The experience of Quebec, that tried to gain independence twice, should help the Albertans to achieve their goal.

    The post Are Albertans Striving to Leaving Canada? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin

    On April 24, 2025, Indonesia made a masterful geopolitical move. Jakarta granted Fiji US$6 million in financial aid and offered to cooperate with them on military training — a seemingly benign act of diplomacy that conceals a darker purpose.

    This strategic manoeuvre is the latest in Indonesia’s efforts to neutralise Pacific support for the independence movement in West Papua.

    “There’s no need to be burdened by debt,” declared Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka during the bilateral meeting at Jakarta’s Merdeka Palace (Rabuka, 2025).

    More significantly, he pledged Fiji’s respect for Indonesian sovereignty — diplomatic code for abandoning West Papua’s struggle for self-determination.

    This aligns perfectly with Indonesia’s Law No. 2 of 2023, which established frameworks for defence cooperation, including joint research, technology transfer, and military education, between the two nations.

    This is not merely a partnership — it is ideological assimilation.

    Indonesia’s financial generosity comes with unwritten expectations. By integrating Fijian forces into Indonesian military training programmes, Jakarta aims to export its “anti-separatist” doctrine, which frames Papuan resistance as a “criminal insurgency” rather than legitimate political expression.

    The US $6 million is not aid — it’s a strategic investment in regional complicity.

    Geopolitical chess in a fractured world
    Indonesia’s manoeuvres must be understood in the context of escalating global tensions.

    The rivalry between the US and China has transformed the Indo-Pacific into a strategic battleground, leaving Pacific Island nations caught between competing spheres of influence.

    Although Jakarta is officially “non-aligned,” it is playing both sides to secure its territorial ambitions.

    Its aid to Fiji is one move in a comprehensive regional strategy to diplomatically isolate West Papua.

    West Papuan leader Benny Wenda (left) and Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
    Flashback to West Papuan leader Benny Wenda (left) meeting Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka in Suva in February 2023 . . . At the time, Rabuka declared: “We will support them [ULMWP] because they are Melanesians.” Image: Fiji govt
    By strengthening economic and military ties with strategically positioned nations, Indonesia is systematically undermining Papuan representation in important forums such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), and the United Nations.

    While the world focuses on superpower competition, Indonesia is quietly strengthening its position on what it considers an internal matter — effectively removing West Papua from international discourse.

    The Russian connection: Shadow alliances
    Another significant yet less examined relationship is Indonesia’s growing partnership with Russia, particularly in defence technology, intelligence sharing, and energy cooperation

    This relationship provides Jakarta with advanced military capabilities and reduces its dependence on Western powers and China.

    Russia’s unwavering support for territorial integrity, as evidenced by its position on Crimea and Ukraine, makes it an ideal partner for Indonesia’s West Papua policy.

    Moscow’s diplomatic support strengthens Jakarta’s argument that “separatist” movements are internal security issues rather than legitimate independence struggles.

    This strategic triangulation — balancing relations with Washington, Beijing, and Moscow– allows Indonesia to pursue regional dominance with minimal international backlash. Each superpower, focused on countering the others’ influence, overlooks Indonesia’s systematic suppression of Papuan self-determination.

    Institutionalising silence: Beyond diplomacy
    The practical consequence of Indonesia’s multidimensional strategy is the diplomatic isolation of West Papua. Historically positioned to advocate for Melanesian solidarity, Fiji now faces economic incentives to remain silent on Indonesian human rights abuses.

    A similar pattern emerges across the Pacific as Jakarta extends these types of arrangements to other regional players.

    It is not just about temporary diplomatic alignment; it is about the structural transformation of regional politics.

    When Pacific nations integrate their security apparatuses with Indonesia’s, they inevitably adopt Jakarta’s security narratives. Resistance movements are labelled “terrorist threats,” independence advocates are branded “destabilising elements,” and human rights concerns are dismissed as “foreign interference”.

    Most alarmingly, military cooperation provides Indonesia with channels to export its counterinsurgency techniques, which are frequently criticised by human rights organisations for their brutality.

    Security forces in the Pacific trained in these approaches may eventually use them against their own Papuan advocacy groups.

    The price of strategic loyalty
    For just US$6 million — a fraction of Indonesia’s defence budget — Jakarta purchases Fiji’s diplomatic loyalty, military alignment, and ideological compliance. This transaction exemplifies how economic incentives increasingly override moral considerations such as human rights, indigenous sovereignty, and decolonisation principles that once defined Pacific regionalism.

    Indonesia’s approach represents a sophisticated evolution in its foreign policy. No longer defensive about West Papua, Jakarta is now aggressively consolidating regional support, methodically closing avenues for international intervention, and systematically delegitimising Papuan voices on the global stage.

    Will the Pacific remember its soul?
    The path ahead for West Papua is becoming increasingly treacherous. Beyond domestic repression, the movement now faces waning international support as economic pragmatism supplants moral principle throughout the Pacific region.

    Unless Pacific nations reconnect with their anti-colonial heritage and the values that secured their independence, West Papua’s struggle risks fading into obscurity, overwhelmed by geopolitical calculations and economic incentives.

    The question facing the Pacific region is not simply about West Papua, but about regional identity itself. Will Pacific nations remain true to their foundational values of indigenous solidarity and decolonisation? Or will they sacrifice these principles on the altar of transactional diplomacy?

    The date April 24, 2025, may one day be remembered not only as the day Indonesia gave Fiji US$6 million but also as the day the Pacific began trading its moral authority for economic expediency, abandoning West Papua to perpetual colonisation in exchange for short-term gains.

    The Pacific is at a crossroads — it can either reclaim its voice or resign itself to becoming a theatre where greater powers dictate the fate of indigenous peoples. For West Papua, everything depends on which path is chosen.

    Ali Mirin is a West Papuan from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands that share a border with the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He graduated with a Master of Arts in international relations from Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Gordon Campbell

    The calls by the Israel Institute of New Zealand for Peter Davis to resign from the Helen Clark Foundation because of comments he made with regard to an ugly, hateful piece of graffiti are absurd.

    The graffiti in question said “I hated Jews before it was cool!” On social media, Davis made this comment :

    “Netanyahu govt actions have isolated Israel from global south and the west, and have stoked anti-Semitism. Yitzak Rabin was the last leader to effectively foster a political-diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestine impasse. He was assassinated by a settler. You reap what you sow.”

    IMO, this sounds like an expression of sorrow and regret about the conflict, and about the evils it is feeding and fostering. Regardless, the institute has described that comment by Davis as antisemitic.

    “‘You cannot claim to champion social cohesion while minimising or rationalising antisemitic hate,’ the institute said. ‘Social trust depends on moral consistency, especially from those in leadership. Peter Davis’s actions erode that trust.’”

    For the record, Davis wasn’t rationalising or minimising antisemitic hate. His comments look far more like a legitimate observation that the longer the need for a political-diplomatic solution is violently resisted, the worse things will be for everyone — including Jewish citizens, via the stoking of antisemitism.

    The basic point at issue here is that criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government do not equate to a racist hostility to the Jewish people. (Similarly, the criticisms of Donald Trump’s actions cannot be minimised or rationalised as due to anti-Americanism.)

    Appalled by Netanyahu actions
    Many Jewish people in fact, also feel appalled by the actions of the Netanyahu government, which repeatedly violate international law.

    In the light of the extreme acts of violence being inflicted daily by the IDF on the people of Gaza, the upsurge in hateful graffiti by neo-Nazi opportunists while still being vile, is hardly surprising.

    Around the world, the security of innocent Israeli citizens is being recklessly endangered by the ultra-violent actions of their own government.

    If you want to protect your citizens from an existing fire, it’s best not to toss gasoline on the flames.

    To repeat: the vast majority of the current criticisms of the Israeli state have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism. At a time when Israel is killing scores of innocent Palestinians on a nightly basis with systematic air strikes and the shelling of civilian neighbourhoods, when it is weaponising access to humanitarian aid as an apparent tool of ethnic cleansing, when it is executing medical staff and assassinating journalists, when it is killing thousands of children and starving the survivors . . . antisemitism is not the reason why most people oppose these evils. Common humanity demands it.

    Ironically, the press release by the NZ Israel Institute concludes with these words: “There must be zero tolerance for hate in any form.” Too bad the institute seems to have such a limited capacity for self-reflection.

    Footnote One: For the best part of 80 years, the world has felt sympathy to Jews in recognition of the Holocaust. The genocide now being committed in Gaza by the Netanyahu government cannot help but reduce public support for Israel.

    It also cannot help but erode the status of the Holocaust as a unique expression of human evil.

    One would have hoped the NZ Israel Institute might acknowledge the self-defeating nature of the Netanyahu government policies — if only because, on a daily basis, the state of Israel is abetting its enemies, and alienating its friends.

    Footnote Two: As yet, the so-called Free Speech Union has not come out to support the free speech rights of Peter Davis, and to rebuke the NZ Israel Institute for trying to muzzle them.

    Colour me not surprised.

    This is a section of Gordon Campbell’s Scoop column published yesterday under the subheading “Pot Calls Out Kettle”; the main portion of the column about the new Pope is here. Republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

  • REVIEW: By Joseph Fahim

    This article was initially set out to focus on The Encampments, Kei Pritsker and Michael T Workman’s impassioned documentary that chronicles the Columbia University student movement that shook the United States and captured imaginations the world over.

    But then it came to my attention that a sparring film has been released around the same time, offering a staunchly pro-Israeli counter-narrative that vehemently attempts to discredit the account offered by The Encampments.

    October 8 charts the alleged rise of antisemitism in the US in the wake of the October 7 attacks on southern Israel by Hamas-led Palestinian fighters.

    A balanced record though, it is not. Wendy Sachs’s solo debut feature, which has the subhead, “The Fight for the Soul of America”, is essentially an unabashed defence of the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices.

    Its omissions are predictable; its moral logic is fascinatingly disturbing; its manipulative arguments are the stuff of Steven Bannon.

    It’s easily the most abhorrent piece of mainstream Israeli propaganda this writer has come across .

    Ignoring October 8 would be injudicious, however. Selected only by a number of Jewish film festivals in the US, the film was released in mid-March by indie distribution outfit Briarcliff Entertainment in more than 125 theatres.

    The film has amassed more than $1.3 million so far at the US box office, making it the second-highest grossing documentary of the year, ironically behind the self-distributed and Oscar-winning No Other Land about Palestine at $2.4 million.

    October 8 has sold more than 90,000 tickets, an impressive achievement given the fact that at least 73 percent of the 7.5 million Jewish Americans still hold a favourable view of Israel.

    “It would be great if we were getting a lot of crossover, but I don’t know that we are,” Sachs admitted to the Hollywood Reporter.

    Zionist films have been largely absent from most local and international film festivals — curation, after all, is an ethical occupation — while Palestinian stories, by contrast, have seen an enormous rise in popularity since October 7.

    The phenomenon culminated with the Oscar win for No Other Land.

    October 8
    October 8 . . . “easily the most abhorrent piece of mainstream Israeli propaganda this writer has come across.” Image: Briarcliff Entertainment

    But the release of October 8 and the selection of several Israeli hostage dramas in February’s Berlin Film Festival indicates that the war has officially reached the big screen.

    With the aforementioned hostage dramas due to be shown stateside later this year, and no less than four major Palestinian pictures set for theatrical release over the next 12 months, this Israeli-Palestinian film feud is just getting started.

    Working for change
    The Encampments, which raked in a highly impressive $423,000 in 50 theatres after a month of release, has been garnering more headlines, not only due to the fact that the recently detained Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil happens to be one of its protagonists, but because it is clearly the better film.

    Pritsker and Workman, who were on the ground with the students for most of the six-week duration of the set-in, provide a keenly observed, intimate view of the action, capturing the inspiring highs and dispiriting lows of the passionate demonstrations and wayward negotiations with Columbia’s administrations.

    The narrative is anchored from the point of views of four students: Grant Miner, a Jewish PhD student who was expelled in March for his involvement in the protests; Sueda Polat, a protest negotiator and spokesperson for the encampments; Naye Idriss, a Palestinian organiser and Columbia alumni; and the soft-spoken Khalil, the Palestinian student elected to lead the negotiations.

    A desire for justice, for holding Israel accountable for its crimes in Gaza, permeated the group’s calling for divesting Columbia’s $13.6 billion endowment funds from weapons manufacturers and tech companies with business links to the Netanyahu’s administration.

    Each of the four shares similar background stories, but Miner and Khalil stand out. As a Jew, Miner is an example of a young Jewish American generation that regard their Jewishness as a moral imperative for defending the Palestinian cause.

    Khalil, meanwhile, carries the familiar burden of being a child of the camps: a descendant of a family that was forcibly displaced from their Tiberias home in 1948.

    The personal histories provide ample opportunities for reflections around questions of identity, trauma, and the youthful desire for tangible change.

    Each protester stresses that the encampment was a last and only resort after the Columbia hierarchy casually brushed aside their concerns.

    These concerns transformed into demands when it became clear that only more strident action like sit-ins could push the Columbia administration to engage with them.

    In an age when most people are content to sit idly behind their computers waiting for something to happen, these students took it upon themselves to actively work for change in a country where change, especially in the face of powerful lobbies, is arduous.

    Only through protests, the viewers begin to realise, can these four lucidly deal with the senseless, numbing bloodshed and brutality in Gaza.

    Crackdown on free speech
    Through skilled placement of archival footage, Pritsker and Workman aptly link the encampments with other student movements in Columbia, including the earlier occupation of Hamilton Hall in 1968 that demonstrated the university’s historic ties with bodies that supported America’s involvement in the Vietnam War.

    Both anti-war movements were countered by an identical measure: the university’s summoning of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to violently dismantle the protests.

    Neither the Columbia administration, represented by the disgraced ex-president Minouche Shafik, nor the NYPD are portrayed in a flattering fashion.

    Shafik comes off as a wishy-washy figure, too protective of her position to take a concrete stance for or against the pro-Palestinian protesters.

    The NYPD were a regular fixture outside universities in New York during the encampments during 2024 (MEE/Azad Essa)
    The NYPD were a regular fixture outside universities in New York during the encampments during 2024 Image: MEE/Azad Essa

    The NYPD’s employment of violence against the peaceful protests that they declared to have “devolved into antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric” is an admission that violence against words can be justified, undermining the First Amendment of the US constitution, which protects free speech.
    The Encampments
    is not without flaws. By strictly adhering to the testimonials of its subjects, Pritsker and Workman leave out several imperative details.

    These include the identity of the companies behind endowment allocations, the fact that several Congress senators who most prominently criticised the encampments “received over $100,000 more on average from pro-Israel donors during their last election” according to a Guardian finding, and the revelations that US police forces have received analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict directly from the Israeli army and Israeli think tanks.

    The suggested link between the 1968 protests and the present situation is not entirely accurate either.

    The endowments industry was nowhere as big as it is now, and there’s an argument to be made about the deprioritisation of education by universities vis-a-vis their endowments.

    A bias towards Israel or a determination to assert the management’s authority is not the real motive behind their position — it’s the money.

    Lastly, avoiding October 7 and the moral and political issues ingrained within the attack, while refraining from confronting the pro-Israel voices that accused the protesters of aggression and antisemitism, is a major blind spot that allows conservatives and pro-Israel pundits to accuse the filmmakers of bias.

    One could be asking too much from a film directed by first-time filmmakers that was rushed into theatres to enhance awareness about Mahmoud Khalil’s political persecution, but The Encampments, which was co-produced by rapper Macklemore, remains an important, urgent, and honest document of an event that has been repeatedly tarnished by the media and self-serving politicians.

    The politics of victimhood
    The imperfections of The Encampments are partially derived from lack of experience on its creators’ part.

    Any accusations of malice are unfounded, especially since the directors do not waste time in arguing against Zionism or paint its subjects as victims. The same cannot be said of October 8.

    Executive produced by actress Debra Messing of Will & Grace fame, who also appears in the film, October 8 adopts a shabby, scattershot structure vastly comprised of interviews with nearly every high-profile pro-Israel person in America.

    The talking heads are interjected with dubious graphs and craftily edited footage culled from social media of alleged pro-Palestinian protesters in college campuses verbally attacking Jewish students and allegedly advocating the ideology of Hamas.

    Needless to say, no context is given to these videos whose dates and locations are never identified.

    The chief aim of October 8 is to retrieve the victimisation card by using the same language that informed the pro-Palestine discourse

    Every imaginable falsification and shaky allegation regarding the righteousness of Zionism is paraded: anti-Zionism is the new form of antisemitism; pro-Palestinian protesters harassed pro-Israel Jewish students; the media is flooded with pro-Palestinian bias.

    Other tropes include the claim that Hamas is conspiring to destabilise American democracy and unleash hell on the Western world.

    Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas co-founder who defected to Israel in 1997, stresses that “my definition of Intifada is chaos”.

    There is also the suggestion that the protests, if not contained, could spiral into Nazi era-like fascism.

    Sachs goes as far as showing historical footage of the Third Reich to demonstrate her point.

    The chief aim of October 8 is to retrieve Israel’s victimhood by using the same language that informs pro-Palestine discourse. “Gaza hijacked all underdog stories in the world,” one interviewee laments.

    At one point, the attacks of October 7 are described as a “genocide”, while Zionism is referred to as a “civil rights movement”.

    One interviewee explains that the framing of the Gaza war as David and Goliath is erroneous when considering that Hamas is backed by almighty Iran and that Israel is surrounded by numerous hostile countries, such as Lebanon and Syria.

    In the most fanciful segment of the film, the interviewees claim that the Students for Justice in Palestine is affiliated and under the command of Hamas, while haphazardly linking random terrorist attacks, such as 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting to Hamas and by extension the Palestinian cause.

    A simmering racist charge delineate the film’s pro-Israel discourse in its instance on pigeonholing all Palestinians as radical Muslim Hamas supporters.

    There isn’t a single mention of the occupied West Bank or Palestinian religious minorities or even anti-Hamas sentiment in Gaza.

    Depicting all Palestinians as a rigid monolith profoundly contrasts Pritsker and Workman’s nuanced treatment of their Jewish subjects.

    The best means to counter films like October 8 is facts and good journalism

    There’s a difference between subtraction and omission: the former affects logical form, while the latter affects logical content.

    October 8 is built on a series of deliberate omissions and fear mongering, an unscrupulous if familiar tactic that betrays the subjects’ indignation and their weak conviction.

    It is thus not surprising that there is no mention of the Nakba or the fact that the so-called “civil rights movement” is linked to a state founded on looted lands or the grand open prison Israel has turned Gaza into, or the endless humiliation of Palestinians in the West Bank.

    There is also no mention of the racist and inciting statements by far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

    Nor is there mention of the Palestinians who have been abducted and tortured and raped in Israeli prisons.

    And definitely not of the more than 52,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza to date.

    Sachs’ subjects naturally are too enveloped in their own conspiracies, in the tightly knotted narrative they concocted for themselves, to be aware of their privilege.

    The problem is, these subjects want to have their cake and eat it. Throughout, they constantly complain of being silenced; that most institutions, be it the media or college hierarchies or human rights organisations, have not recognised the colossal loss of 7 October 7 and have focused instead on Palestinian suffering.

    They theorise that the refusal of the authorities in taking firm and direct action against pro-Palestinian voices has fostered antisemitism.

    At the same time, they have no qualms in flaunting their contribution to New York Times op-eds or the testimonies they were invited to present at the Congress.

    All the while, Khalil and other Palestinian activists are arrested, deported and stripped of their residencies.

    The value of good journalism
    October 8, which portrays the IDF as a brave, truth-seeking institution, is not merely a pro-Israel propaganda, it’s a far-right propaganda.

    The subjects adopt Trump rhetoric in similarly blaming the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies for the rise of antisemitism, while dismissing intersectionality and anti-colonialism for giving legitimacy to the Palestinian cause.

    As repugnant as October 8 is, it is crucial to engage with work of its ilk and confront its hyperboles.

    Last month, the Hollywood Reporter set up an unanticipated discussion between Pritsker, who is in fact Jewish, and pro-Israel influencer Hen Mazzig.

    The heated exchange that followed demonstrated the difficulty of communication with the pro-Israeli lobby, yet nonetheless underlines the necessity of communication, at least in film.

    Mazzig spends the larger part of the discussion spewing unfounded accusations that he provides no validations for: “Mahmoud Khalil has links to Hamas,” he says at one point.

    When asked about the Palestinian prisoners, he confidently attests that “the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners” — hostages, as Pritsker calls them — they have committed crimes and are held in Israeli prisons, right?

    “In fact, in the latest hostage release eight Palestinian prisoners refused to go back to Gaza because they’ve enjoyed their treatment in these prisons.”

    Mazzig dismisses pro-Palestinian groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and the pro-Palestinian Jewish students who participated in the encampments.

    “No one would make this argument but here we are able to tokenise a minority, a fringe community, and weaponise it against us,” he says.

    “It’s not because they care about Jews and want Jews to be represented. It’s that they hate us so much that they’re doing this and gaslighting us.”

    At this stage, attempting for the umpteenth time to stress that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not one and the same — a reality that the far-right rejects — is frankly pointless.

    Attempting, like Khalil, to continually emphasise our unequivocal rejection of antisemitism, to underscore that our Jewish colleagues and friends are partners in our struggle for equality and justice, is frankly demeaning.

    For Mazzig and Messing and the October 8 subjects, every Arab, every pro-Palestinian, is automatically an antisemite until proven otherwise.

    The best means to counter films like October 8 is facts and good journalism.

    Emotionality has no place in this increasingly hostile landscape. The reason why The Bibi Files and Louis Theroux’s The Settlers work so well is due to their flawless journalism.

    People may believe what they want to believe, but for the undecided and the uninformed, factuality and journalistic integrity — values that go over Sachs’ head — could prove to be the most potent weapon of all.

    Joseph Fahim is an Egyptian film critic and programmer. He is the Arab delegate of the Karlovy Vary Film Festival, a former member of Berlin Critics’ Week and the ex director of programming of the Cairo International Film Festival. This article was first published by Middle East Eye.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Leafleting for Majority, I stopped a bloke in Newcastle city centre.

    Late thirties, Geordie accent, carrying a plastic bag with his shopping in, he said:

    Oh, I’ll definitely be voting in the next council election.

    I asked:

    Who are you thinking of voting for?

    “Re Form,” he pronounced, as two separate words.

    You get a lot of that these days. Loads of media commentators and Westminster bubble people expound their theories why. Few of them actually go and find out for themselves.

    Local elections: breaking through the Westminster bubble to find out what voters really think

    I asked him if he thought Reform will fix anything after the local elections. Yes, partly as a leading question, but I was genuinely interested to hear his thoughts.

    “Well, erm, aye,” then a short pause, “Farage is the man isn’t he?”

    I followed up with:

    What do you think needs fixing?

    “Homelessness.” No hesitation this time. He continued:

    Like, you see people sleeping in shop doorways. And begging, and if people give them money it goes on drugs.

    I asked him his name: Ryan.

    Then, I told Ryan a story.

    A few years ago I visited HMP Northumberland and spoke to some of the inmates there. When I was mayor we funded courses so inmates could get skilled up and get an interview and have a job arranged all before they were released. So they came out with an income and with a life plan. I asked some of the lads what they thought would be an improvement. And they told me something I never thought I would ever hear a prisoner say.

    They said:

    The sentences are too short. You get lads with 3 month sentences, they serve like 5 weeks, and the drugs are barely out of their system and they’re released. But wherever they were staying has gone when they get out. And who’s nice to them? The drug dealers. So they go straight back on it.

    I’m not sure longer sentences are the answer, but they were right about the problem. I explained the ‘Housing First’ policy. Giving people somewhere to live that they know can’t be taken off them. Where if they miss an appointment with a job coach they still have their home. With that foundation, they start to feel in control of their lives. They start to turn their lives around.

    Working class voters have lived austerity’s devastating reality

    Ryan was nodding along:

    Aye, and they can get proper rehab and stuff, and they’ll turn up because they have somewhere to live. You know I struggled when I came out of prison.

    I had no idea – I’d never met him before. For privacy I’ll skip over the details of Ryan’s youth he shared with me. But it struck a chord with him. The fact that I’d listened to people with his life experience. Not just listened, but heard them, and learned from them too. In return, he listened to me.

    We spoke about the Newcastle Assembly where the people will develop their own manifesto. That we’ll be running in next May’s local elections for a progressive coalition to take control of Newcastle city council. Would Ryan vote for us?

    Well I was just saying Re Form because there was no one else. Labour just lie.

    He paused for a moment. Then, he said:

    You know, if I was prime minister, I could fix this country in six months.

    I was impressed. Even I’m not that confident, and I’ve ran an arm of government. I asked him what he would do. Ryan said:

    You’ve got all people, like working, but they haven’t got any money, and they’re struggling to pay their bills and buy food and that. The government could support them with a bit money. And you wouldn’t have as much crime. You wouldn’t have people sleeping in doorways. And things like tourism would improve. Who’s going to come and visit here if there’s people sleeping rough?

    One working-class lad with a tough history spoke more economic sense in one five minute conversation than Rachel Reeves has since she was elected, despite her Nobel Prize in economics, or whatever her CV says these days. Ryan got anti-austerity politics because he lived it. And not one word about immigration passed his lips.

    Honesty and integrity: what’s missing from politics

    I spoke to Alison. She also had a broad Geordie accent, and works two jobs, one as a cleaner, one as bar staff. She’s helping her daughter get through university, who’s training as a nurse.

    Referring to Reform’s local elections landslide in County Durham last week, she asked me:

    What do you think of them getting in in Durham, then?

    I asked her if she thought they’d fix anything. Alison replied:

    Nah. They’re just all talk like the rest of them. They won’t fix nowt. They’re going on about people working from home now. But who can you vote for? Labour have gone back on everything they’ve said. Everything.

    She told me about her daughter, and how expensive her accommodation is. My son’s at uni too, and it’s eye watering. I told her about the assembly, about having a manifesto where the people get to take part in setting policy. Would she vote for us?

    I will pet, I will.

    Once you get out of the social media bubble, people just want things to work. We chose the name Majority because the majority of people agree with our politics. Making sure everyone has a secure home. Public utilities run for the good of the public. A wealth tax on the very rich. Every poll shows between 70% and 80% of people want these things to happen.

    It’s also about integrity. We can’t slam the Tories for VIP WhatsApp lanes and Labour for freebies unless we’re better. The most effective line in my mayoral campaign was, “In five years I claimed £0 expenses”.

    Integrity means being honest. We stick firm to our values of anti-racism, anti-ableism and LGBTQ+ inclusion. Honesty gets you respect. It wasn’t Labour’s stance on immigration that lost them these local elections. It was their stance on truth.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • ANALYSIS: By Dennis Doyle, University of Dayton

    Cardinal Robert Prevost of the United States has been picked to be the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church; he will be known as Pope Leo XIV.

    Now, as greetings resound across the Pacific and globally, attention turns to what vision the first US pope will bring.

    Change is hard to bring about in the Catholic Church. During his pontificate, Francis often gestured toward change without actually changing church doctrines. He permitted discussion of ordaining married men in remote regions where populations were greatly underserved due to a lack of priests, but he did not actually allow it.

    On his own initiative, he set up a commission to study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons, but he did not follow it through.

    However, he did allow priests to offer the Eucharist, the most important Catholic sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to Catholics who had divorced and remarried without being granted an annulment.

    Likewise, Francis did not change the official teaching that a sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman, but he did allow for the blessing of gay couples, in a manner that did appear to be a sanctioning of gay marriage.

    To what degree will the new pope stand or not stand in continuity with Francis? As a scholar who has studied the writings and actions of the popes since the time of the Second Vatican Council, a series of meetings held to modernize the church from 1962 to 1965, I am aware that every pope comes with his own vision and his own agenda for leading the church.

    Still, the popes who immediately preceded them set practical limits on what changes could be made. There were limitations on Francis as well; however, the new pope, I argue, will have more leeway because of the signals Francis sent.

    The process of synodality
    Francis initiated a process called “synodality,” a term that combines the Greek words for “journey” and “together.” Synodality involves gathering Catholics of various ranks and points of view to share their faith and pray with each other as they address challenges faced by the church today.

    One of Francis’ favourite themes was inclusion. He carried forward the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the Holy Spirit — that is, the Spirit of God who inspired the prophets and is believed to be sent by Christ among Christians in a special way — is at work throughout the whole church; it includes not only the hierarchy but all of the church members.

    This belief constituted the core principle underlying synodality.

    A man in a white priestly robe and a crucifix around his neck stands with several others, dressed mostly in black.
    Pope Francis with the participants of the Synod of Bishops’ 16th General Assembly in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican in October 2023. Image: The Conversation/AP/Gregorio Borgia

    Francis launched a two-year global consultation process in October 2022, culminating in a synod in Rome in October 2024. Catholics all over the world offered their insights and opinions during this process.

    The synod discussed many issues, some of which were controversial, such as clerical sexual abuse, the need for oversight of bishops, the role of women in general and the ordination of women as deacons.

    The final synod document did not offer conclusions concerning these topics but rather aimed more at promoting the transformation of the entire Catholic Church into a synodal church in which Catholics tackle together the many challenges of the modern world.

    Francis refrained from issuing his own document in response, in order that the synod’s statement could stand on its own.

    The process of synodality in one sense places limits on bishops and the pope by emphasising their need to listen closely to all church members before making decisions. In another sense, though, in the long run the process opens up the possibility for needed developments to take place when and if lay Catholics overwhelmingly testify that they believe the church should move in a certain direction.

    Change is hard in the church
    A pope, however, cannot simply reverse official positions that his immediate predecessors had been emphasising. Practically speaking, there needs to be a papacy, or two, during which a pope will either remain silent on matters that call for change or at least limit himself to hints and signals on such issues.

    In 1864, Pius IX condemned the proposition that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”

    It wasn’t until 1965 – some 100 years later – that the Second Vatican Council, in The Declaration on Religious Freedom, would affirm that “a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion. …”

    A second major reason why popes may refrain from making top-down changes is that they may not want to operate like a dictator issuing executive orders in an authoritarian manner.

    Francis was accused by his critics of acting in this way with his positions on Eucharist for those remarried without a prior annulment and on blessings for gay couples. The major thrust of his papacy, however, with his emphasis on synodality, was actually in the opposite direction.

    Notably, when the Amazon Synod — held in Rome in October 2019 — voted 128-41 to allow for married priests in the Brazilian Amazon region, Francis rejected it as not being the appropriate time for such a significant change.

    Past doctrines
    The belief that the pope should express the faith of the people and not simply his own personal opinions is not a new insight from Francis.

    The doctrine of papal infallibility, declared at the First Vatican Council in 1870, held that the pope, under certain conditions, could express the faith of the church without error.

    The limitations and qualifications of this power include that the pope:

    • be speaking not personally but in his official capacity as the head of the church;
    • he must not be in heresy;
    • he must be free of coercion and of sound mind;
    • he must be addressing a matter of faith and morals; and
    • he must consult relevant documents and other Catholics so that what he teaches represents not simply his own opinions but the faith of the church.

    The Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption offer examples of the importance of consultation. The Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is the teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself preserved from original sin, a stain inherited from Adam that Catholics believe all other human beings are born with, from the moment of her conception.

    The Assumption, proclaimed by Pius XII in 1950, is the doctrine that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.

    The documents in which these doctrines were proclaimed stressed that the bishops of the church had been consulted and that the faith of the lay people was being affirmed.

    Unity, above all
    One of the main duties of the pope is to protect the unity of the Catholic Church. On one hand, making many changes quickly can lead to schism, an actual split in the community.

    In 2022, for example, the Global Methodist Church split from the United Methodist Church over same-sex marriage and the ordination of noncelibate gay bishops. There have also been various schisms within the Anglican communion in recent years.

    The Catholic Church faces similar challenges but so far has been able to avoid schisms by limiting the actual changes being made.

    On the other hand, not making reasonable changes that acknowledge positive developments in the culture regarding issues such as the full inclusion of women or the dignity of gays and lesbians can result in the large-scale exit of members.

    Pope Leo XIV, I argue, needs to be a spiritual leader, a person of vision, who can build upon the legacy of his immediate predecessors in such a way as to meet the challenges of the present moment.

    He already stated that he wants a synodal church that is “close to the people who suffer,” signaling a great deal about the direction he will take.

    If the new pope is able to update church teachings on some hot-button issues, it will be precisely because Francis set the stage for him.The Conversation

    Dr Dennis Doyle, is professor emeritus of religious studies, University of Dayton. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Less than one year ago, the people of County Durham returned six out of six MPs for Labour. Northumberland voted Labour in four out of four. On Thursday, Northumberland Labour dropped from 21 seats in 2021, to just eight. In Durham, from 53 seats to just four. Four. Yes, there are fewer seats with the boundary changes, but this is beyond defeat. It is obliteration. And Reform has taken control.

    Labour’s vote collapsed because people are rightly angry

    How can a party collapse so quickly?

    Well, it didn’t. Durham voted Brexit. People at bus stops weren’t discussing the intricacies of the European Central Bank. They were bemoaning the price of buses. Boarded up shops. No school places nearby. Youths on noisy motorbikes intimidating pedestrians.

    One resident of a former pit village told me:

    We haven’t even got a supermarket here.

    The Brexit vote was a howl of pain.

    In 2019, the land of the Durham Miners’ Gala returned three Tory MPs. This year, just one of 24 Tory councillors survives from the 2021 local elections. The people gave them a chance. They failed to deliver. So the people voted them out.

    In July last year, the people gave Labour a chance. Boy, were they betrayed quickly. Winter fuel allowance. Impoverishing disabled people. Still no buses. Still the shops are boarded up while the prices keep going up.

    Reform has 65 of 98 seats on Durham County Council. Its vote is a coalition of two angry groups. Those who are angry at life. At immigrants. Trans people. Vaccines. Tofu. Recycling. Green energy. To them I say, haters gonna hate.

    And a much larger group who are angry with supermarket prices. At working long hours and still slipping into debt. At paying in all your life, then having your Winter Fuel Allowance taken away.

    To them I say, you’re right to be angry. But Nigel Farage is not on your side. He’s part of the same snake-oil selling establishment who has been selling you out for a long, long time. Helping the rich get richer, while delivering a reality of ill health and insecure work.

    Reform has taken back control, so what now?

    What happens now that Reform has taken back control? Will they fix Durham? Or just blame someone else? Voters don’t like that. They expect you to fix something. They know you can’t fix everything everywhere, all at once. But if your park is still covered in glass after four years, they will hold you to account.

    What Brexit broke was not the tradition of voting Labour. It broke the tradition of voting by tradition. Will Reform even hold together? Its four MPs have managed to start suing each other. Will they be falling out before the leaves fall off the trees?

    Newcastle has all-out council elections in 2026. Labour has already lost overall control through resignations. It has a £40m debt liability for the Crowne Plaza hotel. It has cost us £7m through the failed profit-making parks trust, implemented by now North East Mayor Kim McGuinness. Child poverty is up. The new Metros are not in service. No one seems to be in charge, or capable of delivering anything. The Gateshead flyover is still closed. And no one takes responsibility.

    Instead, all we get are slavish repetition of national talking points:

    Everything is fine, and it’s all the Tories’ fault.

    We need people who will stand up for our region. Who are not terrified of telling the truth for fear of being politically executed by party apparatchiks. We need a credible alternative.

    Exactly one year ago, I polled 25,000 votes in Newcastle compared to Labour’s 26,000 votes. There is a desire for better politics and higher standards. I want to see a coalition that will actually represent the people, not the parties. I want independents involved, and Greens if they are up for it. For the people leaving Labour – and there are many – to be part of it. To use citizens’ assemblies to set policy priorities.

    We need politicians who will put local people first, and who are not beholden to party HQs or toeing the party line. Our first assembly is on Sunday 18 May in the Discovery Museum. You can book on the Majority website. Get yourself along.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

  • 7 Mins Read

    Robert Dupree, general partner at VC firm Alwyn Capital, argues that future foods and alternative proteins are key to winning the AI race.

    If artificial intelligence (AI) is going to be the new determining factor for global hegemony, then energy dominance, food security, and water resilience must combine into a single integrated national security priority.

    Securing a stable food supply is integral to defending national interests. A disrupted food system not only endangers public well-being but also undermines military readiness and economic stability, two pillars of national power. Alternative proteins can help build redundancy into our food system and will help to reduce vulnerability. 

    The US faces a growing array of security threats from China. As food, water, and energy become critical choke points, alternative protein R&D acts as a strategic hedge, ensuring US soldiers and citizens remain fed without requiring a massive resource footprint while maintaining traditional US farms and agriculture.

    Alternative proteins are food ingredients created to replace or complement conventional animal-derived proteins. They include cell-based meat, precision fermentation, plant-based proteins, and molecular farming. Each is leveraging different technologies to produce sustainable, scalable, and functionally equivalent protein sources. 

    The climate problem plaguing AI and data centres

    ai climate change
    Courtesy: AI-Generated Image via Canva

    AI is the ultimate force multiplier, but it requires stable power and water. Both the US and China are scrambling to shore up these resources, and whoever integrates them first wins the AI race. As Chris Wright stated during his confirmation hearings: “The security of our nation begins with energy.”

    What he was referring to is the energy needed to win the AI race against China. To run high-fidelity models, AI needs data centres, and data centres need lots of power. The power required for data centres alone will need to double by 2030, and President Trump is pushing to accelerate that timeline. 

    The US has invested $328.5B in AI. It is unlikely that China will be able to outspend us, but they will continue to limit our progress through halting exports of raw materials needed for chips and energy storage.

    China has prioritised energy creation and brought its cost to below $0.08/kilowatt-hour, half that of the US, and they are masters of doing more with less. Deepseek has demonstrated that China is surpassing us by developing its model at a lower cost and without relying on high-performance chips.

    China has prioritised building energy infrastructure, while the US energy industry has lagged. Building energy sources with speed and efficiency will be critical for the next several years in the US.

    Small Modular Reactors take two to three years to construct, while larger nuclear reactors need five to seven years to build. The new Alaskan LNG pipeline won’t be delivered until 2031.

    While China restricts exports of antimony and other rare earth materials, the scale of renewables like solar will be limited. Those timelines don’t work for doubling power within five years.

    In contrast, a new shale gas well (the main energy source for the US) can be drilled and brought online in as little as a few weeks. That means we will be looking at doubling shale capacity to double our current power output and meet the demands of data centres. To do this, we need roughly 140,000 shale gas wells by 2030. As President Trump promises, the US will “drill, baby drill”.

    During this period of power and data centre expansion, access to water resources will be essential. A new vertical shale gas well requires around two to four million gallons of water, and one data centre uses over three million gallons of water a day. This surge in demand will intensify pressure on all other water-intensive industries. 

    Farmers vs AI

    factory farming water pollution
    Courtesy: Budimir Jevtic

    Currently, half of the water from the Colorado River goes to agriculture, and most of that goes to growing feed for animals. Data centres and their energy sources will be in direct competition for this crucial water supply. Furthermore, states with the most farm revenue are also the ones targeting new data centres with tax incentives. This pits farm interests against AI development. 

    The amount of water the US uses for animal feed is astronomical. Corn is the leading feed grain in the US, representing more than 95% of the total feed grain production. In 2024, US corn production was estimated at 14.9 billion bushels. One bushel of corn requires 2,500 gallons of water to produce, and producing 14.9 billion bushels requires 37.25 trillion gallons.

    In 2016, the total water consumption by the US livestock sector was 72.65 trillion gallons. In 2021, Google’s data centres consumed over three billion gallons of water, by 2023, that usage had doubled to six billion gallons.

    Our water resources are heavily strained and in short supply. Arkansas aquifers are being depleted at an alarming rate, as is the largest US aquifer, the Ogallala Aquifer. As previously mentioned, our short-term energy supply will likely come from shale gas that will require two to four million gallons of water per new well.

    US aquifers are already experiencing strain from data centres and agriculture, and the increased demand will see the US water supply further stressed. Cattle require immense amounts of water, water that is needed for AI innovation. Thus, it will be crucial for the US to promote domestic protein production that requires less water.

    On top of being resource-intensive, cattle are slow to replace. The cattle cycle typically spans about 10 years from low point to low point. As of January, the US cattle inventory stands at 86.7 million heads, marking its lowest level since 1951. Given this stage in the cycle and the current low inventory levels, investing in alternative proteins will serve as a prudent strategy to mitigate potential supply disruptions and market volatility. 

    In addition to beef, the egg market volatility has been affecting the US consumer for the last three years. Egg prices are at a record high due to Avian Flu outbreaks, which have decimated the US chicken population – nearly 170 million birds have been lost over the last two years.

    If the chicken and cattle industries were depleted, it would take 1.5 and two to three years, respectively, under optimal conditions, to get flocks and herds back to current levels. Alternative proteins allow for faster production and shorter lead times – many alternative proteins can be produced in a matter of days or weeks. 

    Dealing with disruptions

    beef prices
    Consumer price index for beef | Courtesy: Bureau of Labor Statistics

    In 2023, the US suffered crop losses totalling $21B due to storms. A major storm, combined with a failing power infrastructure, limited resources for farms and factories, and storm-related delays, could cripple the economy of a country facing an isolationist policy.

    Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins expects significant challenges for farmers and has committed to providing financial support to help them navigate the impact. This underscores the administration’s recognition that our food supply will face increasing disruptions. 

    The USDA predicts beef imports will continue at record prices for the next couple of years. As the US cattle herd has declined, beef imports, mainly from Canada and Mexico, have surged, doubling since 2013 and exposing vulnerabilities in our supply chain.

    We are already seeing delays in cocoa and coffee production due to weather, leading to shortages and record-high prices. As more commodities fall victim to changing climate patterns, we will experience additional shortages and major disruptions in the US food system.

    Since JBS, the world’s largest beef producer, and Smithfield, the largest pork producer in the US, are both foreign-owned, relying on overseas control of such critical industries could further complicate the supply chain. 

    Alternative proteins will alleviate the burden of securing reliable protein and reinforce our national security in an increasingly uncertain world. Establishing alternative proteins as a backstop, especially if the current trade war with China enters an extended period, will help to secure a stable US food supply. 

    Global dominance now hinges on AI, which in turn relies on both water and energy, resources that are increasingly scarce, making water a critical strategic asset. Feedstock for animal agriculture is one of the largest consumers of our water supply. Clinging to outdated systems vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, trade conflicts, and resource competition puts the US at a strategic disadvantage.

    Alternative proteins, by contrast, require less water, are produced more quickly, and can be non-GMO, minimally processed, and free from vaccines or antibiotics.

    To secure global hegemony, the US must embrace alternative proteins as a strategic hedge.

    The post Opinion: To Win in AI, We Need to Win in Alternative Proteins appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Some artworks respond to the urgency of moment. Others make a pitch to long memory. Amidst rising suppression of the arts in the US, Mask for Pleasure – full title: A future that could include (and is not affiliated with) Eric Bogosian by the transdisciplinary arts collective Holy Erotic Propaganda Arson (HEPA) is attempting to do both, as an in-development performance and transnational ecosystem, including archival memory and diasporic support networks.

    In the United States, the arts sector is experiencing significant upheaval due to recent federal policy changes. The Trump administration has proposed eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), leading to the abrupt rescission of grants and encouragement for staff resignations. Simultaneously, the Kennedy Center has undergone a leadership overhaul, with president Trump appointing himself as chairman and installing Richard Grenell as president. These changes have led to the cancellation of events with LGBTQIA2S+ and progressive themes, staff layoffs, and a significant decline in ticket sales and donations.

    Mask for Pleasure: a historical precedent in the Nazification of German film

    What began in 1933 as political consolidation quickly became a total capture of Germany’s cultural sector, through what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung (coordination). Germany’s most prestigious film studio, Universum Film AG (UFA), had been internationally respected for its artistic innovation during the Weimar period. That ended swiftly. By 1934, all film workers, including directors, actors, screenwriters, and composers, were required to register with the Reichsfilmkammer, a branch of the newly formed Reichskulturkammer (Reich Chamber of Culture), overseen by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Membership was mandatory.

    Studio heads complied early. UFA terminated its Jewish staff preemptively in 1933. By 1937, its majority shares were quietly transferred to Cautio Treuhand GmbH, a Nazi-controlled trust. In 1942, UFA was forcibly merged with Bavaria Film, Tobis, and Terra Film to create UFI (UFA-Film GmbH), a total monopoly under Goebbels’ control. Cinemas could now show only state-sanctioned films. Non-German films were banned or severely censored. By 1936, even film criticism was outlawed and replaced with Filmbetrachtung, state-controlled “film observation,” where critics could only describe films, never interpret them.

    Silencing, arrest, and execution of creatives

    Creative workers experienced silencing, arrest, and execution. Conrad Veidt, one of Germany’s most famous actors and an outspoken critic of the Nazi regime, was abducted and tortured by the SA, later fleeing to Britain. His portrayal of queer and Jewish-coded roles had made him a target. Grete Berger, a renowned silent film actress, was deported to Auschwitz and murdered in 1944. Dora Gerson, an actress and cabaret performer, was killed in Auschwitz in 1943. Robert Dorsay, a satirist and singer, was hanged in 1943 for allegedly making jokes about Hitler.

    Even those who complied were ultimately expendable. Emil Jannings, the first-ever Oscar winner in the best actor category, and a vocal Nazi supporter, returned from working in Paris to publicly align himself with the regime. He made several propaganda films for Goebbels. After the war, his career was over. No redemption. No legacy rehabilitation. Just disappearance. Those who tried to remain “neutral” were surveilled, manipulated, or blackmailed. Many fled. Many disappeared.

    A play in a speculative future not unlike post-war Germany

    A HEPA collaborator said:

    No one can predict the future, but we know the regime is plagiarising the National Socialist playbook. In that case, we’re attempting to overtake their timeline, setting Mask for Pleasure in a future where the regime’s hubris has already been reduced to rubble, where the trauma is contained in safety whose aesthetic is slate-gray conformity, and yet, like the dawn of the culture wars, embodied memory reconfigured as a new eros is emerging through the cracks.

    The play is set in a speculative future that feels strangely like post-war Germany in the 1950s – starched, humming with reconstruction, and sanitised to the point of grief – with the philosophical backbone of the Frankfurt School of Philosophy that had developed in the salons of Los Angeles in the German exilic community. It follows a survivor, an older Covid-marked gardener of the rubble who insists on a wild burial. Opposite her is a repressed entry-level death administrator, whose job is to shepherd her toward a “clean death”, complete with paperwork, starched linens, and a performance of consent. What unfolds is less a drama than a ritual negotiation between Thanatos – the death drive – and Eros, the wild, unruly energy of erotic being.

    Eros and Thanatos: coexistent impulses

    Freud, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, described these two forces not as opposing binaries but as coexistent, interwoven impulses. He wrote that:

    The aim of all life is death.

    Yet, in the same breath he insisted on the erotic as the force that binds, builds, reproduces, remembers. Thanatos pulls us toward dissolution, Eros insists on continuation. Every agent of power, suppression, and desire contains both.

    This line of thought – of memory, embodiment, and erotic resistance – is indebted to the ways in which Eros was metabolised and newly reasserted through American queer Black feminist praxis, especially Audre Lorde, whose Berlin years shaped both Afro-German feminist politics and Germany’s ongoing reckoning with anti-Black racism. Lorde understood Eros not simply as sex or pleasure (though it can encompass both), but as epistemology. She wrote that:

    The erotic is a measure between the beginnings of our sense of self and the chaos of our strongest feelings

    It is power made form. Knowledge made blood.

    Germany remembers through philosophy; America forgets through industry.

    As part of the play’s launch, its materials, ephemera, and internal logic are being deposited across the German national archive system, beginning in the Social Science Open Access Repository, operated by GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.

    The archive acts as a companion to the play that houses not just its media and documentation, but its underlying thesis: the archive is fragmented, multiplicitous, and produced in the interplay between Eros and Thanatos, living that springs from dying, memory that springs from erasure, and vice-versa.

    The archive springs from growing efforts to preserve art -and artists’ lives – in the face of increasing suppression.

    The Covid-competent arts community across borders has begun doing what states have refused to: remembering through performance.

    In New York, on 24 April, two performances happened, uncoordinated, but somehow in communion. Air Change Per Hour by Anna R.G. centred HEPA air filtration units as its lead performers and included audio recordings from performers living with Long Covid, reflecting on their exclusion from their professions.

    The second play was Wake Up and Smell the C*VID: An Evening Without Eric Bogosian by Holy Erotic Propaganda Arson (HEPA), featuring monologues about the impact of the ongoing pandemic on the performing arts community.

    Disrupting the stasis

    In the weeks following its announcement, search engine visibility of reporting around the latter play appeared to fluctuate across platforms. Without any public explanation, published articles from the Canary and Broadway World in the play’s discursive field, which had previously been trending, seemed to be no longer searchable in Google news results.

    The Canary articles appeared to resurface, but as of writing one article seems to continue to fluctuate in visibility. This article, which references the play in its body, centres the Mask for Pleasure walk, where New York Covid-impacted artists handed out masks and leaflets in the Broadway theatre district during the opening weekend of George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck, raising awareness of SARS-CoV-2’s impact on personal, interpersonal, and aesthetic pleasure.

    At this point, all of this remains speculative, but the question lingers: if other articles from the same discursive network have reappeared, why is this one still apparently experiencing fluctuations? Why does it seem that a documented real-world event, captured and published in a mainstream US outlet, has remained structurally less visible than independent artistic manifestos?

    This is entirely speculative, but if the invisibility originated at least in part from third parties, what might have caused any possible reactivity? The subject matter (long Covid, protest, pandemic memory) is unfortunately a nuclear topic even as Covid continues to devastate the arts, but this was a key topic across reporting. At the same time, if the article gestures to something more primally felt, then perhaps the response isn’t wholly and indivisibly logical, but also symbolic. Perhaps it’s not the language, but the drive behind it. By invoking pleasure, maybe the article doesn’t just report – it potentially disrupts stasis by reactivating affect.

    The ‘threat’ of pleasure for a system trapped in death drive

    Freud wrote that Eros and Thanatos, the life drives and death drives, are not enemies. They are twins: complementary, co-arising. Eros binds, constructs, repeats. Thanatos unbinds, dissolves, returns the psyche to stillness. In healthy systems, they circulate. But in moments of acute collapse, like war, pandemic, or political upheaval, systems fall into defensive postures, into Thanatos-locked stasis. Under such conditions, even the presence of one’s own life drives can feel invasive.

    This may help explain why pleasure, joy, even tenderness, are now so often met with cynicism, sarcasm, or silence. Compounding this reactivity, as SARS-CoV-2 continues to damage nervous systems, dull reward centres, and erode libido and sensory coherence, the erotic may no longer feel restorative. It can feel like a demand. A disruption. A threat from the outside, when in fact, it is what the body already contains, asking to be remembered. Integrated.

    Neuroscience is beginning to catch up. Studies on Long Covid show persistent inflammation in areas of the brain associated with pleasure, attention, and social reward. The loss of affect is not just a result of one’s thought world, it can be hard-wired on a neurological level. And when pleasure becomes unfamiliar, bodies may no longer recognise themselves.

    This is perhaps where memory, performance, and archive meet. Because Mask for Pleasure, by invoking pleasure on a pre-cognitive level, does not simply remind us of what we’ve lost. It risks reactivating it. It opens a window through which Eros might re-enter. And for a system temporarily frozen in a protective stasis – which may be the death drive’s compulsion to self-anesthetise through control, suppression, and inertia – that could feel like violence.

    Eros doesn’t live in the logic dominance and submission, but in mutually-generative exchange. The play generates. The archive generates. There are no heroes and villains, just a dialectic of energies.

    AMC: network archive of transnational exchange in US film

    This is all speculation, but AMC may find itself in the position defending a painstakingly-constructed image of a tentpole TV series in a political environment that is becoming increasingly hostile to queer, BIPOC-centred media. That’s understandable. And AMC itself is the preeminent network archive of generative transnational exchange undergirding US film and TV, past and present.

    The network has quietly become a vital repository of diasporic film legacies, and where you are most likely to encounter the oeuvres of exiled European filmmakers. In the mid-20th century, US cinema was fundamentally shaped by émigré artists fleeing fascism in Europe.

    Perhaps the most celebrated film in US history is Casablanca (1942). Casablanca was, in essence, a film of exiles, with Hungarian director Michael Curtiz, anti-fascist Victor Laszlo played Paul Henreid, an Austrian-Jewish actor, and Conrad Veidt ironically playing a Nazi, though, in real life, he had assisted Henreid’s emigration. Casablanca transformed displacement into a shared ethic of cooperation, resistance, and layered intimacy. Its production reflected, and its narrative modeled, networks of cultural survival.

    Interview with the Vampire, it could be gently suggested, belongs to that same lineage. As a show that crosses national, embodied, and historical borders with fluency, it could be said to participate in a diasporic cinematic logic, one in which identity is mobile, power is always being negotiated, and continuity is maintained through shared memory (and shared intimacy, and shared memory of intimacy), not national allegiance. In this way, AMC’s creative platform is already sustaining the kinds of transnational content and real-life networks that earlier generations of displaced artists depended on. That continuity is structural. And it deserves to be recognised as such.

    Mask For Pleasure: artist-led transnational mutual aid

    The archive is part of the early scaffolding of a growing transnational network to support at-risk artists in the US, particularly LGBTQIA2S+, disabled and chronically ill, and BIPOC communities. The model draws its lineage from the European Film Fund, established in 1938 by exiled German and Austrian artists fleeing the Nazi regime. Figures like Salka Viertel and Bruno Frank helped establish informal yet deeply effective support networks in Los Angeles, organising housing, work, and sponsorship for refugee artists.

    These exile networks did more than provide survival, they replanted the emotional and visual infrastructure of European modernism into US cinema. Expressionist lighting, fatalism, and fractured identity became mainstream American idioms. Simultaneously, the psychoanalytic frameworks that shaped those émigré artists were later metabolised through American Black feminist theory, figures like Audre Lorde, who integrated Freudian and Jungian interiority with embodied, erotic knowledge.

    It is from this combined legacy, of diasporic mutual aid and insurgent epistemology, that this present-day network emerges. Once again, we are witnessing a diasporic memory structure rematerialise, led by at-risk artists, and open to anyone at any career stage. Perhaps it is possible to decentre the Gleichschaltung playbook, integrating the wisdom from elders and ancestors who have not only navigated similar crises in the past, but in the process shaped the art we heretofore have been told was bound to a specific national identity, but was always the product of exchange.

    Mask For Pleasure: disclaimer

    This article is a work of cultural commentary, artistic reflection, and speculative analysis. References to public figures, including Eric Bogosian, Rolin Jones, and the organisations AMC and Interview with the Vampire, are made solely for the purposes of critique, contextual analysis, and public interest. No factual allegations of misconduct, illegality, or defamatory intent are expressed or implied.

    All information included is based on publicly available sources, artistic works, and interviews already in the public domain. Interpretations are framed within the bounds of fair comment, academic inquiry, and protected expressive speech.

    This article is protected under applicable freedom of expression and public interest provisions, including:

    • United States: First Amendment protections covering opinion, satire, and fair use
    • United Kingdom: Defenses of honest opinion, fair comment, and publication on matters of public interest under the Defamation Act 2013
    • European Union: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, covering freedom of expression, scholarly interpretation, and artistic critique

    No statements herein should be interpreted as claims about the private beliefs, intentions, or actions of any individual or institution. Any perceived resemblance to real persons or corporate positions is part of protected critical analysis.

    Featured image supplied

    By HEPA (Holy Erotic Propaganda Arson)

    This post was originally published on Canary.