radiofree.asia

Category: Pacific Report

  • When journalists like Anas al-Sharif are killed we lose access to truth in Gaza

    Journalists like Anas al-Sharif who report the truth in Gaza to the world and are targeted by Israel deserve protection, not just sympathy.

    COMMENTARY: By Sara Qudah

    During the past 22 months in Gaza, the pattern has become unbearable yet tragically predictable: A journalist reports about civilians; killed or starved, shares footage of a hospital corridor, shelters bombed out, schools and homes destroyed, and then they are silenced.

    Killed.

    At the Committee to Protect Journalists we documented that 2024 was the deadliest year for journalists, with an unprecedented number of those killed by Israel reporting from Gaza while covering Israel’s military operations.

    That trend did not end; it continued instead in 2025, making this war by far the deadliest for the press in history.

    When a journalist is killed in a besieged war city, the loss is no longer personal. It is institutional, it is the loss of eyes and ears on the ground: a loss of verification, context, and witness.

    Journalists are the ones who turn statistics into stories. They give names to numbers and faces to headlines. They make distant realities real for the rest of the world, and provide windows into the truth and doors into other worlds.

    That is why the killing of Anas al-Sharif last week reverberates so loudly, not just as a tragic loss of one life, but as a silencing of many stories that will now never be told.

    Not just reporting
    Anas al-Sharif was not just reporting from Gaza, he was filling a vital void. When international journalists couldn’t access the Strip, his work for Al Jazeera helped the world understand what was happening.

    On August 10, 2025, an airstrike hit a tent near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City where journalists had gathered. Al-Sharif and several of his colleagues were killed.

    The strike — its method, its targets, and its aftermath – wasn’t isolated. It fits a pattern CPJ and other press freedom organisations have tracked for months: in Gaza, journalists are facing not just the incidental risks of war, but repeated, targeted threats.

    And so far, there has been no accountability.

    The Israeli military framed its action differently: officials alleged that al-Sharif was affiliated with Hamas and that the attack was aimed at a legitimate threat. But so far, the evidence presented publicly failed to meet the test of independent witnesses; no public evidence has met the basic standard of independent verification.

    UN experts and press freedom groups have called for transparent investigations, warning of the danger in labelling journalists as combatants without clear, verifiable proof.

    In the turmoil of war, there’s a dangerous tendency to accept official narratives too quickly, too uncritically. That’s exactly how truth gets lost.

    Immediate chilling effect
    The repercussions of silencing reporters in a besieged territory are far-reaching. There is the immediate chilling effect: journalists who stay risk death; those who leave — if they even can — leave behind untold stories.

    Second, when local journalists are killed, international media have no choice but to rely increasingly on official statements or third-party briefings for coverage, many with obvious biases and blind spots.

    And third, the families of victims and the communities they represented are denied both justice and memory.

    Al-Sharif’s camera recorded funerals and destroyed homes, bore witness to lives cut short. His death leaves those images without a voice, pointing now only into silence.

    We also need to name the power dynamics at play. When an enormously powerful state with overwhelming military capability acts inside a densely populated area, the vast majority of casualties will be civilians — those who cannot leave — and local reporters, who cannot shelter.

    This is not a neutral law of physics; it is the to-be-anticipated result of how this war waged in a space where journalists will not be able to go into shelter.

    We have repeatedly documented that journalists killed in this war are Palestinian — not international correspondents. The most vulnerable witnesses, those most essential to documenting it, are also the most vulnerable to being killed.

    So what should the international community and the world leaders do beyond offering condolences?

    Demand independent investigation
    For starters, they must demand an immediate, independent investigation. Not just routine military reviews, but real accountability — gathering evidence, preserving witness testimony, and treating each death with the seriousness it deserves.

    Accountability cannot be a diplomatic nicety; it must be a forensic process with witnesses and evidence.

    Additionally, journalists must be protected as civilians. That’s not optional. Under international law, reporters who aren’t taking part in the fighting are civilians — period.

    That is an obligation not a choice. And when safety isn’t possible, we must get them out. Evacuate them. Save their lives. And in doing so, allow others in — international reporters who can continue telling the story.

    We are past the time for neutrality. The use of language like “conflict”, “collateral damage”, or “civilian casualties” cannot be used to deflect responsibility, especially when the victims are people whose only “crime” was documenting human suffering.

    When the world loses journalists like Anas al-Sharif, it loses more than just one voice. We lose a crucial balance of power and access to truth; it fails to maintain the ability to understand what’s happening on the ground. And future generations lose the memory — the record — of what took place here.

    Stand up for facts
    The international press community, human rights organisations, and diplomatic actors need to stand up. Not just for investigations, but for facts. Families in Gaza deserve more than empty statements. They deserve the truth about who was killed, and why. So does every person reading this from afar.

    And the journalists still risking everything to report from inside Gaza deserve more than sympathy. They deserve protection.

    The killing of journalists — like those from Al Jazeera — isn’t just devastating on a human level. It’s a direct attack on journalism itself. When a state can murder reporters without consequence, it sends a message to the entire world: telling the truth might cost you your life.

    I write this as someone who believes that journalism is, above all, a moral act. It’s about bearing witness. It’s about insisting that lives under siege are still lives that matter, still worth seeing.

    Silencing a journalist doesn’t just stop a story — it erases a lifetime of effort to bring others into view.

    The murder of al-Sharif isn’t just another tragedy. It’s an assault on truth itself, in a place where truth is desperately needed. If we let this keep happening, we’re not just losing lives — we’re losing the last honest witnesses in a world ruled by force.

    And that’s something we can’t afford to give up.

    Sara Qudah is the regional director for Middle East and North Africa of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Sara on LinkedIn: Sara Qudah

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Rewarding knowingly illegal conduct – some might say, Israeli terrorism

    Why the recognition of the State of Palestine by Australia is an important development. Meanwhile, New Zealand still dithers. This article unpacks the hypocrisy in the debate.

    ANALYSIS: By Paul Heywood-Smith

    The recognition of the State of Palestine by Australia, leading, it is hoped, to full UN member state status, is an important development.

    What has followed is a remarkable demonstration of ignorance and/or submission to the Zionist lobby.

    Rewarding Hamas
    Let us consider aspects of the response. One aspect is that recognising Palestine is rewarding the resistance organisation Hamas.

    There are a number of issues involved here. The first issue is that Hamas is branded as a “terrorist organisation”. So much is said, apparently, by eight nations compared to the overwhelming majority of UN recognised states which do not so regard it.

    May I suggest that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation: refer P&I, October 23, 2022, Australia must overturn its listing of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Hamas is a Palestinian Islamist political party which chose to fight apartheid by calling for one state.

    That was Hamas’s objective when it fought the election against Fatah in 2006.

    As an aside, it now results in the lie that it is ridiculous that the Albanese government would recognise Palestine as part of a two-state solution when Hamas rejects a two-state solution. This is just yet another attempt to demonise Hamas.

    Hamas leaders have repeatedly said they would accept a two-state solution. It has only recently done so again.

    On 23 July last, when Hamas responded to a US draft ceasefire framework the Hamas official, Basem Naim, affirmed Hamas’s publicly stated pledge that it would give up power in Gaza and support a two-state solution on the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestine.

    These are the very borders stipulated by international law — see hereunder.

    The Palestinians constituting Hamas are residents of an illegally occupied territory. International law affords to them the right to resist: Geneva Conventions I-IV, 1949.

    The hypocrisy associated with the demonisation of Hamas is massive. Much is made of hostages having been taken on 7 October 2023 — a war crime according to international law. Those militants who took the hostages might be forgiven for thinking that it was minimal compared with the seven years of non-compliance with Security Council Resolution (SCR) 2334 calling for the end of occupation and removal of settlements.

    The second issue is that Hamas commenced the events in Gaza by its horrific, unprovoked, attack on 7 October 2023. As to October 7 being unprovoked, see P&I, October 9, 2023 Palestinians, pushed beyond endurance, defend their homeland against violent apartheid.

    The events of October 7 are, in any event, shrouded in doubt. This follows from Israel’s suppression of evidence concerning what happened. What we do know is that the Israel Defence Force (IDF) received orders to shell Israeli homes and even their own bases on October 7.

    In addition, the Hannibal Directive justified IDF slaughter of Israelis potentially being taken as hostages. It is also accepted that allegations of rape and beheading of babies by Hamas militants were false. The disinformation put out by Israel, and Israel’s refusal to allow journalists on site, or to interview participants, make it impossible to form any clear or credible understanding of what happened on October 7.

    It is accepted that Hamas militants attacked three Israeli military bases, no doubt with the intention that those bases should withdraw from their positions relative to Gazan territory. Such action can be understood as consistent with an occupied citizenry resisting such illegal occupation.

    Compounding the uncertainty over October 7 is the continuing conjecture, leakage, of information suggesting that the IDF had advance warning of the proposed Hamas attack but chose, for other purposes, to take no action. These uncertainties are never adverted to by our press which repeatedly attributes responsibility for all Israeli deaths on the day to the actions of Hamas militants, which actions are presented as an “abomination, barbarity”. Refer generally to P&I, November 5, 2023 (Stuart Rees) Expose and dismiss the domination Israeli narrative; P&I, January 4, 2024 Israeli general killed Israelis on 7 October and then lied about it.

    The third issue, the major hypocrisy, is that Hamas is being rewarded. Consider the position of Israel. Israel is, and has been, illegally occupying Palestinian territory since 1967. This is undisputed according to international law as articulated in the following instruments:

    • 1967 – SCR 242;
    • 2004 – the ICJ decision concerning The Wall;
    • Dec. 2016 – SCR 2334, not vetoed by Obama, recognising the illegal occupation and calling for its end; and
    • 2024 – the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of 19 July.

    Israel has done nothing to comply with any of these instruments. It is set on a programme of gradual acquisition.

    The result is that now there are illegal settlements all over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. When Israel is told: the West Bank and East Jerusalem are to be part of a Palestinian state, it will scream, “But large parts are occupied by Jewish Israelis!” These are “facts on the ground”.

    Supporters of Israel ignore the fact that occupation by settlers occurred in the full knowledge that international law branded such occupation as illegal. If the settlements are considered as a “done deal”, that would be rewarding knowingly illegal conduct — some might say, Israeli terrorism.

    So that there can be no doubt about the import of the position it is appropriate to specify the critical parts of SCR 2334:

    The Security Council

    1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
    2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
    3. Underlines that it will not recognise any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;
    4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;.

    Following the ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 19, the UN General Assembly in adopting the same set 17 September 2025 as the deadline for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territory.

    Negotiated settlement
    And when Israel now says, “Recognition now is going to prevent a negotiated settlement”, it is ignoring the fact that in the six, 12, 20 months, two, three, four years until such negotiated settlement occurs, many more settlements would have been commenced, which of course, are more “facts on the ground”.

    Then we have the response of the Coalition, which demonstrates how irrelevant the Opposition is in today’s Australia. That response is that the recognition will inhibit a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestinians.

    The Coalition, however, says nothing about the fact that the Israeli government has repeatedly stated that there will never be a Palestinian State. Indeed, Israel has legislated to that effect and is moreover periodically purporting to annex Palestinian land.

    So how does the Coalition believe that a negotiated settlement will come about? Well, one way, over which Israel may have no say, is for Palestine to become a full member State of the UN. One UN member state cannot occupy the land of another.

    Failure of our press to ask any question of pro-Israel interviewees about the end of occupation is a disgrace.

    Next challenge
    Now for the next challenge — to bring about the end of occupation. Israel will not accede readily. Sanctions must be the first step. Such sanctions must be immediate, concrete and crippling.

    They must result in the immediate suspension of trade. That can be the first step.

    Watch this space.

    Paul Heywood-Smith is an Adelaide SC (senior counsel) of some 20 years. He was the initial chairperson of the Australian Friends of Palestine Association, an incorporated association registered in South Australia in 2004. He is the author of The Case for Palestine, The Perspective of an Australian Observer (Wakefield Press, 2014). This article was first published by Pearls & Irritations and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Suspended Green MP tells Al Jazeera NZ must stand on ‘right side of history’ over Palestine

    Pacific Media Watch

    The New Zealand Green Party co-leader suspended over criticising government MPs over a “spineless” stance over Gaza has called for action.

    Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said in an interview with Al Jazeera that public pressure was mounting on governments to end the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

    The politician continues to push for recognition of Palestinian statehood and sanctions on Israel, despite being ejected from New Zealand’s Parliament for a week for her remarks.

    She refused to apologise in the House last week, telling Al Jazeera that New Zealand must “stand on the right side of history”.

    “We in Aotearoa New Zealand have a long proud history of standing typically on the right side of things, whether that be our anti-nuclear stance or our stance against apartheid in South Africa,” she said.

    “So it really is a question for this current government whether they are now willing to do the right thing and stand on the right side of history, and that was precisely the point that we were making last week in Parliament.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Palau president calls exclusion of PIF partners a ‘missed opportunity’

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr says it is “a missed opportunity” not to include partners at next mont’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders’ summit.

    However, Whipps said he respects the position of the Solomon Islands, as hosts, to exclude more than 20 countries that are not members the regional organisation.

    The Solomon Islands is blocking all external partners from attending the PIF leaders’ week in Honiara from September 8-12.

    The decision means that nations such as the United States and China (dialogue partners), and Taiwan (a development partner), will be shut out of the regional gathering.

    Whipps Jr told RNZ Pacific that although he has accepted the decision, he was not happy about it.

    “These are Forum events; they need to be treated as Forum events. They are not Solomon Islands events, [nor] are Palau events,” Whipps said.

    “It is so important for any Pacific [Islands] Forum meeting that we have all our partners there. It is a missed opportunity not to have our partners attending the meeting in the Solomon Islands, but they are the host.”

    Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele (right) at the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Nuku'alofa, Tonga. August 2024
    Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele with PIF Secretary-General Baron Waqa (left) at the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Nuku’alofa, Tonga, last year. Image: Lydia Lewis/RNZ Pacific

    ‘Space’ for leaders
    Last week, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele said the decision gave leaders space to focus on a review of how the PIF engaged with diplomatic partners, through reforms under PIF’s Partnership and Engagement Mechanism.

    Solomon Islands opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Jr said that the move was about disguising the fact that the Manele administration was planning on blocking Taiwan from entering the country.

    “The way I see it is definitely, 100 percent, to do with China and Taiwan,” he said.

    Kenilorea said he was concerned there would still be bilateral meetings on the margins, which would be easy for countries with diplomatic missions in Solomon Islands, like China and the US, but not for Taiwan.

    “There might be delegations coming through that might have bilaterials that make a big deal out of it, the optics and the narratives that will be coming out of those, if they do happen [they] are out of the control of the Pacific Islands Forum architecture, which is another hit to regionalism.”

    Palau, Tuvalu and Marshall Islands are the remaining Pacific countries that have ties with Taiwan.

    The Guardian reported that Tuvalu was now considering not attending the leaders’ summit.

    Tuvalu disappointed
    Tuvalu Prime Minister Feleti Teo said he would wait to see how other Pacific leaders responded before deciding whether to attend. He was disappointed at the exclusion.

    New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he was concerned.

    “We have advocated very strongly for the status quo. That actually the Pacific Islands Forum family countries come together, and then the dialogue partners, who are from all over the world can be present as well.”

    President Whipps said all would be welcome, including China, at the Pacific Islands Forum next year hosted in Palau.

    He said it was important for Pacific nations to work together despite differences.

    “Everybody has their own sovereignty, they have their own partners and they have their reasons for what they do. We respect that,” he said.

    “What’s most important is we find ways to come together.”

    Know the reason
    Kenilorea said other Solomon Islands MPs knew the deferral was about China and Taiwan but he was the only one willing to mention it.

    Solomon Islands switched diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China in 2019. In 2022 the island nation signed a security pact with China.

    “If [the deferral] had happened earlier in our [China and Solomon Islands] relationship, I would have thought you would have heard more leaders saying how it is.

    “But we are now six years down the track of our switch and leaders are not as vocal as they used to be anymore.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Eyes of Fire is an updated Rainbow Warrior classic and must read for activism

    REVIEW: By Jenny Nicholls

    Author David Robie left his cabin on the Rainbow Warrior three days before it was blown up by the Directorate General for External Security (DGSE), France’s foreign intelligence agency

    The ship was destroyed at Marsden Wharf on 10 July 1985 by two limpet mines attached
    below the waterline.

    As New Zealand soon learned to its shock, the second explosion killed crew member and photographer Fernando Pereira as he tried to retrieve his cameras.

    “I had planned to spend the night of the bombing onboard with my two young sons, to give them a brief taste of shipboard life,” Dr Robie writes. “At the last moment I decided to leave it to another night.”

    He left the ship after 11 weeks documenting what turned out to be the last of her humanitarian missions — a voyage which highlighted the exploitation of Pacific nations
    by countries who used them to test nuclear weapons.

    Dr Robie was the only journalist on board to cover both the evacuation of the people
    of Rongelap Atoll after their land, fishing grounds and bodies were ravaged by US nuclear fallout, and the continued voyage to nuclear-free Vanuatu and New Zealand.

    Eyes of Fire is not only the authoritative biography of the Rainbow Warrior and her
    missions, but a gripping account of the infiltration of Greenpeace by a French spy, the bombing, its planning, the capture of the French agents, the political fallout, and ongoing
    challenges for Pacific nations.

    Dr Robie corrects the widely held belief that the first explosion on the Rainbow Warrior
    was intended as a warning, to avoid loss of life. No, it turns out, the French state really
    did mean to kill people.

    “It was remarkable,” he writes, “that Fernando Pereira was the only person who
    died.”

    The explosives were set to detonate shortly before midnight, when members of the
    crew would be asleep. (One of them was the ship’s relief cook, Waihekean Margaret Mills. She awoke in the nick of time. The next explosion blew in the wall of her cabin).

    “Two cabins on the main deck had their floors ruptured by pieces of steel flying from
    the [first] engine room blast,” writes Dr Robie.

    “By chance, the four crew who slept in those rooms were not on board. If they had been,
    they almost certainly would have been killed.”

    Eyes of Fire author David Robie with Rainbow Warrior III . . . not only an account of the Rongelap humanitarian voyage, but also a gripping account of the infiltration of Greenpeace and the bombing. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Eyes of Fire was first published in 1986 — and also in the UK and USA, and has been reissued in 2005, 2015 and again this year to coincide with the 40th anniversary
    of the bombing.

    If you are lucky enough to own the first edition, you will find plenty that is new here; updated text, an index, new photographs, a prologue by former NZ prime minister Helen Clark and a searing preface by Waihekean Bunny McDiarmid, former executive director
    of Greenpeace International.

    As you would expect from the former head of journalism schools at the University
    of Papua New Guinea and University of the South Pacific, and founder of AUT’s Pacific Media Centre, Eyes of Fire is not only a brilliant piece of research, it is an absolutely
    fascinating read, filled with human detail.

    The bombing and its aftermath make up a couple of chapters in a book which covers an enormous amount of ground.

    Professor David Robie is a photographer, journalist and teacher who was awarded an MNZM in 2024 for his services to journalism and Asia-Pacific media education. He is founding editor of the Pacific Journalism Review, also well worth seeking out.

    Eyes of Fire is an updated classic and required reading for anyone interested in activism
    or the contemporary history of the Pacific.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Call for legal shield for Fiji National Provident Fund in review hearing

    By Elena Vucukula in Suva

    The main problem in for Fiji retirement is that there is no law to protect the Fiji National Provident Fund, claims a leading trade unionist.

    Fiji Trades Union Congress national executive board member and National Union of Hospitality Catering and Tourism Industries Employees general secretary Daniel Urai has told the FNPF 2011 Act review committee in Lautoka that a law needed to be put in place to ensure that the FNPF and its members are protected.

    “Whenever something happens, a new government comes in — they will tell FNPF to remove all their investments abroad,” Urai said at the hearing on Friday.

    “And that has an effect on the FNPF investment. So, I hope you will find a way to put in a law that no one just comes and directs FNPF to remove all its investments, and that has happened in the past.

    “And I hope you can look at ways to ensure that it does not happen.

    “Because every time that happens, FNPF loses, and the returns are not what is expected.”

    Fiji Trades Union Congress national secretary and FNPF 2011 Act review committee member Felix Anthony claimed the government had interfered with FNPF’s overseas investments in 2007.

    Withdrew investments abroad
    “Soon after the coup, the government, actually through the Reserve Bank of Fiji (RBF), suggested that FNPF withdraw all its investments abroad,” Anthony said.

    “Just so that they keep the Fijian dollar afloat, and that actually affected FNPF income and had some financial ratification on the FNPF bottom line.

    “There was some consideration given whether the RBF itself should compensate FNPF for that directive, and nothing eventuated, of course, because the government had a stronghold at that time.”

    The Fiji National Provident Fund is conducting a comprehensive review of the FNPF Act 2011 to ensure the law is modern, effective, and continues to meet the retirement needs of Fijians.

    The public consultation continued at the Labasa Civic Centre today and will be in Suva tomorrow.

    Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New Australia-Vanuatu deal won’t replicate Falepili-style pact, says analyst

    By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor

    A Pacific analyst and commentator says it is unlikely that Vanuatu will agree to any exclusive rights in the new security and economic pact with Australia.

    Senior ministers of both countries, including deputy prime ministers Richard Marles and Johnny Koanapo, initialled the Nakamal Agreement at the summit of Mount Yasur volcano on Tanna Island, ahead of formal sign-off next month.

    The two nations have agreed to a landmark deal worth A$500 million that will replace the previous security pact that was scrapped in 2022.

    Dr Tess Newton Cain of the Griffith Asia Institute said she did not believe Vanuatu would agree to anything similar to what Tuvalu (Falepili Union) and Papua New Guinea (Bilateral Security Agreement) had agreed to in recent times.

    She said that the Australian government had been wanting the deal for some time, but had been “progressing quite slowly” because there was “significant pushback” on the Vanuatu side.

    “Back in 2022, it took people by surprise that there was an announcement made that a security agreement had been signed while Senator Penny Wong, Australia’s Foreign Minister was in Port Vila. She and then-prime minister Ishmael Kalsakau had signed a security agreement.

    “On the Australian side, they referred to it as having not been ratified. But essentially it was totally disregarded and thrown out by Vanuatu officials, and not considered to [be a] meaningful agreement.”

    Tess Newton Cain
    Analyst Dr Tess Newton Cain . . . significant process of negotiation between Vanuatu and Australian officials. Image: ResearchGate

    High-level engagement
    However, this time around, Dr Newton Cain said, there had been a significant process of negotiation between Vanuatu and Australian officials.

    “There has been a lot of high-level engagement. We have had a lot of senior Australian officials visiting Vanuatu over the last six months, and possibly for a bit longer. So, it has been a steady process of negotiation.”

    Dr Newton Cain said the text of the agreement had undergone a much more rigorous process, involving input from a wider range of people at the government level.

    “And in the last few days leading up to the initialling of this agreement, it was brought before the National Security Council in Vanuatu, which discussed it and signed off on it.

    “Then it went to the Council of Ministers, which also discussed it and made reference to further amendments. So there were some last-minute changes to the text, and then it was initialled.”

    She said that while the agreement had been “substantially agreed”, more details on what it actually entailed remained scarce.

    Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat said earlier this month that he would not sign the agreement unless visa-free travel was agreed.

    Visa sticking point
    Dr Newton Cain said visa-free travel between the two countries remained a sticking point.

    “Prime Minister Napat said he hoped Prime Minister Albanese would travel to Port Vila in order to sign this agreement. But we know there is still more work to do — both Australia and Vanuatu [have] indicated that there were still aspects that were not completely aligned yet.

    “I think it is reasonable to think that this is around text relating to visa-free access to Australia. There is a circle there that is yet to be squared.”

    Australia is Vanuatu’s biggest development partner, as well as the biggest provider of foreign direct investment. Its support covers a range of critical sectors such as health, education, security, and infrastructure.

    According to Dr Newton Cain, from Canberra’s point of view, they have concerns that countries like Vanuatu have “more visible, diversified and stronger” relations with China.

    “As we have seen in other parts of the region, that has provoked a response from countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United States and others that want to be seen to be offering Vanuatu different options.”

    However, she said it was not surprising that Vanuatu was looking to have a range of conversations with partners that can support the country.

    “China’s relationship has moved more into security areas. There are aspects of policing that China is involved in in Vanuatu, and that this is a bit of a tipping point for countries like Australia and New Zealand.

    “So these sorts of agreements with Australia [are] part of trying to cement the relationship [and] demonstrate that this relationship is built on lasting foundations and strong ties.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New Australia-Vanuatu deal won’t replicate Falepili-style pact, says analyst

    By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor

    A Pacific analyst and commentator says it is unlikely that Vanuatu will agree to any exclusive rights in the new security and economic pact with Australia.

    Senior ministers of both countries, including deputy prime ministers Richard Marles and Johnny Koanapo, initialled the Nakamal Agreement at the summit of Mount Yasur volcano on Tanna Island, ahead of formal sign-off next month.

    The two nations have agreed to a landmark deal worth A$500 million that will replace the previous security pact that was scrapped in 2022.

    Dr Tess Newton Cain of the Griffith Asia Institute said she did not believe Vanuatu would agree to anything similar to what Tuvalu (Falepili Union) and Papua New Guinea (Bilateral Security Agreement) had agreed to in recent times.

    She said that the Australian government had been wanting the deal for some time, but had been “progressing quite slowly” because there was “significant pushback” on the Vanuatu side.

    “Back in 2022, it took people by surprise that there was an announcement made that a security agreement had been signed while Senator Penny Wong, Australia’s Foreign Minister was in Port Vila. She and then-prime minister Ishmael Kalsakau had signed a security agreement.

    “On the Australian side, they referred to it as having not been ratified. But essentially it was totally disregarded and thrown out by Vanuatu officials, and not considered to [be a] meaningful agreement.”

    Tess Newton Cain
    Analyst Dr Tess Newton Cain . . . significant process of negotiation between Vanuatu and Australian officials. Image: ResearchGate

    High-level engagement
    However, this time around, Dr Newton Cain said, there had been a significant process of negotiation between Vanuatu and Australian officials.

    “There has been a lot of high-level engagement. We have had a lot of senior Australian officials visiting Vanuatu over the last six months, and possibly for a bit longer. So, it has been a steady process of negotiation.”

    Dr Newton Cain said the text of the agreement had undergone a much more rigorous process, involving input from a wider range of people at the government level.

    “And in the last few days leading up to the initialling of this agreement, it was brought before the National Security Council in Vanuatu, which discussed it and signed off on it.

    “Then it went to the Council of Ministers, which also discussed it and made reference to further amendments. So there were some last-minute changes to the text, and then it was initialled.”

    She said that while the agreement had been “substantially agreed”, more details on what it actually entailed remained scarce.

    Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat said earlier this month that he would not sign the agreement unless visa-free travel was agreed.

    Visa sticking point
    Dr Newton Cain said visa-free travel between the two countries remained a sticking point.

    “Prime Minister Napat said he hoped Prime Minister Albanese would travel to Port Vila in order to sign this agreement. But we know there is still more work to do — both Australia and Vanuatu [have] indicated that there were still aspects that were not completely aligned yet.

    “I think it is reasonable to think that this is around text relating to visa-free access to Australia. There is a circle there that is yet to be squared.”

    Australia is Vanuatu’s biggest development partner, as well as the biggest provider of foreign direct investment. Its support covers a range of critical sectors such as health, education, security, and infrastructure.

    According to Dr Newton Cain, from Canberra’s point of view, they have concerns that countries like Vanuatu have “more visible, diversified and stronger” relations with China.

    “As we have seen in other parts of the region, that has provoked a response from countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United States and others that want to be seen to be offering Vanuatu different options.”

    However, she said it was not surprising that Vanuatu was looking to have a range of conversations with partners that can support the country.

    “China’s relationship has moved more into security areas. There are aspects of policing that China is involved in in Vanuatu, and that this is a bit of a tipping point for countries like Australia and New Zealand.

    “So these sorts of agreements with Australia [are] part of trying to cement the relationship [and] demonstrate that this relationship is built on lasting foundations and strong ties.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘Will I make it back alive?’: Gaza journalists tell of being targeted by Israel

    Pacific Media Watch

    Palestinian journalists have long known Gaza to be the most dangerous place on earth for media workers, but Israel’s attack on a tent housing journalists in Gaza City last Sunday has left many reeling from shock and fear, reports Al Jazeera.

    Four Al Jazeera staff members were among the seven people killed in an Israeli drone strike outside al-Shifa Hospital.

    The Israeli military admitted to deliberately targeting the tent after making unsubstantiated accusations that one of those killed, Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif, was a member of Hamas.

    Israeli attacks in Gaza have killed at least 238 media workers since October 2023, according to Gaza’s Government Media Office. This toll is higher than that of World Wars I and II, the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan and the Yugoslavia wars combined.

    Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud said in a video report about the plight of journalists this week that  “press vests and helmets, once considered a shield, now feel like a target.”

    “The fear is constant — and justified,” Mahmoud said. “Every assignment is accompanied by the same unspoken question: Will [I] make it back alive?”

    The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) have been among several organisations denouncing Israel’s longstanding pattern of accusing journalists of being “terrorists” without credible proof.

    Smears no coincidence
    “It is no coincidence that the smears against al-Sharif — who has reported night and day for Al Jazeera since the start of the war — surfaced every time he reported on a major development in the war, most recently the starvation brought about by Israel’s refusal to allow sufficient aid into the territory,” CPJ regional director Sara Qudah said in the aftermath of Israel’s attack.

    In light of Israel’s systematic targeting of journalists, media workers in Gaza are forced to make difficult choices.

    Palestinian reporter Sally Thabet told Al Jazeera: “As a mother and a journalist, I go through this mental dissonance almost daily, whether to go to work or stay with my daughters and being afraid of the random shelling of the Israeli occupation army.”

    "It's about time for Luxon to grow a spine"
    “Journalism is not a crime . . . oppressing it is” placards at the Auckland free Palestine rally in Te Komititanga Square last weekend. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Across the street from the ruins of the School of Media Studies at al-Quds Open University in Gaza City, where he used to teach, Hussein Saad has been recovering from an injury he sustained while running to safety.

    “The deliberate targeting of Palestinian journalists has a strong effect on the disappearance of the Palestinian story and the disappearance of the media narrative,” he said.

    Saad argued the Gaza Strip was witnessing “the disappearance of the truth”.

    While journalists report on mass killings, human suffering and starvation, they also cope with their own losses and deprivation. Photographer and correspondent Amer al-Sultan said hunger was a major challenge.

    “I used to go to work, and when I didn’t find anything to eat, I would just drink water,” he said.

    Palestinian journalists under fire.             Video: Al Jazeera

    ‘We are all . . . confused’
    “I did this for two days. I had to live for two or three days on water. This is one of the most difficult challenges we face amid this war against our people — starvation.”

    Journalist and film director Hassan Abu Dan said reporters “live in conditions that are more difficult than the mind can imagine.”

    “You live in a tent. You drink water that is not good for drinking. You eat unhealthy food …

    “We are all, as journalists, confused. There is a part of our lives that has been ruined and gone far away,” he said.

    Al Jazeera’s Mahmoud said that despite the psychological trauma and the personal risks, Palestinian journalists continue to do their jobs, “driven by a belief that documenting the truth is not just a profession, but a duty to their people and history”.

    Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud
    Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud . . . the fear in Gaza is constant – and justified – after Israel’s targeted attack killed four colleagues. Image: Al Jazeera

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pro-Palestinian protests across NZ call on government to sanction Israel

    RNZ News

    Protesters staged pro-Palestinian demonstrations across Aotearoa New Zealand at the weekend, calling on the government to place sanctions on Israel for its war on Gaza.

    The government announced last week it was considering whether to join other countries like France, Canada and Australia in recognising Palestinian statehood at a United Nations leader’s meeting next month.

    Demonstrators took to the streets in about 20 cities and towns on Saturday in a “National Day of Protest”, waving Palestinian and other flags, holding vigils, and banging pots and pans to represent what a UN-backed food security agency has called “the worst case scenario of famine”.

    They also condemned Israel’s targeted killing of journalists.

    In Wellington, about 2000 protesters gathered at Te Aro Park, and formed a crowd almost a kilometre long during the march, an RNZ journalist estimated.

    One demonstrator, who carried a sign which read “Palestine is in our hearts”, said the government had been “woefully silent” on what was happening in Gaza.


    The Wellington Gaza protest on Saturday.    Video: RNZ

    It was her first protest, she said, and she intended to go to others in order to “agitate for our politicians to listen and take a stand”.

    “I hope the country comes out in force today right across all of our regions, to give Palestine a voice, to show that we care, and to inspire action from our politicians — who have been woefully silent and as a result compliant in the genocide in Palestine.”

    Pro Palestinian protesters gather in Wellington on 16 August 2025 as part of nationwide demonstrations.
    A protester’s “Palestine is in our hearts” placard at the Wellington protest. Image: Mark Papalii/RNZ News

    She said she wanted to see the New Zealand government sanction Israel and take a global stand against the war in Gaza.

    Another protester said the killings of four Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza this week was what had spurred him to join the crowd.

    Wellington Gaza protest
    A “grow a spine Luxon!” placard at the Wellington protest in reference to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s “woeful” stance on the Israeli war on Gaza. Photo: Mark Papalii/RNZ

    “You know hearing about the attack on the journalists, the way they were targeting just one purportedly but were willing to kill [others] just to get their man.

    “It’s not right.”

    Pro-Palestinian protesters gather in Wellington on 16 August 2025 as part of nationwide demonstrations.
    Pro-Palestinian protesters condemn the killing of journalists by Israel and call for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador as part of nationwide demonstrations. Image: Mark Papalii/RNZ

    Others in the capital carried signs showing Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif and his three Al Jazeera colleagues who were killed by an Israeli strike on a tent of reporters in Gaza.

    The IDF claimed that al-Sharif was working for the Hamas resistance — something Al Jazeera has strongly denied.

    Wellington Gaza protest
    Some of the demonstrators at the Wellington protest against Israel. Image: Mark Papalii/RNZ


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Gerard Otto on Palestine, genocide and the media: ‘Not if – but when – but not now’

    COMMENTARY: By Gerard Otto

    This morning there is no article on the political page of The New Zealand Herald about the plight of people in Gaza, the same is the case at The Post and at RNZ. Even the 1News political page is Gaza free but what may stun you over a Sunday morning coffee is the fact that there is also no mention of Gaza on the “World Pages” of any of these so-called news organisations.

    It’s not news in the world of our mainstream media journalists.

    Instead, there is articles about “no deal” between Trump and Putin, 300 dead in Pakistan, Trump will meet Zelenskyy, Stone Age Humans were picky about what stones they used . . . and other things — in fact the only article in the “big ” New Zealand mainstream media “World” pages about Gaza is at Stuff and it’s a link to a three minute news video item from yesterday’s Auckland protest about Neil Finn supporting Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick.

    Chlöe said the evidence is pretty clear and you don’t kill journalists for no reason when Israel laughed off claims that people in Gaza were starving.

    Last night, TVNZ 1News broadcast a news item that led with Neil Finn singing “Don’t Dream it’s Over” and Simon Mercep interviewing Chlöe about her stance on an apology.

    The news Chlöe would be back next week at Parliament probably shocked Duncan Garner but there was precious little coverage of what was said in protest speeches because the limitations of broadcasting news concision (a sequence of soundbites) prevent the New Zealand public from hearing too much about Gaza from our own mainstream news services.

    Gordon’s action list
    Over on social media many people are sharing Gordon Campbell’s article around — where he details the actions you could take and points out how the people of Gaza don’t have time for symbolic stances and the kinds of actions that might help — like sanctions and UN peacekeeping intervention on the ground.

    Gordon Campbell has “a go at” the stance taken by the NZ government that “it’s not a matter of if, but when” by adding “but not now” and why not now?

    One reason for “but not now” pitched by Campbell is that with Todd McClay now heading over to the US to beg for a return to 10 percent tariffs, New Zealand is stalling and playing a wait and see game — watching whether Australia will be punished for backing a Palestinian state and whether tariffs will be part of the game.


    G News on yesterday’s Palestine solidarity rally in Te Komititanga Square, Auckland.

    A map of the nations in the world who support a Palestinian state shows most of it in green — and the holdouts in white — with New Zealand holding out in white as we recite “Not if, but when, but not now”.

    The editorial at The New Zealand Herald this morning is about how Labour MPs should have shown up and performed publicly at the Covid Circus Phase 2 Royal Commission of Inquiry in the opinion of the Herald (run by Steven Joyce and cookers from The Centrist) — because an urgent Taxpayers’ Union Poll claims 53 percent say so with a giant margin for error not even mentioned — nor how the Royal Commission has all the information it needs from the previous government but it needs the same questions answered in public.

    The priorities and partisanship of The NZ Herald are on show as it campaigns hard against Labour and the left bloc even while there’s an unfolding genocide taking place in the world and it’s “World” pages are empty about this — while decent people cancel their subscriptions.

    Many of us are still aghast at the way senior political correspondent Audrey Young wished Chlöe would go away when all she was doing was asking National MPs to act with their conscience and Speaker Gerry Brownlee had taken offence and dished out injustice — which now has backfired at grassroots level across the nation and media starve us all of the real content in those speeches.

    Chlöe has said from the start this is not about her and she was telling people this again yesterday as folks thanked her for taking an unapologetic stand.

    Green Party's Chlöe Swarbrick has said from the start this is not about her and she was telling people this again
    Green Party’s Chlöe Swarbrick has said from the start this is not about her and she was telling people this again yesterday as folks thanked her for taking an unapologetic stand. Image: Stuff screenshot APR

    Who controls the spotlight? Media!
    We wanted to hear from Chlöe and we wanted to hear those speeches.

    I personally felt I had let down the show yesterday because my cell and sound gear seized up in the bitter cold wind and rain so I missed Chlöe’s speech and some of the other messages — Hey Now Don’t Dream it’s Over — but with no umbrella, no raincoat and standing in the rain my frozen fingers took some time to come right and I sat on a ferry in cold wet clothes like a failure afterwards but it is what it is.

    My apologies for not being better prepared.

    It was pointed out in speeches at the rally (there has almost been 100 of them now) how NZ journalists do not support their colleagues who are being murdered for doing their jobs in Gaza and when I got home and warmed up we discussed the way Al Jazeera is a good news channel and how crap things are in New Zealand media.

    Gordon Campbell and a few other notable exceptions keep the faith and his observation “but not now” has done the thinking for many of us about the spineless government who are stalling and pretending this is complex and needs to take weeks while every day more people starve to death, get shot going for food. And it all just happens as if — it’s “a mystery” – while our government names Hamas strongly but nobody else.

    Criticism of State Terror is more toned down and we care more about our US relationship than anything much else it seems — putting our own interests first and not reporting much about the facts.

    RNZ has finally published “Spine and Punishment: A review of Swarbrick v Brownlee” because the media spotlight was on this local issue and the history of Speakers’ rulings versus “a new decency” because Gerry was offended and overreached.

    Gerry must withdraw
    In my opinion, Gerry has got to withdraw and apologise or step down and any more stick about this towards Chlöe is going to further the focus on National MPs who are silent and hiding behind “But not now”.

    If only six of 68 National MPs voted with their conscience and not their party “but not now” instructions then we’d be actively progressing a new law to sanction Israel — and our actions would speak louder than merely words and symbolic gestures.

    “But not now” is the order of the day for New Zealand’s mainstream media as Dr Paul Goldsmith is caught out supporting what David Seymour wrote to the UN — Education Minister Erica Stanford overreaches banning Te Reo words, Public Service Minister Judith Collins is threatening to prevent strikes, and PM Christopher Luxon is now loathed by the business community as his fluffers at The NZ Herald look the other way.

    The unfolding genocide in Gaza seems to be going to plan as NZ news media also lack a spine and any kind of support for their dead colleagues while this one term government clings to “Not if, but when — but not now”.

    Might as well carry on starving until September.

    “He’s lost the plot” – “but not now”.

    Because this government and its sycophantic media need more time to argue about this very “complex” issue.

    Gerard Otto is a digital creator and independent commentator on politics and the media through his G News column and video reports. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Luxon ‘get a spine’ chants as big rallies call for NZ to recognise Palestine state

    Asia Pacific Report

    “Grow a spine for Palestine!” was a frequent theme among about 5000 people protesting in the heart of New Zealand’s largest city today as the protesters demanded that the coalition government should recognise the state of Palestine and stop supporting impunity for Israel.

    More than 62,000 people, mostly women and children, have been killed in Israel’s war on Gaza in the past 22 months and the country’s military have doubled down on their attacks on residential areas in the besieged enclave.

    Several speakers, including opposition parliamentarians, spoke at the rally, strongly condemning Israel for its genocidal policies and crimes against humanity.

    Many children took part in the rally at Te Komititanga Square and the return march up Queen Street in spite of the bitterly wet and cold weather. Many of them carried placards and Palestinian flags like their parents.

    One young boy carried a placard declaring “Just a kid standing in front of his PM asking him to grow a heart and a spine”. The heart was illustrated as a Palestinian flag.

    Other placards included slogans such as “Wanted MPs with a spine” and “Grow a spine for Palestine”, and “They try to bury us forgetting we are seeds” with the resistance watermelon symbol.

    Many placards demanded sanctions and condemned Israel, saying “Gaza is starving. Words won’t feed them — sanction Israel now”, “NZ government: Your silence is complicity with Israeli genocide” and “Free Palestine now”.

    Disillusionment with leaders
    One poster expressed disillusionment with both the coalition government and opposition Labour Party leaders, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins, denouncing “apologists for genocide”.

    Another poster challenged both Hipkins and Luxon over “what values” they stood for. It said:

    “Our ‘leaders’ have refused to call for a ceasefire even after 10,000+ innocent civilians have been brutally murdered in their own homes, including 4000+ CHILDREN all under the name of “Kiwi values”.

    “They, like a lot of other world politicians, are apologists for genocide.”

    A "Palestine forever" banner at the head of the Auckland march
    A “Palestine forever” banner at the head of the Auckland march today as it prepares to walk up Queen Street. Image: APR

    Frustration has been growing among the public with the government’s reluctance to declare support for Palestinian statehood after 96 consecutive weeks of protests organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) and other groups, not just in the largest city of Auckland and the capital Wellington, but also in Christchurch and in at least 20 other towns and communities across the motu.

    The “spine” theme in chants and posters followed just days after Parliament suspended Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick following a fiery speech about Gaza when she said government MPs should grow a spine and sanction Israel for its atrocities.

    She had refused to apologise to the House and supporters at the rally today gave her rousing cheers in support of her defiance.

    ‘We need your help’
    Te Pati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told the crowd: “We need you to help her put the pressure on so that we can fight together in that place [Parliament] for our people to free, free Palestine; from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

    “Return our dignity Aotearoa. Stand up for what is right. There is only one side to support in genocide, only one side. And Te Pati Māori will only work with those.”

    When Swarbrick spoke to the crowd, she repeated her goal to find six government MPs “with a spine” to support her bill to “sanction Israel for its war crimes”.

    She also said the Palestinian people were being “starved and slaughtered by Israel” in Gaza, adding that their breath was being “stolen from them” by the IDF (Israeli “Defence” Force).

    “It is our duty, all human beings with breath left in our lungs, with the freedom to chant and to move and to demand action from our politicians, to do all that we can to fight for liberation for all peoples,” she said.

    Other politicians speaking were Orini Kaipara, the Te Pati Māori candidate for the Tāmaki Mākaurau byelection, and Kerrin Leoni, mayoral candidate for Tamaki.

    Targeted assassinations
    Earlier, the targeted assassinations of six journalists by the Israeli military last Sunday — taking the toll to 272 — was condemned by independent journalist and Asia Pacific Report editor Dr David Robie. He also criticised the NZ media silence.

    Noting that New Zealand journalists had not condemned the killings or held a vigil as the Media Alliance (MEAA) had done in Australia, he cited an Al Jazeera journalist, Hind Khoudary, whose message to the world was:

    “We are being hunted and killed in Gaza while you watch in silence. For two years, your fellow journalists here have been slaughtered.

    What did you do? Nothing.”

    Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick (left) and Te Pati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer
    Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick (left) and Te Pati Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at today’s rally in Te Komitanga Square, Auckland. Image: APR

    A recent poll on whether New Zealanders want sanctions to be imposed on Israel, showed that of those who gave an opinion, 60 percent favoured sanctions.

    The PSNA commissioned survey by Talbot Mills in July with 1216 respondents gave a similar result to one commissioned by Justice for Palestine a year ago.

    Popular support for sanctions
    PSNA co-chair John Minto said the numbers showed strong popular support for sanctions. The 60 percent overall rose to 68 percent for the 18–29 year category.

    “The government is well out of step with public opinion and ignores this message at its peril.  There is popular support for sanctions against Israel,” he said.

    “People see that Israel is committing the worst atrocities of the 21st century with impunity. It is starving a whole population.

    “It has destroyed just about every building in Gaza. It is assassinating journalists. It holds 7000 Palestinian hostages in its jails without charge.  Its goal of occupying all of Gaza and ethnically cleansing its people into the Sudan desert, is all public knowledge.”

    Minto said Israel’s “depraved Prime Minister” who was wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICJ) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, had boasting that if Israel was really committing genocide, “it could have killed everyone in Gaza in a single afternoon”.

    “The poll shows New Zealand First supporters are most opposed to sanctions against Israel (59 percent of those who gave an opinion were opposed) so it’s little surprise Winston Peters is dragging the chain.”

    "Just a kid" with his message to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon
    “Just a kid” with his blunt message to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Image: APR

  • Gordon Campbell: The lack of spine in New Zealand’s foreign policy on Gaza

    ANALYSIS: By Gordon Campbell

    The word “Gaza” is taking on similar connotations to what the word “Auschwitz” meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity.

    As a result, Israel is isolating itself as a pariah state on the world stage. This week alone has seen Israel target and kill four Al Jazeera journalists, just as it had executed eight Red Crescent medical staff and seven other first responders back in March, and then dumped their bodies in a mass grave.

    Overall 186 journalists have died at the hands of the IDF since October 7, 2023, and at least 1400 medical staff as of May 2025.

    On Monday night a five-year-old disabled child starved to death. Reportedly, he weighed only three kilograms when he died. Muhammad Zakaria Khudr was the 101st child among the 227 Palestinians now reported to have died from starvation.

    Meanwhile, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters keep on saying that with regard to New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state, it is a matter of “Not if, but when.” Yet why is “ but not now” still their default position?

    At this rate, a country that used to pride itself on its human rights record — New Zealand has never stopped bragging that this is where women won the right to vote, before they did anywhere else — will be among the last countries on earth to recognise Palestine’s right to exist.

    What can we do? Some options:

    1. Boycott all Israeli goods and services;
    2. Engage with the local Palestinian community, and support their businesses, and cultural events;
    3. Donate financial support to Gaza. Here’s a reliable link to directy support pregnant Gaza women and their babies;
    4. Lobby your local MP, and Immigration Minister Erika Stanford — to prioritise the inclusion of hundreds of Gazans in our refugee programme, just as we did in the wake of the civil war in Syria, and earlier, in Sudan;
    5. Write and phone your local MP, and urge them to support economic sanctions against Israel. These sanctions should include a sporting and cultural boycott along the lines we pursued so successfully against apartheid South Africa
    6. Contact your KiwiSaver provider and let it be known that you will change providers if they invest in Israeli firms, or in the US, German and UK firms that supply the IDF with weapons and targeting systems. Contact the NZ Super Fund and urge them to divest along similar lines;
    7. Identify and picket any NZ firms that supply the US/Israeli war machines directly, or indirectly;
    8. Contact your local MP and urge him or her to support Chloe Swarbrick’s private member’s bill that would impose economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its unlawful occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Swarbrick’s Bill is modelled on the existing Russian sanctions framework.If 61 MPs pledged support for Swarbrick’s Bill, it would not have to win a private members ballot before being debated in Parliament. Currently 21 MPs (the Greens and TPM) formally support it. If and when Labour’s 34 MPs come on board, this will still require another six MPs (from across the three coalition parties) to do the right thing. Goading MPs into doing the right thing got Swarbrick into a world of  trouble this week. (Those wacky Greens. They’re such idealists.);
    9. We should all be lobbying our local MPs for a firm commitment that they will back the Swarbrick Bill. Portray it to them as being in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and as them supporting the several UN resolutions on the status of the occupied territories. And if they still baulk ask them flatly: if not, why not?
    10. Email/phone/write to the PM’s office, and ask him to call in the Israeli ambassador and personally express New Zealand’s repugnance at Israel’s inhumane actions in Gaza and on the West Bank. The PM should also be communicating in person New Zealand’s opposition to the recently announced Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza City, and expansion of the war in Gaza.
    11. Write to your MP, to the PM, and to Foreign Minister Winston Peters urging them to recognise Palestinian statehood right now. Inquire as to what further information they may need before making that decision, and offer to supply it. We need to learn how to share our outrage; and
    12. Learn about the history of this issue, so that you convince friends and family to take similar actions.

    Here’s a bare bones timeline of the main historical events.

    This map showing (in white) the countries that are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood speaks volumes:

    Those holdout nations in white tend to have been the chief enablers of Israel’s founding in 1948, a gesture of atonement driven by European guilt over the Holocaust.

    This “homeland” for the Jews already had residents known to have had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Yet since 1948 the people of Palestine have been made to bear all of the bad consequences of the West’s purging of its collective guilt.

    Conditional justice
    The same indifference to the lives of Palestinians is evident in the belated steps towards supporting the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Even the recognition promised by the UK, Canada, France and Australia next month is decked out with further conditions that the Palestinians are being told they need to meet. No equivalent demands are being made of Israel, despite the atrocities it is committing in Gaza.

    There’s nothing new about this. Historically, all of the concessions have been made by the Palestinians, starting with their original displacement. Some 30 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) formally recognised Israel’s right to exist. In response, Israel immediately expanded its settlements on Palestinian land, a flagrant breach of the commitments it made in the Oslo Accords, and in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement.

    The West did nothing, said little.  As the New York Times recently pointed out:

    In a 1993 exchange of letters, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s chairman, Yasir Arafat, recognized the “right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and committed the PLO to peaceful negotiations, renouncing terrorism and amending the Palestinian charter to reflect these commitments. In return, Israel would merely recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people — and only “in light of” Mr Arafat’s commitments. Palestinian sovereignty remained remote; Israeli occupation continued apace.

    This double standard persists:

    This fundamental unfairness has informed every diplomatic effort since. The rump Palestinian government built the limited institutions it was permitted under the Oslo Accords, co-operated with Israeli security forces and voiced support for a peace process that had long been undermined by Israel. Led by then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority’s statehood campaign in the 2000s was entirely based on playing the game according to rules set by Israel and the Western-dominated international community. Yet recognition remained stalled, the United States blocked Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations — and still, no conditions were placed on the occupying power.

    That’s where we’re still at. Luxon, Peters and David Seymour are demanding more concessions from the Palestinians. They keep strongly denouncing the Hamas October 7 atrocities — which is valid — while weakly urging Israel to abide by the international laws and conventions that Israel repeatedly breaches.

    When a state deploys famine as a strategic weapon, doesn’t it deserve to be condemned, up front and personal?

    Instead, the language that New Zealand uses to address Israel’s crimes  is almost invariably, and selectively, passive. Terrible things are “happening” in Gaza and they must “stop.” Children, mysteriously, are “starving.” This is “intolerable.”

    It is as if there is no human agent, and no state power responsible for these outcomes. Things are just somehow “happening” and they must somehow “cease.” Enough is enough, cries Peters, while carefully choosing not to name names, beyond Hamas.

    Meanwhile, Israel has announced its plans to expand the war, even though 600 Israeli ex-officials (some of them from Shin Bet, Israel’s equivalent to the SIS) have publicly said that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel.

    As mentioned, Israel is publicly discussing its plans for Gaza’s “voluntary emigration” and for the permanent annexation of the West Bank. Even when urged to do so by Christopher Luxon, it seems that Israel is not actually complying with international law, and is not fulfilling its legal obligations as an occupying power. Has anyone told Luxon about this yet?

    Two state fantasy, one state reality
    At one level, continuing to call for a “two state” solution is absurd, given that the Knesset formally rejected the proposal a year ago. More than once, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced it while also laying Israel’s claim to all of the land west of Jordan, which would include the West Bank and Gaza.

    Evidently, the slogan “ from the river to sea” is only a terrorist slogan when Hamas uses it. Yet the phrase originated as a Likud slogan.Moreover, the West evidently thinks it is quite OK for Netanyahu to publicly call for Israeli hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

    Basic rule of diplomacy: bad is what they do, good is what we do, and we have always been on Team Israel.

    Over the course of the three decades since the Oslo Accords were signed, the West has kept on advocating for a two state solution, while acting as if only one of those states has a right to exist. On what land do Luxon and Peters think that a viable Palestinian state can be built?

    One pre-condition for Palestinian statehood that Luxon cited to RNZ last week required Israel to be “not undermining the territorial integrity that would then undermine the two state solution.” Really? Does Luxon not realise that this is exactly what Israel has been doing for the past 30 years?

    Talking of which . . .  are Luxon and Peters genuinely expecting Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders? That land was agreed at Oslo and mandated by the UN as the territory needed for a viable Palestinian state. Yet on the relatively small area of the West Bank alone, 3.4 million Palestinians currently subsist on disconnected patches of land under occupation amid extreme settler violence, while contending with 614 Israeli checkpoints and other administrative obstacles impeding their free movement.

    Here’s what the land left to the Palestinians looks like today:

    A brief backgrounder on Areas A, B and C and how they operate can be found here.  Obviously, this situation cannot be the template for a viable Palestinian state.

    What is the point?
    You might well ask . . . in the light of the above, what is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? Given the realities on the ground, it can only be a symbolic gesture. The reversion to the 1967 borders (a necessary step towards a Palestinian state) can happen only if the US agreed to push Israel in that direction by withholding funds and weaponry.

    That’s very hard to imagine. The hypocrisy of the Western nations on this issue is breath-taking. The US and Germany continue to be Israel’s main foreign suppliers of weapons and targeting systems. Under Keir Starmer’s leadership as well, the UK sales of military equipment to Israel have sharply increased.

    New export licensing figures show that the UK approved licenses for £127.6 million worth of military equipment to Israel in single issue licenses between October to December 2024. This is a massive increase, with the figure in this three-month period totaling more than 2020-2023 combined.

    Thanks to an explicitly enacted legal exemption, the UK also continues to supply parts for Israel’s F-35 jets.

    UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts [estimated] to be worth at least £500 million since 2016, and [this] is the most significant part of the UK arms industry [relationship]with Israel . . . at least 79 companies [are] involved in manufacturing components.

    These are the same F-35 war planes that the IDF has used to drop 2000 pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods in Gaza. Starmer cannot credibly pose as a man of peace.

    So again . . . what exactly is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? No doubt, it would boost Palestinian morale if some major Western powers finally conceded that Palestine has a right to exist. In that narrow sense, recognition would correct a historical injustice.

    There is also optimistic talk that formal Palestinian statehood would isolate the US on the Security Council (Trump would probably wear that as a badge of honour) and would make Israel more accountable under humanitarian law. As if.

    Theoretically, a recognition of statehood would also enable people in New Zealand and elsewhere to apply pressure to their governments to forthrightly condemn and sanction Israel for its crimes against a fellow UN member state. None of this, however, is likely to change the reality on the ground, or prevent the calls for Israel’s “accountability” and for its “compliance with international law” from ringing hollow.

    As the NYT also says:

    After almost two years of severe access restrictions and the dismantling of the UN-led aid system in favour of a militarised food distribution that has left more than 1300 Palestinians dead, [now 1838 dead at these “aid centres”  since late May, as of yesterday] . . . The 15 nations [at a UN meeting in late July that signed a declaration on Gaza] still would not collectively say “Israel is responsible for starvation in Gaza”. If they cannot name the problem, they can hardly hope to resolve it.

    In sum . . . the world may talk the talk of Palestinian statehood being a matter of “not if, but when” and witter on about the “irreversible steps” being taken toward statehood, and finally — somewhere over the rainbow — towards a two state solution.  Faint chance:

    “For those who are starving today, the only irreversible step is death. Until statehood recognition brings action — arms embargoes, sanctions, enforcement of international law — it will remain a largely empty promise that serves primarily to distract from Western complicity in Gaza’s destruction.

    Exactly. Behind the words of concern are the actions of complicity. The people of Gaza do not have time to wait for symbolic actions, or for sanctions to weaken Israel’s appetite for genocide. Consider this option: would New Zealand support an intervention in Gaza by a UN-led international force to save Gaza’s dwindling population, and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected, however belatedly?

    Would we be willing to commit troops to such a force if asked to do so by the UN Secretary-General? That is what is now needed.

    Footnote One: On Gaza, the Luxon government has a high tolerance for double standards and Catch 22 conditions. We are insisting that the Palestinians must release the remaining hostages unconditionally, lay down their arms and de-militarise the occupied territories. Yet we are applying no similar pre-conditions on Israel to withdraw, de-militarise the same space, release all their Palestinian prisoners, allow the unrestricted distribution of food and medical supplies, and negotiate a sustainable peace.

    Understandably, Hamas has tied the release of the remaining hostages to the Israeli cessation of their onslaught, to unfettered aid distribution, and to a long-term commitment to Palestinian self-rule.  Otherwise, once the Israeli hostages are home, there would be nothing to stop Israel from renewing the genocide.

    We are also demanding that Hamas be excluded from any future governing arrangement in Gaza, but – simultaneously – Peters told the House recently that this governing arrangement must also be “representative.” Catch 22. “Representative” democracy it seems, means voting for the people pre-selected by the West. Again, no matching demands have been made of Israel with respect to its role in the future governance of Gaza, or about its obligation to rebuild what it has criminally destroyed.

    Footnote Two: There is only one rational explanation for why New Zealand is currently holding back from joining the UK, Canada, France and Australia in voting next month to recognise Palestine as a full UN member state. It seems we are cravenly hoping that Australia’s stance will be viewed with such disfavour by Donald Trump that he will punish Canberra by lifting its tariff rate from 10%, thereby erasing the 5% advantage that Australia currently enjoys oven us in the US market.

    At least this tells us what the selling price is for our “independent” foreign policy. We’re prepared to sell it out to the Americans – and sell out the Palestinians in the process – if, by sitting on the fence for now, we can engineer parity for our exports with Australia in US markets. ANZAC mates, forever.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘I believe I can’: Elizabeth Palin runs for Bougainville North women’s seat

    By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

    Elizabeth Tako Palin is one of five women contesting the Bougainville North women’s reserved seat next month.

    It was previously held by Amanda Masono, who has chosen to contest the open Atolls seat, which was once held by her father.

    The autonomous Papua New Guinea region is holding a single-day poll on 4 September to elect a new 46-member House.

    A record 34 women are standing, including 14 in the three seats reserved for women.

    Former teacher Palin ran in 2020 and has wide political experience at the local level.

    She spoke with RNZ Pacific.

    (This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.)

    Elizabeth Palin: I was a former chair lady in the local level government, community government, and I just resigned to contest the seat. I served in the community government and at the ward assembly system for 10 years. But prior to that I was a teacher by profession,

    Don Wiseman: Being in the local level government. Is that a full time activity, is it for you?

    EP: It is, yes.

    DW: What does it involve?

    EP: It involves chairing the local level government at the community base level, and also taking care of the five wards within the respective community government that I’m heading.

    And, formally, in the first establishment of the first House of Assembly, I was the vice-chair lady. So as one of the ward members in the five wards under the urban council, urban community government. I contested the fourth House and I came second. I came back to be with the community, and then I worked with the people.

    I went contested [a second election] and I became the ward member and also lobbied for the chair position, and I became the chairperson.

    DW: So you want to be in the ABG [Autonomous Bougainville Government]. What is it you want to achieve there?

    EP: Being in the local level government, I have experienced a lot where we do not see the link. We do not really see that link from the top level of leadership down to the local level. We do not really feel it in some sense.

    Therefore, I decided that maybe I can be able to contest and get that leadership, and in experiencing my leadership at the ward level and community government level, I believe that I can be able to take that leadership and build that link from the top down to the ward assembly level, which includes the community government and vice versa, from the community government up to the top.

    This is what I experienced, and that is the main reason why I am contesting the seat. Also, I believe in my leadership because I have been with the local level government, and I believe I can perform at a much higher level as well.

    DW: Yes, well, you will have been campaigning now for weeks, because it’s such a long period of campaigning, isn’t it? How are people reacting to you?

    EP: Oh, I have been receiving positive responses from the people, from the voters, in terms of the way I present my campaign strategy, my platform, especially.

    I have so far received very positive response from the general public and the voters in the region, and from all the locations that I have conducted my campaign.

    DW: Yes, I wouldn’t expect a politician to say anything else going into an election. Independence for Bougainville is, it would seem, very close. How important is it to you that it’s sorted sooner rather than later?

    EP: Being a leader, a woman leader in having gone through my people’s experience in terms of fighting for their rights and for their independence, this coming independence, and what we we have been standing for as our political agenda is very, very crucial to me as with the general population of Bougainville.

    I cannot say no to that. I do understand a lot of work to do in terms of getting us prepared, in terms of demonstrating the indications and so forth, that we are able to get independence and we are independently ready. But based on the fights of our forefathers and our people and having lost the 20,000 lives, I stand for that.

    I believe that such a person like me, a woman with a strong voice at the political scene, in the political scene and level, I can be able to work as a team with the other leaders of Bougainville to get that independence.

    But having said that, it does not really mean that that is it. We are ready. As leaders, on the ground and at the different levels of governance, we need to work, and we have this how many years that have been given within the time frame for us to work in order to show that we’re able to be an independent, sovereign state, and that is what I believe in.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘We need to be involved’: Pasifika candidates running in Auckland local election

    By Grace Tinetali-Fiavaai, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Former Pacific candidates and new faces are putting their names forward for this year’s Auckland local government election in Aotearoa.

    The final confirmed list of candidates is out.

    In the Manukau ward, Councillor Lotu Fuli, one of three current Auckland councillors of Pacific descent, has also served on the local board and is seeking re-election.

    “Currently, we only have three Pasifika councillors at the governing body table — the mayor and 20 councillors. Out of 21, only myself, Councillor Bartley and Councillor Filipaina, who Is half Samoan, sit around that very important decision-making table,” Fuli said.

    She said she feels the weight of responsibility of her role.

    “I know that I’m here in this space to speak up and advocate for them, because with all due respect to the mayor and to our other councillors from other areas, they don’t know what it’s like for a Pasifika person growing up in Aotearoa New Zealand — in Manukau, in Otara, in Papatoetoe, in Magele [Māngere], or Otahuhu or Maungakiekie, Glen Innes.

    “They don’t know because they haven’t lived that experience.

    “They haven’t lived that struggle, and so they can’t really, truly relate to it.”

    One Pasifika mayoral candidate
    Twelve individuals have put their names forward for the mayoralty, including current mayor Wayne Brown. Ted Johnston is the only mayoral candidate with Pasifika links.

    Each Auckland ward has a set number of council seats. For example, in Manukau, there are only two seats, currently held by incumbents Alf Filipaina and Lotu Fuli.

    In the Manurewa-Papakura ward, there are two seats, and in Maungakiekie-Tāmaki there is one, held by Josephine Bartley. For local board nominations, the number of seats varies.

    Those elected make decisions about things like community funding, sports events, water quality, and even dog walking regulations.

    Vi Hausia, one of the youngest Pacific candidates this year, is running for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (Papatoetoe subdivision). He said he was born and raised in south Auckland.

    “Growing up I’ve always had the sense of, ‘oh, it is what it is. It’s always been like that’. And then you get a bit older and you realise that actually things isn’t ‘is what it is’.

    “It’s been as a result of people who make decisions in important forums, like local board.”

    Strengthening youth engagement
    Safety and strengthening youth engagement are issues for him.

    “Ensuring that when kids come out of high school there’s a strong pathway for them to get into work or into training, whether that’s a vocational training like builder apprenticeship or university, because that’s the link to ensure that our people, particularly our Pacific people, are engaged within our society, and are able to to find who they are and to be able to contribute back to society.”

    He said Māori and Pasifika youth were overrepresented in the statistics of high school leavers who come out of high school and there’s quite a high number of people who go straight onto welfare.

    “So we’ve got a responsibility on the local board as well as central government, to be able to understand what the issues are, and to ensure that young people are having the opportunity to be able to be the best versions of themselves.”

    Another current Auckland councillor, Josephine Bartley, said it was vital that Pasifika were at the table.

    “It’s important because if you look at the make-up of the city, we have a large percentage of Pasifika, and we need to be active. We need to be involved in the decision-making that affects us, so at a local board level and at a city council, at a governing body level.”

    She said she was hopeful voter registrations would go up.

    “It’s always difficult for people to prioritise voting because they have a lot on their plate.

    “But hopefully people can see the relevance of local government to their daily lives and make sure they’re enrolled to vote and then actually vote.”

    ‘Stop blaming’ Pasifika
    Reflecting on Pacific representation in mayoral races, Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board chairperson Apulu Reece said the 2022 race, where Fa’anana Efeso Collins came second to now-mayor Wayne Brown, could have had a different outcome.

    Apulu said it was time to stop blaming communities for low turnout and instead question the structure.

    “There’s probably some value or truth in the fact that we needed to get more people out voting for Efeso and Māori and Pacific people often too busy to worry about the voting paper that they’ve left on the fridge.

    “But I want to twist that and and ask: why didn’t the white people vote for Efeso? Why is it always put on us Pacific people and say, ‘oh, it’s your fault?’ when, actually, he was one of the best candidates out there.

    “In fact, one of the candidates, the palagi [Pākeha] lady, dropped out so that her supporters could vote for Wayne Brown.

    “So no one talks about the tactics that the palagis (Pākeha) did to not get Efeso in.

    “That’s his legacy is us actually looking at the processes, looking at how voting works and and actually dissecting it, and not always blaming the brown people, but saying, ‘hey, this system was built by Pākeha for Pākeha’.”

    There is a total of 12 mayoral candidates, 80 council ward candidates, 386 local board candidates and 80 licensing trust candidates.

    Voting papers will be posted in early September.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The West is in panic as Israel’s plan for ‘full control’ of Gaza heralds a new Nakba

    Netanyahu’s mass ethnic cleansing strategy pulls the rug out from under the West’s cherished pretext for supporting Israeli criminality: the fabled two-state solution.

    ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook

    If you thought Western capitals were finally losing patience with Israel’s engineering of a famine in Gaza nearly two years into the genocide, you may be disappointed.

    As ever, events have moved on — even if the extreme hunger and malnourishment of the two million people of Gaza have not abated.

    Western leaders are now expressing “outrage”, as the media call it, at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to “take full control” of Gaza and “occupy” it.

    At some point in the future, Israel is apparently ready to hand the enclave over to outside forces unconnected to the Palestinian people.

    The Israeli cabinet agreed last Friday on the first step: a takeover of Gaza City, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are huddled in the ruins, being starved to death. The city will be encircled, systematically depopulated and destroyed, with survivors presumably herded southwards to a “humanitarian city” — Israel’s new term for a concentration camp — where they will be penned up, awaiting death or expulsion.

    At the weekend, foreign ministers from the UK, Germany, Italy, Australia and other Western nations issued a joint statement decrying the move, warning it would “aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages, and further risk the mass displacement of civilians”.

    Germany, Israel’s most fervent backer in Europe and its second-biggest arms supplier, is apparently so dismayed that it has vowed to “suspend” — that is, delay — weapons shipments that have helped Israel to murder and maim hundreds of thousands of Palestinians over the past 22 months.

    Netanyahu is not likely to be too perturbed. Doubtless, Washington will step in and pick up any slack for its main client state in the oil-rich Middle East.

    Meanwhile, Netanyahu has once again shifted the West’s all-too-belated focus on the indisputable proof of Israel’s ongoing genocidal actions — evidenced by Gaza’s skeletal children — to an entirely different story.

    Now, the front pages are all about the Israeli prime minister’s strategy in launching another “ground operation”, how much pushback he is getting from his military commanders, what the implications will be for the Israelis still held captive in the enclave, whether the Israeli army is now overstretched, and whether Hamas can ever be “defeated” and the enclave “demilitarised”.

    We are returning once again to logistical analyses of the genocide — analyses whose premises ignore the genocide itself. Might that not be integral to Netanyahu’s strategy?

    Life and death
    It ought to be shocking that Germany has been provoked into stopping its arming of Israel — assuming it follows through — not because of months of images of Gaza’s skin-and-bones children that echo those from Auschwitz, but only because Israel has declared that it wants to “take control” of Gaza.

    It should be noted, of course, that Israel never stopped controlling Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian territories — in contravention of the fundamentals of international law, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled last year. Israel has had absolute control over the lives and deaths of Gaza’s people every day — bar one — since its occupation of the tiny coastal enclave many decades ago.

    On 7 October 2023, thousands of Palestinian fighters briefly broke out of the besieged prison camp they and their families had endured after Israel momentarily dropped its guard.

    Gaza has long been a prison that the Israeli military illegally controlled by land, sea and air, determining who could enter and leave. It kept Gaza’s economy throttled, and put the enclave’s population “on a diet” that saw rocketing malnourishment among its children long before the current starvation campaign.

    Trapped behind a highly militarised fence since the early 1990s, unable to access their own coastal waters, and with Israeli drones constantly surveilling them and raining down death from the air, the people of Gaza viewed it more as a modernised concentration camp.

    But Germany and the rest of the West were fine supporting all that. They have continued selling Israel arms, providing it with special trading status, and offering diplomatic cover.

    Only as Israel carries through to a logical conclusion its settler-colonial agenda of replacing the native Palestinian people with Jews, is it apparently time for the West to vent its rhetorical “outrage”.

    Two-state trickery
    Why the pushback now? In part, it is because Netanyahu is pulling the rug out from under their cherished, decades-long pretext for supporting Israel’s ever-greater criminality: the fabled two-state solution.

    Israel conspired in that trickery with the signing of the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990s.

    The goal was never the realisation of a two-state solution. Rather, Oslo created a “diplomatic horizon” for “final status issues” — which, like the physical horizon, always remained equally distant, however much ostensible movement there was on the ground.

    Lisa Nandy, Britain’s Culture Secretary, peddled precisely this same deceit last week as she extolled the virtues of the two-state solution. She told Sky News: “Our message to the Palestinian people is very, very clear: There is hope on the horizon.”

    Every Palestinian understood her real message, which could be paraphrased as: “We’ve lied to you about a Palestinian state for decades, and we’ve allowed a genocide to unfold before the world’s eyes for the past two years. But hey, trust us this time. We’re on your side.”

    In truth, the promise of Palestinian statehood was always treated by the West as little more than a threat — and one directed at Palestinian leaders. Palestinian officials must be more obedient, quieter. They had to first prove their willingness to police Israel’s occupation on Israel’s behalf by repressing their own people.

    Hamas, of course, failed that test in Gaza. But Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the occupied West Bank, bent over backwards to reassure his examiners, casting as “sacred” his lightly armed security forces’ so-called “cooperation” with Israel. In reality, they are there to do its dirty work.

    Nonetheless, despite the PA’s endless good behaviour, Israel has continued to expel ordinary Palestinians from their land, then steal that land — which was supposed to form the basis of a Palestinian state — and hand it over to extremist Jewish settlers backed by the Israeli army.

    Former US President Barack Obama briefly and feebly tried to halt what the West misleadingly calls Jewish “settlement expansion” — in reality, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians — but rolled over at the first sign of intransigence from Netanyahu.

    Israel has stepped up the process of ethnic cleansing in the occupied West Bank even more aggressively over the past two years, while global attention has been on Gaza — with the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz warning this week that settlers have been given “free rein”.

    A small window into the impunity granted to settlers as they wage their campaign of violence to depopulate Palestinian communities was highlighted at the weekend, when B’Tselem released footage of a Palestinian activist, Awdah Hathaleen, inadvertently filming his own killing.

    Extremist settler Yinon Levi was released on grounds of self-defence, even though the video shows him singling out Hathaleen from afar, taking aim and shooting.

    Alibi gone
    It is noticeable that, having stopped making reference to Palestinian statehood for many years, Western leaders have revived their interest only now — as Israel is making a two-state solution unrealisable.

    That was graphically illustrated by footage broadcast this month by ITV. Shot from an aid plane, it showed the wholesale destruction of Gaza — its homes, schools, hospitals, universities, bakeries, shops, mosques and churches gone.


    Apocalyptic scenes in Gaza               Video: ITV News

    Gaza is in ruins. Its reconstruction will take decades. Occupied East Jerusalem and its holy sites were long ago seized and Judaised by Israel, with Western assent.

    Suddenly, Western capitals are noticing that the last remnants of the proposed Palestinian state are about to be swallowed whole by Israel, too. Germany recently warned Israel that it must not take “any further steps toward annexing the West Bank”.

    US President Donald Trump is on his own path. But this is the moment when other major Western powers — led by France, Britain and Canada — have started threatening to recognise a Palestinian state, even as the possibility of such a state has been obliterated by Israel.

    Australia announced it would join them this week after its foreign minister, a few days earlier, said the quiet part out loud, warning: “There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don’t move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.”

    That is something they dare not countenance, because with it goes their alibi for supporting all these years the apartheid state of Israel, now deep into the final stages of a genocide in Gaza.

    That was why British Prime Minister Keir Starmer desperately switched tack recently. Instead of dangling recognition of Palestinian statehood as a carrot encouraging Palestinians to be more obedient — British policy for decades — he wielded it as a threat, and a largely hollow one, against Israel.

    He would recognise a Palestinian state if Israel refused to agree to a ceasefire in Gaza and proceeded with the West Bank’s annexation. In other words, Starmer backed recognising a state of Palestine – after Israel has gone ahead with its complete erasure.

    Extracting concessions
    Still, France and Britain’s recognition threat is not simply too late. It serves two other purposes.

    Firstly, it provides a new alibi for inaction. There are plenty of far more effective ways for the West to halt Israel’s genocide. Western capitals could embargo arms sales, stop intelligence sharing, impose economic sanctions, sever ties with Israeli institutions, expel Israeli ambassadors, and downgrade diplomatic relations. They are choosing to do none of those things.

    And secondly, recognition is designed to extract from the Palestinians “concessions” that will make them even more vulnerable to Israeli violence.

    According to France’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot: “Recognising a State of Palestine today means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.”

    In other words, in the West’s view, the “good Palestinians” are those who recognise and lay down before the state committing genocide against them.

    Western leaders have long envisioned a Palestinian state only on condition that it is demilitarised. Recognition this time is premised on Hamas agreeing to disarm and its departure from Gaza, leaving Abbas to take on the enclave and presumably continue the “sacred” mission of “cooperating” with a genocidal Israeli army.

    As part of the price for recognition, all 22 members of the Arab League publicly condemned Hamas and demanded its removal from Gaza.

    Boot on Gaza’s neck
    How does all of this fit with Netanyahu’s “ground offensive”? Israel isn’t “taking over” Gaza, as he claims. Its boot has been on the enclave’s neck for decades.

    While Western capitals contemplate a two-state solution, Israel is preparing a final mass ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.

    Starmer’s government, for one, knew this was coming. Flight data shows that the UK has been constantly operating surveillance missions over Gaza on Israel’s behalf from the Royal Air Force base Akrotiri on Cyprus. Downing Street has been following the enclave’s erasure step by step.

    Netanyahu’s plan is to encircle, besiege and bomb the last remaining populated areas in northern and central Gaza, and drive Palestinians towards a giant holding pen — misnamed a “humanitarian city” — alongside the enclave’s short border with Egypt. Israel will then probably employ the same contractors it has been using elsewhere in Gaza to go street to street to bulldoze or blow up any surviving buildings.

    The next stage, given the trajectory of the last two years, is not difficult to predict. Locked up in their dystopian “humanitarian city”, the people of Gaza will continue to be starved and bombed whenever Israel claims it has identified a Hamas fighter in their midst, until Egypt or other Arab states can be persuaded to take them in, as a further “humanitarian” gesture.

    Then, the only matter to be settled will be what happens to the real estate: build some version of Trump’s gleaming “Riviera” scheme, or construct another tawdry patchwork of Jewish settlements of the kind envisioned by Netanyahu’s openly fascist allies, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir.

    There is a well-established template to be drawn on, one that was used in 1948 during Israel’s violent creation. Palestinians were driven from their cities and villages, in what was then called Palestine, across the borders into neighbouring states. The new state of Israel, backed by Western powers, then set about methodically destroying every home in those hundreds of villages.

    Over subsequent years, they were landscaped either with forests or exclusive Jewish communities, often engaged in farming, to make Palestinian return impossible and stifle any memory of Israel’s crimes. Generations of Western politicians, intellectuals and cultural figures have celebrated all of this.

    Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and former Austrian President Heinz Fischer are among those who went to Israel in their youth to work on these farming communities. Most came back as emissaries for a Jewish state built on the ruins of a Palestinian homeland.

    An emptied Gaza can be similarly re-landscaped. But it is much harder to imagine that this time the world will forget or forgive the crimes committed by Israel — or those who enabled them.

    Jonathan Cook is a writer, journalist and self-appointed media critic and author of many books about Palestine. Winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. This article was first published Middle East Eye and republished from the author’s blog with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘Full sovereignty and independence’: FLNKS rejects France’s Bougival project

    By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    New Caledonia’s pro-independence front, the FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front), has formally confirmed its “block rejection” of the French-sponsored Bougival project, signed last month.

    The pact has been presented as an agreement between all parties to serve as a guide for the French Pacific territory’s political future.

    This follows the FLNKS’s extraordinary congress held at the weekend in Mont-Dore, near Nouméa.

    Statements made yesterday confirmed the pro-independence umbrella’s unanimous rejection of the document.

    At the weekend congress, FLNKS president Christian Téin (speaking via telephone from mainland France), had called on FLNKS to “clearly and unequivocally” reject the Bougival document.

    He said the document demonstrated “the administrating power’s [France] contempt towards our struggle for recognition as the colonised people”.

    However, he called on the FLNKS to “remain open to dialogue”, but only focusing on ways to obtain “full sovereignty” after bilateral talks only with the French State, and no longer with the opposing local political parties (who want New Caledonia to remain a part of France).

    He mentioned deadlines such as 24 September 2025 and eventually before the end of President Macron’s mandate in April 2027, when French presidential elections are scheduled to take place.

    Téin was also part of the August 13 media conference, joining via videoconference, to confirm the FLNKS resolutions made at the weekend.

    Apart from reiterating its calendar of events, the FLNKS, in its final document, endorsed the “total and unambiguous rejection” of the French-sponsored document because it was “incompatible” with the right to self-determination and bore a “logic of recolonisation” on the part of France.

    The document, labelled “motion of general policy”, also demands that as a result of the rejection of the Bougival document, and since the previous 1998 Nouméa Accord remains in force, provincial elections previously scheduled for no later than November 2025 should now be maintained.

    Under the Bougival format, the provincial elections were to be postponed once again to mid-2026.

    “This will be a good opportunity to verify the legitimacy of those people who want to discuss the future of the country,” FLNKS member Sylvain Pabouty (head of Dynamique Unitaire Sud-DUS) told reporters.

    Signatures on the last page of New Caledonia's new agreement
    Signatures on the last page of the now rejected Bougival project for New Caledonia’s political future. Image: Philippe Dunoyer/RNZ

    Five FLNKS negotiators demoted
    As for the five negotiators who initially put their signatures on the document on behalf of FLNKS (including chief negotiator and Union Calédonienne chair Emmanuel Tjibaou), they have been de-missioned and their mandate withdrawn.

    “Let this be clear to everyone. This is a block rejection of all that is related to the Bougival project,” FLNKS political bureau member and leader of the Labour party Marie-Pierre Goyetche told local reporters.

    “Bougival is behind us, end of the story. The fundamental aim is for our country to access full sovereignty and independence through a decolonisation process within the framework of international law, including the right of the peoples for self-determination.”

    She said that the FLNKS would refuse to engage in any aspect of the Bougival document.

    Part of this further Bougival engagement is a “drafting committee” suggested by French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls aimed at coordinating all documents (including necessary bills, legal and constitutional texts) related to the general agreement signed in July.

    Anticipating the FLNKS decision, Minister Valls has already announced he will travel to New Caledonia next week to pursue talks and further “clarify” the spirit of the negotiations that led to the signing.

    He said he would not give up and that a failure to go along with the agreed document would be “everyone’s failure”.

    The Bougival document envisages a path to more autonomy for New Caledonia, including transferring more powers (such as foreign affairs) from France.

    It also proposes to augment its status by creating a “state” of New Caledonia and creating dual French/New Caledonia citizenship.

    Still want to talk, but with France only
    The FLNKS stressed it still wanted to talk to Valls, albeit on their own terms, especially when Valls visits New Caledonia next week.

    However, according to the FLNKS motion, this would mean only on one-to-one format (no longer inclusively with the local pro-France parties), with United Nations “technical assistance” and “under the supervision” of the FLNKS president.

    The only discussion subjects would then be related to a path to “full sovereignty” and further talks would only take place in New Caledonia.

    As for the timeline, the FLNKS motion states that a “Kanaky Agreement” should be signed before September 24, which would open a transitional period to full sovereignty not later than April 2027, in other words “before [French] presidential elections”.

    Goyetche also stressed that the FLNKS motion was warning France against “any new attempt to force its way”, as was the case in the days preceding 13 May 2024.

    This is when a vote in Parliament to amend the French constitution and change the rules of eligibility for voters at New Caledonia’s local provincial elections triggered deadly and destructive riots that killed 14 people and caused damage worth more than 2 billion euros (NZ$3.8 billion) due to arson and looting.

    “It seems as if the French government wants to go through the same hardships again”, Téin was heard saying through his telephone call at the Wednesday conference.

    “Don’t make the same mistake again,” Pabouty warned Valls.

    In his message posted on social networks on Sunday (August 10), the French minister had blamed those who “refuse the agreement” and who “choose confrontation and let the situation rot”.

    Reactivate the mobilisation
    At the same media conference yesterday, FLNKS officials also called on “all of pro-independence forces to do all in their power to peacefully stop the [French] state’s agenda as agreed in Bougival”.

    The FLNKS text, as released yesterday, also “reaffirms that FLNKS remains the only legitimate representative of the Kanak people, to carry its inalienable right to self-determination”.

    FLNKS recent changes
    Téin is the leader of the CCAT (field action coordinating cell), a group set up by Union Calédonienne late in 2023 to protest against the proposed French constitutional amendment to alter voters’ rules of eligibility at local elections.

    The protests mainly stemmed from the perception that if the new rules were to come into force, the indigenous Kanaks would find themselves a minority in their own country.

    Téin was arrested in June 2024 and was charged for a number of crime-related offences, as well as his alleged involvement in the May 2024 riots.

    He was released from jail mid-June 2025 pending his trial and under the condition that he does not return to New Caledonia for the time being.

    However, from his prison cell in Mulhouse (northeastern France), Téin was elected president of the FLNKS in absentia in late August 2024.

    At the same time, CCAT was admitted as one of the new components of FLNKS, just like a number of other organisations such as the trade union USTKE, the Labour party, and other smaller pro-independence movement groups.

    Some groups have joined, others have left
    Also late August 2024, in a de facto split, the two main moderate pillars of FLNKS — UPM and PALIKA — distanced themselves from the pro-independence UC-dominated platform.

    They asked their supporters to stay away from the riot-related violence, which destroyed hundreds of local businesses and cost thousands of jobs.

    UPM and PALIKA did not take part in the latest FLNKS meeting at the weekend.

    The two moderate pro-independence parties are part of the political groups who also signed the Bougival document and pledged to uphold it, as it is formulated, and keep the “Bougival spirit” in further talks.

    The other groups, apart from UPM and PALIKA, are pro-France (Les Loyalistes, Rassemblement-LR, Calédonie Ensemble, and the Wallisian-based Eveil Océanien.

    The FLNKS, even though five of their negotiators had also signed the document, has since denounced them and said their representatives had “no mandate” to do sign up.

    Reaction from two main pro-France parties
    Pro-France parties had carefully chosen not to comment on the latest FLNKS moves until they were made public. However, the formal rejection was met by a joint communiqué from Les Loyalistes and Rassemblement-LR.

    In a long-winded text, the two outspoken pro-France parties “deplored” what they termed “yet another betrayal”.

    They confirmed they would meet Valls along Bougival lines when he visits next week and are now calling on a “bipartisan” committee of those supporting the Bougival text, including parties from all sides, as well as members of the civil society and “experts”.

    They maintain that the Bougival document is “the only viable way to pull New Caledonia out of the critical situation in which it finds itself” and the “political balances” it contains “cannot be put into question”.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • John Hobbs: New Zealand’s shameful stance on Israel

    ANALYSIS: By John Hobbs

    Aotearoa New Zealand once earned praise for its “principled” and “independent” foreign policy. Think nuclear-free Pacific, for example.

    Yet that reputation doesn’t hold true when it comes to Gaza and the Palestinian desire and right to self-determination.

    Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, states must take positive steps to prevent genocide. The New Zealand government appears to be failing in this obligation.

    Researcher John Hobbs
    Researcher John Hobbs . . . “So far, our ministers have chosen carefully crafted diplomatic language buried under joint country statements to influence the situation in Gaza.” Image: John Hobbs

    So far, our ministers have chosen carefully crafted diplomatic language buried under joint country statements to influence the situation in Gaza, while at the same time protecting relationships with allies, particularly the US.

    An example of these was a statement issued last month, in which New Zealand joined a group of 28 “concerned” countries to express horror at the “suffering of civilians in Gaza”, which, it says, “has reached new depths”. The statement calls for the lifting of restrictions on the “flow of aid” and demands “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire.”

    Just to be clear, the “flow of aid” is the life-saving food and water that’s needed to prevent the mass starvation of Palestinians as famine driven by Israel deepens.

    Demands for a ceasefire have been made on numerous occasions in the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, to no effect.

    Failure to sanction Israel
    Yet countries like New Zealand fail to sanction Israel for its non-compliance. Indeed, they do worse. These same countries continue to trade with Israel, and a number of them continue to provide weapons and arms.

    According to trade data, New Zealand in 2023 imported goods and services of US$191 million from Israel and exported US$16.4 million the other way.

    Most recently, New Zealand joined 14 other countries to “express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine, as an essential step towards the two-State solution.”

    The statement is heavily caveated by saying that “positive consideration” is one option — so it’s not clear if all, or indeed any, of the countries will end up recognising Palestinian statehood.

    By contrast, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has issued a separate statement, saying the UK would recognise the state of Palestine in September if Israel doesn’t agree to a ceasefire.

    Starmer’s concern for the starvation of civilians in Gaza hasn’t stopped the UK from sending military arms to Israel. But this is at least a clearer stance than New Zealand has been able to muster.

    More than 147 UN member states out of 193 formally recognise Palestinian statehood now.

    Level of solidarity
    And while recognition of statehood is largely symbolic, it does signal a level of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Inexplicably, New Zealand has been unwilling to take that step, while calling it a future option under “two-state” diplomacy.

    New Zealand has trundled out its support of the two-state solution since at least 1993, reinforced by its co-sponsorship, in 2015-16, of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement expansion.

    That resolution declared settlements in occupied territories illegal under international law and urged member states to distinguish in its dealings between Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

    Since then, Israel has continued to transfer its citizens to the West Bank and Gaza. More than 750,000 Israeli settlers are now living illegally in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — areas where a future Palestinian state would be located.

    Meanwhile, New Zealand has failed to take any meaningful action — sanctions or suspension of trade, for example — to implement the requirements of the Security Council resolution. That the government consistently frames its response as supporting a two-state solution beggars belief in light of such inaction.

    New Zealand’s refusal to sanction Israel is nothing but shameful.

    When foreign affairs minister Winston Peters expressed shock about the “intolerable situation” in Gaza, RNZ asked him whether New Zealand would entertain placing sanctions on Israel. He responded by saying that we are a “long, long way off doing that.”

    The genocide in Gaza is happening with the support of countries like New Zealand, through inaction and failure to implement sanctions.

    And statements about recognising statehood provide the appearance of supporting an end to the genocide, but change nothing in reality.

    John Hobbs has been a career public servant, working in a number of government departments (most recently the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet). He also worked for a number of ministers on secondment from government agencies. He is currently undertaking a PhD at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Te Tumu School of Māori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies, Otago University. This article was first published by E-Tangata and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ‘If I die, I die steadfast … I bear witness … for the path of freedom for my people’ – Anas’ last testament

    Anas al-Sharif, killed in an Israeli strike in Gaza, last Sunday has triggered protests around the world, including journalists in Israel. He left behind a powerful farewell message — his final testament to his people, his family, and the world.

    Palestine Chronicle staff

    Palestinian journalists Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qraiqea were killed last Sunday in an Israeli bombardment that struck a journalists’ tent near Gaza City’s Al-Shifa Hospital.

    Cameramen Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal also died in the attack, which was carried out by an Israeli drone. The Israeli army admitted targeting al-Sharif shortly after the strike.

    Al-Sharif, 28, from Jabaliya refugee camp, was an award-winning journalist who became a leading global voice from Gaza during the war. He inspired thousands.

    Protest and vigils have been held around the world from South Africa’s Cape Town to Manila in the Philippines and London in the UK to honour al-Sharif and his colleagues in condemnation of this targeted murder.

    Less than two weeks ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists had warned that his life was in “acute” danger due to repeated threats from an Israeli military spokesperson.

    Before his death, al-Sharif prepared a farewell message to be shared if he was killed. His family and colleagues posted it to his social media accounts after the news of his death.

    Below is the full English translation of that message.

    Anas al-Sharif’s final message
    “This is my will and my final message.

    “If my words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.

    “First, peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

    “God knows I gave all I had — strength and effort — to be a support and a voice for my people, ever since I opened my eyes to life in the alleys of Jabaliya refugee camp. My hope was to live long enough to return with my family and loved ones to our original town, Asqalan (al-Majdal), now under occupation.

    “But God’s will came first, and His decree is final.

    “I have lived pain in all its details and tasted loss many times. Yet I never stopped telling the truth as it is, without falsification or distortion — so that God may bear witness over those who stayed silent, accepted our killing, and did nothing to stop the massacre our people have endured for more than a year and a half.

    “I entrust you with Palestine — the jewel of the Muslim crown and the heartbeat of every free person in this world. I entrust you with its people and children, whose pure bodies have been crushed under Israeli bombs and missiles.


    Australian journalists protest over the killings.      Video: MEAA

    “Do not let chains silence you or borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland.

    “I entrust you with my family: my beloved daughter Sham; my dear son Salah; my mother, whose prayers were my fortress; and my steadfast wife Bayan (Umm Salah), who carried the responsibility in my absence with strength and faith. Stand by them after God.

    “If I die, I die steadfast in my principles. I bear witness that I am content with God’s decree, certain of our meeting, and convinced that what is with God is better and everlasting.

    “O God, accept me among the martyrs, forgive me my sins, and make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people. Forgive me if I fell short, and pray for me with mercy, for I have kept my pledge and never changed.

    “Do not forget Gaza… and do not forget me in your prayers.”

    Anas Jamal al-Sharif

    April 6, 2025

    Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif with his daughter Sham and his son Salah
    Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif with his daughter Sham and his son Salah. Image: via social media

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israel has ‘deliberate strategy’ of killing Palestinian journalists like Anas al-Sharif, warns UN expert

    Democracy Now!


    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

    Global condemnation is mounting over Israel’s assassination of one of the most prominent journalists in Gaza, the Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif, along with four of his colleagues at the network and another freelance journalist.

    UN Secretary-General António Guterres is calling for an independent investigation after the five Al Jazeera journalists were killed in a targeted Israeli strike outside Al-Shifa Hospital in a tent clearly marked in Gaza City. European Union officials and international press freedom groups have also denounced the assassinations.

    The sixth journalist, freelance reporter Mohammed al-Khalidi, was also killed in the same strike. Minutes before the strike, al-Sharif posted to X, “If this madness does not end, Gaza will be reduced to ruins, its people’s voices silenced, their faces erased — and history will remember you as silent witnesses to a genocide you chose not to stop.”

    On Monday, crowds of mourners gathered for a funeral procession for al-Sharif and his colleagues, marching from Al-Shifa to Sheikh Radwan Cemetery in central Gaza, carrying the journalists’ bodies wrapped in white sheets.

    A dark blue flak press jacket and a Palestinian flag were placed on al-Sharif’s remains. People embraced as they decried Israel’s relentless targeting of journalists in Gaza.

    Meanwhile, at rallies and vigils worldwide, people are demanding accountability for the attack on journalists, including in Tunisia, Belfast, Dublin, Berlin, London, Oslo, Stockholm and Washington, DC.

    For more, we go to Geneva, Switzerland, where we’re joined by Irene Khan, UN special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression. She served as secretary-general of Amnesty International from 2001 to 2009.

    Irene Khan, welcome back to Democracy Now! In late July, you publicly denounced Israel’s threats against Anas al-Sharif. Can you talk about what you understood at that time, and then this young 28-year-old reporter’s response to your press statement?

    IRENE KHAN: Yes, well, Anas actually contacted me, and Al Jazeera contacted me to tell me of this impending threat on his head. They had seen it before. He’s not the first one, as you know.

    There are some — anything between 26 to 30 journalists — who have been targeted in this campaign of assassination. And Anas wanted me to go public, he wanted others to go public, to stop what Israel was doing.

    But at the same time, he thanked me for my support, and then he said nothing would stop him from speaking the truth. And in a way, he signed his own death warrant by that, because, as you know, he and the others, Al Jazeera’s entire team in northern Gaza, were killed, murdered, just as Israel ramps up its military action on the city, Gaza City.

    So, there is a clear pattern here of killing journalists to clear the path, to silence voices, to stop the international, global opinion from being informed of the genocide in Gaza.


    Assassination: Israel’s killing of Palestinian journalist Anas al-Sharif   Video: Democracy Now!

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Irene Khan, the number of journalists — so, more than 200 have been killed in Gaza. That’s more than all the journalists killed in World War I, World War II, Korea, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan War combined.

    Your sense of the Israeli impunity here in being able to basically kill the corps of journalists that are still able to report from Gaza?

    IRENE KHAN: Well, you also have to take into account that Israel has refused to give access to international media. So these are all local Gazan journalists who are putting their lives on the line to keep the world informed. Many of them — you named some 200 — many of them, of course, have been killed in the intensity of the battle. Many of them have been killed while asleep in their own apartments. But these cases, the cases of Anas now, and his colleagues, and a number of other cases of targeted killing, is really murder.

    It is not killing in the context of war. It is a deliberate strategy to stop independent voices reporting. So it’s as much a threat to independent journalism as it is to the journalists themselves, as well as a blatant attempt by the Israelis to stop the world witnessing what they are doing.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And these killings also came as the Israeli government announced they’re unleashing a new operation in the area of Gaza. Who will be left to document this operation now?

    IRENE KHAN: Well, absolutely. And that is why Anas got in touch with me, because he realised what was happening. You know, from his message on LinkedIn and from his message that he has sent to me and to others, it was very, very clear.

    He has been there on the ground since October 2023. He could see the pattern. He could see what was happening. He knew they were coming for him.

    And that is why it is incumbent on all of us now not to just condemn, but actually to act, before independent media is totally obliterated from Gaza.

    AMY GOODMAN: Irene Khan, I want to ask what you’re calling for, and the significance of Netanyahu holding this news conference on Sunday and saying — he has now said that the Israeli military can bring in journalists, but they’re most concerned about protecting their safety.

    A few hours later is when Israel assassinated these six journalists. Now, it is the first time, NPR reports, since October 2023 that Israel so quickly took responsibility for their assassination.

    You know, compare it to Shireen Abu Akleh, May 11, 2022, when Israel said it was not clear, and then, you know, so many studies were done, but it became very clear. Talk about what you are calling for at this point.

    IRENE KHAN: It’s not actually an admission of taking responsibility, because there is no accountability in it. It’s actually a brazen attempt to show the world that the Israeli army can work as it wishes, regardless of international humanitarian law that protects journalists as civilians.

    Now, what I’m calling for is, of course, independent investigation, truly independent investigation. But I’m also calling for protection of journalists on the ground and for access to international journalists.

    Israel always covers these assassinations and murders with allegations and smear campaigns — the journalists are simply agents of Hamas or members of Hamas — and that kind of gives Israel a veil of impunity.

    It’s important for international journalists to be on the ground so they can actually investigate and expose this false story and the string of assassinations that Israel is carrying out.

    And I think we need to remember the message that Israel’s action is sending to the rest of the world, because there are other spots, other conflict areas, where also others are learning that you need to be just brazen and go ahead and kill journalists, and you can get away with it.

    AMY GOODMAN: Irene Khan, we’re speaking to you in Geneva, Switzerland — Geneva, the Geneva Conventions. Can you talk about how the conventions specifically protect journalists?

    IRENE KHAN: Well, the convention gives journalists civilian status, which means that, like all other civilians, they should not be targeted during the war.

    The problem is the journalists are not just civilians. They are the kind of civilians that have to go to the frontline and not run away somewhere else. You know, they are not like women and children, who can move and seek shelter elsewhere.

    They have to be where the fighting is. And that exposes them. They are much more like humanitarian workers. And journalists need to be recognised as humanitarian workers. There needs to be — I believe there needs to be additional protection given to them, because it shows how vulnerable they are, on the one hand, to attacks, and, on the other hand, how important their work is to the rest of the world, to any peace process, to any attempt to have accountability and justice for the victims.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Last month, the union representing reporters at the French press agency AFP warned that the agency staff were in danger of starving to death, and they issued an open letter condemning what Israel was doing in terms of denying food, not just to the population in general, but also to journalists, as well.

    Your response?

    IRENE KHAN: Well, absolutely. These journalists are local journalists, as I said, so they have faced all the problems that the population is facing. They’ve had their own families killed. They have to hunt for food, even as they hunt for news.

    So, they have been put in a terrible situation. And that’s why Israel has to open the gates, not under military protection, but allow journalists independently to come and investigate. It has to stop the starvation, the blockade. It has to allow humanitarian assistance to come in. And it has to agree to a ceasefire and, of course, stop the genocide.

    AMY GOODMAN: I want to end with the words of Anas al-Sharif himself. Anticipating his own murder by Israeli forces, he wrote a preprepared message that was posted on his X account after his death. Al Jazeera read part of his message on air.

    AL JAZEERA REPORTER: “If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice, I have lived through pain in all its details, tasted suffering and loss many times, yet I never once hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification, so that God may bear witness against those who stayed silent and accepted our killing.”

    He ends, “Do not forget Gaza… And do not forget me in your sincere prayers for forgiveness and acceptance.”

    AMY GOODMAN: The words of Anas al-Sharif, posted after he was killed by the Israeli military along with five other journalists. Five of them were with Al Jazeera.

    Irene Khan, I want to thank you so much for being with us, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, speaking to us from Geneva, Switzerland. To see our interview with the managing editor of Al Jazeera, go to democracynow.org.

    Democracy Now! is produced with Mike Burke, Renée Feltz, Deena Guzder, Messiah Rhodes, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Nicole Salazar, Sara Nasser, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud, Safwat Nazzal. Our executive director is Julie Crosby.

    I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, for another edition of Democracy Now!

    The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Nagasaki Day and Aro Valley Peace Talks recall nuke-free heyday

    Asia Pacific Report

    It was a bit like the old days — the heyday of Aotearoa New Zealand’s nuclear-free movement in the 1980s, leading up to the Rarotonga Treaty for a nuclear free Pacific zone that was signed on 6 August 1985 just weeks after the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

    The New Zealand nuclear-free law followed a couple of years later.

    But the mood at the Aro Valley Peace Talks last weekend yearned for those past vibes and optimism.

    Mike Smith got the packed audience on track, introducing himself.

    “I’m a member of a peace group calling ourselves Just Defence,” he said. “We’ve been helping Aro Valley resident Tim Bollinger’s initiative to establish this community event.

    “Today we have been invited by Tim to reflect on the anniversary of the destruction of Nagasaki in japan by the second use of a nuclear weapon in this event.

    “Our very great thanks are due to Tim for creating this opportunity to reflect on those horrific events 80 years ago. This is all the more crucial because most people are not aware that right now the world is at a moment as dangerous as the 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis.

    “The anti-nuclear peace movement has lost its salience in our community.”

    Nuclear-free heritage
    Smith reminded the audience — if they needed to be — of Aotearoa New Zealand’s nuclear-free heritage.

    “We are proudly nuclear-free because nearly 50 years ago we rejected the entry of US warships that would not declare they were nuclear-free.

    “That was a bold and courageous decision,” he continued. “But it was only possible because Kiwi citizens the length and breadth of our country declared their communities nuclear-free, town-by-town and city-by-city, due to the work of tireless activists such as Larry Ross.

    “Some of their symbols are on display today.”

    And then came the pièce de résistance.

    Aro Valley Peace Talks musician and event coordinator Tim Bollinger
    Aro Valley Peace Talks musician and event coordinator Tim Bollinger . . . “A lot has been stolen from us over the past decades.” Image: APR

    “Today, I would like to offer a dedication, that we who are assembled here now declare Aro Valley ‘nuclear free’.

    “Great things can come from small beginnings, and it is once again time that we raise the demand for a world free from the threat of nuclear devastation.”

    An eclectic day
    And so be it declared, judging by the enthusiastic applause greeting Mike Smith’s remarks.

    It was an eclectic day of contributions, but mostly to the already converted.

    First speaker on the main programme was activist and peace movement historian Maire Leadbeater who spoke about her recent book The Enemy Within and a century of state surveillance in Aotearoa that had penalised activists for social change.

    She was followed by historian and writer Mark Derby, co-editor with the late May Bass of Peacemonger: Owen Wilkes: International Peace Researcher, who outlined the life and multi-talents of one of New Zealand’s most extraordinary peace activists.

    Former local council politician Helene Ritchie spoke of the campaign to declare Pōneke Wellington a nuclear weapons-free zone in 1982.

    She was followed by former trade unionist Graeme Clark detailing how the union movement played a key role in opposing nuclear ship visits and its influence on the anti-nuclear policies of the NZ Labour Party.

    Posters from the nuclear-free exhibition at the Aro Community Centre
    Posters from the nuclear-free exhibition at the Aro Community Centre. Image: APR

    Pacific coverage
    The afternoon session kicked off with a “conversation” between journalists and activists Jeremy Rose, formerly of RNZ and who now writes a substack blog Towards Democracy, and David Robie, retired media academic who now publishes Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific. They discussed issues raised in David’s new book, Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, and the weak Pacific coverage in mainstream media.

    Doctor and activist Karl Geiringer spoke about his documentary on the role of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War’s bid to have nuclear weapons ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice, and the contribution of his peace activist father Dr Erich Geiringer.

    Glenn Colquhoun and Inshirah Mahal offered inspiring poems.

    Peace activist Valerie Morse gave an overview of 25 years of Peace Action and Sonya Smith, an activist and spokesperson for the Wairoa-based group Rocket Lab Monitor, gave an update on their campaign.

    An important day but short on plans for the future. As at least one participant noted: “Our talks have been mainly about success of the past – but what about our action plans for the present and future?”

    More posters from the nuclear-free exhibition
    More posters from the nuclear-free exhibition. Image: APR

    ‘Working for peace’
    A flyer for Just Defence, with the slogan “Work for peace — not war” with a call to action saying what is needed in New Zealand is:

    • A genuinely independent foreign policy for Aotearoa New Zealand;
    • Defence that is just — not for aggression against other people or nations;
    • A smart, well-paid defence force designed for our real needs — patrolling our waters, carrying out UN peacekeeping missions, responding to civil defence emergencies here and in our Pacific neighbourhood;
    • Affirmation of our nuclear-free status and our support for a nucear-free Pacific; and
    • Building our reputation for promoting peace through dialogue.

    And the flyer flagged a reality check: “China is not our enemy.”

    A couple of days after the event, coordinator Tim Bollinger emailed all participants promising some important developments, including deciding on a draft Nagasaki Day resolution.

    “The time has never been more important for the exchange of ideas and experiences with those whose land and planet we share — to counter apathy and ignorance with the rich legacy of learning and ideas we each have to give,” Bollinger said.

    “A lot has been stolen from us over the past decades . . .

    “The victories of the past have been deliberately underplayed, undervalued, undermined and clawed back by those who never believed in them in the first place.”

    Bollinger promised a community pushback and the resolution would be a first step. Along with a batch of audio and video recordings from the weekend as an action resource.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israeli PM has ‘lost the plot’, says NZ’s Christopher Luxon

    By Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira, RNZ Māori news journalist in Parliament

    New Zealand’s Prime Minister says the war in Gaza is “utterly appalling” and Israeil Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “lost the plot”.

    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s comments came on a tense day in Parliament today, where the Green Party’s co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was “named” for refusing to leave the House following a heated debate on the government’s plan to consider recognising Palestinian statehood.

    Speaking to media, Luxon said Netanyahu had “gone too far”.

    “I think he has lost the plot and I think that what we’re seeing overnight — the attack on Gaza City — is utterly, utterly unacceptable,” he said.

    Luxon said Israel had consistently ignored pleas from the international community for humanitarian aid to be delivered “unfettered” and the situation was driving more human catastrophe across Gaza.

    “We are a small country a long way away, with very limited trade with Israel. We have very little connection with the country, but we have stood up for values, and we keep articulating them very consistently, and what you have seen is Israel not listening to the global community at all,” Luxon said.

    “We have said a forcible displacement of people and an annexation of Gaza would be a breach of international law. We have called these things out consistently time and time again.

    “You’ve seen New Zealand join many of our friends and partners around the world to make these statements, and he’s just not listening,” the Prime Minister said.

    Considering statehood
    The government is considering whether it will join other countries like France, Canada and Australia in recognising Palestinian statehood at a UN Leader’s Meeting next month.

    Luxon said recent attacks could “extinguish a pathway” to a two-state solution.

    “I’m telling you what my personal view is, as a human being, looking at the situation, that’s how I feel about,” he said.

    Opposition Labour Leader Chris Hipkins has called the war an “unfolding genocide”, echoing the comments made by former prime minister Helen Clark, who visited the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Palestinian territory this week. as part of The Elders’ delegation.

    “She’s used the words ‘unfolding genocide’, and yes, I do agree with that. That’s a good description of the situation at the moment.”

    Hipkins said calling it an “unfolding genocide” meant that New Zealand was not “appointing ourselves judge and jury” because there was still a case to be heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    “Recognising that there is an unfolding genocide in Gaza is an important part of the world community standing up and saying, we’re not going to tolerate it.

    “We should recognise that there is now a growing acknowledgement around the world that there is an unfolding genocide in Gaza, and I think we should call that for what it is, and the world community needs to react to that to prevent it from happening,” Hipkins said.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israel deliberately obstructing aid, says former PM Helen Clark

    By Niva Chittock, RNZ News WorldWatch presenter/producer

    Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark says she has witnessed Israel deliberately obstructing life-saving humanitarian aid into Gaza.

    Together with former Irish president Mary Robinson, Clark visited the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Palestinian territory this week.

    The two former world leaders are part of The Elders, an independent, non-government organisation of global leaders working together for peace, justice, human rights and sustainability.

    The group has regularly spoken out about the situation in Gaza since Israel announced war on Hamas in October 2023.


    Their joint statement said they saw evidence of food and medical aid being denied entry to Gaza, “causing mass starvation to spread”.

    “What we saw and heard underlines our personal conviction that there is not only an unfolding, human-caused famine in Gaza, there is an unfolding genocide,” the statement said.

    “The deliberate destruction of health facilities in Gaza means children facing acute malnutrition cannot be treated effectively.”

    At least 36 Palestinian children starved to death last month, they said.

    Israel has repeatedly denied famine and genocide were happening in Gaza.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that if his army had a policy of starvation “no one would be alive two years into the war”.

    Figures disputed
    Israel also disputed the figures provided by authorities in the Palestinian territory, but had not provided its own.

    No shelter materials had entered Gaza since March this year, the statement said, leaving families already displaced multiple times without protection.

    Former Irish President Mary Robinson and former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark visiting the Rafah border crossing.
    Former Irish president Mary Robinson and former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark have visited the Rafah border crossing. Image: The Elders/RNZ

    “Many new mothers are unable to feed themselves or their new-born babies adequately, and the health system is collapsing,” Clark said.

    “All of this threatens the very survival of an entire generation,” she said.

    ‘Truth matters’
    “The uncomfortable truth is that many states are prioritising their own economic and security interests, even as the world is reeling from the images of Gazan children starving to death,” Robinson said.

    “Political leaders have the power and the legal obligation to apply measures to pressure this Israeli government to end its atrocity crimes.”

    “This is all the more urgent in light of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Gaza City takeover plan. President Trump has the leverage to compel a change of course. He must use it now,” she said.

    Hamas authorities said Israeli air attacks had increased in recent days as the Israel Defence Force (IDF) prepared to take over Gaza City, home to some one million Palestinians.

    Netanyahu had defended his plan, saying the best option to defeat Hamas was to take the city by force.

    The plan has been heavily criticised by Israelis, Palestinians, international organisations and other countries.

    Israel has repeatedly denied famine and genocide were happening in Gaza.
    Israel has repeatedly denied famine and genocide were happening in Gaza. Image: The Elders/RNZ

    ‘Re-engage’ ceasefire talks
    Robinson and Clark urged Hamas and Israel to re-engage in ceasefire talks and immediately release Israeli hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinian prisoners, and for Israel to immediately open all border crossings into Gaza.

    They also called for states to suspend existing and future trade agreements with Israel, as well as the transfer of arms and weapons to Israel, urging the world to follow the lead of Germany and Norway.

    Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund divested from Israeli firms linked to violations of international law this week, while Germany’s chancellor suspended exports of arms to Israel.

    “We call for recognition of the State of Palestine by at least 20 more states by September, including G7 members, EU member states and others,” their joint statement said.

    Australia was the latest to announce it would made the decree at a UN General Assembly next month if its conditions were met, following in the footsteps of Canada, France and the UK.

    At least 20 countries had on Wednesday called for aid to urgently be released into Gaza, saying suffering in the Palestinian territory had reached “unimaginable” levels.

    New Zealand was not among them, and had not yet made any pledge to recognise a Palestinian state, but the government said it was a matter of “when not if” it would.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • MEAA condemns targeted attacks on Gaza journalists as a war crime

    Pacific Media Watch

    Australia’s Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance has condemned the continued targeted killing of media workers in Gaza and the baseless smearing of working journalists as “terrorists”, following the deaths of five Al Jazeera staff over the weekend.

    Al Jazeera journalists Anas Al Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh, and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and assistant Moamen Aliwa were killed on Sunday when Israel bombed a tent housing journalists in Gaza City, near Al-Shifa Hospital.

    Shockingly, the Israeli military confirmed the targeted killing on social media, with a post to X accompanied by a target emoji.

    The latest deaths come after Israel had conducted a long smear campaign of unsubstantiated allegations against Al Sharif and other journalists, labelling them “Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists”, which the International Federation of Journalists has condemned.

    As Al Jazeera has said, this was a “dangerous attempt to justify the targeting of journalists in the field”.

    “Tragically, these warnings have now come to fruition,” the MEAA said in a statement.

    “The targeting of journalists is a blatant attack on press freedom, and it is also a war crime.

    “It must stop.”

    Call for ‘unfettered coverage’
    MEAA also said the Israeli ban preventing the world’s media from accessing the region and providing unfettered coverage of the worsening humanitarian crisis must stop.

    The silencing of Palestinian journalists via a rising death toll that the Gaza Media Office puts at 242 must also stop, the union said.

    “In his final words, Al-Sharif said he never hesitated for a single day to convey the truth as it is — without distortion or falsification,” said MEAA

    “His reports brought to the world the reality of the horrors being inflicted by the Israeli government on the civilians in Gaza.

    “He asked the world to not forget Gaza and to not forget him.”

    MEAA said it stood up against attacks on press freedom around the world.

    • Pacific Media Watch says there has been no equivalent condemnation by New Zealand journalists, who have mostly remained silent during the 22 months of Israel’s war on Gaza.


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • RSF calls for emergency UN Security Council meeting after targeted Israeli strike kills six media professionals

    Pacific Media Watch

    The Paris-based media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the Israeli military’s “disgraceful tactic” to cover up war crimes in the wake of the killing of six journalists in Gaza on Sunday.

    It has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to stop the massacre of journalists, RSF said in a statement.

    The August 10 Israeli strike killed six media professionals in Gaza, five of whom currently work or formerly worked for the Qatari television network Al Jazeera and one freelance journalist.

    The strike, which has been claimed by the Israeli army, targeted Al Jazeera reporter Anas al-Sharif, whom it accused, without providing solid evidence, of “terrorist affiliation”.

    RSF said the military had repeatedly used this tactic against journalists to cover up war crimes, while the army has already killed more than 200 media professionals.

    “RSF strongly condemns the killing of six media professionals by the Israeli army, once again carried out under the guise of terrorism charges against a journalist,” said RSF’s  director-general Thibaut Bruttin.

    “One of the most famous journalists in the Gaza Strip, Anas al-Sharif, was among those killed.

    “The Israeli army has killed more than 200 journalists since the start of the war. This massacre and Israel’s media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately.

    “The international community can no longer turn a blind eye and must react and put an end to this impunity.

    “RSF calls on the UN Security Council to meet urgently on the basis of Resolution 2222 of 2015 on the protection of journalists in times of armed conflict in order to stop this carnage.”

    Targeted strike on tent
    The Israeli army killed Al Jazeera reporter Anas al-Sharif in a targeted strike on a tent housing a group of journalists near al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza.

    The strike, claimed by Israeli authorities, also killed five other media professionals, including four working or having worked for Al Jazeera — correspondent Mohammed Qraiqea, video reporter Ibrahim al-Thaher, Mohamed Nofal, assistant cameraman and driver that day, and Moamen Aliwa, a freelance journalist who worked with Al Jazeera — as well as another freelance journalist, Mohammed al-Khaldi, creator of a YouTube news channel.

    The attack also wounded freelance reporters Mohammed Sobh, Mohammed Qita, and Ahmed al-Harazine.

    This attack, claimed by the Israeli army, replicates a tactic previously used against Al Jazeera journalists. On 31 July 2024, the Israeli army killed reporters Ismail al-Ghoul and Rami al-Rifi in a targeted strike, following a smear campaign against the former, who, like Anas al-Sharif, was accused of “terrorist affiliation”.

    Hamza al-Dahdouh, Mustafa Thuraya and Hossam Shabat, who also worked for the Qatari media outlet, are among the victims of this method denounced by RSF.

    As early as October 2024, RSF warned of an imminent attack on Anas al-Sharif following accusations by the Israeli army.

    The international community, led by the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, ignored these warnings.

    Under Resolution 2222 of 2015 on the protection of journalists in armed conflict, the UN Security Council has a duty to convene urgently in response to this latest extrajudicial killing by the Israeli army.

    Since October 2023, RSF has filed four complaints with the International Criminal Court (ICC) requesting investigations into what it describes as war crimes committed by the Israeli army against journalists in Gaza.

    The New Zealand-based Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick barred from NZ Parliament for rest of week after fiery Gaza speech

    By Craig McCulloch, RNZ News acting political editor

    New Zealand Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has been ejected from Parliament’s debating chamber and told to leave for the rest of the week after a fiery speech about the war in Gaza.

    The incident occured during an urgent debate this afternoon which was called after the coalition government’s announcement that it would come to a formal decision in September over whether to recognise the state of Palestine.

    As Swarbrick came to the end of her contribution, she challenged coalition MPs to back her member’s bill allowing New Zealand to apply sanctions on Israel “for its war crimes”.

    Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick asked to leave Parliament after Gaza speech   Video: Parliament TV

    “If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history,” Swarbrick said.

    Almost immediately, Speaker Gerry Brownlee condemned the remark as “completely unacceptable” and demanded she “withdraw it and apologise”.

    Swarbrick shot back a curt — “no” — prompting Brownlee to order her out of the chamber for the remainder of the week.

    “Happily,” Swarbrick said, as she rose to leave.

    Green Party whip Ricardo Menéndez March later stood to question the severity of punishment, saying Parliament’s rules suggested Swarbrick should be barred for no more than a day.

    Brownlee later clarified that Swarbrick could come back to the debating chamber on Wednesday, but only if she agreed to withdraw and apologise.

    “If she doesn’t, then she’ll be leaving the House again,” he said.

    “I’m not going to sit in this chair and tolerate a member standing on her feet . . .  and saying that other members of this House are spineless.”

    ‘What the hell is the point?’ — Swarbrick
    Speaking outside the debating chamber, Swarbrick described the ruling as “ridiculous” and the punishment excessive.

    “As far as the robust debate goes in that place, I think that was pretty mild in the context of the war crimes that are currently unfolding.”

    She drew a comparison with comments made by former prime minister Sir John Key in 2015 when he challenged the opposition to “get some guts”.

    Swarbrick said she was tired and angry at the massacre of human beings.

    “What the hell is the point of everything that we do if the people in my place, in my job don’t do their job?” she said.

    “If we allow other human beings to be just mercilessly slaughtered, to be shot while waiting for food aid, what hope is there for humanity?”

    Swarbrick was not the only MP to run afoul of the Speaker during today’s debate.

    Earlier, Labour MP Damien O’Connor was told to either exit the chamber or apologise after interjecting while Foreign Minister Winston Peters was speaking. O’Connor stood and left.

    Brownlee also demanded ACT MP Simon Court say sorry — which he did — after Court accused Swarbrick of “hallucinating outrage”.

    Government urges caution, opposition demands action
    In his speech, Court said any recognition of a Palestinian state must be conditional on all Israeli hostages being returned and Hamas being disarmed and dismantled.

    “Security must come before politics,” he said.

    No National MPs spoke during the urgent debate.

    Peters — who is also NZ First leader — told MPs the matter of Palestinian statehood was not a straightforward or clear-cut issue.

    “There are strong opinions on both sides,” he said. “That is why we are approaching this issue carefully, judiciously and calmly.”

    Peters also took umbrage with the opposition’s complaints, pointing out Labour never moved on the matter when it was in government.

    In a 10 minute speech, Labour foreign affairs spokesperson Peeni Henare said New Zealand was being left behind as the coalition walked into a “sunset of denial”.

    “How many more people will suffer and how many more people will die?”

    ‘Despicable’ justifications
    Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told MPs it was “despicable” to hear the justifications for another month’s delay.

    “What will be left? Rubble? Martyred spirits? What is that you want to have left in a month’s time?” she said. “I have never been more ashamed to be in the House than I am today.”

    In her speech, Swarbrick told MPs libraries of evidence demonstrated that the events unfolding in Palestine were “ethnic cleansing… apartheid [and]… genocide”.

    “We are a laggard, we are an outlier,” she said. “We are one of the very few countries in the world who so far refuse to acknowledge the absolute bare minimum.”

    Earlier, during Parliament’s Question Time, ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour objected to Swarbrick having a Palestinian scarf, or keffiyeh, draped across her seat.

    “I invite you to consider what this House might look like if everybody who had an interest in a global conflict started adorning their seats with symbols of one side or another of a conflict,” he said.

    “I think that would bring the House into disrepute and no member should be allowed to do such a thing.”

    Brownlee said Seymour raised a good point, only for Swarbrick to then wrap the scarf around her neck.

    “Oh, here we go,” he said. “Well, stay warm. We’ll move on now.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • NZ can’t talk about homelessness without tackling poverty, says advocate

    RNZ Pacific Waves

    In Aotearoa, a Pacific advocate for youth homelessness says the country must address poverty and systemic inequities to fix the housing affordability crisis.

    Research from the Salvation Army last month showed one in 1000 people in the country are without shelter. Youth were reportedly disproportionately affected.

    Overall, Pasefika communities were also over-represented in the country’s hardship figures. For example, the latest government figures showed the Pacific unemployment rate was 12.1 percent – more than double the national average.

    Brooke Stanley, of youth homelessness collective Manaaki Rangatahi, told RNZ Pacific Waves “successive government choices and policies” had failed to prioritise people’s housing needs.

    That had led to rising homelessness, she said.


    Homelessness reaches crisis point                Video: RNZ

    “I think that those policy choices and decisions are actually underpinned by a certain set of values that don’t recognise housing as being a human right,” Stanley said.

    “We’re looking at a politics of ego, of competition, of division, of greed and profit.”

    Pasefika bearing brunt
    Stanley also said the current government’s policies were making things worse, and Pasefika communities were bearing the brunt of it.

    High rents, lack of public housing and affordable housing, as well as socio-economic status all contributed to Pasefika being disproportionately affected by the housing affordability crisis.

    Tougher rules from Kāinga Ora — the government’s public housing agency — also painted a bleak picture.

    For example, in Manurewa and Porirua, Pacific families were reportedly being kicked out of public housing at disproportionate rates. The pattern was identified in tenancy enforcement data by PMN.

    In Manurewa, Pacific families represented about half of the agency’s tenants, but made up three-quarters of enforcement action. In Porirua, Pacific people represented about the same proportion of Kāinga Ora tenants but made up two-thirds of enforcement action.

    Enforcement action included tenancy terminations.

    Kāinga Ora has previously said it applied its policies in “a fair and consistent way in communities around the country”.

    Ending tenancies
    Kāinga Ora spokesperson Nick Maling said the decision to end a tenancy was never made lightly, especially when children and young people were involved.

    Associate Minister for Housing Tama Potaka has said the government is working to address homelessness.

    “There’s a number of things that this government is doing, whether or not it’s the build programme — making sure we build another 500 social homes in Auckland, Māori housing, Kainga Ora… resetting the housing system,” he told RNZ Morning Report in July.

    He has also said that rebuilding the economy to create more jobs and get people into work was part of the government’s solution to homelessness.

    Stanley believed New Zealand’s policymakers needed to shift their approach to housing and homelessness completely.

    “We can’t talk about ending homelessness unless we also talk about ending poverty,” she said.

    “I think we need to look at the different contributing factors . . .  [and the] the structural inequities that also contribute to homelessness.

    “I think it’s really important that our leaders just not only talk about these things, but also have the actions and policies that reflect those values.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Why Israel’s assassination of Al Jazeera’s Anas al-Sharif and crew threatens all journalists

    By David Robie, convenor of Pacific Media Watch

    I never knew Anas al-Sharif personally. But somehow he seemed to be part of our whānau.

    We watched so many of his reports from Gaza that it just appeared he would be always around keeping us up-to-date on the horrifying events in the besieged enclave.

    Although he actually worked for Al Jazeera Arabic, the 28-year-old was probably the best known Palestinian journalist in the Strip and many of his stories were translated into English.

    It is yet another despicable act by the Israeli military to assassinate him and four of his colleagues on the eve of launching their new mass crime to seize and demolish Gaza City with a population of about one million as part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pledge to occupy the whole of Gaza.

    In many ways the bravery of al-Sharif — he had warned several times that he was being targeted — was the embodiment of the Palestinian courage under fire when UNESCO awarded the 2024 World Press Freedom Award collectively to the Gazan journalists.

    But it wasn’t enough just to “murder” him and his colleagues — as the Al Jazeera channel proclaimed in red banner television headlines — Israel attempted unsuccessfully to try to smear him in death as a “Hamas platoon leader” without a shred of evidence.

    The drone attack late on Sunday night hit a journalists’ work tent near the main gate of Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital, killing seven people. Among those killed beside al-Sharif were fellow Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa and Mohammed Noufal.

    Call for UNSC emergency session
    Al Jazeera later said a sixth journalist, freelancer Mohammad al-Khaldi, was also killed in the strike. Reporters Without Borders said three more journalists had been wounded and called for a UN Security Council emergency session to discuss journalist safety.

    In a statement, the Qatar-based Al Jazeera Media Network condemned in “the strongest terms” the killing of its media staff in “yet another blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom”, noting that the Israeli occupation force had “admitted to their crimes”.

    “This attack comes amid the catastrophic consequences of the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza, which has seen the relentless slaughter of civilians, forced starvation, and the obliteration of entire communities,” Al Jazeera said.

    “Anas and his colleagues were among the last remaining voices from within Gaza, providing the world with unfiltered, on-the-ground coverage of the devastating realities endured by its people.”

    Five Al Jazeera journalists killed in Gaza by Israel’s “psychopathic liar” — Marwan Bishara Video: Al Jazeera

    Ironically, the killings came hours after Netanyahu told media he had decided to “allow” some foreign journalists into the Gaza Strip.

    “In fact, we have decided, and I’ve ordered, directed the military, to bring in foreign journalists, more foreign journalists,” Netanyahu told a news conference in Jerusalem.

    Israeli authorities have in the past barred any foreign media from entering the Gaza Strip, while it has been deliberately targeting and killing local Palestinian journalists.

    Other attacks on Al Jazeera
    The deadly strike on Anas al-Sharif and his four colleagues is not the first attack on Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza since the start of Israel’s current war on the Palestinian territory in October 2023

    Israeli forces have previously killed five Al Jazeera journalists: Samer Abudaqa, Ismael al-Ghoul, Ahmed al-Louh, Hossam Shabat and Hamza Dahdouh, son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau chief, Wael Dahdouh, as well as many of the family members of Al Jazeera journalists.

    The Israeli military has been systematically killing journalists, photographers and local media workers in the Gaza Strip since the start of the war in an attempt to silence their reports.

    The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has verified the killing of at least 186 journalists since October 7, 2023. At least 90 journalists have been imprisoned by Israel.

    But some media freedom groups put the casualty figure even higher. The Government Media Office in Gaza, for example, reports that 242 journalists have been killed.

    The Israeli military have frequently accused journalists of being “terrorists” without evidence.

    According to Muhammad Shehada, a writer and analyst from Gaza, Anas al-Sharif was a “loved by everyone, by his entire community”.

    ‘Enormous influence’
    “He’s held enormous influence there, and that’s precisely why Israel murdered him.

    Shehada told Al Jazeera he had “looked into the allegations” that Israel produced, trying to smear him as a Hamas militant, adding that “the allegations were completely contradictory.” He added:

    “There’s zero evidence that al-Sharif took part in any hostilities, in any armed actions, aided or abetted any kind of these hostilities. None at all. His entire daily routine was standing in front of a camera from morning to evening.”

    An early Instagram report of the killing of the Gazan journalists
    An early Instagram report of the killing of the Gazan journalists . . . later updated to five Al Jazeera staff and a sixth journalist. Image: AJ

    Reporting from Amman, Jordan, because Israel banned Al Jazeera from reporting from inside Israeli territory and the occupied West Bank, Hoda Abdel-Hamid said: “When you read the statement issued by the Israeli army, which was well prepared before all this happened, it’s almost as if it is bragging about it.”

    It had been alleged by Israel that Anas al-Sharif was a member of the military wing of Hamas, and the army claimed that it had found documents in Gaza that proved their point.

    “It includes some links to content that anyone could have printed,” she said. “This has been going on for a few weeks, ever since Anas started reporting on the starvation in Gaza, and he had such a huge impact on the Arab world.

    “Immediately after, a spokesman for the Israeli army in Arabic… posted a video on social media, accusing al-Sharif of being a Hamas member and threatening him.”

    ‘Knew he was at serious risk’
    Abdel-Hamid said she had been going through his X feed.

    “He knew his life was at serious risk, and he repeatedly wrote that he was just a journalist, and he wanted his message to be spread widely, because he thought that was a way to protect him.”

    Posted on his X account in case he was killed was his “last will” and final message. He wrote in part:

    “I entrust you with Palestine — the jewel in the crown of the Muslim world, the heartbeat of every free person in this world. I entrust you with its people, with its wronged and innocent children who never had the time to dream or live in safety and peace.

    “Their pure bodies were crushed under thousands of tons of Israeli bombs and missiles, torn apart and scattered across the walls.

    “I urge you not to let chains silence you, nor borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland . . . “

    Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive for the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), said that last October Israel had accused al-Sharif and “a number of other journalists of being terrorists without providing any credible proof”.

    “We warned back then that this felt to us like a precursor to justify assassination, and, of course, last month… we saw again, a repeated smear campaign”, she told Al Jazeera.

    “This is not solely about Anas al-Sharif, this is part of a pattern that we have seen from Israel… going back decades, in which it kills journalists.”

    Accusations repeated
    Al-Sharif had warned last month about the starvation facing journalists — “and we saw then the accusations repeated.

    “Of course, now we are seeing a new offensive, plans for a new offensive, in Gaza, the kind of thing that Anas has been reporting on for the best part of three years.”

    The medical director of al-Shifa Hospital said that Israel had killed the journalists to prevent coverage of atrocities it intended to carry out in its Gaza City seizure.

    “The [Israeli] occupation is preparing for a major massacre in Gaza, but this time without sound or image,” Dr Mohammed Abu Salmiya told Turkiye’s Anadolu news agency.

    “It wants to kill and displace the largest number of Palestinians in Gaza City but this time in the absence of the voice of Anas, Mohamed, Al Jazeera and all satellite channels.”

    Assassinated Gazan journalist Anas al-Sharif
    Assassinated Gazan journalist Anas al-Sharif . . . “killed to prevent coverage of atrocities” Israel intends to carry out in its Gaza City seizure. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    ‘Fabrications don’t wash’
    Al Jazeera’s senior analyst Marwan Bishara warned that “Israel’s lies” about al-Sharif endangered journalists everywhere, saying that the “best response to the killing of our colleagues is by continuing to do what we do”.

    “I want to correct one thing [about Western media reports], and I need our viewers and readers around the world to pay attention:

    “It doesn’t matter whether what Israel said about al-Sharif is correct or not.

    “It’s an absolute fabrication. It’s wrong. But it doesn’t matter.

    “Because if every American journalist who served in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been killed because there’s a suspicion that they worked for the CIA; if every French and British journalist would be killed because they work for the MI5 or something like that, then I think there will be no Western journalists working in the Middle East.

    “It’s not OK to kill a journalist in a tent of journalists because you accuse him of something.

    “If you accuse him of something, you take him to court, you make a complaint, you follow certain procedures, with the network, with the [International Federation of Journalists], and so on and so forth.

    “You don’t kill a journalist who has been doing their job for months on, day in, day out, night and day, and claim later that they work for Hamas.

    “That doesn’t wash.

    “It’s wrong, it’s a lie, it’s a fabrication as usual, but this psychopathic liar should not get away with killing a journalist and simply attaching an accusation to it.

    “It doesn’t wash, because otherwise, every single Western journalist covering a war that a Western government is involved in is going to be a target.

    “Why?

    “Because Israel has done it.”

    In January 2024, three months into the war, I wrote an article for Declassified Australia about “Silencing the messenger” when I made the point that while “Israel killed journalists, the West merely censored them”.

    I wrote that it was time for journalists to take a moral stand for truth and justice, and although I expected a strong response, the feedback was merely tepid. It was as if Western journalists did not comprehend the enormity of the Gaza crisis facing the world.

    It is shameful that New Zealand journalists and media groups have not come out in the past 22 months with strong denunciations of Israel’s war on both journalists and truth – and the genocide against Palestinians.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • PSNA calls on Luxon to end ‘support’ for Israel as Australia plans backing for Palestine state

    Asia Pacific Report

    A leading advocacy group supporting Palerstine has called on the government to follow Germany’s lead and suspend New Zealand military support for Israel to continue its mass killing and mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.

    Germany and New Zealand were two of the countries to sign a letter yesterday condemning Israel’s plans to extend its war to Gaza City, displacing another million Palestinians.

    However, one of the other signatories, Australia, announced that it would go a step further by moving to recognise a state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly next month.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Australia would work with the international community to make recognition a reality.

    “I have said it publicly and I said it directly to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu: the situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world’s worst fears,” he said.

    “Far too many innocent lives have been lost. The Israeli government continues to defy international law and deny sufficient aid, food and water to desperate people, including children.”

    The decision rides on a condition that the Palestinian resistance group Hamas plays no role in its future governance.

    Letter condemns Israel
    New Zealand joined Australia, United Kingdom, Germany and Italy in signing a letter that said:

    “The plans that the government of Israel has announced risk violating international humanitarian law. Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law.

    It will aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages, and further risk the mass displacement of civilians.”

    PSNA co-chair John Minto said in a statement that Israel had a long history of ignoring outside opinion because they never included accountabilities.

    “However, Germany has followed its condemnation with action. New Zealand needs to do the same,” he said.

    Minto says New Zealand should:

    • End approval for Rakon to export crystal oscillators to the US which are used in guided bombs sent to Israel for bombing Gaza;
    • Ban all Rocket Lab launches from Mahia which are used for Israel reconnaissance in Gaza; and
    • Launch an investigation by the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence into the sharing of intelligence with the US and Israel which can be used for targeting Palestinians.

    “New Zealanders expect our government to end its empty condemnations of Israel and act to sanction this rogue, genocidal state,” Minto said.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Another Gaza injustice. Israel targets Anas in Al Jazeera media crew of 5

    COMMENTARY: By Saige England

    Another truth-teller targeted and killed in Gaza. I wish the journalists — some of whom I taught to master the skills of journalism, would look at this travesty and call it what it is: a genocide.

    I wish they would remember that journalists have a code of ethics, I wish they would remember to serve the people and not despotic governments.

    Good journalists are truth seekers and truth tellers.

    Like this man, Al Jazeera’s Anas al-Sharif, targeted, murdered for revealing the truth that tens of thousands of children, women, and men are regarded as the enemy by a country that wants to take their land and expand.

    His Al Jazeera crew of five were wiped out yesterday.

    In 1982, I asked an Israeli what he thought of the (then) invasion into Lebanon. He replled that if the government in Tel Aviv had its way and some Israelis were not against invasion, the army would have invaded Turkey. Look at what has happened now.

    Massacre after massacre
    Far more Palestinians were killed in the year leading up to October 7, 2023, than Israelis killed on that day. Palestinians have faced massacre after massacre ever since the Nakba in 1948.

    They experience apartheid, they experience exile, they are not allowed to call Palestine their homeland, but it is their homeland.

    Britain swooped into that country and appropriated a religious myth that dated back thousands of years, but being anti anti semitism means ensuring that people are comfortable in their own land, it does not mean booting one people out to make a home for yourself.

    Settler colonisation continues to perpetuate the worst injustice. It just dealt another blow. Starving children and a good man, a truth teller, killed in cold blood.

    Saige England is an Aotearoa New Zealand journalist, author, and poet, member of the Palestinian Solidarity Network of Aotearoa (PSNA), and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This commentary was first published on England’s social media.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.