Category: Self Determination

  • COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    Israel and the West pretend they want a real peace in Israel-Palestine yet the Israelis have beaten unconscious the man most likely to help realise a sustainable end to the conflict: Marwan Barghouti.

    The ethnocentrism of Western culture is such that 20 Israeli hostages received vastly more coverage than thousands of Palestinian hostages, nearly 2000 of whom were released as part of the recent exchange.

    These prisoners, physically emaciated, most emotionally shattered, many children, most having never been charged, some held for decades, emerged from the Dantesque Inferno of the Israeli prison system. Most had some kind of disease, commonly scabies, due to the infested and infected conditions of the gulag.

    Five Palestinian detainees released and exiled to Egypt brought with them terrible news: the great Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti — the person most likely to lead a free Palestine — had recently been beaten unconscious by his captors.

    According to the Times of Israel, Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir who oversees the Israeli Prison System says he is “proud that Barghouti’s conditions have changed drastically”.

    What Nelson Mandela would say about the beating of Marwan
    Marwan Barghouti — Palestine’s most loved and revered leader, a living symbol of the resistance — was beaten unconscious by 8 Israeli guards, according to the testimony of fellow prisoners on arrival in Cairo. The attack left the 66-year-old with broken ribs and head injuries.

    When called on to demand his protection, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and other Western leaders yawned and looked the other way. That response defined the depths that the Western world has reached in its permissiveness of violence towards Palestinian prisoners.

    Marwan Barghouti is commonly referred to as the Palestinian Mandela, a man who has the attributes to not only unite the many Palestinian factions but also negotiate a lasting peace, if given the opportunity.

    Mandela couldn’t have been “Mandela” without him surviving and being released — which is a tribute to the ANC and other fighters for freedom, as well as to the global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns that finally convinced the regime to negotiate.

    The same was true of the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland which saw the release of prisoners that one side considered terrorists. The British also came to accept that negotiation with leaders like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of the IRA was essential precisely because they had the street credibility to deliver peace.

    It is worth pointing out that Mandela said he was not personally beaten during his 27 years of captivity by the racist South African apartheid regime.

    Barghouti, who has spent the last 23 years in prisons has had at least four beatings by the Israelis in the past three years alone. The Israelis have shown nothing but contempt for the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, Red Cross requests, or any benchmark of human decency.

    They are our “friends and allies” with whom we share values.


    ‘He has been in a struggle for 50 years’.           Video: TRT News

    Rules on prisoner treatment
    After leaving Robben Island to eventually become South Africa’s first black President, the convicted terrorist and revolutionary Prisoner 46664 helped author the Nelson Mandela Rules on prisoner treatment, adopted by the United Nations in 2015. He had seen the mistreatment of many of his comrades by racist white South Africa, a close ally of most of our governments.

    The scale of what is being done by Israel in its mass torture centres would be beyond anything Mandela could have imagined. Unlike morally repellent leaders like New Zealand’s Luxon, UK’s Starmer, France’s Macron or Germany’s Merz, he would never have failed to act.

    A central tenet of the Mandela Rules is that people behind bars are not beyond human rights. Countries — and, yes, that includes Israel — must adhere to minimum standards such as, “No prisoner shall be subjected to, and all prisoners shall be protected from, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for which no circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification.”

    Recently released Palestinians, most in shocking physical condition, talked of having to drink toilet water, beatings, being denied medical treatment, constant humiliations, including sexual violence, committed by the Israelis.

    This kind of behaviour has long been documented by international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch — and largely ignored by the mainstream media.

    The Israelis, never forget, are our close friends, with whom we share “values”.

    I have written a number of articles about Marwan and, to avoid repetition, I recommend those unfamiliar with his astonishing story to read them. My last article, Saving Marwan Barghouti is our duty, in August, was part of a global push to prevent Marwan facing further mistreatment. I was shocked at the time to see the video that Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir posted to show the power he personally had over Marwan whose physical condition had obviously deteriorated to a terrible extent. Now he has been beaten, for the fourth time.

    “It is a clear declaration that they are threatening my father’s life,” his son Arab Barghouti said this week.

    Prisons are ‘Israeli sadism in a nutshell’
    One person who watched the release of the prisoners last week was veteran Israeli journalist Amira Hass, correspondent on the Occupied Palestinian Territories for Israel’s leading newspaper Haaretz.

    “It was a kind of parade of skeletons,” Hass said. “These last two years, it’s like the Israeli prisons have become Israeli sadism in a nutshell,” she told Democracy Now!.

    “The way that prisoners were treated during these two years is unprecedented in Israel. They didn’t only come out emaciated; they came out ill, sick. Some of them have lost limbs. It’s indescribable.”

    Hass’s own parents were Holocaust survivors, her mother surviving nine months in the notorious Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Now, along with all of us, she is witness to genocide.

    She makes the fine observation that people aren’t born cruel; they become so. I would add: we in the West helped the Israelis become so depraved by ignoring their abuses for so long. Former human rights lawyer Keir Starmer is a case in point.

    In the UK Parliament on October 14, Green MP Ellie Chowns asked Starmer:

    “Can I ask the Prime Minister what recent representation his government has made in the last few days to secure the immediate release of Mr Barghouti, given his widespread popularity as a unifying voice for Palestinian rights, dignity and freedom, and therefore his potential crucial role in securing a meaningful and lasting peace in the region?”

    Starmer is an avatar for the West: complicit in genocide and disturbingly detached from the suffering of the Palestinian people.

    Starmer is an avatar for the West
    Starmer is an avatar for the West . . . complicit in genocide and disturbingly detached from the suffering of the Palestinian people. Image: www.solidarity.co.nz

    Starmer, who has less human decency in his entire being than Nelson Mandela had in one nostril hair, refused to even mention Barghouti by name. His lawyerly reply:

    “Thank you for raising the individual case. We offer to provide such further information as we can, as soon as we can, in relation to that particular case.”

    Western leaders, including in my own country, have refused to even reply to requests that petitions/insistences be made to the Israelis to save the great Palestinian leader. They have shown more empathy for the remains of deceased Israeli hostages crushed under the rubble of buildings bombed by the Israelis, hypocritically blaming Hamas for not releasing the remains fast enough!

    Such is the moral calibre of our leaders.

    None of them, it should be pointed out, had anything to say when footage appeared of Israeli soldiers committing gang rape at Sde Temein Prison last year. Not only were the men not punished but by week’s end they had been blessed by Benjamin Netanyahu’s spiritual mentor Rabbi Meir Mazuz who assured one of the rapists that he had done “no wrong” and “In another country they would have given him an award”.

    Never forget, the Israelis are our close friends and allies with whom, our leaders tell us, we share values.

    ‘Israel doesn’t want peace – they want ethnic cleansing’
    Such is Marwan Barghouti’s standing that he is respected by all Palestinian factions and acknowledged as a unifying figure, a peacemaker and someone who should be leading Palestine not getting his head punched by Israeli thugs.

    “That’s why they see him as a danger,” says his son, Arab Barghouti. “Because he wants to bring stability, he wants to end the cycle of violence.

    “He wants a unifying Palestinian vision that is accepted by everyone, and the international community as well. But they’re [Israelis] not interested in any political settlement; they’re only interested in ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people.”

    True words, those — and they demolish the fake narrative peddled by Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders that there was “no partner for peace” on the Palestinian side.

    The Israelis have killed so many Palestinian negotiators, so many Palestinians leaders that the opposite is now clear: the Israelis and the West are the true enemies of peace.

    I’ll give the last word to another Palestinian. I dedicate it to Keir Starmer, Christopher Luxon, Anthony Albanese and all those other leaders who stand deaf, dumb and blind to Marwan Barghouti and the thousands of Palestinian souls still suffering in Israeli captivity:

    “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

    Matthew 25, King James Bible

    Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region, and he contributes to Asia Pacific Report. He hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Decent, concerned people have been waiting impatiently for the UN General Assembly to use a ‘Uniting For Peace’ resolution to circumvent the US veto and intervene in Gaza with a protection force. Under this mechanism, when the Security Council is deadlocked, the authority to act passes to the General Assembly where the US has no veto.

    But UNGA have dragged their feet and allowed Trump and his Zionist business friends to seize the initiative with a fake peace plan that conceals their main motive, which is to perpetuate Israel’s dominance and profit hugely from designating Gaza and the West Bank as a fantastic development zone under their control.

    However, international law says the Palestinians must be allowed to govern their territories — including Gaza’s marine oil and gas field — with whatever help they choose, under UN supervision and not dictated by outsiders like Trump and his band of get-rich property developers. Their “eternal peace” plan is deliberately short on detail, ignores international law, shuts out the Palestinian Authority, bypasses the United Nations, lacks any kind of authorisation from the global community, and reeks of sleaze. None of it acknowledges the Palestinians’ inalienable rights. Trump’s 20-point ‘peace’ plan for Gaza is a cruel hoax.

    The US’s track record is one of chronic bias, not least because its QME doctrine guarantees Israel a ‘qualitative military edge’ to ensure the apartheid state always has the upper hand over it neighbours. Until that legislation is repealed no US president or government appointee can be considered an honest broker in Middle East affairs.

    Yet here we see Trump abusing his powers and pushing aside the UN in an attempt to take control of the countless lucrative business opportunities thrown up by the Gaza tragedy. How are Donald Trump and a handful of chancers, who include the disgraced Tony Blair, able to usurp UN powers and exploit an appalling situation resulting from the genocidal devastation he himself had a big hand in? This is not an occasion for ‘deals’. It’s time to exercise the Palestinians’ right to freedom strictly in accordance with international law and help them achieve independence.

    And what are we to make of demands for Hamas to disarm and take no part in future governance of their country? Under the plan Israel will only withdraw troops (eventually) to the perimeter inside Gaza’s border. So they’ll remain in occupation indefinitely. They already occupy Gaza’s airspace, airwaves and coastal waters, and control all entry points and exits. Their record in honouring ceasefires is abysmal and they are poised to resume their genocidal slaughter on any whim. If you were Hamas would you disarm?

    Besides, who governs Palestine is entirely a decision for the Palestinian people. As far as I’m aware, Hamas are still the legitimate, democratically elected government in Gaza. And they are perfectly entitled under international law (and various UN resolutions, for example 3246 and 37/43) to put up armed resistance against any illegal occupier using military force. So is this attempt by Israel and its Western allies to bring about regime change actually lawful? And for balance what about regime change in the genocidal terror state next door?

    We saw Trump and Netanyahu holding hands and smirking as they launched their 20-point plan. Trump said Netanyahu had agreed to it — even though Netanyahu has vowed repeatedly that Israel will never allow a Palestinian state to emerge — and Arab countries were onboard. Trump then issued a blood-curdling threat to Hamas that if they didn’t accept his plan within 3 days he would give Israel the green light to carry on with the genocide with himself, presumably, continuing to supply the ammunition. “All HELL, like no one has ever seen before” would be let loose, he said.

    So it’s not about freedom for Palestinians, a right they’ve been denied for over a century. Nor are the vile duo aiming to deliver justice for the Palestinians, whose land this is. The more you think about it the clearer it becomes that the ‘peace’ plan is simply a cruel hoax to perpetuate the subjugation of the Palestinians, protect Israel’s dominance and ensure the Zionists’ long-term ambition to create a Greater Israel is finally achieved.

    The Trump-Netanyahu partnership and their hand-picked friends are a private club bent on greed and self-aggrandisement. How legally valid is any of that? And is the international community really going to allow such a preposterous scheme to go ahead with the likes of Donald Trump and Tony Blair in charge?

    What does the UN say about the “Eternal Peace” plan?

    A team of 28 independent human rights experts, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, have said they welcome parts of the peace plan such as a permanent ceasefire, rapid release of unlawfully detained persons, an influx of humanitarian aid under United Nations supervision, no forced displacement from Gaza, the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the non-annexation of territory. But they add that these are broadly requirements of international law anyway and shouldn’t depend on a formal peace plan.

    The experts warn that other elements of the plan are inconsistent with fundamental rules of international law and the 2024 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which demands that Israel ends its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    They list 15 serious objections to Trump’s plan including the following:

    Any peace plan must respect the ground rules of international law. The future of Palestine must be in the hands of the Palestinian people – not imposed by outsiders under extreme conditions of duress in yet another scheme to control their destiny.

    The United Nations – not Israel or its closest ally – has been identified by the ICJ as the legitimate authority to oversee the end of the occupation and the transition towards a political solution in which the Palestinians’ right of self-determination is fully realised. But there is no provision in the plan for a leading role for the UN, General Assembly or Security Council, or even for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is vital to assisting and protecting Palestinians.

    The plan does not guarantee the Palestinian right of self-determination as international law requires, and it is subject to vague pre-conditions concerning Gaza’s redevelopment, Palestinian Authority reform, and a “dialogue” between Israel and Palestine. Palestine’s future would thus be at the mercy of decisions by outsiders, not in the hands of Palestinians as international law commands.

    The plan also requires more negotiations with Israel, when the Israeli Prime Minister has already declared that Israel would “forcibly resist” statehood. This contradicts the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finding that fulfilling the right of self-determination cannot be conditional on negotiations.

    The “temporary his contradicts the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finding that fulfilling the right of self-determination cannot be conditional transitional government” is not representative of Palestinians and even excludes the Palestinian Authority, which further violates self-determination and lacks legitimacy.

    Oversight by a “Board of Peace” chaired by the US President is not under United Nations authority or transparent multilateral control, while the US is a deeply partisan supporter of Israel and not an “honest broker”. This proposal is reminiscent of colonial practices and must be rejected.

    An “International Stabilisation Force”, outside the control of the Palestinian people and the United Nations as a guarantor, would replace Israeli occupation with a US-led occupation, contrary to Palestinian self-determination.

    Partial Israeli occupation continues indefinitely through a “security perimeter” inside Gaza’s borders, which is absolutely unacceptable.

    Nothing is said regarding the demilitarisation of Israel, which has committed international crimes against the Palestinians and threatened peace and security in the region through aggression against other countries.

    De-radicalisation is imposed on Gaza only, while public incitement to genocide has been dominant rhetoric in Israel.

    The plan largely treats Gaza in isolation from the West Bank including East Jerusalem, when these areas must be regarded as a unified Palestinian territory and State. The plan does not address other fundamental issues such as ending illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), borders, compensation, and refugees.

    An “economic development plan” and “special economic zone” could result in illegal foreign exploitation of resources without Palestinian consent.

    The International Court of Justice has been crystal clear: conditions cannot be placed on the Palestinian right of self-determination. The Israeli occupation must end immediately, totally and unconditionally, with due reparation made to the Palestinians. But there is no duty on Israel and those who have sustained its illegal attacks in Gaza to compensate Palestinians for illegal war damage.

    Accountability and justice are integral to sustainable peace but there is nothing of this in the plan.

    All this should have warned nations participating in Trump’s plan to have nothing to do with it. It may deliver a short break in the carnage and an exchange of (some) prisoners but genuine peace is evidently not on Trump’s agenda.

    A resolution will soon come before the UN Security Council to authorise and spell out the mission of the proposed International Stabilisation Force and ensure it is properly founded on international law. But will the US agree with that? A refusal (veto) might be the very thing to trigger a ‘Uniting for Peace’ move mentioned above.

    Also, there is no mention of restoring Gaza’s airport and seaport which, one would have thought, is essential to the task of reconstruction.

    So what exactly did Trump and his special guests sign at the peace summit at Sharm el-Sheikh on 13 October?

    The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity

    Presidential Memoranda

    October 13, 2025

    We, the undersigned, welcome the truly historic commitment and implementation by all parties to the Trump Peace Agreement, ending more than two years of profound suffering and loss — opening a new chapter for the region defined by hope, security, and a shared vision for peace and prosperity.

    We support and stand behind President Trump’s sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza and bring lasting peace to the Middle East. Together, we will implement this agreement in a manner that ensures peace, security, stability, and opportunity for all peoples of the region, including both Palestinians and Israelis.

    We understand that lasting peace will be one in which both Palestinians and Israelis can prosper with their fundamental human rights protected, their security guaranteed, and their dignity upheld.

    We affirm that meaningful progress emerges through cooperation and sustained dialogue, and that strengthening bonds among nations and peoples serves the enduring interests of regional and global peace and stability.

    We recognize the deep historical and spiritual significance of this region to the faith communities whose roots are intertwined with the land of the region — Christianity, Islam, and Judaism among them. Respect for these sacred connections and the protection of their heritage sites shall remain paramount in our commitment to peaceful coexistence.

    We are united in our determination to dismantle extremism and radicalization in all its forms. No society can flourish when violence and racism is normalized, or when radical ideologies threaten the fabric of civil life. We commit to addressing the conditions that enable extremism and to promoting education, opportunity, and mutual respect as foundations for lasting peace.

    We hereby commit to the resolution of future disputes through diplomatic engagement and negotiation rather than through force or protracted conflict. We acknowledge that the Middle East cannot endure a persistent cycle of prolonged warfare, stalled negotiations, or the fragmentary, incomplete, or selective application of successfully negotiated terms. The tragedies witnessed over the past two years must serve as an urgent reminder that future generations deserve better than the failures of the past.

    We seek tolerance, dignity, and equal opportunity for every person, ensuring this region is a place where all can pursue their aspirations in peace, security, and economic prosperity, regardless of race, faith, or ethnicity.

    We pursue a comprehensive vision of peace, security, and shared prosperity in the region, grounded in the principles of mutual respect and shared destiny.

    In this spirit, we welcome the progress achieved in establishing comprehensive and durable peace arrangements in the Gaza Strip, as well as the friendly and mutually beneficial relationship between Israel and its regional neighbors. We pledge to work collectively to implement and sustain this legacy, building institutional foundations upon which future generations may thrive together in peace.

    We commit ourselves to a future of enduring peace.

    Donald J. Trump

    President of the United States of America

     

    Abdel Fattah El-Sisi

    President of the Arab Republic of Egypt

     

    Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani

    Emir of the State of Qatar

     

    Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

    President of the Republic of Türkiye

    Only 3 of the 193 members states of the United Nations were invited to attend. Hamas and Israel were both absent. Sheer woffle and it was signed only by Trump, El-Sisi, Al-Thani and Erdogan. How representative was this charade? How legally valid?

    Where does this leave the near-universal pledge to recognise Palestinian statehood (and make it happen)?

    Trump and some of his allies seem totally ignorant of their solemn duty to recognise Palestinian statehood. Fortunately, UN Resolution 37/43 of December 1982 is there to help. It comprehensively re-affirms previous resolutions and treaties on the universal right to self-determination and the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples in order to provide an effective guarantee that human rights may be observed. Note the words “speedy granting”. Palestinians have been kept waiting for over 100 years for an effective guarantee of their human rights.

    And 37/43 considers that denying the Palestinian people their inalienable rights to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine, and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region, constitute a serious threat to international peace and security. It strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognise the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the Palestinian people.

    The post Gaza Peace Plan is a Cruel Deception first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    A Paris appeal court has confirmed that Kanak pro-independence leader Christian Téin is now cleared to return to New Caledonia.

    In September, a panel of judges had pronounced they were in favour of Téin’s return to New Caledonia, but the Public Prosecution then appealed, suspending his return.

    However, in a ruling delivered on Thursday, the Paris Appeal Court confirmed the Kanak leader is now free to travel back to the French Pacific territory.

    In June 2024, at the height of violent riots, Téin and other pro-independence leaders were arrested in Nouméa and swiftly flown to mainland France aboard a specially-chartered plane.

    They were suspected of playing a key role in the riots that broke out mid-May 2024 and were later indicted with criminal charges.

    The charges for which Téin remains under judicial supervision include theft and destruction of property involving the use of weapons.

    His pre-trial conditions had been eased in June 2025, when he was released from the Mulhouse jail in eastern France, but he was not allowed to return to New Caledonia at the time.

    Téin’s lawyers react to the decision
    Téin’s lawyers said they were “satisfied and relieved”.

    “This time, Téin is allowed to go back to his land after 18 months of being deprived [of freedom],” one of Téin’s counsels, Florian Medico, told French national media.

    One main argument from the Public Prosecution was that under “fragile” post-riot circumstances, Téin’s return to New Caledonia was not safe.

    Public Prosecutor Christine Forey also invoked the fact that an investigation in this case was still ongoing for a trial at a yet undetermined date.

    Previous restrictions imposed on Téin (such as not interfering with other persons related to the same case) were also lifted.

    The ruling also concerns four other defendants, all pro-independence leaders.

    Case not closed yet
    “It’s now up to the investigating judges, in a few months’ time, to decide whether to rule on a lack of evidence, or to bring the indicted persons before a court to be judged . . . But this won’t happen before early 2026,” lawyer François Roux told reporters.

    Téin is the leader of a CCAT “field action co-ordinating cell” set-up by one of the main pro-independence parties in New Caledonia — the Union Calédonienne (UC).

    Although jailed at the time in mainland France to serve a pre-trial term, he was designated, in absentia, president of the main pro-independence umbrella, the FLNKS, during a congress in August 2024.

    However, during the same congress, two other pillars of the FLNKS, the moderate pro-independence UPM (Union Progressiste en Mélanésie) and PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party), distanced themselves and de facto split from the UC-dominated FLNKS.

    The two parties have since kept away from FLNKS political bureau meetings.

    Meanwhile, in January 2025, the case was transferred from a panel of judges in Nouméa to another group of magistrates based in Paris.

    They ruled on June 12 that, while Téin and five other pro-independent militants should be released from custody, they were not allowed to return to New Caledonia or interfere with other people associated with the same case.

    Now allowed
    But in a ruling delivered in Paris on September 23, the new panel of judges ruled Téin was now allowed to return to New Caledonia.

    The ruling was based on the fact that since he was no longer kept in custody and even though he had expressed himself publicly and politically, Téin had not incited or called for violent actions.

    He still faces charges related to organised crime for events that took place during the New Caledonia riots starting from 13 May 2024, following a series of demonstrations and marches that later degenerated, resulting in 14 dead and over 2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion) in damage.

    The 2024 marches were to protest against a plan from the French government of the time to modify the French Constitution and “unfreeze” restrictions on the list of eligible voters at local provincial elections.

    The Indigenous pro-independence movement says these changes would effectively “dilute” the Kanak Indigenous vote and bring it closer to a minority.

    Back in New Caledonia, the prospect of Téin’s return has sparked reactions.

    Outrage on the pro-France side
    On the pro-France side, most parties who oppose independence and support the notion that New Caledonia should remain part of France have reacted indignantly to the prospect of Téin’s return.

    The uproar included reactions from outspoken leaders Nicolas Metzdorf and Sonia Backès, who insist that Téin’s return to New Caledonia could cause more unrest.

    Le Rassemblement-LR leader Virginie Ruffenach also reacted saying she wondered whether “the judges realise the gravity of their ruling”.

    “We’re opposed to this . . .  it’s like bringing back a pyromaniac to New Caledonia’s field of ashes while we’re trying to rebuild,” she told local media.

    Meanwhile, a “non-political” petition has been published online to express “firm opposition” to Téin’s return to New Caledonia “in the current circumstances” because of the “risks involved” in terms of civil peace in a “fragile” social and economic context after the May 2024 riots.

    Since 30 September 2025, the online petition has collected more than 10,000 signatures from people who describe themselves as a “Citizens Collective Against the Return of Christian Téin”.

    “Immense relief”: FLNKS
    Reacting on Friday on social networks, the FLNKS hailed the appeal ruling, saying this was “an immense relief for their families, loved ones and the whole pro-independence movement”.

    “The struggle doesn’t stop, it goes on, even stronger”, the FLNKS said, referring to the current parliamentary battle in Paris to implement the “Bougival” agreement signed in July 2025, which FLNKS rejects.

    Within the pro-independence movement, a rift within FLNKS has become increasingly apparent during recent negotiations on New Caledonia’s political future, held in Bougival, west of Paris, which led to the signature, on 12 July 2025, of a text that posed a roadmap for the French territory’s future status.

    It mentions the creation of a “State of New Caledonia”, a short-term transfer of powers from Paris, including in foreign affairs matters and the dual French-New Caledonian nationality.

    But while UPM and PALIKA delegates signed the text with all the other political tendencies, the UC-dominated FLNKS said a few days after the signing that the Bougival deal was rejected “in block” because it did not meet the party’s expectations in terms of full sovereignty.

    Their negotiators’ signatures were then deemed as invalid because, the party said, they did not have the mandate to sign.

    In a letter to French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, and copied to French President Emmanuel Macron and Speakers of both Houses of Parliament, in early October 2025, the FLNKS reiterated that they had “formally withdrawn” their signatures from the Bougival deal and that therefore these signatures should not be “used abusively”.

    Bougival deal continues
    However, despite a spate of instability that saw a succession of two French governments formed over the past two weeks, the implementation of the Bougival deal continues.

    In the latest cabinet meeting this week, the French Minister for Overseas, Manuel Valls, was replaced by Naïma Moutchou.

    France’s newly-appointed Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou – PHOTO Assemblée Nationale
    France’s newly-appointed Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou . . . there “to listen” and “to act”. Image: Assemblée Nationale

    Last Wednesday, the French Senate endorsed the postponement of New Caledonia’s provincial elections to June 2026.

    The same piece of legislation will be tabled before the Lower house, the French National Assembly, on October 22.

    In a media conference on Wednesday, Union Calédonienne (UC), the main component of FLNKS, warned against the risks associated with yet another “passage en force”.

    “This is a message of alert, an appeal to good sense, not a threat”, UC secretary-general Dominique Fochi added.

    “If this passage en force happens, we really don’t know what is going to happen,” Fochi said.

    “The Bougival agreement allows a path to reconciliation. It must be transcribed into the Constitution,” Lecornu told the National Assembly.

    Also speaking in Parliament for the first time since she was appointed Minister for Overseas, Naïma Moutchou assured that in her new capacity, she would be there “to listen” and “to act”.

    This, she said, included trying to re-engage FLNKS into fresh talks, with the possibility of bringing some amendments to the much-contested Bougival text.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    New Zealand’s major Palestine advocacy and protest group Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has condemned Defence Minister Judith Collins for “dog-whistling to her small choir” over Israel’s genocidal war on the besieged Gaza enclave.

    Claiming that Collins’ open letter attacking teachers at the weekend was an attempt to “drown out Palestine” in discussions with the government, PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said that it demonstrated more about her own prejudices than teacher priorities.

    Teachers, who had devoted their lives to educating children in Aotearoa, would be “appalled at the wholesale slaughter” of Palestinian school children in Gaza, he said in a statement today.

    Israel has killed at least 97 Palestinians and wounded 230 since the start of the ceasefire, and violated the truce agreement 80 times, according to the Gaza Government Media Office.

    “Teachers who are committed to the education and development of the next generation of our country would feel a special affinity with the children of another nation, who are being killed by Israeli bombing in their tens of thousands, seeing all their schools destroyed, and who will suffer the consequences of two years of malnutrition for the rest of their lives,” Nazzal said.

    He added that just two months ago, Collins had featured on television standing next to a damaged residential building in Kiev while condemning Russia for attacks which had killed Ukrainian children.

    “But not a critical word of Israel from her, or her cabinet colleagues, despite Israel just now resuming its mass bombing in Gaza,” Nazzal said.

    Children ‘deserve protection’
    “Ukrainian, Palestinian and New Zealand school children all deserve protection and we should expect our government to speak up loudly in their defence, without having to have a teachers’ union raise government inaction on Gaza with them.

    “But even after 24 months of genocide, Collins won’t find the words to express New Zealand’s horror at the indiscriminate killing of school children in Gaza.

    Advocate Maher Nazzal at today's New Zealand rally for Gaza in Auckland
    PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal . . . “not a critical word of Israel from her . . . despite Israel just now resuming its mass bombing in Gaza.” Image: Asia Pacific Report

    “But she’s in her element dog-whistling to her small choir in the pro-Israel lobby.

    “Collins has already been referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, for complicity in Israel’s genocide by facilitating the supply of military technology for Israeli use.

    “It’s more than time for Luxon to pull back his Israeli fanatic colleagues and uphold an ethical rule-based policy, and not default to blind prejudices.”

    A critique of the Collins open letter published in The Standard
    A critique of the Collins open letter published in The Standard . . . “she makes a number of disturbing claims, as valued workers (doctors, mental health nurses, scientists, midwives, teachers, principals, social workers, oncologists, surgeons, dentists etc) ramp up to one of the biggest strikes in history”. Image: The Standard

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Since I first opened my eyes to this world as a third-generation refugee, I was taught that the notorious Balfour Declaration had brought upon us this long, unrelenting history of suffering. Issued in 1917, the statement declared the British government’s support for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. It blatantly denied our existence in our own homeland, instead granting the Jewish…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Romana Rubeo

    Hundreds of Palestinians released from Israeli prisons in recent days have described scenes of systematic torture, starvation, and humiliation.

    Their accounts, gathered by The Guardian, TRT, Al-Mayadeen, Quds News Network, and Palestine Online, among others, offer a rare glimpse into what human rights organisations call a “policy of abuse” targeting Palestinian detainees.

    According to the reports, many of the freed prisoners returned to Gaza emaciated, injured, and traumatised, some learning only after their release that their families had been killed during Israel’s war on the besieged Strip.

    In testimony published by The Guardian, 33-year-old Naseem al-Radee recalled the moment Israeli prison guards “gave him a farewell gift” before his release.

    “They bound his hands, placed him on the ground and beat him without mercy,” the report said, describing how Radee’s first sight of Gaza after nearly two years was “blurry,” the result of a boot to the eye.

    Radee, a government employee from Beit Lahia, was kidnapped by Israeli soldiers at a displacement shelter in Gaza in December 2023. He spent 22 months in detention, including 100 days in an underground cell, before being released alongside 1700 other Palestinians this week under the ceasefire agreement.

    “They used teargas and rubber bullets to intimidate us, in addition to constant verbal abuse and insults,” The Guardian cited Radee as saying regarding his time in Nafha prison in the Naqab desert.

    “They had a strict system of repression; the electronic gate of the section would open when the soldiers entered, and they would come in with their dogs, shouting ‘on your stomach, on your stomach,’ and start beating us mercilessly”, the testimony continued.

    According to the report, cramped and unsanitary cells, fungal infections, starvation, and routine beatings defined his captivity. Upon release, Radee tried to call his wife, only to learn that she and all but one of his children had been killed during his detention.

    “I was very happy to be released because the date coincided with my youngest daughter Saba’s third birthday,” he said.

    “I tried to find some joy in being released on this day, but sadly, Saba went with my family, and my joy went with her.”

    Sound torture
    Also speaking to The Guardian, 22-year-old university student Mohammed al-Asaliya described contracting scabies in prison and being denied treatment.

    “There was no medical care,” he said. “We tried to treat ourselves by using floor disinfectant on our wounds, but it only made them worse. The mattresses were filthy, the environment unhealthy, our immunity weak, and the food contaminated.”

    He recalled an area “they called ‘the disco,’ where they played loud music nonstop for two days straight.”

    The sound torture, he said, was combined with physical abuse: “They also hung us on walls, sprayed us with cold air and water, and sometimes threw chilli powder on detainees.”

    By the time of his release, Asaliya’s weight had dropped from 75 kg to 42 kg.

    ‘We died a thousand times a day’
    In testimony recorded by Palestine Online, journalist and former detainee Shadi Abu Sido described what he called “unimaginable torture”.

    “They used to say: ‘Take, eat.’ But I didn’t want anything for myself. About 1800 of us were released, and thousands are still inside,” Abu Sido recounted.

    “If you die once a day, we have died a thousand times a day, each day. We didn’t know the day, the hour, or even the date.

    “We forgot what sleep feels like, how food tastes. In the middle of the night, they would splash water on us, in our cells.”

    In another video posted by Palestine Online, Abu Sido added:

    “They torture and abuse us in every possible way, physically and psychologically. We don’t sleep; they threaten us about our children. ‘We killed your children, we killed your children. There is no Gaza’.”

    “I entered Gaza and I found a scene from the Day of Judgment,” he said.

    ‘I made this for my daughter’
    In a video published by Al-Mayadeen, another recently freed detainee collapsed in tears as he learned that his entire family had been killed. Holding a handmade toy he crafted in prison, he said:

    “My children are dead. I made this for my daughter. Her birthday was on October 18; my daughter was two years old. Bara is eight years old.

    “My beloved ones have been killed.”

    ‘They amputated my leg’
    Speaking to TRT World, Palestinian prisoner Jibril al-Safadi described the brutality that cost him his leg:

    “My leg was amputated in prison due to severe torture. The situation was tough: relentless suffering. There were savage beatings and horrible torture,” he said. “They transferred me to Sde Teiman.

    “There was no medical care. They amputated my right leg.

    We faced everything you can expect, even the dogs’ raping, torturing of detainees. Killing men is usual, like it’s an ordinary thing.”

    A system of abuse
    The Guardian report cited Palestinian medical officials in Gaza who confirmed that many detainees arrived “in poor physical health,” bearing “bruises, fractures, wounds, and marks from restraints that had bound their hands tightly.”

    Eyad Qaddih, the director of public relations at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza, reportedly said many of the released prisoners had to be transferred to the emergency room.

    “The signs of beating and torture were clearly visible,” he told The Guardian.

    The report cited the Israeli NGO Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), as saying that about 2800 Palestinians from Gaza remain in Israeli prisons without charge.

    Most were detained under emergency laws amended after October 7, 2023, allowing for indefinite administrative detention of anyone deemed an “unlawful combatant”.

    PCATI’s executive director, Tal Steiner, said that “the amount and scale of torture and abuse in Israeli prisons and military camps has skyrocketed since October 7.”

    She described the escalation as “part of a policy led by Israeli decision-makers such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and others.”

    Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far-right National Security Minister, has repeatedly bragged about providing Palestinian prisoners with “the minimum of the minimum” food and supplies.

    The Guardian reports: In total, 88 Palestinians were released from Israeli prisons and sent to the occupied West Bank on Monday – the other nearly 2000, a number that includes about 1700 Palestinians seized from Gaza during the war and held without charge, were sent back to Gaza, where a minority would travel on to neighbouring countries.

    Before Monday’s release, 11,056 Palestinians were held in Israeli prisons, according to statistics from the Israeli NGO HaMoked in October 2025. At least 3500 of those were held in administrative detention without trial. An Israeli military database has indicated that only a quarter of those detained in Gaza were classified as fighters.

    Republished with permission from The Palestine Chronicle

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira, RNZ Māori news journalist

    Ngāti Toa Rangatira have gathered near the peak of their sacred maunga, Whitireia, to celebrate its historic return to iwi ownership.

    Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira has purchased 53 ha of land at Whitireia — just north of Tītahi Bay — from Radio New Zealand (RNZ) for just under $5 million — adjoining an earlier settlement acquisition on the peninsula.

    Ngāti Toa have waited 177 years to get the whenua back. In 1848, the iwi gifted around 202 ha to the Anglican Church in exchange for the promise of a school to be built for Ngāti Toa tamariki.

    The school was never built, but the land remained in church ownership.

    That prompted Wiremu Te Kakakura Parata, a Ngāti Toa rangatira and MP, to take court action against the Bishop of Wellington who argued the whenua “ought to be given back to the donors” because the promise of a school was never fulfilled.

    In his 1877 judgement, Chief Justice James Prendergast ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi was a “simple nullity” signed by “primitive barbarians”. It denied Ngāti Toa ownership of their maunga for decades and set a damaging precedent for other Māori seeking the return of their land.

    RNZ sells land back to Ngāti Toa
    Kuia Karanga Wineera . . .  it’s “wonderful” to see the maunga finally returned. Image: RNZ/Mark Papalii

    Ngāti Toa kuia Karanga Wineera, 96, remembers listening to her elders discuss how her people had fought to reclaim Whitireia over the decades.

    She told RNZ seeing the maunga finally returned was “wonderful”.

    ‘Wonderful gift’
    “It’s a most wonderful, wonderful gift to Ngati Toa to have Whitireia come home after so many years of fighting for Whitireia and not getting anywhere, but today, oh, it’s wonderful,” she said.

    In the early 1900s, Whitireia was vested in the Porirua College Trust Board, allowing the whenua to be sold. In 1935, the New Zealand Broadcasting Service purchased 40 ha for what would become Radio 2YA, now RNZ.

    RNZ sells land back to Ngāti Toa
    The maunga was returned to the iwi in a formal ceremony. Image: RNZ/Mark Papalii

    Iwi members, rūnanga chiefs and representatives from police, the Anglican Church and RNZ attended a formal ceremony to commemorate the sale.

    In his speech, Ngāti Toa chair Callum Katene said the deal showed what a “Te Tiriti-centric” New Zealand could look like.

    “The birds still sing here at dawn, the same winds sweep the hills and carry the scent of the sea. Beneath us, the earth remembers every footprint, every prayer — Whitireia holds these memories… in this morning, as the first light spills across the harbour, we are reminded that history is not carved in stone, it is living breath,” he said.

    “As we look ahead, Whitireia can shine as a beacon of hope, a reminder that reconciliation is not about reclaiming the past so much, but about realising the future envisaged in 1848 — education, faith, unity, and enduring partnership.”

    The rūnanga say all existing leases, easements, and public access agreements have been transferred to them as part of the acquisition and day-to-day operations for tenants, recreational users, and visitors will not change.

    Lease back for AM
    They will lease back 12 ha to RNZ to continue AM transmission operations.

    Ngāti Toa Rangatira had a first right of refusal on the property under the Ngāti Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014 and Public Works Act.

    Speaking to media after the ceremony, Katene said he could not speak highly enough of how “accommodating” RNZ had been during the negotiation process, but admitted there were a few “hiccups”.

    “There were a few hiccups when it came to the technical details of the exchanges, there always are in these sorts of things.

    “The important distinction for us is this isn’t a financial transaction, it’s not economic for us — it’s returning the land,” he said.

    RNZ sells land back to Ngāti Toa
    RNZ chair Jim Mather . . . the RNZ board has responsibilities as governors of assets held in the interest of the public of Aoteaora. Image: RNZ/Mark Papalii

    Asked why the land could not be gifted back free of charge, RNZ chair Jim Mather said the possibility of gifting the land back was raised during negotiations.

    “The return of the land recognised that Ngāti Toa Rangatira had been compensated previously as part of the settlement and were now in a position to actually effect that transaction,” he said.

    “If it was up to us as a board we would have handed it over, but we have responsibilities as governors of assets held in the interest of the public of Aotearoa.”

    RNZ sells land back to Ngāti Toa
    Rūnanga chief executive Helmut Modlik Helmut Modlik . . .  still a “conversation” that should be revisited. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii

    Breach of the Treaty
    Rūnanga chief executive Helmut Modlik said while the negotiations were “principled”, there was still a “conversation” worth “revisiting” at some time.

    “As everybody has admitted, the loss of this land was as a result of a breach of the Treaty, and as everybody knows, Treaty settlement processes are a take it or leave it exercise, and we weren’t able to have this whenua returned at that point,” he said.

    “To me, that’s a matter of principle that’s worth a future conversation.”

    RNZ sells land back to Ngāti Toa
    Ngā uri o Wi Parata spokesperson Kahu Ropata . . . RNZ returning the whenua is a “great step” towards reconciliation. Image: RNZ/Mark Papalii

    Ngā uri o Wi Parata spokesperson Kahu Ropata said because Wiremu Te Kakakura Parata had had the audacity to take the case up he was discriminated against by the “Pākehā propaganda machine”.

    The whānau have had to grow up with that hara (offence) against their tūpuna, he said.

    “We grew up with the kōrero that it cost him his health and his wealth fighting this case.

    “And so for many years, we grew up in that, I suppose, for some of my uncles and aunties, in that trauma of a loss of mana, I suppose you could say, and for a rangatira of his ilk, it would have been quite damaging knowing that he was to go to the grave and the case actually not settled in his name.”

    Ropata said RNZ returning the whenua was a “great step” towards reconciliation.

    “We’re still in discussions with the Anglican Church in terms of the whānau and the iwi about reconciliation and moving forward.

    “Fifty-three-odd hectares, there’s still another . . .  450-odd acres that we still need to reconcile [and we’re] looking at discussions around how we can accomplish that.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Elijah J Magnier

    Benjamin Netanyahu insisted, until just hours before Donald Trump’s arrival, that the war in Gaza would not stop. Then, standing in the Knesset before Israel’s hardline ministers, Trump announced that it had — and whisked a delegation of world leaders to Egypt to formalise the ceasefire before a global audience.

    The message was unmistakable: Israel’s prime minister could no longer block peace without suffering public humiliation. Facing ministers who, only a day earlier, had vowed to press on with the war, Trump imposed an abrupt reversal — one that only he could engineer.

    He came to Jerusalem not merely to speak, but to enforce the deal already reached and leave Netanyahu no choice but to comply or lose face.

    He then carried that spectacle to Sharm el-Sheikh, gathering heads of state and government from the Middle East, Asia, and Europe to witness and sign the cessation of war.

    The first phase — halting hostilities and exchanging prisoners — represented the sole ground on which both sides could agree. But the phases that follow are riddled with complications: a path of shifting sands, vague clauses, and undefined timelines, where the devil hides in every single point.

    Trump’s declaration, messages and summit
    Trump’s arrival in Israel was theatrical. He entered the Knesset, addressed lawmakers and ministers, praised Netanyahu’s wartime leadership, and then made a sweeping proclamation: the war was over.

    That was a bold reversal from the very ministers he faced only hours earlier, who had publicly affirmed their intention to continue the conflict.

    The symbolism mattered more than the logic. By announcing the end of the war in Israel’s Parliament, Trump cornered Netanyahu in front of his hardline allies and the world.

    If the Israeli leader dared to resume hostilities, he would be defying not only his own coalition but a global consensus. Trump also asked President Isaac Herzog — then present — to pardon Netanyahu from his ongoing corruption charges, invoking the president’s constitutional prerogative.

    The gesture fused diplomacy, domestic politics, and Israeli justice in a single, calculated act of theatre.

    From Israel, Trump flew to Egypt, where on 13 October 2025 many of the world’s leaders convened at the Sharm el-Sheikh Peace Summit to formalise the Gaza ceasefire.

    The event was co-chaired by Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. The summit hosted delegations from approximately 27 countries, representing leaders from the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and international organisations.

    The guest list included Emmanuel Macron, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, Pedro Sánchez, Mahmoud Abbas, António Guterres, António Costa, and the Arab League’s Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

    Notably absent were formal representatives of Hamas and Israel itself. Netanyahu had accepted the invitation initially but later declined, citing a conflict with a Jewish holiday and diplomatic pressure from certain participants.

    Many leaders refused to meet with him and declined the invitation for that very reason.

    At the summit, Trump, Sisi, the Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and Erdoğan signed what was called the Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity — a symbolic document laying out commitments to maintain the ceasefire, support reconstruction, and discourage future conflict.

    By bringing so many leaders together in one place, Trump embedded the ceasefire into a global diplomatic architecture, making it harder for Netanyahu and his extremist ministers to reverse course without triggering international backlash.

    Israel’s unfulfilled objectives
    Despite the scale of destruction, Israel failed to achieve any of its declared military or political objectives in Gaza. The circumstances of this devastating war were unprecedented — and yet, even with such intensity, Israel failed to ethnically cleanse Gaza or alter its demographic reality.

    It did not eliminate Hamas or its leadership; it could not rescue its captives through force; it failed to dismantle the movement’s military infrastructure or install a new governing authority in the enclave.

    After months of bombardment, Israel still controlled only half of Gaza and faced renewed armed resistance in areas it claimed to have “cleared”. The campaign, designed to restore deterrence, instead exposed Israel’s limitations: overwhelming firepower, backed fully by the United States, but diminishing strategic capacity.

    Internationally, the assault deepened Israel’s isolation, eroded its moral legitimacy, and unified global opinion against it. What Netanyahu had promised as a decisive victory ended in a political and military stalemate — the very failure that forced Trump’s intervention.

    Many Arab leaders refused to meet with Netanyahu, and Trump himself failed to bring him to Sharm el-Sheikh.

    Why Trump intervened
    Netanyahu had long survived politically by delaying agreements, shifting blame, and keeping his options open. But this time, the war had devastated Gaza to such an extent that global public opinion — and even international institutions, including the United Nations — began to describe Israel’s actions as genocide.

    Israel’s reputation, and Netanyahu’s with it, lay in ruins.

    Trump’s intervention offered a lifeline. By casting himself as the architect of peace, he provided Netanyahu with an escape route — a political rescue disguised as diplomacy.

    Netanyahu’s coalition, under pressure from its far-right partners, had no credible argument left against a deal once it was validated by world leaders. Trump’s carefully staged ceasefire left Netanyahu with only two choices: resist and face international isolation and sanctions, or comply and survive politically.

    Trump also reminded Netanyahu, both publicly and privately, that Israel’s campaign had depended entirely on American weapons.

    “He called for different kinds of weapons all the time,” Trump said — a remark that exposed the scale of US complicity. The message was unmistakable: if Israel defied the ceasefire, the stream of arms that had sustained its war could be cut off.

    It was an implicit acknowledgment from Trump himself of Washington’s partnership in the devastation of Gaza — a conflict that killed and wounded more than 10 percent of the enclave’s population.

    The bombs that rained down on civilians had been supplied on a fast track, lavishly and without restraint, enabling the destruction that Trump now sought to end.

    The fragile structure of the deal
    The agreement Trump brokered was only the first stage. It prioritised the release of hostages and prisoners — a symbolic and political victory — but left withdrawal, reconstruction, governance, and disarmament undefined.

    Netanyahu accepted phase one, but the path ahead is laced with traps. He intends to resume operations against Hamas, undermine clauses he dislikes, and prevent the formation of a Palestinian authority capable of governing Gaza.

    Resistance groups are unlikely to lay down all arms; they may surrender heavy weapons like missiles while keeping small arms, ensuring that Israel remains vulnerable to renewed attacks.

    The result is de facto partition: Palestinians control parts of Gaza while Israel holds the rest. Each side asserts authority over its zone, and both will use pressure to influence the other.

    Netanyahu’s political calculus
    Domestically, Netanyahu faces a precarious balancing act. If President Herzog pardons him, it removes the legal threat but not the political cost of the failures of October 7.

    Critics will question why Israel did not negotiate a prisoner exchange earlier, when more hostages might have survived.

    Should his popularity fall, Netanyahu may dissolve his government and call snap elections — likely before October 2026 — to regain legitimacy. The far-right ministers in his coalition, such as Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, are unlikely to respect the ceasefire.

    Nevertheless, they, along with Netanyahu who shares the same objective, have no intention of conceding Palestinian statehood or allowing lasting peace. Trump’s deal restricts Netanyahu’s room for manoeuvre, but whether he abides by it or quietly undermines it remains to be seen.

    Trump positioned himself as the guarantor of the ceasefire. For the remaining three years of his mandate, Netanyahu will be constrained: he cannot break the agreement without triggering diplomatic consequences.

    But ending the Gaza campaign is not the same as resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which remains untouched. Trump’s envoys, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, remain in Israel to monitor Netanyahu and ensure he does not quietly restart hostilities.

    Their presence keeps pressure alive, but it cannot be permanent. Netanyahu, long known for exploiting ambiguities in past agreements, will test every margin.

    Public trust in him is weak — among Israelis, world leaders, and his own ministers. If he obstructs the deal, he risks splitting from Washington’s agenda and losing what remains of Israel’s legitimacy.

    Trump’s broader aim is to rehabilitate Israel’s global image. He believes halting the war helps Israel recover its reputation while giving Netanyahu a way to maintain power. But his gamble is that Netanyahu will accept limits; if he goes rogue, Trump may face the dilemma of confronting the ally he once defended.

    The absent West Bank and the end of the two-state illusion
    The West Bank was conspicuously absent from Trump’s discourse. The United States no longer recognises the two-state solution — the very framework established under the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, which Washington itself once sponsored to guarantee Palestinians the right to self-determination and statehood.

    By omitting any reference to it, Trump effectively buried what little remained of that diplomatic vision.

    This omission ensures that the conflict in Palestine will not end; it will only be renewed, sooner or later, and wherever resistance resurfaces.

    In the two years of war, Israel has constructed 22 new settlements on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank, further erasing the territorial basis for a viable Palestinian state and dismantling the last vestiges of Oslo.

    What now remains is not peace but a state of permanent instability — a no-peace condition that guarantees the cycle of violence will continue.

    The unresolved core
    Trump’s ceasefire is a political theatre of control. It publicly enshrined a truce, placed Netanyahu under scrutiny, and allowed Trump to claim a diplomatic victory. But it did not resolve the Palestinian question.

    The ceasefire applies to Gaza, not to the broader occupation, the blockade, or the issue of self-determination. The two sides now operate within a precarious arrangement: Israel controls roughly half of Gaza, the Palestinian resistance remains armed in the other half, and both test the boundaries daily.

    Trump cannot hold his envoys indefinitely, and Netanyahu cannot be trusted to restrain himself. The US–Israeli alliance remains solid, but Trump’s personal intervention underscored a fundamental shift: unconditional support has limits when the costs to America’s reputation become too high.

    Trump’s strategy was to save Netanyahu and Israel from total isolation — to stop a war that had already killed more than 76,000 people, 82 percent of them civilians, including more than 20,000 children. He halted the destruction at the price of ambiguity: a ceasefire without a settlement, peace without reconciliation.

    The world leaders who gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh signed the end of a war, not the beginning of a solution.

    Elijah J Magnier is a veteran war zone correspondent and political analyst with over 35 years of experience covering the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). He specialises in real-time reporting of politics, strategic and military planning, terrorism and counter-terrorism; his strong analytical skills complement his reporting. His in-depth experience, extensive contacts and thorough political knowledge of complex political situations in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria provide his writings with insights balancing the routine misreporting and propaganda in the Western press. He also comments on Al Jazeera.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Indonesian military forces have again bombed Kiwirok, the site of a massacre in 2021 that killed more than 300 West Papuan civilians, amid worsening violence, alleges a Papuan advocacy group.

    “While President Prabowo talks about promoting peace in the Middle East, his military is trying to wipe out West Papua,” said United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP) leader Benny Wenda.

    “Evidence gathered by villagers in the Star Mountains shows the Indonesian military using Brazilian fighter jets to target houses, gardens, and cemeteries.”

    He said in a statement the village had been destroyed and more civilians had become displaced in their own land, adding to more than 100,000 internal refugees.

    The ULMWP website showed images from the attack.

    Wenda said the bombing showed again “how the whole world is complicit in the genocide of my people”.

    In 2021, Indonesia had used bombs and drones made in Serbia, China and France to kill civilians as revealed in the 2023 documentary Hostage Land: Why Papuan Guerrilla Fighters Keep Taking Hostages. 

    “Now, it is Brazilian jets that children in Kiwirok see before their homes are destroyed,” Wenda said.

    West Papua was being facing several “colonial tactics to crush our spirit and destroy our resistance”.

    “What is happening in Kiwirok is happening in different ways across West Papua,” Wenda said. He cited:

    • Riots and demos happening in Jayapura after a peaceful demonstration calling for the release Papuan political prisoners was violently crushed;
    • Indonesia occupying churches in Intan Jaya in violation of international law as they deployed soldiers for a new military base;
    • Indonesian military killing civilian Sadrak Yahome after anti-racism protests in Yalimo, which happenedfollowing Indonesian settlers racially abusing a Papuan student;
    • Militarisation happening across the Highlands, with more than 50 villages having being occupied by the TNI [Indonesian military] since August;
    • West Papuans being called “monkeys” by Indonesian settlers in Timika; and
    • A 52-year-old man being killed by police during a protest against the transfer of political prisoners in Manokwari.


    The documentary Hostage Land.                   Video: Paradise Broadcasting

    “It isn’t a coincidence that this escalation is happening while Indonesia is increasing environmental destruction in West Papua, trying to steal our resources and rip apart our forest for profit and food security,” Wenda said.

    “In Raja Ampat, Merauke, Intan Jaya, and Kiwirok, new plantations and mines are killing our people and land.”

    Wenda appealed to Pacific leaders to stand for West Papua as “the rest of the world stands for Palestine”.

    “The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) and Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) must respond to this escalation — Indonesia is spilling Pacific and Melanesian blood in West Papua.

    “They must not bow to Indonesian chequebook diplomacy.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Pacific leaders believe climate experts are missing an opportunity to incorporate indigenous knowledge into adaptation measures.

    The call has been made as hundreds of scientists, global leaders, and climate adaptation experts around the globe gather at the Adaptation Futures Conference in Christchurch.

    At the conference’s opening session, Tuvalu’s Environment Minister Maina Talia explained how sea level rise was damaging agricultural land and fresh groundwater is becoming saline.

    “The figures are alarming, this is not just for Tuvalu and this is not a Tuvaluan problem, it’s not even a small island developing states problem, it’s a global economic bomb,” he said.

    Incorporating indigenous knowledge into climate adaptation has been a major focus of the event.

    Talia told RNZ Pacific he feels adaptation is generally presented in a Western lens.

    “We need to decolonise our mind, decolonise our soul, in order to integrate community-based adaptation measures.”

    Flagship adaptation projects
    The highest elevation in Tuvalu is only four and a half metres. A 2023 report from NASA found much of Tuvalu’s land would be below the average high tide by 2050.

    To combat rising seas the government has started reclaiming land, which is one of the island nation’s flagship adaptation projects.

    Talia said a “decolonisation approach” gave communities ownership of the work being done.

    “It’s all informed by our elders, informed by our youth, informed by our women in society, we cannot come with the idea that this is how your adaptation measures should look like.”

    Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) director-general Sefanaia Nawadra, on a similar line, said the “biggest difference” of incorporating indigenous-led solutions was giving people a sense of ownership.

    “It’s management by compliance rather than management by regulation, where you’re using a stick to say, ‘ok, if you don’t do this, you will be penalised’.”

    ‘Like a cheat code’
    Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change president Cynthia Houniuhi said those on the front line of the adverse effects of climate change are often indigenous people, which is almost always the case in the Pacific.

    “Who knows the place better than the ones that have lived there, so imagine that experience informs the solution, that’s the best way, it’s kind of like a cheat code.”

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) head of adaptation Youssef Nassef said it is not always clear how national adaptation plans included input from indigenous people.

    He also said climate knowledge is not always accessible to those who need it most.

    “We create knowledge, we put them in peer-reviewed publications but are the people who are actually needing it on the frontlines of climate change impacts really receiving that knowledge.”

    Pacific climate activists are coming off a high after a top UN court found failing to protect people from the adverse effects of climate change could violate international law.

    ICJ advisory opinion
    Houniuhi was one of the students who got the advisory opinion in July from the International Court of Justice.

    But she told those attending the conference it meant nothing if not acted upon.

    “We must continue this same energy, momentum and drive into the implementation of the ruling. As one of our mentors rightly said, ‘the law has now caught up to the science, what we now need is for policy to catch up to the law’.”

    Houniuhi said the advisory opinion provided “more weight to influence demands”. She expected the advisory opinion to be used as a negotiating tool by Pacific leaders at COP30 in Brazil next month.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Belén Fernández

    United States President Donald Trump had the time of his life on Monday at the Israeli Knesset, where he was welcomed as “the president of peace”. His captive audience showered him with applause, laughs and too many standing ovations to count.

    Two protesting lawmakers undertook a brief outburst in support of “Palestinian sovereignty” but were swiftly bundled out, earning the president more laughs and applause for his remark: “That was very efficient.”

    It was a typical stream-of-consciousness Trump speech although he mercifully refrained from rambling about escalators and teleprompters this time.

    I had initially hoped the fact that the US head of state was promptly due at a Gaza summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, might have kept the tangents to a minimum. Such hopes were dashed, but Trump did manage to devote a good bit of time to speculating about whether his summit counterparts might have already departed Egypt by the time he arrived.

    Trump’s Knesset appearance was occasioned by the ostensible end — for the moment — to the US-backed Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip, which has over the past two years officially killed more than 67,000 Palestinians. Some scholars have suggested that the real death toll may be in the vicinity of 680,000.

    Obviously, the Palestinian genocide victims were of scant concern at the Knesset spectacle, which was essentially an exercise of mutual flattery between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a celebration of Israel’s excellence in mass slaughter.

    To that end, Trump informed Israel that “you’ve won” and congratulated Netanyahu on a “great job”.

    ‘Best weapons’
    As if that weren’t an obscene enough tribute to genocide, enforced starvation and terror in Gaza, Trump boasted that “we make the best weapons in the world, and we’ve given a lot to Israel, … and you used them well.”

    There were also various references to what he has previously called on social media the “3,000 YEAR CATASTROPHE”, which he fancies himself as having now resolved. This on top of the “seven wars” he claims to have ended in seven months, another figure that seems to have materialised out of thin air.

    But, hey, when you’re a “great president”, you don’t have to explain yourself.

    In addition to self-adulation, Trump had plenty of praise for other members of his entourage, including US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — who merited a lengthy digression on the subject of Russian President Vladimir Putin — and Trump’s “genius” son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was also in attendance despite having no official role in the current administration.

    During Trump’s first term as president, Kushner served as a senior White House adviser and a key player in the Abraham Accords, the normalisation deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, which essentially sidelined the Palestinian issue in the Arab political arena.

    Trump’s Knesset performance included numerous sales pitches for the Abraham Accords, which he noted he preferred to pronounce “Avraham” because it was “so much sort of nicer”. Emphasising how good the normalisation deals have been for business, Trump declared that the four existing signatories have already “made a lot of money being members”.

    To be sure, any expansion of the Abraham Accords in the present context would function to legitimise genocide and accelerate Palestinian dispossession. As it stands, the surviving inhabitants of Gaza have been condemned to a colonial overlordship, euphemised as a “Board of Peace” — which Trump has hailed as a “beautiful name” and which will be presided over by the US President himself.

    ‘Path of terror’
    This, apparently, is what the Palestinians need to “turn from the path of terror and violence”, as Trump put it — and never mind that the Palestinians aren’t the ones who have been waging a genocide for the past two years.

    Preceding Trump at the podium was Netanyahu, adding another level of psychological torture for anyone who was forced to watch the two leaders back to back. Thanking the US president for his “pivotal leadership” in supposedly ending a war that, mind you, Netanyahu didn’t even want to end, the Israeli prime minister pronounced him the “greatest friend that the State of Israel has ever had in the White House”.

    Netanyahu furthermore put up Trump as the first non-Israeli nominee for the Israel Prize and assured him he’d get his Nobel, too, soon enough.

    I didn’t time Trump’s own speech although I’d calculate that it was several aneurysms long. At one point in the middle of his discussion of some topic entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, I wondered if my anguished cries at having to listen to him speak might elicit the concern of my neighbours.

    When Trump at long last decided to wrap things up, his final lines included the proclamation: “I love Israel. I’m with you all the way.”

    And while US affection for a genocidal state should come as no surprise to anyone, it’s also a good indication that “peace” is not really what’s happening at all.

    Belén Fernández is the author of The Darién Gap: A Reporter’s Journey through the Deadly Crossroads of the Americas (Rutgers UP, 2025), Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Detention Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World (OR Books, 2019), and other books and has written widely for global news media. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Belén Fernández

    United States President Donald Trump had the time of his life on Monday at the Israeli Knesset, where he was welcomed as “the president of peace”. His captive audience showered him with applause, laughs and too many standing ovations to count.

    Two protesting lawmakers undertook a brief outburst in support of “Palestinian sovereignty” but were swiftly bundled out, earning the president more laughs and applause for his remark: “That was very efficient.”

    It was a typical stream-of-consciousness Trump speech although he mercifully refrained from rambling about escalators and teleprompters this time.

    I had initially hoped the fact that the US head of state was promptly due at a Gaza summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, might have kept the tangents to a minimum. Such hopes were dashed, but Trump did manage to devote a good bit of time to speculating about whether his summit counterparts might have already departed Egypt by the time he arrived.

    Trump’s Knesset appearance was occasioned by the ostensible end — for the moment — to the US-backed Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip, which has over the past two years officially killed more than 67,000 Palestinians. Some scholars have suggested that the real death toll may be in the vicinity of 680,000.

    Obviously, the Palestinian genocide victims were of scant concern at the Knesset spectacle, which was essentially an exercise of mutual flattery between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a celebration of Israel’s excellence in mass slaughter.

    To that end, Trump informed Israel that “you’ve won” and congratulated Netanyahu on a “great job”.

    ‘Best weapons’
    As if that weren’t an obscene enough tribute to genocide, enforced starvation and terror in Gaza, Trump boasted that “we make the best weapons in the world, and we’ve given a lot to Israel, … and you used them well.”

    There were also various references to what he has previously called on social media the “3,000 YEAR CATASTROPHE”, which he fancies himself as having now resolved. This on top of the “seven wars” he claims to have ended in seven months, another figure that seems to have materialised out of thin air.

    But, hey, when you’re a “great president”, you don’t have to explain yourself.

    In addition to self-adulation, Trump had plenty of praise for other members of his entourage, including US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — who merited a lengthy digression on the subject of Russian President Vladimir Putin — and Trump’s “genius” son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was also in attendance despite having no official role in the current administration.

    During Trump’s first term as president, Kushner served as a senior White House adviser and a key player in the Abraham Accords, the normalisation deals between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, which essentially sidelined the Palestinian issue in the Arab political arena.

    Trump’s Knesset performance included numerous sales pitches for the Abraham Accords, which he noted he preferred to pronounce “Avraham” because it was “so much sort of nicer”. Emphasising how good the normalisation deals have been for business, Trump declared that the four existing signatories have already “made a lot of money being members”.

    To be sure, any expansion of the Abraham Accords in the present context would function to legitimise genocide and accelerate Palestinian dispossession. As it stands, the surviving inhabitants of Gaza have been condemned to a colonial overlordship, euphemised as a “Board of Peace” — which Trump has hailed as a “beautiful name” and which will be presided over by the US President himself.

    ‘Path of terror’
    This, apparently, is what the Palestinians need to “turn from the path of terror and violence”, as Trump put it — and never mind that the Palestinians aren’t the ones who have been waging a genocide for the past two years.

    Preceding Trump at the podium was Netanyahu, adding another level of psychological torture for anyone who was forced to watch the two leaders back to back. Thanking the US president for his “pivotal leadership” in supposedly ending a war that, mind you, Netanyahu didn’t even want to end, the Israeli prime minister pronounced him the “greatest friend that the State of Israel has ever had in the White House”.

    Netanyahu furthermore put up Trump as the first non-Israeli nominee for the Israel Prize and assured him he’d get his Nobel, too, soon enough.

    I didn’t time Trump’s own speech although I’d calculate that it was several aneurysms long. At one point in the middle of his discussion of some topic entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, I wondered if my anguished cries at having to listen to him speak might elicit the concern of my neighbours.

    When Trump at long last decided to wrap things up, his final lines included the proclamation: “I love Israel. I’m with you all the way.”

    And while US affection for a genocidal state should come as no surprise to anyone, it’s also a good indication that “peace” is not really what’s happening at all.

    Belén Fernández is the author of The Darién Gap: A Reporter’s Journey through the Deadly Crossroads of the Americas (Rutgers UP, 2025), Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Detention Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World (OR Books, 2019), and other books and has written widely for global news media. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    As part of a never-ending rollercoaster of instability in French politics, the latest appointment of a Minister for Overseas has caused significant concern, including in New Caledonia.

    In the late hours of Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron approved the latest Cabinet lineup submitted to him by his Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu.

    A week earlier, Lecornu, who was appointed on September 9 to form a new government, made a first announcement for a Cabinet.

    But this only lasted 14 hours — Lecornu resigned on Monday, October 6, saying the conditions to stay as PM were “not met”.

    After yet another round of consultations under the instructions by Macron, Lecornu was finally re-appointed prime minister on Friday, 10 October 2025.

    The announcement of his new Cabinet, approved by Macron, came late on October 12.

    His new team includes former members of his previous cabinet, mixed with a number of personalities described as members of the civil society with no partisan affiliations.

    The new Minister for Overseas is a newcomer to the portfolio.

    Naïma Moutchou, 44, replaces Manuel Valls, who had worked indefatigably on New Caledonia issues since he was appointed in December 2024.

    Valls, a former Socialist Prime Minister, travelled half a dozen times to New Caledonia and managed to bring all rival local politicians (both pro-France and pro-independence) around the same table.

    The ensuing negotiations led to the signing of a Bougival agreement (signed on July 12, near Paris), initially signed by all local parties represented at New Caledonia’s Congress (Parliament).

    The text, which remains to be implemented, provides for the creation of a “State of New Caledonia” within France, as well as a dual French-New Caledonian nationality and the short-term transfer of such powers as foreign affairs from France to New Caledonia.

    However, one of the main components of the pro-independence movement, the FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) has since rejected the Bougival deal, saying it was not compatible with the party’s demands of full sovereignty and timetable.

    Since then, apart from the FLNKS, all parties (including several moderate pro-independence factions who split from FLNKS in August 2024) have maintained their pro-Bougival course.

    Manuel Valls, as Minister for Overseas, was regarded as the key negotiator, representing France, in the talks.

    Who is Naïma Moutchou?
    However, Valls is no longer holding this portfolio. He is replaced by Naïma Moutchou.

    A lawyer by trade, she is an MP at the French National Assembly and member of the Horizon party led by former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe.

    She is also a former deputy Speaker of the French National Assembly.

    Unlike Valls, as new Minister for Overseas she is no longer a Minister of State.

    She took part in a Parliamentary mission on New Caledonia’s future status in 2021-2022.

    Valls’s non-reappointment lamented
    In New Caledonia’s political spheres, the new appointment on Monday triggered several reactions, some critical.

    Virginie Ruffenach, leader of the pro-France Rassemblement-Les Républicains (LR, which is affiliated to the National French LR), expressed disappointment at Vall not being retained as Minister for Overseas.

    She said the new appointment of someone to replace Valls, the main actor of the Bougival agreement, did nothing to stabilise the implementation of the deal.

    The implementation is supposed to translate as early as this week with the need to get the French cabinet to endorse the deal and also to put an “organic law” up for debate at the French Senate for a possible postponement of New Caledonia’s local elections from no later than 30 November 2025 to mid-2026.

    Referring to those short-term deadlines, FLNKS president Christian Téin, who is still judicially compelled to remain in metropolitan France pending an appeal ruling on his May 2024 riots-related case, sent an open letter to French MPs, urging them not to endorse the postponement of the local elections.

    Téin said such postponement, although already endorsed in principle by local New Caledonian Congress, would be a “major political regression” and would “unilaterally put an end to the decolonisation process initiated by the (1998) Nouméa Accord”.

    The pro-independence leader insists New Caledonia’s crucial local elections should be held no later than 30 November 2025, as originally scheduled.

    He said any other move would amount to a “passage en force” (forceful passage).

    An earlier attempt, during the first quarter of 2024, was also described at the time as a “passage en force”.

    It aimed at changing the French Constitution to lift earlier restrictions to the list of eligible voters at local elections.

    Following marches and protests, the movement later degenerated and resulted in the worst riots that New Caledonia has seen in recent history, starting on 13 May 2024.

    The riots caused 14 deaths, more than 2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion) in material damage, a drop of 13.5 percent of the French Pacific territory’s GDP and thousands of unemployed.

    “With the current national cacophony. We don’t know what tomorrow will be . . .  but the crucial issue for New Caledonia is to postpone the date of (local) elections to implement the Bougival agreement. Otherwise we’ll have nothing and this will become a no man’s land”, Ruffenach said on Monday.

    “Even worse, there is the nation’s budget and this is crucial assistance for New Caledonia, something we absolutely need, in the situation we are in today.”

    Wallisian-based Eveil Oceanien’s Milakulo Tukumuli told local public broadcaster NC la Première one way to analyse the latest cabinet appointment could be that New Caledonia’s affairs could be moved back to the Prime Minister’s office.

    New Caledonia back to the PM’s desk?
    Under a long-unspoken rule installed by French Prime Minister Michel Rocard (after he fostered the 1988 historic Matignon Accord to bring an end to half a decade of quasi-civil war), New Caledonia’s affairs had been kept under the direct responsibility of the French PM’s office.

    This lasted for more than 30 years, until the special link was severed in 2020, when Lecornu became Minister for Overseas, a position he held for the next two years and became very familiar and knowledgeable on New Caledonia’s intricate issues.

    “Lecornu is now Prime Minister. Does this mean New Caledonia’s case will return to its traditional home, the PM’s office?”, Tukumuli asked.

    During an interview on French public service TV France 2 last week, Lecornu described New Caledonia as a “personal” issue for him because of his connections with the French Pacific territory when he was Minister for Overseas between 2020 and 2022.

    “Some 18,000 kilometres from here, we have an institutional situation that cannot wait”, he said at the time.

    A moderate pro-France politician, Philippe Gomès, for Calédonie Ensemble, on social networks, published an emotional public farewell letter to Valls, expressing his “sadness”.

    “With you, (the French) Overseas enjoyed a consideration never seen before in the French Republic: that of a matter of national priority in the hands of a Minister of State, a former Prime Minister”,” he said.

    Gomès hailed Valls’s tireless work in recent months to a point where “those who were criticising you yesterday were the same who ended up begging for you to be maintained at this position”.

    Valls reacts during handover ceremony
    “Your eviction from the French cabinet, at a vital moment in our country’s history, at a time when we need stability, potentially bears heavy consequences, especially since it now comes as part of a national political chaos for which New Caledonia will inevitably pay the price too”, Gomès said.

    In recent days, as he was still caretaker Minister for Overseas, Valls has published several articles in French national dailies, warning against the potential dangers — including civil war — if the Bougival agreement is dropped or neglected.

    Lecornu also stressed, during interviews and statements over the past week, that New Caledonia, at the national level, was a matter of national priority at the same level as passing France’s 2025 budget.

    Speaking on Monday during a brief handover ceremony with his successor Moutchou, Valls told public broadcaster Outremer la Première that he was “very sad” not being able to “complete” his mission, including on New Caledonia, but that he did not have any regrets or bitterness.

    He said however that he would make a point of “continuing to discuss” with the FLNKS during the month of October to possibly prepare some amendments “without changing the big equilibriums of the Constitutional and the organic laws”.

    Race against time
    As part of the Bougival text’s implementation and legal process, a referendum is also scheduled to be put to New Caledonia’s population no later than end of February 2026.

    Lecornu is scheduled to deliver his maiden speech on general policy before Parliament on Wednesday, October 15 — if he is still in place by then.

    On Monday, two main components of the opposition, Rassemblement National (right) and La France Insoumise (left) have already indicated their intention to each file a motion of no confidence against Lecornu and his new Cabinet.

    Following consultations he held last week with a panel of parties represented in Parliament, Lecornu based his advice to President Macron on the fact that he believed a majority of parties within the House were not in favour of a parliamentary dissolution and therefore snap elections, for the time being.

    Following a former dissolution in June 2024 and subsequent snap elections, the new Parliament had emerged more divided than ever, split between three main blocks — right, left and centre.

    Since last week’s developments and the latest Cabinet announcement on Sunday, more rifts have surfaced even within those three blocks.

    Some LR politicians, who have accepted to take part in Lecornu’s latest Cabinet, have been immediately excluded from the party.

    On the centre-left, the Socialist Party has not yet indicated whether it would also file a motion of no confidence, but this would depend on Lecornu’s position and expected concessions on the very controversial pension scheme reforms and budget cuts issue.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Democracy Now!

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    As we’ve reported, the Gaza ceasefire deal is in effect. Phase one of the US.-backed 20-point plan is underway. Hamas has released all 20 living captives. Israel has released almost 2000 Palestinians in Ramallah and now in Khan Younis in Gaza.

    Yesterday, President Trump addressed the Israeli Knesset and then co-chaired a so-called peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not among the 20 or more world leaders who attend. He was invited but said he was not going.

    For more, we’re joined by the Israeli historian, author and professor Ilan Pappé, professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter and the chair of the Nakba Memorial Foundation. Among his books, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, almost 20 years ago, and Gaza in Crisis, which he co-wrote with Noam Chomsky. His new book, Israel on the Brink: And the Eight Revolutions That Could Lead to Decolonization and Coexistence.

    We thank you so much for being with us. Professor Pappé, if you could start off by responding to what has happened? We’re watching, in Khan Younis, prisoners being released, Palestinian prisoners, up to 2000, and in the occupied West Bank, though there families were told if they dare celebrate the release of their loved ones, they might be arrested.

    And we saw the release of the 20 Israeli hostages as they returned to Israel. Hamas says they’re returning the dead hostages, the remains, over the next few days. Israel has not said they will return the dead prisoners, of which it’s believed there are nearly 200 in Israeli prisons.

    Your response overall, and now to the summit in Egypt?

    ILAN PAPPÉ: Yes. First of all, there is some joy in knowing that the bombing of the people in Gaza has stopped for a while. And there is joy knowing that Palestinian political prisoners have been reunited with their families, and, similarly, that Israeli hostages were reunited with their families.

    But except from that, I don’t think we are in such an historical moment as President Trump claimed in his speech in the Knesset and beforehand. We are not at the end of the terrible chapter that we have been in for the last two years.

    And that chapter is an Israeli attempt by a particularly fanatic, extremely rightwing Israeli government to try and use ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and genocide in Gaza to downsize the number of Palestinians in Palestine and impose Israel’s will in a way that they hope would be at least endorsed by some Arab governments and the world.

    So far, they have an alliance of Trump and some extreme rightwing parties in Europe.

    And now I hope that the world will not be misled that Israel is now ready to open a different kind of page in its relationship with the Palestinians. And what you told us about the way that the celebrations were dealt with in the West Bank and the incineration of the sanitation center shows you that nothing has changed in the dehumanisation and the attitude of this particular Israeli government and its belief that it has the power to wipe out Palestine as a nation, as a people and as a country.

    I hope the world will not stand by, because up to now it did stand by when the genocide occurred in Palestine.

    AMY GOODMAN: We have just heard President Trump’s address to the Israeli Knesset. He followed the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu. I’m not sure, but in listening to Netanyahu, I don’t think he used the word “Palestinian.” President Trump has just called on the Israeli president to pardon Netanyahu.

    Your thoughts on this, and also the possibility of why Netanyahu has not joined this summit that President Trump is co-chairing? Many are speculating for different reasons — didn’t want to anger the right, that’s further right than him. Others are saying the possibility of his arrest, not on corruption charges, but on crimes against humanity, the whole case before the International Criminal Court.

    ILAN PAPPÉ: It could be a mixture of all of it, but I think at the center of it is the nature of the Israeli government that was elected in November 2022, this alliance between a very opportunistic politician, who’s only interested in surviving and keeping his position as a prime minister, alongside messianic, neo-Zionist politicians who really believe that God has given them the opportunity to create the Greater Israel, maybe even beyond the borders of Palestine, and, in the process, eliminate Palestinians.

    I think that his consideration should all — are always about his chances of survival. So, whatever went in his mind, he came to the conclusion that going to Cairo is not going to help his chances of being reelected.

    My great worry is not that he didn’t go to Cairo. My greatest worry is that he does believe that his only chance of being reelected is still to have a war going on, either in Gaza or in the West Bank or against Iran or in the north with Lebanon.

    We are dealing here with a reckless, irresponsible politician, who is even willing to drown his own state in the process of saving his skin and his neck. And the victims will always be, from this adventurous policy, the Palestinians.

    I hope the world understands that, really, the urgent need of — and I’m talking about world leaders rather than societies. You already discussed what is the level of solidarity among civil societies. But I do hope that political elites will understand — especially in the West — their role now is not to mediate between Israelis and Palestinians.

    Their role now is to protect the Palestinians from destruction, elimination, genocide and ethnic cleansing. And nothing of that duty, especially of Europe, that is complicit with what happened, and the United States, that are complicit with what happened in the last two years — nothing that we heard in the speeches so far in the — in preparation for the summit in Egypt, and I have a feeling that we won’t hear anything about it also later on.

    There is a different way in which our civil societies refer to Palestine as a place that has to be saved and protected, and still this irrelevant conversation among our political elites about a peace deal, a two-state solution, all of that, that has nothing to do with what we are experiencing in the way that the Israeli government thinks it has an historical moment to totally de-Arabise Palestine and eliminate and expunge the Palestinians from history and the area.

    AMY GOODMAN: Ilan Pappé, I want to thank you for being with us, Israeli historian, professor of history, director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter, chair of the Nakba Memorial Foundation. His new book, Israel on the Brink: And the Eight Revolutions That Could Lead to Decolonization and Coexistence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    Two leftwing opposition members of the Knesset protested in the middle of US President Donald Trump’s historic and rambling speech praising the Gaza ceasefire and his administration in West Jerusalem today.

    MK Ayman Odeh, a lawyer and chair of the mainly Arab Hadash-Ta’al party, was escorted out of the Knesset plenum after holding up a protest sign calling on Trump to “recognise Palestine”.

    It was a day filled with emotion as Hamas released the 20 last living Israeli captives and the Israeli military began freeing 2000 Palestinian prisoners, many of them held without charge.

    Lawmaker Odeh is a strong advocate for Palestinian statehood, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyaho’s government opposes.

    Ofer Cassif, the party’s only Jewish MK, also tried to hold up a protest sign and was removed from the chamber.

    After the interruption, President Trump quipped: “That was very efficient” — and then carried on with his speech.

    Previously, Odeh posted on his X account: “The amount of hypocrisy in the plenum is unbearable.

    ‘Crimes against humanity’
    “To crown Netanyahu through flattery the likes of which has never been seen, through an orchestrated group, does not absolve him and his government of the crimes against humanity committed in Gaza, nor of the responsibility for the blood of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian victims and thousands of Israeli victims.

    “But only because of the ceasefire and the overall deal am I here.

    “Only ending the occupation, and only recognising the State of Palestine alongside Israel, will bring justice, peace, and security to all.”

    The brief interruption did not deflect from Trump’s speech that was effusive in its praise for Israel, the country’s leadership, the hostages and their families, and its military and so-called “victory” in Gaza.

    Trump claimed the region was poised for a “historic dawn of a new Middle East” and referred to Palestinians, without addressing their decades-old fight for self-determination and statehood.

    “The choice for Palestinians could not be more clear,” the US president argued.

    “This is their chance to turn forever from the path of terror and violence — it’s been extreme — to exile the wicked forces of hate that are in their midst, and I think that’s going to happen,” Trump said.

    Palestinians welcome the release of prisoners
    Palestinians welcome the release of prisoners. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    Tear gas fired
    An Israeli armoured vehicle fired tear gas and rubber bullets at Palestinians gathered near Ofer Prison in the occupied West Bank, where hundreds had assembled to await the release of prisoners,

    Earlier, the Israeli military, in a post on X, reported that the International Red Cross had transferred the final 13 captives held by Hamas to Shin Bet forces in the Gaza Strip, after an earlier group of seven had been released.

    Al Jazeera Arabic, citing Palestinian sources, also reported that the handover of all 20 living captives had now been completed.

    Al Jazeera’s Nour Adeh reported from Amman, Jordan, because Al Jazeera is banned from reporting from Israel and the Occupied West Bank, that the Israeli Broadcasting Authority had confirmed that the Red Cross had received the remaining 13 living Israeli captives.

    “They will soon be handed over to the custody of the Israeli military, which, of course, is still present in 53 percent of Gaza,” she said.

    “That means that we are in the process of concluding the release of all living Israeli captives, and that is all happening as US President Trump arrived in Israel.

    “These are important developments, and the choreography is not coincidental.”

    Remaining in Gaza were the bodies of 28 Israeli captives, and it was not clear how many of them will be released today.

    As part of the ceasefire, the Israeli military were releasing almost 2000 Palestinian prisoners — including 1700 who had been kidnapped from Gaza, and 250 Palestinians serving life or long sentences.

    President Trump was due to fly to the Sharm el-Sheikh respirt in Egypt later today for a summit aimed at advancing Washington’s plans for Gaza and the region.

    Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons in harsh conditions
    Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons in harsh conditions. Graphic: Al Jazeera/Creative Commons

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Democracy Now!

    AMY GOODMAN: Israel’s government has approved the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire deal, that includes a pause in Israeli attacks and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas in exchange for Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons — 20 living hostages were freed today coinciding with President Trump’s visit to Israel and Egypt.

    According to the deal, 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and another 1700 people from Gaza detained in the last two years — and described as “forcibly disappeared” by the UN — would be released.

    Hamas has demanded the release of prominent Palestinian political prisoner Marwan Barghouti, but his name was reportedly secretly removed from the prisoner exchange list by Israel.

    Meanwhile, the US is sending about 200 troops to Israel to monitor the ceasefire deal.

    The Israeli military on Friday confirmed the ceasefire had come into effect as soldiers retreated from parts of Gaza. Tens of thousands of Palestinians, including families that had been forced to the south, began their trek back to northern Gaza after news that Israeli forces were withdrawing.

    Returning Gaza City residents made their way through mounds of rubble and destroyed neighborhoods, searching for any sign of their homes and belongings. Among them, Fidaa Haraz.

    FIDAA HARAZ: [translated] I came since the morning, when they said there was a withdrawal, to find my home. I’m walking in the street, but I do not know where to go, due to the extent of the destruction.

    I swear I don’t know where the crossroads is or where my home is. I know that my home was leveled, but where is it? Where is it? I cannot find it.

    What is this? What do we do with our lives? Where should we live? Where should we stay? A house of multiple floors, but nothing was left?

    AMY GOODMAN: Al Jazeera reports Israel’s army said it would allow 600 humanitarian aid trucks carrying food, medical supplies, fuel and other necessities daily into Gaza, through coordination with the United Nations and other international groups.

    On Thursday, the exiled Hamas Gaza chief Khalil al-Hayya declared an end to the war.

    KHALIL AL-HAYYA: [translated] Today, we announced that we have reached an agreement to end the war and aggression against our people and to begin implementing a permanent ceasefire, the withdrawal of the occupation forces, the entry of aid, the opening of the Rafah crossing in both directions and the exchange of prisoners.

    AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke today in Israel.

    PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: [translated] Today, we mark one of the greatest achievements in the war of revival: the return of all of our hostages, the living and the dead as one. …

    This way, we grapple Hamas. We grapple it all around, ahead of the next stages of the plan, in which Hamas is disarmed and Gaza is demilitarised.

    If this can be achieved the easy way, very well. If not, it will be achieved the hard way.

    AMY GOODMAN: In the United States, President Trump hailed his administration’s ceasefire plan during a Cabinet meeting on Thursday as concerns mount regarding potential US and foreign intervention in the rebuilding of Gaza.

    PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Gaza is going to be slowly redone. You have tremendous wealth in that part of the world by certain countries, and just a small part of that, what they — what they make, will do wonders for — for Gaza.

    AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by two guests. Diana Buttu, Palestinian human rights attorney and a former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). She has just recently written a piece for The Guardian. It is headlined “A ‘magic pill’ made Israeli violence invisible. We need to stop swallowing it.” And Amjad Iraqi is a senior Israel-Palestine analyst at the International Crisis Group, joining us from London.

    We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Diana Buttu, let’s begin with you. First, your response to the ceasefire-hostage deal that’s just been approved by the Israeli government and Hamas?

    DIANA BUTTU: Well, first, Amy, it’s really quite repulsive that Palestinians have had to negotiate an end to their genocide. It should have been that the world put sanctions on Israel to stop the genocide, rather than forcing Palestinians to negotiate an end to it. At the same time, we’re also negotiating an end to the famine, a famine that Israel, again, created.

    Who are we negotiating with? The very people who created that famine. And so, it’s really repugnant that this is the position that Palestinians have been forced to be in.

    And so, while people here are elated, happy that the bombs have stopped, we’re also at the same time worried, because we’ve seen that the international community, time and again, has abandoned us.

    Everybody is happy that the Israelis are going home, but nobody’s talking about the more than 11,000 Palestinians who are currently languishing in Israeli prisons, being starved, being tortured, being raped. Many of them are hostages picked up after October 2023, being held without charge, without trial, and nobody at all is talking about them.

    So, while people are happy that the bombs have stopped, we know that Israel’s control has not at all stopped. And Israel has made it clear that it’s going to continue to control every morsel of food that comes into Gaza. It’s going to control every single construction item that comes into Gaza.

    And it’s going to continue to maintain a military occupation over Gaza.

    This is not a peace agreement. This is not an end to the occupation. And I think it’s so important for us that we keep our eyes on Gaza and start demanding that Israel be held to account, not only for the genocide, but for all of these decades of occupation that led to this in the first place.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the exchange of hostages, Israeli hostages, dead and alive, and Palestinian prisoners? According to the Hamas Gaza chief, I believe they’re saying all women and children, Palestinian women and children, picked up over these last two years — or is it beyond? — are going to be released. And then, of course, there are the well over 1000 prisoners who are going to be released.

    DIANA BUTTU: No, not quite. So, there are 250 who are political prisoners who are going to be released, and that list just came out about a little over an hour ago.

    But there are also 1700 Palestinians, solely from Gaza, who are going to be released. And these were people — these are doctors, these are nurses, these are journalists and so on, who were — who Israel picked up after 7 October, 2023, and has been holding as hostages.

    These are the people that are going to be released. There are still thousands more, Amy, that are from the West Bank, that we do not know what is going to happen to them.

    And so, while the focus is just on the people in Gaza — and again, there is no path for freeing all of those thousands of Palestinians who are languishing in Israeli prisons, being starved, being tortured, being raped.

    What’s going to happen to them? Who’s going to be focusing on them? I don’t think that it’s going to be this US administration.

    AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk about the West Bank in a minute. More than a thousand Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank just over the last two years. But I first want to get Amjad Iraqi’s response to this deal that has now been signed off on.

    I mean, watching the images of tens of thousands, this sea of humanity, of Palestinians going south to north, to see what they can find of their homes in places like Gaza City, not to mention who’s trapped in the rubble. We say something — well over 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, but we don’t know the real number. It could be hundreds of thousands?

    AMJAD IRAQI: Indeed, Amy. And to kind of continue off of Diana’s points, this is a deal that really should have been made long, long time ago. We’ve known that the parameters of this truce have been on the table for well over a year, if not since the very beginning of the war, what they used to define as an all-for-all deal, the idea that Hamas would release all hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire.

    And the reasons for the constant foiling of it are quite evident. And it’s important to recognise this not for the sake of just lamenting the lives, the many lives, that have been lost and the massive destruction that could have been averted, but it needs to really inform the next steps going forward.

    The biggest takeaway of what’s happening right now is that in order for a ceasefire to be sustained, in order for Gaza to be saved from further military assault, you need massive political pressure.

    And we’ve seen this really build up in the past weeks and months. You saw this, for example, from European governments, which, even through the symbolic recognition of Palestinian statehood, was very much venting their frustration with the Israeli conduct in the war, the fact that the EU was actually starting to contemplate more punitive measures against Israel, such as partial trade suspensions, potential sanctions against Israel.

    We saw this building up over the past few weeks. Arab states have started to use much of their leverage, especially after Israel’s strike on Doha or on Hamas’s offices in Doha. We started seeing Gulf and other Arab and Muslim states come forward to President Trump at the UN saying that Israel aggression cannot continue like this.

    And most crucially is, of course, President Trump himself and Washington finally saying that it needs to put its foot down to stop this war, which we’ve heard repeatedly from Trump himself.

    But this is really the first time since the January ceasefire agreement where Trump has really insisted that this come to an end.

    Now, this — now there’s much to be sort of debated about the Trump plan itself, but this aspect of the truce cannot continue, and certainly cannot save Palestinian lives, unless that pressure is maintained.

    The concern now is that that pressure will recede or alleviate, because there’s now a deal that’s signed. But, actually, in order to enforce it, that pressure really needs to be maintained.

    AMY GOODMAN: What do you think was the turning point, Amjad? The bombing of Qatar?

    Now, I mean, The New York Times had an exposé that Trump knew before, not just in the midst of the bombing, that Israel was bombing their ally to try to kill the Hamas leadership. But do you think that was the turning point?

    AMJAD IRAQI: It certainly might have expedited, I think, a lot of factors that were already building up. As I said, pressure had been mounting against Israel for quite a while.

    There was really outrage, not just at the continuance of the military assaults, but the policy of starvation, which was very evident on the ground, and Israel’s complete refusal to let in aid, its failed project with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

    So, this had all been building, but I do think the strike on Doha really pushed Arab states to say that enough is enough. To see them really meet all together with President Trump and create a bit more of a united position to insist that this really couldn’t go on, I think, has really signalled that Israel really crossed a certain line geopolitically.

    Now, of course, that line should have been recognised as being crossed well before because of the facts on the ground in Gaza, but I do think that this has helped to kind of push things over the edge a bit more assertively.

    There are also speculations about Trump, of course, trying to have his name in for the Nobel Peace Prize, and potentially other factors. But I do think that the timing of this, again, regardless of what ended up pushing it over the line, it is unfortunate that it has really taken this long.

    And it’s really up to global powers and foreign governments to recognise that in order to make sure that this stays, that they really need to keep that pressure up.

    AMY GOODMAN: And, Amjad Iraqi, the core demand of the ceasefire is that Hamas disarm and end its rule. What security guarantees is Hamas seeking for its own members to lay down their arms and not face a wave of arrests or assassinations?

    How is this going to work? And talk about who you see running Gaza.

    AMJAD IRAQI: So, these things are still a bit unclear. So, throughout the ceasefire talks, Hamas has kept insisting about the idea of US guarantees that Israel will not end the war.

    But there’s never really any clear, concrete way to prove this. And as we’ve seen before, like in the January ceasefire deal and in much of the ceasefire talks, even if President Trump expresses his desire to see an end to the war, oftentimes he would still hand the steering wheel to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

    And if Netanyahu decided that he wanted to thwart the ceasefire talks, if he wanted to relaunch military assaults, and the Israeli military and the government would back it, then Trump and Washington would fall into line and amplify those calls, and even President Trump himself would sort of cheer on the military assaults.

    And so, this factor has certainly weighed a lot on Hamas, but I do think there’s a culmination of pressure, the fact that Arab states have insisted on Hamas to try to show, at least signal, certain flexibility, even though many of its demands have been quite consistent throughout the war.

    But the fact that I think Hamas is now feeling that there’s also a bit more pressure on Israel to actually ensure that they at least try to take the gamble that they will not return to war.

    And in regards to decommissioning and disarmament, publicly Hamas has placed a red line around this right to bear arms. But historically, and even recently, they do say that they are willing to have conversations about decommissioning, as long as it’s tied to a political framework, especially one that’s tied to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    Now, one can really debate how much this process is actually quite feasible, and obviously the Israeli government and much of the Israeli public is quite adamant in its opposition against Palestinian statehood, but Hamas may at least offer some space for those conversations to be had.

    There are discussions about it potentially giving up what it might describe as its larger or more offensive weaponry, like rockets or anti-tank missiles. And there’s bigger questions around firearms.

    But I think it’s important to put this question not as a black-and-white issue, as something that has to come first in the political process, as Israel is demanding, but one that requires trust building and confidence building in the rubric of a process of Palestinian self-determination.

    This is important not just in the case of Palestine, but across many conflicts around the world where the question of decommissioning, about establishing one rule, one gun, one government for a society, requires that kind of process. So, it shouldn’t just be a policy of destroying and military assaults and so on. You do need to engage in these questions in good faith.

    AMY GOODMAN: There are so many questions, Diana Buttu, in this first stage of the ceasefire-hostage deal, is really the only one that Netanyahu addressed in his speech.

    You’re usually in Ramallah. You spend a lot of time in the West Bank. Where does this leave the Palestinian Authority? I don’t think the West Bank is talked about in this deal.

    And what about the fact that we’re looking at pictures of Netanyahu surrounded by Steve Witkoff on one side and Jared Kushner, who has talked about — as we know — famously referred to Gaza as “very valuable” waterfront property?

    DIANA BUTTU: Well, I think that this plan was really an Israeli plan, and it was repackaged and branded as a Trump plan. And you can see just in the text of it and the way that all of the guarantees were given to the Israelis, and none given to the Palestinians, it’s really an Israeli plan.

    But beyond that, it’s important to keep in mind that when Trump was going around and talking about this plan, that he consulted with everybody but Palestinians. He didn’t talk to Mahmoud Abbas. He didn’t even let Mahmoud Abbas go to the UN to deliver his speech before the UN.

    I’m pretty certain he didn’t speak to the UN representative, Palestine’s representative to the UN. And so, this is — once again, we’ve got a plan in which people are talking about Palestinians, but never talking to Palestinians. So, again, this is very much an Israeli plan repackaged as a Trump plan and branded as a Trump plan.

    In terms of them looking at Gaza as being prime real estate, this is not at all different from the way that they’ve done it in the past, and this is not at all the way that Israel has looked at Palestine.

    And this is because this is the way that colonisers look at land that isn’t theirs. They ignore the history of the place.

    Gaza has an old history. It has some of the oldest churches, I think the second-oldest church in the world. It has some of the oldest mosques. It has an old civilization.

    We want Gaza to be Gaza. We don’t want it to be Dubai or any other place. We want it to be Gaza. And so, the idea of somehow turning it into prime real estate, this is the mentality of somebody who’s coming from outside.

    This is the way that colonisers think. This isn’t the way that the Indigenous think. And so, you can see in this plan that it’s not only the idea of the outside coming in, but they certainly didn’t consult Palestinians at all.

    As for what’s going to happen to the Palestinian Authority, it’s clear that they don’t want the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip, and it’s clear that they do want to have a foreign authority in the Gaza Strip.

    But once again, Amy, when is it that Palestinians get to decide our own future? Are we really going back to the era of colonialism, when other people get to decide our future? And that’s what this plan is really all about.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to be continuing to cover this story. President Trump is going to be there for the signing of the ceasefire in Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt on Monday, and the hostages and prisoners are expected to be released on Monday or Tuesday.

    Diana Buttu, I want to thank you for being with us, Palestinian human rights attorney, former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and Amjad Iraqi, Israel-Palestine analyst at the International Crisis Group.

    Republished from Democracy Now! under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Dr Mazin Qumsiyeh

    A temporary ceasefire and release of some Palestinians in a prisoner exchange is not a “peace agreement” and it is far from what is needed — ending colonisation; freedom for the >10,000 political prisoners still in Israeli gulags (also tortured, nearly 100 have died under torture in the last two years); return of the millions of refugees; and accountability for genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

    That is why this global uprising (intifada) will not stop until freedom, justice, and equality are attained.

    Here are brief answers I gave to questions about the agreement for Gaza:

    Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh
    Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh during his visit to Aotearoa New Zealand last year . . . “what is needed — ending colonisation, freedom for the >10,000 political prisoners still in Israeli gulags , return of the millions of refugees, and accountability for genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Image: David Robie/APR

    1. How has life in the West Bank changed for you and your community during the past two years of conflict?
    The West Bank has been illegally occupied since 1967 (ICJ ruling) but it was not merely an occupation but intensive colonisation and ethnic cleansing. The attacks on our people accelerated in the last two years with over 60,000 made homeless in the West Bank and denial of freedom of movement (including hundreds of new gates installed in these two years separating the remaining concentration camps/ghettos of the West Bank ).

    2. What is your assessment of the new peace deal that brought an end to the fighting in Gaza?
    It is not a peace deal. It is an agreement to pause the genocide which will not work because the belligerent occupier — “Israel” — has not respected a single agreement it signed since its founding. Even the agreement to join the United Nations was conditional on respecting the UN Charter and UN resolutions issued before and after 1949.

    This continued to even breaking the signed ceasefire agreement of last year. I have 0 percent confidence that this latest agreement would be respected even on the simple aspect of “pausing” the genocide and ethnic cleansing going on since 1948.

    3. In your view, why did war drag on for two years despite multiple ceasefire attempts?
    Simply put because colonisation can only be done with violence. And the war on our people has gone on not for two years but for 77 years without ending (sustained by Western government support). Israel as a colonisation entity is the active face of colonisation. The USA for example broke similar agreements for “pauses” in colonisation with natives in North America and broke every single one of them.


    Israeli military occupation on the environment.        Video: Greenpeace

    4. What kind of humanitarian and environmental toll has the conflict taken on Palestinian society?
    It is now well documented from UN agencies, human rights groups (like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, even the Israeli group B’Tselem). In brief it is genocide, ecocide, scholasticide, medicide,
    and veriticide. (More at: ongaza.org )

    5. Why do you think it took the IDF so long to rescue all the hostages?
    The terrorist organisation that deceptively calls itself “IDF” (Israeli Defence Forces) was not interested in rescuing their captives (not “hostages”) and they only got people back via exchange of prisoners (not rescue).

    The IGF (Israeli Genocide Forces) actually killed many of their own soldiers and civilians
    on 7 October 2023 by activating the Hannibal directive to prevent their capture. The resistance was aiming to capture colonisers (living on stolen Palestinian lands) to exchange for some of the more than 11,000 political prisoners illegally held in Israeli jails. (Again see ongaza.org )

    6. How significant was international involvement — particularly from the US — in reaching the final agreement?
    This is the first genocide in human history that is not executed by one government. It is executed by a number of governments directly supporting and aiding (participating). This includes the USA, UK, France, Egypt, Germany, Australia etc. Many of these countries have governments dominated or highly influenced by the Zionist agenda.

    Under the influence of a growing popular protest against the genocide around the world, some of those countries are trying to wiggle out from pressure in an effort to save
    “Israel” from growing global isolation. Trump was blackmailed via videos/files collected by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghiseline Maxwell (Mossad agents). He is simply a narcissistic collaborator with genocide!

    7. What concrete steps do you think are necessary now to turn this peace deal into a sustainable, lasting solution?
    Again not a “peace deal”. What needs to be done is apply boycotts, divestments, sanctions (BDS) on this rogue state that violates the international conventions (Geneva Convention, Conventions against Apartheid and Genocide). BDS was used against apartheid South Africa and needs to be applied here also. (For more: bdsmovement.net )

    8. How do you see the Palestine Museum of Natural History contributing to rebuilding and healing efforts in the aftermath of war?
    Our institute (PIBS, palestinenature.org) which includes museums, a botanic garden, and many other sections is focused on “sustainable human and natural communities” Our motto is respect: for ourselves (empowerment), for others (regardless of religious or other background), and for nature.

    Conflict, colonisations, oppression are obviously areas we challenge and work on in JOINT struggle with all people of various background.

    9. Looking ahead, what gives you optimism—or concern—about the future relationship between Palestinians and Israelis?
    What gives me optimism first and foremost is the heroic resilience and resistance (together making sumud) of our Palestinian people everywhere and the millions of other people mobilising for human rights and for justice (including the right of refugees to return and also environmental justice).

    What gives me concern is the depth of depravity that greedy individuals in power go to destroying our planet and our people and profiting from colonisation and genocide.

    About 8.5 million Palestinians are refugees and displaced people thanks to Zionism and Western collusion with it. A collusion intent on transforming Palestine from multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multireligious, and multilingual society to a racist Jewish state (monolithic).

    Dr Mazin Qumsiyeh is a Bedouin in cyberspace; a villager at home; professor, founder and (volunteer) director of the Palestine Museum of Natural History and Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability at Bethlehem University, Occupied Palestine.

    Notes:
    World Court Findings on Israeli Apartheid a Wake-Up Call: International Court of Justice Makes Clear Call for Reparations

    The 7 October 2023 reminded us of the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

    7 October 1944! Prisoner Revolt at Auschwitz-Birkenau

    The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize as before was not given to the any of the hundreds of deserving nominees but given instead to rightwing pro-genocide María Corina Machado. She dedicated her prize to Donald Trump and had previously aligned with the worst rightwing parties throughout Latin America as well as the genocidal regime of Netanyahu (and even asked them for help to topple her own elected government).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Sara Awad

    On October 10, a ceasefire in Gaza was officially announced. International news media were quick to focus on what they now call “the peace plan”.

    US President Donald Trump, they announced, would go to Cairo to oversee the agreement signing and then to Israel to speak at the Knesset.

    The air strikes over Gaza, they reported, have stopped.

    KIA ORA GAZA
    KIA ORA GAZA

    The bombs have indeed stopped, but our suffering continues. Our reality has not changed. We are still under siege.

    Israel still has full control over our air, land and sea; it is still blocking sick and injured Palestinians from leaving and journalists, war crimes investigators and activists from going in.

    It is still controlling what food, what medicine, and essential supplies enter.

    The siege has lasted more than 18 years, shaping every moment of our lives. I have lived under this blockade since I was just three years old. What kind of peace is this, if it will continue to deny us the freedoms that everyone else has?

    ‘Deal’ overshadowed flotilla kidnap
    The news of the ceasefire deal and “the peace plan” overshadowed another, much more important development.

    Israel raided another freedom flotilla in international waters loaded with humanitarian aid for Gaza, kidnapping 145 people on board — a crime under international law. This came just days after Israel attacked the Global Sumud Flotilla, detaining more than 450 people who were trying to reach Gaza.

    These flotillas carried more than just humanitarian aid. They carried the hope of freedom for the Palestinian people. They carried a vision of true peace — one where Palestinians are no longer besieged, occupied and dispossessed.

    Many have criticised the freedom flotillas, arguing that they cannot make a difference since they are doomed to be intercepted.

    I myself did not pay much attention to the movement. I was deeply disappointed, having lost hope in seeing an end to this war.

    But that changed when Brazilian journalist Giovanna Vial interviewed me. Giovanna wrote an article about my story before setting sail with the Sumud Flotilla. She then made a post on social media saying: “for Sara, we sail”. Her words and her courage stirred something in me.

    Afterwards, I kept my eyes on the flotilla news, following every update with hope. I told my relatives about it, shared it with my friends, and reminded anyone who would listen how extraordinary this movement was.

    ‘Treated like animals’ – NZer activists detained by Israeli forces arrive home

    ‘She became the light’
    I kept wondering — how is it possible that, in a world so heavy with injustice, there are still people willing to abandon everything and put their lives in danger for people they had never met, for a place, most of them had never visited.

    I stayed in touch with Giovanna.

    “Until my last breath, I will never leave you alone,” she wrote to me while sailing towards Gaza. In the midst of so much darkness, she became the light.

    This was the first time in two years I felt like we were heard. We were seen.

    The Sumud Flotilla was by far the biggest in the movement’s history, but it was not about how many boats there were or how many people were on board or how much humanitarian aid they carried. It was about putting a spotlight on Gaza — about making sure the world could no longer look away.

    “All Eyes on Gaza,” read one post on the official Instagram account of the flotilla. It stayed with me, I read it on a very heavy night when the deafening sound of bombs in Gaza City was relentless. It was just before I had to flee my home due to the brutal Israeli onslaught.

    Israel stopped flotillas, aid
    Israel stopped the flotillas. They abused and deported the participants. They seized the aid. They may have prevented them from reaching our shores, but they failed to erase the message they carried.

    A message of peace. A message of freedom. A message we had been waiting to hear for two long, brutal years. The boats were captured, but the solidarity reached us.

    I carry so much gratitude in my heart for every single human being who took part in the freedom flotillas. I wish I could reach each of them personally — to tell them how much their courage, their presence, and their solidarity meant to me, and to all of us in Gaza.

    We will never forget them. We will carry their names, their faces, their voices in our hearts forever.

    To those who sailed toward us: thank you. You reminded us that we are not alone.

    And to the world: we are clinging to hope. We are still waiting — still needing — more flotillas to come. Come to us. Help us break free from this prison.

    The bombing has stopped now, and I can only hope that this time it does not resume in a few weeks. But we still do not have peace.

    Governments have failed us. But the people have not.

    One day, I know, the freedom flotilla boats will reach the shore of Gaza and we will be free.

    Sara Awad is an English literature student, writer, and storyteller based in Gaza. Passionate about capturing human experiences and social issues, Sara uses her words to shed light on stories often unheard. Her work explores themes of resilience, identity, and hope amid war. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Gerard Otto of G News

    Of 42 referendums, 17 voted to retain Māori Wards in Aotearoa New Zealand’s local elections yesterday, which suggests something about where we are at as a nation — but you already knew that right?

    We all know that it’s only recently that we’ve been attempting to teach New Zealand history in our schools.

    As a consequence few people understand it — and even less understand Te Tiriti, and our obligations to it — and things like “active protection” not being based on race, but being based on a constitutional foundation which protects the interests of our indigenous.

    They are not just the same as some other minority.

    There’s a special status to this and we would like to think we can independently maintain it in a so called “liberal democracy” but, as you know, the guardrails are shaky and under neoliberal attack.

    We know Education Minister Erica Stanford is working with Atlas plants and one-eyed folk to dilute that effort, and we know history and social sciences are under attack under this government.

    They pull the funding for the humanities. That’s the fact.

    Not always equitable
    While the electoral system may be formally equal (one person, one vote), it does not always lead to equitable outcomes for groups with distinct cultural, historical, and political status — such as Māori.

    You try to talk fairness to your average rightwing, under-educated Act voter and they will tell you about fairness based on their own victimhood and “equality” not “equity”.

    While Māori are guaranteed representation through the Māori electoral roll at the national level — Māori seats in Parliament — Māori wards are the local government equivalent to me.

    Without Māori wards, Māori communities often lack meaningful say in local decisions affecting their lands, resources, and wellbeing, especially given the legacy of colonisation and ongoing disparities.

    Nobody at Hobson’s Pledge cares much about that because it does not effect them. Self interest is their bottom line.

    Without dedicated representation, Māori voices are often sidelined or overruled as we all have seen, many times and here we go again — as Code Brown is rife in Auckland and celebrations begin with no real mandate after such a low turnout.

    Code Brown will tell you otherwise that these results are all about the public voting for “doing a good job” and not “just a pretty face” but in reality it’s about disconnection and the cost of living crisis and double digit rates increases in 18 councils, and who bothers to vote?

    Many new mayors
    In 18 councils which gave ratepayers a double digit rate increase, 13 elected new mayors — just like that!

    Overall, out of 66 mayoral races, 31 councils elected a new mayor

    Māori wards ensure there are elected representatives directly accountable to Māori constituents, strengthening democracy, but we’ve seen the erosion of it under this government.

    We have all seen how they are pushing all things Māori backwards in a dedicated ideological push to clear the way for foreign investment — and that’s the battle.

    Act picked up 10 candidates — but much of that is about who votes, and rather than a swing to the right it’s about rates and low turnout.

    Ratepayers tend to get out and vote more than renters, according to Code Brown as we stare at voter turnout in 2025 which appears significantly down compared to 2022 in major cities.

    Auckland dropped from about 35.5 percent to about 23 percent. Wellington dropped from 45 percent to around 36 percent. Christchurch also dropped, though somewhat less sharply — and while that’s preliminary, it’s a statement.

    Nationwide turnout drops
    Overall, the nationwide turnout is looking lower — around 36 percent preliminary results for the 2025 local elections, and offical counts will be known on Friday, October 17.

    So in the end, we need to vote out the central government which gave us upward pressure on rates with unaffordable water infrastructure reform — while trying to blame councils —  attacked Māori on many fronts; and eroded progress towards a proper constitutional transformation .

    After a recent byelection and now this result — there’s a message to people who do not vote . . . and it’s about the outcomes. You either vote or you get screwed.

    I’m sure you already can see the need as some suggest voting should be compulsory like in Australia – and we all saw the gerrymandering by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith about enrolment dates.

    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.

  • This brutal war on Palestinians has not just unleashed Israel’s demons. It has unmasked our own regimes, as they crack down on humanitarian activism. Jonathan Cook reflects on Israel’s war on Gaza as the fragile ceasefire takes hold.

    ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook

    Anniversaries are often a cause for celebration. But who could have imagined back in October 2023 that we would now be marking the two-year anniversary of a genocide, documented in the minutest detail on our phones every day for 24 months? A genocide that could have been stopped at any point, had the US and its allies made the call.

    This is an anniversary so shameful that no one in power wants it remembered. Rather, they are actively encouraging us to forget the genocide is happening, even at its very height.

    Israel’s relentless crimes against the people of Gaza barely register in our news any longer.

    There is a horrifying lesson here, one that applies equally to Israel and its Western patrons. A genocide takes place — and is permitted to take place — only when a profound sickness has entered the collective soul of the perpetrators.

    For the past 80 years, Western societies have grappled with — or, at least, thought they did — the roots of that sickness.

    They wondered how a Holocaust could have taken place in their midst, in a Germany that was central to the modern, supposedly “civilised”, Western world.

    They imagined — or pretended to — that their wickedness had been extirpated, their guilt cleansed, through the sponsorship of a “Jewish state”. That state, violently established in 1948 in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, served as a European protectorate on the ruins of the Palestinian people’s homeland.

    Desperate to control
    The Middle East, let us note, just happened to be a region that the West was desperate to keep controlling, despite growing Arab demands to end more than a century of brutal Western colonialism.

    Why? Because the region had recently emerged as the world’s oil spigot.

    Israel’s very purpose — enshrined in the ideology of Zionism, or Jewish supremacism in the Middle East — was to act as a proxy for Western colonialism. It was a client state planted there to keep order on the West’s behalf, while the West pretended to withdraw from the region.

    This big picture — the one Western politicians and media refuse to acknowledge — has been the context for events there ever since, including Israel’s current, genocidal endgame in Gaza.

    Two years in, what should have been obvious from the start is becoming ever-harder to ignore: the genocide had nothing to do with Hamas’s one-day attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. The genocide was never about “self-defence”. It was preordained by the ideological imperatives of Zionism.

    Hamas’s break-out from Gaza — a prison camp into which Palestinians had been herded decades earlier, after their expulsion from their homeland — provided the pretext. It all too readily unleashed demons long lurking in the soul of the Israeli body politic.

    And more importantly, it released similar demons — though better concealed — in the Western ruling class, as well as parts of their societies heavily conditioned to believe that the interests of the ruling class coincide with their own.

    Bubble of denial
    Two years into the genocide, and in spite of this week’s fragile ceasefire negotiated by US President Donald Trump and the three mediators, Egypt, Qatar and Türkiye, the West is still deep in its self-generated bubble of denial about what has been going on in Gaza – and its role in it.

    “History repeats itself,” as the saying goes, “first as tragedy, then as farce.”

    The same could be said of “peace processes”. Thirty years ago, the West force-fed Palestinians the Oslo Accords with the promise of eventual statehood.

    Oslo was the tragedy. It led to an ideological rupture in the Palestinian national movement; to a deepening geographic split between an imprisoned population in the occupied West Bank and an even more harshly imprisoned population in Gaza; to Israel’s increasing use of new technologies to confine, surveil and oppress both sets of Palestinians; and finally, to Hamas’s brief break-out from the Gaza prison camp, and Israel’s genocidal “response”.

    Now, President Trump’s 20-point “peace plan” offers the farce: unapologetic gangsterism masquerading as a “solution” to the Gaza genocide. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair — a war criminal who, alongside his US counterpart George W Bush, destroyed Iraq more than two decades ago — will issue diktats to the people of Gaza on Israel’s behalf.

    Gaza, not just Hamas, faced an ultimatum: “Take the deal, or we will put you in concrete boots and sink you in the Mediterranean.”

    Surrender document
    Barely veiled by the threat was the likelihood that, even if Hamas felt compelled to sign up to this surrender document, Gaza’s people would end up in concrete boots all the same.

    Gaza’s population has been so desperate for a respite from the slaughter that it would accept almost anything. But it is pure delusion for the rest of us to believe a state that has spent two years carrying out a genocide can be trusted either to respect a ceasefire or to honour the terms of a peace plan, even one so heavily skewed in its favour.

    The farce of Trump’s peace plan — his “deal of the millennium” — was evident from the first of its 20 points: “Gaza will be a deradicalised terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbours.”

    The document’s authors no more wonder what might have “radicalised” Gaza than Western capitals did when Hamas, which is proscribed as a terrorist group in the UK and other countries, broke out of the prison enclave with great violence on 7 October 2023.

    Were the people of Gaza simply born radical, or did events turn them radical? Were they “radicalised” when Israel ethnically cleansed them from their original lands, in what is now the self-declared “Jewish state” of Israel, and dumped them in the tiny holding pen of Gaza?

    Were they “radicalised” by being surveilled and oppressed in a dystopian, open-air prison, decade upon decade? Was it the experience of living for 17 years under an Israeli land, sea and air blockade that denied them the right to travel or trade, and forced their children on to a diet that left them malnourished?

    Or maybe they were radicalised by the silence from Israel’s Western patrons, who supplied the weaponry and lapped up the rewards: the latest confinement technologies, field-tested by Israel on the people of Gaza.

    Gaza most extreme
    The truth ignored in the opening point of Trump’s “peace plan” is that it is entirely normal to be “radicalised” when you live in an extreme situation. And there are no places on the planet more extreme than Gaza.

    It is not Gaza that needs “deradicalising”. It is the West and its Israeli client state.

    The case for deradicalising Israel should hardly need stating. Poll after poll has shown Israelis are not just in favour of the annihilation their state is carrying out in Gaza; they believe their government needs to be even more aggressive, even more genocidal.

    This past May, as Palestinian babies were shrivelling into dry husks from Israel’s blockade on food and aid, 64 percent of Israelis said they believed “there are no innocents” in Gaza, a place where around half of the population of two million people are children.

    The figure would be even higher were it reporting only the views of Israeli Jews. The survey included the fifth of the Israeli population who are Palestinians — survivors of mass expulsions in 1948 during Israel’s Western-sponsored creation. This much-oppressed minority has been utterly ignored throughout these past two years.

    Another survey conducted earlier this year found that 82 percent of Israeli Jews favoured the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza. More than half, 56 percent, also supported the forced expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel — even though that minority has kept its head bowed throughout the genocide, for fear of reaping a whirlwind should it speak up.

    In addition, 47 percent of Israeli Jews approved of killing all the inhabitants of Gaza, even its children.

    Netanyahu’s crimes
    The crimes overseen by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is so often held up by outsiders as some kind of aberration, are entirely representative of wider public sentiment in Israel.

    The genocidal fervour in Israeli society is an open secret. Soldiers flood social media platforms with videos celebrating their war crimes. Teenage Israelis make funny videos on TikTok endorsing the starvation of babies in Gaza. Israeli state TV broadcasts a child choir evangelising for Gaza’s annihilation.

    Such views are not simply a response to the horrors that unfolded inside Israel on 7 October 2023. As polls have consistently shown, deep-seated racism towards Palestinians is decades old.

    It is not former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant who started the trend of calling Palestinians “human animals”. Politicians and religious leaders have been depicting them as “cockroaches”, “dogs”, “snakes” and “donkeys” since Israel’s creation. It is this long process of dehumanisation that made the genocide possible.

    In response to the outpouring of support in Israel for the extermination in Gaza, Orly Noy, a veteran Israeli journalist and activist, reached a painful conclusion last month on the +972 website: “What we are witnessing is the final stage in the nazification of Israeli society.”

    And she noted that this problem derives from an ideology with a reach far beyond Israel itself: “The Gaza holocaust was made possible by the embrace of the ethno-supremacist logic inherent to Zionism. Therefore it must be said clearly: Zionism, in all its forms, cannot be cleansed of the stain of this crime. It must be brought to an end.”

    As the genocide has unfolded week after week, month after month — ever-more divorced from any link to 7 October 2023 — and Western leaders have carried on justifying their inaction, a much deeper realisation is dawning.

    Demon in the West
    This is not just about a demon unleashed among Israelis. It is about a demon in the soul of the West. It is us — the power bloc that established Israel, arms Israel, funds Israel, indulges Israel, excuses Israel — that really needs deradicalising.

    Germany underwent a process of “denazification” following the end of the Second World War — a process, it is now clear from the German state’s feverish repression of any public opposition to the genocide in Gaza, that was never completed.

    A far deeper campaign of deradicalisation than the one Nazi Germany was subjected to, is now required in the West — one where normalising the murder of tens of thousands of children, live-streamed to our phones, can never be allowed to happen again.

    A deradicalisation that would make it impossible to conceive of our own citizens travelling to Israel to help take part in the Gaza genocide, and then be welcomed back to their home countries with open arms.

    A deradicalisation that would mean our governments could not contemplate silently abandoning their own citizens — citizens who joined an aid flotilla to try to break Israel’s illegal starvation-siege of Gaza — to the goons of Israel’s fascist police minister.

    A deradicalisation that would make it inconceivable for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, or other Western leaders, to host Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, who at the outset of the slaughter in Gaza offered the central rationale for the genocide, arguing that no one there — not even its one million children — were innocent.

    A deradicalisation that would make it self-evident to Western governments that they must uphold the World Court’s ruling last year, not ignore it: that Israel must be forced to immediately end its decades-long illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, and that they must carry out the arrest of Netanyahu on suspicion of crimes against humanity, as specified by the International Criminal Court.

    A deradicalisation that would make it preposterous for Shabana Mahmood, Britain’s Home Secretary, to call demonstrations against a two-year genocide “fundamentally un-British” — or to propose ending the long-held right to protest, but only when the injustice is so glaring, the crime so unconscionable, that it leads people to repeatedly protest.

    Eroding right to protest
    Mahmood justifies this near-death-knell erosion of the right to protest on the grounds that regular protests have a “cumulative impact”. She is right. They do: by exposing as a sham our government’s claim to stand for human rights, and to represent anything more than naked, might-is-right politics.

    A deradicalisation is long overdue — and not just to halt the West’s crimes against the people of Gaza and the wider Middle East region.

    Already, as our leaders normalise their crimes abroad, they are normalising related crimes at home. The first signs are in the designation of opposition to genocide as “hate”, and of practical efforts to stop the genocide as “terrorism”.

    The intensifying campaign of demonisation will grow, as will the crackdown on fundamental and long-cherished rights.

    Israel has declared war on the Palestinian people. And our leaders are slowly declaring war on us, whether it be those protesting the Gaza genocide, or those opposed to a consumption-driven West’s genocide of the planet.

    We are being isolated, smeared and threatened. Now is the time to stand together before it is too late. Now is the time to find your voice.

    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. Republished from the author’s blog with permission. This article was first published by the Middle East Eye and is republished with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ News

    Three New Zealanders, who were detained in Israel, after taking part in an international flotilla heading to Gaza, claim they were treated like animals.

    Rana Hamida, Youssef Sammour and Samuel Leason arrived at Auckland International Airport this afternoon, and were greeted by a crowd of supporters and loved ones.

    Among the supporters were Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson and MP Ricardo Menéndez March.

    Members of the Global Sumud Flotilla, who were detained and deported from Israel last week, reported allegations of physical and psychological abuse by Israeli forces.


    Video: RNZ News

    Israel’s foreign ministry said the claims were “complete lies”, and the detainees rights were upheld, but Hamida and Sammour claimed conditions were harsh.

    “We were there for almost a week, more or less, and we were treated like crap, to be honest,” Sammour said. “We were treated like animals.”

    Hamida said: “It was a violation of what humanitarian law is.”

    Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson and Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March at Auckland Airport.
    Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson and Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March at Auckland Airport today. Image: RNZ/Marika Khabazi

    Guards refused medicine
    Sammour said one of their fellow prisoners was diabetic, but the guards refused to give him his insulin, but Hamida admitted the hardship they faced was just a fraction of that experienced by the occupants of Gaza.

    People gathered at Auckland Airport to welcome home the New Zealanders who were on the flotilla to Gaza.
    People gathered at Auckland Airport to welcome home the New Zealanders who were on the flotilla to Gaza. Image: RNZ/Marika Khabazi

    The flotilla, a group of dozens of boats carrying 500 people — including Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg — had been trying to break Israel’s blockade.

    Leason’s father, Adi Leason, earlier told RNZ’s Midday Report he was “immensely proud” of his 18-year-old son.

    Samuel Leason hugging his father Adi Leason.
    Samuel Leason hugging his father Adi Leason. Image: Marika Khabazi/RNZ

    “We’ve been going to mass every Sunday for 18 years with Samuel, and he must have been listening and taking something of that formation on board. It’s lovely to see a young man with a deep conscience caring so deeply about people who he will never meet and to put himself in harm’s way for them.”

    Samuel Leason felt a mix of relief and anger upon returning to New Zealand. He said it was amazing to see his family again, but he felt frustrated that the New Zealand government did not do more to intervene.

    The trio said they had not been discouraged and planned to mobilise more than ever.

    More than 67,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children — have been killed since Israel launched its retaliation for Hamas’ 2023 attack, which killed about 1200 Israelis.

    The first stage of a Gaza ceasefire came into force today.

    Rana Hamida greeting loved ones and supporters.
    Rana Hamida greeting loved ones and supporters. Image: Marika Khabazi/RNZ
    Samuel Leason with his family.
    Samuel Leason with his family. Image: Marika Khabazi/RNZ
    Youssef Sammour, is one of the three New Zealanders who returned on Friday.
    Youssef Sammour, one of the three New Zealanders who returned to Auckland today. Image: Marika Khabazi/RNZ

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Amnesty International is asking the New Zealand government to create a new humanitarian visa for Pacific people impacted by climate change.

    Kiribati community leader Charles Kiata said life on Kiribati was becoming extremely hard as sea levels rose and the country was hit by more severe storms, higher temperatures and drought.

    “Every part of life, food, shelter, health, is being affected and what hurts the most is that our people feel trapped. They love their home, but their home is slowly disappearing,” Kiata said.

    Crops are dying and fresh drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce for the island nation.

    Kiata said in New Zealand, overstayers were anxious they would be sent back home.

    “Deporting them back to flooded lands or places with no clean water like Kiribati is not only cruel but it also goes against our shared Pacific values.”

    Amnesty International is also asking the government to stop deporting overstayers from Kiribati and Tuvalu, who would be returning to harsh conditions.

    Duty of care
    The organisation’s executive director, Jacqui Dillon said she wanted New Zealand to acknowledge its duty of care to Pacific communities.

    “We are asking the New Zealand government to create a new humanitarian visa, specifically for those impacted by climate change and disasters. Enabling people to migrate on their terms with dignity.”

    She said current Pacific visas New Zealand offered, such as the Recognised Seasonal Employers (RSE) and the Pacific Access Category (PAC), were insufficient.

    “Those pathways are in effect nothing short of a discriminatory lottery, so they don’t offer dignity, nor do they offer self-agency.”

    Dillon said current visa schemes were also discriminatory because people could only migrate if they had an acceptable standard of health.

    The organisation interviewed Alieta — not her real name — who has a visual impairment. She decided to remove her name from the family’s PAC application to enable her husband and six-year-old daughter to migrate to New Zealand in 2016.

    It has meant Alieta has only seen her daughter once in the past 11 years.

    “I would urge all of us to think about that and say, if our feet were in those shoes, would we think that that was right? I don’t think we would,” Dillon said.

    Tuvalu comparison
    Tuvaluan community leader Fala Haulangi, based in Aotearoa, wants the country to adopt something like the Falepili Union Treaty which the leaders of Tuvalu and Australia signed in 2023.

    It creates a pathway for up to 280 Tuvalu citizens to go to Australia each year to work, live, and study.

    This year over 80 percent of the population applied to move under the treaty.

    Haulangi said the PAC had too many restrictions.

    “PAC (Pacific Access Category Visa) still comes with conditions that are very, very strict on my people, so if [New Zealand has] the same terms and conditions that Australia has for the Falepili Treaty, to me that is really good.”

    In the past, Pacific governments have been worried about the Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme causing a brain drain.

    Samoa paused scheme
    In 2023, Samoa paused the scheme, partially because of the loss of skilled labour, including police officers leaving to go fruit picking.

    Haulangi said it’s not up to her to tell people to stay if a new and more open visa is available to Pacific people.

    “Who am I to tell my people back home ‘don’t come, stay there’ because we need people back home.”

    Dillon said some people will stay.

    “All we’re simply saying is give people the opportunity and the dignity to have self-agency and be able to choose.”

    Charles Kiata from Kiribati said a visa established now would mean there would be a slow migration of people from the Pacific and not people being forced to leave as climate refugees.

    He said people from Kiribati had strengths they could be proud of and could partner with New Zealand.

    “It’s a win-win for both of us; our people come to New Zealand to contribute economically and to society.”

    RNZ Pacific has approached New Zealand’s Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford for comment.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Gerard Otto of G News

    This morning New Zealand Herald columnist and political commentator Matthew Hooton was paid to write an article justifying Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ position on denying Palestinian Statehood on the eve of the first phase of Donald Trump’s 20 point plan while in tandem Peters was interviewed by Ryan Bridge as the justifications continued and propaganda glazed the land.

    Hooton wrongly suggested an out of date way of viewing international law justified Peters as he emphasised the horror endured by Israel and did not recount the genocide with at least 67,000 Palestinians killed, mostly women and children, unfolding as the mind conditioning of New Zealanders continued along the same path we’ve been sleeping under.

    Hooton neglected to mention the failure of NZ First to include official advice in their cabinet paper, the secrecy and delay over the decision, and the words of the Israeli Finance Minister just this morning.

    Bezalel Smotrich said the liberation movement Hamas must be destroyed after the return of Israeli hostages and recently he said this was a real estate bonanza opportunity for Israel.

    He also said in August 2025 that plans to build more than 3000 homes in a controversial settlement project in the occupied West Bank will “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

    The so-called E1 project between Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement has been frozen for decades amid fierce opposition internationally. Building there would effectively cut off the West Bank from occupied East Jerusalem, the planned capital for the state of Palestine.

    Smotrich is not welcome in New Zealand — but travel bans is all Christopher Luxon’s coalition government will do as they bow low before the US and Israel — calling that “Sucking up” . . .  “Independence”.

    We suck up independently and clap ourselves – or at least Act do.

    Japan threatens sanctions
    As reported yesterday, Japan has threatened to sanction Israel if they mess with the possibility of Palestinian Statehood, but back in New Zealand we are busy festering over whether it is okay to protest outside a house — be it — an apartment block which houses a political party office and residential apartments in the same building or not.

    Sticking points include a hefty 3 month prison sentence and $2000 fine but some say that this is all a distraction from our obligations to act against an unfolding genocide and from the dire state of the economy for those who are not wealthy and sorted.

    Khalil al-Hayya, the head of Hamas’s negotiating team, has said the group has received guarantees from the US and mediators that an agreement on a first phase of a ceasefire agreement means the war in Gaza “has ended completely”.

    We will see how Israel plays this — but levels of scepticism are sky high and many have no faith in Netanyahu because he had been offered the return of hostages a year ago and chose to ignore it.

    Perhaps Israel will “behave while International Eyes” are on it but time will tell . . . whether spots have changed on the leopard.

    In the meantime vote in your local elections — you only have one day to go — and when it comes to the next General Election – you know what to do.

    This article is extracted from Gerard Otto’s Friday Morning Coffee column with permission. Matthew Hooton visited Israel and Palestine in 2017 as a guest of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. The Australian news site Crikey publishes a list of politicians and journalists who have travelled to Israel on junkets.

    In the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan, Israel is required to withdraw to the agreed "yellow line"
    In the first phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan, Israel is required to withdraw to the agreed “yellow line” within 24 hours, after which a 72-hour period will begin for the handover of Israeli 48 captives (20 believed to be still alive) in exchange for 2000 Palestinian prisoners. Image: CC Al Jazeera

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    New Zealand advocacy and protest group Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) has “cautiously welcomed” the Gaza ceasefire and proposed exchange of hostages between Israel and the liberation movement Hamas.

    At least 7000 Palestinians are being held in detention without trial by Israel while about 20 Israeli soldiers are held by Hamas.

    PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said the deal was a reprieve from Israel’s genocidal attacks on Palestinians in Gaza.

    “It’s been two years of mass bombing and starvation. It’s the worst atrocity of the 21st century,” he said in a statement.

    “The real tragedy is that the main elements of this ceasefire deal were already agreed to nine months ago in January. Israel was forced to let Palestinians return to Gaza City, and lower the intensity of its attacks.

    “Within a few weeks, the Israelis scuttled the agreement, shut off all food and intensified their attacks and are now ethnically re-cleansing Gaza City.

    “Expulsion is still the Israeli government’s aim. Netanyahu must be disappointed that Trump is no longer advocating for removal of Palestinians from Gaza, but Netanyahu usually gets his way with Trump in the end.”

    Called on support
    Nazal said PSNA especially noted that the Hamas acceptance statement called on countries supporting the deal — New Zealand included — to make sure Israel abided by the few specific conditions imposed on the Zionist state in the agreement.

    “Israel has broken every peace deal it has ever signed on Palestine, right from occupying more than half of what was allocated by the United Nations as a Palestinian state in 1948,” Nazzal said.

    “In the 1993 Oslo peace deal, which the US also brokered, there was meant to be a Palestinian state within five years. Israel made sure this never happened.

    “This time, there is no mention of the Occupied West Bank. Nothing about return of refugees. There is no commitment in the Trump deal for a Palestinian state, for Winston Peters to eventually recognise.

    “There’s just a vague pathway with no timelines and it’s all conditional on Israeli approval,” Nazzal said.

    “So we have a message for Winston Peters, who is demanding PSNA and other protesters applaud the Trump deal as ‘case solved’.

    “Ceasefire or not, our campaign to isolate the apartheid state of Israel will continue to grow until all Palestinians are liberated.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ANALYSIS: By Elijah J Magnier

    Two years ago, Israel suffered what was perhaps the most jarring day in its modern history. The events of October 7, 2023, weren’t just a military failure or an intelligence lapse — they were a national humiliation. Police stations were stormed and overrun. Military posts were taken. Soldiers and officers, including from elite units, were killed or captured. The Gaza Division of the Israeli army, a symbol of Israel’s long-standing dominance over the Strip, fell into chaos.

    Israel invoked the Hannibal Doctrine — a policy that allows military forces to prevent the capture of soldiers even at the cost of their lives, by opening fire on both Hamas and the kidnapped Israelis. That day, it wasn’t theory — it was execution.

    In the fog of panic, Israeli fire turned on its own, and the thin line between protecting society and sacrificing civilians for strategic ends evaporated.

    But October 7 was just the opening act. What followed was a war unlike anything Israel had fought in fifty years — brutal, relentless, and devastating in scale and ambition. Gaza was not merely targeted; it was systematically dismantled. What began as retaliation became something else entirely: an erasure.

    The illusion of military supremacy
    Two years into the war, one fact is undeniable: Israel, backed by some of the most powerful military alliances in the world, has failed to conquer a territory smaller than half of New York City. 365 square kilometers — that’s all Gaza is. Yet despite overwhelming force, technological advantage, and political cover, the Israeli army has been unable to fully occupy it.

    This failure is especially glaring given the scale of destruction. Over 200,000 tons of explosives have been dropped on Gaza — the equivalent of 20 nuclear bombs without radiation. That’s not metaphor. That’s the measure of how far Israel was willing to go and is not willing to stop yet: flattening entire towns, turning hospitals, schools, mosques, residential towers, universities, even cemeteries into rubble.

    Gaza has endured more concentrated bombing than any territory since the Second World War.

    Indeed, what Gaza has endured over the past two years dwarfs even some of the most infamous wartime bombardments of the twentieth century. In February 1945, Allied forces dropped roughly 3,900 tons of explosives on Dresden in a three-day firestorm that killed an estimated 25,000 to 35,000 people and obliterated much of the city. Where Dresden became a symbol of wartime excess, Gaza is witnessing destruction on a scale so vast it makes Dresden look like a prelude.

    And unlike Dresden, Gaza’s devastation has been broadcast live, in real time, to a world that cannot claim it did not know.

    But Israel was never alone and had every advantage and complicity: real-time intelligence from the United States and Britain, precision munitions from Germany, satellite targeting, drone supremacy, complete air dominance. And still, two years on, it cannot claim control over this tiny strip of land.

    The problem was never firepower. It was urban warfare — a terrain where bombs are blunt tools and conquest requires something far more difficult: boots on the ground, close-quarters control, and the ability to hold territory without hemorrhaging soldiers or sparking endless insurgency.

    The Israeli army, trained for dominance but not for urban occupation, found itself caught in a repetitive, grinding cycle: enter, level, retreat, repeat.

    Neighborhoods were captured and declared “secured,” only to be abandoned and recontested days later. Troops rotated in and out of ruined zones, unable to maintain sustained presence. For every area leveled, resistance either moved underground or regrouped elsewhere. The war turned into a grim spectacle of destruction without achievement.

    This revealed a contradiction at the heart of Israel’s military doctrine: it can destroy almost anything, but it cannot hold what it destroys. Air supremacy means nothing when the battlefield is a bombed-out maze. Gaza’s density, devastation, and defiance turned every advantage into a liability.

    So while the Strip lies in ruins, it is not conquered. And that truth — buried under declarations of “strategic success” — is the defeat Israel cannot admit.

    The real objective: Not security—territory
    Israel’s war was not, as officially claimed, about eliminating Hamas or rescuing hostages. That narrative collapsed quickly under the weight of Israel’s own actions. From the beginning, hostage negotiations were treated as peripheral. Every time progress was made on potential ceasefires, it was Netanyahu’s office that pulled the plug — because every hostage released made the war harder to justify. Every ceasefire threatened to slow the campaign just enough for the world to ask uncomfortable questions.

    This was never about hostages. It was about Gaza. More specifically: it was about removing Gaza as an obstacle to territorial ambition.

    Netanyahu, cornered by political instability, corruption trials, and a fragile coalition held together by the far-right, saw in October 7 a chance to do what had always been unspoken: clear Gaza. Not of Hamas, but of Palestinians. Permanently. Not by announcement, but by attrition — bombing, starvation, siege, trauma.

    Gaza’s civilian population wasn’t collateral damage. It was the target.

    Destroying Gaza wasn’t a means to defeat an enemy. It was a means to reshape a demographic reality. This wasn’t defense. It was a conquest dressed up as security.

    When the mask falls
    In war, the first casualty is truth. But in this war, truth didn’t die quietly — it was dragged into the open, exposed by the very actors trying to hide it. Israeli soldiers live streamed brutality. Government officials made genocidal statements on public platforms. Civilian infrastructure was not accidentally struck — it was deliberately annihilated.

    At first, the world made excuses. Israel had been attacked and was “entitled to defend itself”. But over time, the scale, duration, and clarity of its actions stripped away any remaining ambiguity. When every hospital (38 in total) becomes a target, when entire neighborhoods are turned to rubble, when starvation is used as a weapon — it becomes impossible to speak of “defence” without insulting reason.

    And so the global tide turned. Governments hesitated, but people didn’t. From Berlin to Boston, from Sydney to Cape Town, millions marched — not for Hamas, but for the principle that no state, however victimised, has the right to massacre an entire population in response.

    Israel didn’t just lose global support. It lost the moral framing that had shielded, or it had hid behind, it for decades.

    It had positioned itself as a democracy surrounded by enemies. But democracies don’t bomb refugee camps, don’t livestream the deaths of children, don’t cut off water to two million people and don’t hold hostages’ lives hostage to political calculus.

    Israel’s loss over the last two years hasn’t been military — it’s been existential. The myth of invincibility is broken. The image of moral exceptionalism, cultivated so carefully for decades, has shattered. Netanyahu, once a master manipulator of global opinion, now finds himself isolated, distrusted, even among allies.

    What October 7 exposed was the weakness of Israel in the one arena it believed itself untouchable: control. It wasn’t just a border breach. It was a rupture of the entire apparatus that had kept Gaza contained for years. Fences, drones, AI, intelligence, surveillance — all of it failed.

    And when the mask of control slipped, the response wasn’t strategic — it was criminally vengeful. It was rage mixed with blood thirst. But rage isn’t a strategy, rage destroys. And over two years, rage has destroyed Gaza — and with it, Israel’s future.

    Netanyahu’s calculus: Eternal war
    The war served Netanyahu well—at least at first. It silenced his critics. It unified a fractured public. It postponed trials. It gave him relevance again. But the deeper logic was more disturbing: war is the only environment where his political survival is guaranteed.

    Peace, by contrast, is a threat. Peace requires compromise. Peace requires vision. Netanyahu offers neither.

    Each time a ceasefire neared, his government collapsed it. Each time hostages were close to freedom, the process was torpedoed. To free the hostages would be to end the war. To end the war would be to lose power. This is the twisted loop that has defined Israel’s leadership for two years. Hostages weren’t bargaining chips — they were leverage. They were the excuse for ongoing brutality.

    And the world saw it. Every broken deal, every last-minute sabotage, made it harder to pretend this was about security. By the end of the second year, no serious government believed Netanyahu was acting in good faith. Even allies began to distance themselves, not out of principle — but out of shame. What’s remarkable isn’t that Israel committed war crimes — it’s that it did so while assuming the world would look away.

    For decades, that assumption held. But this time was different.

    Technology turned every phone into a witness. Every child pulled from rubble was broadcast in real time. Every lie was challenged within seconds. The world saw the crimes as they happened — and watched as Israel confirmed them with its own footage.

    No state can withstand that level of exposure and retain legitimacy.

    Even in the US, the last bastion of unconditional support, the consensus cracked. Young people rejected the old narratives. Jewish voices joined Palestinian ones. The streets filled with dissent, not just from the fringe but from the center. Israel’s status as a protected partner is no longer guaranteed.

    In Europe, traditional guilt-driven loyalty gave way to disgust. Governments clung to old alliances, but the public broke ranks. Supporting Israel was no longer an expression of Western solidarity — it became a political liability.

    Ceasefire, but not peace
    Now, with pressure mounting, ceasefire talks are back — this time in Egypt, under the bizarre influence of Donald Trump, whose re-entry into international politics has added a surreal dimension to an already surreal conflict. But few believe the talks will produce anything lasting. Netanyahu has built his power on conflict. He has no incentive to end it.

    Even if a deal is signed, it’s unlikely to hold. The machinery of occupation, the logic of dispossession, the appetite for dominance — it remains intact. This war may pause. But the ideology that fueled it still governs Israel.

    And that’s the real crisis: not the bombs, not the destruction, not even the deaths — but the belief that this can go on forever.

    Israel may declare victory over Hamas. It may claim strategic success in degrading enemy capabilities. But that’s not what the world sees.

    What the world sees is a nation that responded to horror with horror. A nation that lost its soul in pursuit of a war it could never truly win. A nation that allowed vengeance to become policy, and policy to become annihilation.

    Two years later, Gaza lies in ruins. But so does Israel’s credibility. So does the illusion of a “moral army.” So does the narrative of self-defence that once made its case persuasive to the world.

    Hamas lit the match. But Israel poured the fuel, struck the steel, and claimed the fire was purification.

    In the end, what remains isn’t security. It’s ash.

    Elijah J Magnier is a veteran war zone correspondent and political analyst with over 35 years of experience covering the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). He specialises in real-time reporting of politics, strategic and military planning, terrorism and counter-terrorism; his strong analytical skills complement his reporting. His in-depth experience, extensive contacts and thorough political knowledge of complex political situations in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria provide his writings with insights balancing the routine misreporting and propaganda in the Western press. He also comments on Al Jazeera.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Trump, impatient to claim a Nobel Peace prize, bullies everyone into accepting a madcap peace plan that gives little or no consideration to the Palestinians’ future.

    Who gave him authority to decide such matters, and where are the United Nations in all this? And what about international law and the raft of UN resolutions on these matters that are waiting to be implemented? This looks like an attempt to bury them.

    The other day we saw Trump and Netanyahu holding hands and smirking as they launched their 20-point so-called peace plan which the war criminal and pro-Israel freak Tony Blair also had a hand in. Trump said Netanyahu had agreed it and Arab countries were onboard, but many will doubt that.

    Trump then issued a blood-curdling threat to Hamas that if they didn’t accept his plan within 3 days he would give Israel the green light to carry on with the genocide while he himself, presumably, would continue supplying the ammunition. “All HELL, like no one has ever seen before”, would be let loose, he snarled.

    His grand plan is so vague that it can be interpreted in different ways, provides no clear pathway to Palestinian freedom and self-determination, completely bypasses the United Nations, and puts two fingers up to international law. No sane person would agree to it. When Netanyahu got home he pretty well disowned it, repeating that Israel would never allow a Palestinian state to emerge. “It’s not written in the agreement. We said we would strongly oppose a Palestinian state,” he announced. Of course, this has been the Zionist position since Day 1 in 1948. Domination of Palestine from the river to the sea is the very raison-d’etre of the Israel Project and they won’t be deflected. They’ve pursued their criminal ambition for 7 decades, with the US and UK providing diplomatic cover and much more, and they now smell victory.

    Hamas have sensibly signalled acceptance in principle of some aspects, subject to more work on the detail. But they are at odds with Trump’s plan in several respects.

    In particular, they object to foreign involvement in Gaza’s interim governance. The plan does not identify any Palestinian individual or group by name as being involved in the transition. Instead it says the panel would be supervised by a new international transitional body headed by Trump himself and which would include other members, including former UK prime minister Blair. Hamas said it would agree to hand over Gaza’s administration “to a Palestinian body of independents (technocrats) based on Palestinian national consensus and supported by Arab and Islamic backing”‘

    As for Hamas playing no part in Gaza’s future, the Trump plan says they must “agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form,” and that there will be a “process of demilitarisation of Gaza”. Hamas’s response is that they are part of a “comprehensive Palestinian national framework” and “tied to a collective national position in accordance with relevant international laws and resolutions”. The future of Gaza and the rights of Palestinian people are to be discussed within that national framework, in which Hamas will be included and “will contribute with full responsibility”.

    So there’s a considerable gulf. Hamas’s statement did not specifically accept Trump’s 20-point plan although Trump, for his own reasons, pretends it did.

    What does the UN say?

    Meanwhile the United Nations has savaged the half-baked and, let’s face it, dishonest plan.

    A team of 28 independent human rights experts, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, warn that any peace plan must absolutely safeguard the human rights of Palestinians, and not create further conditions of oppression. “We welcome parts of the peace plan announced by the United States to end the war in Gaza, including a permanent ceasefire, rapid release of unlawfully detained persons, an influx of humanitarian aid under United Nations supervision, no forced displacement from Gaza, the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the non-annexation of territory. These are broadly requirements of international law that should not depend on a formal peace plan.”

    But they warn that other key elements of the plan are inconsistent with fundamental rules of international law and the 2024 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice which demands that Israel ends its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “Imposing an immediate peace at any price, regardless of or brazenly against law and justice, is a recipe for further injustice, future violence and instability.”

    The experts’ objections include the following:

    • The plan does not guarantee the Palestinian right of self-determination as international law requires, and it is subject to vague pre-conditions concerning Gaza’s redevelopment, Palestinian Authority reform, and a “dialogue” between Israel and Palestine. Palestine’s future would thus be at the mercy of decisions by outsiders, not in the hands of Palestinians as international law commands.
    • The plan also preserves the failed status quo of requiring more negotiations with Israel, when the Israeli Prime Minister has already declared that Israel would “forcibly resist” statehood. This is blatantly against the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finding that fulfilling the right of self-determination cannot be conditional on negotiations.
    • The “temporary transitional government” is not representative of Palestinians and even excludes the Palestinian Authority, which further violates self-determination and lacks legitimacy.
    • There are no concrete benchmarks or timeframes for a transition to representative governance, which belongs to the Palestinians only, without foreign interference.
    • Oversight by a “Board of Peace” chaired by the US President is not under United Nations authority or transparent multilateral control, while the US is a deeply partisan supporter of Israel and not an “honest broker”. This proposal is reminiscent of colonial practices and must be rejected.
    • An “International Stabilisation Force”, outside the control of the Palestinian people and the United Nations as a guarantor, would replace Israeli occupation with a US-led occupation, contrary to Palestinian self-determination.
    • Partial Israeli occupation could continue indefinitely through a “security perimeter” inside Gaza’s borders, which is absolutely unacceptable.
    • The demilitarisation of Gaza has no end date and, if permanent, could leave it vulnerable to Israeli aggression.
    • Nothing is said regarding the demilitarisation of Israel, which has committed international crimes against the Palestinians and threatened peace and security in the region through aggression against other countries.
    • De-radicalisation is imposed on Gaza only, while anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab sentiments, radicalisation and public incitement to genocide have been hallmarks of dominant rhetoric in Israel over the past two years.
    • The plan largely treats Gaza in isolation from the West Bank including East Jerusalem, when these areas must be regarded as a unified Palestinian territory and State.
    • An “economic development plan” and “special economic zone” could result in illegal foreign exploitation of resources without Palestinian consent.
    • There is no duty on Israel and those who have sustained its illegal attacks in Gaza to compensate Palestinians for illegal war damage.
    • The plan provides for the release of all Israeli hostages but only some of the many arbitrarily detained Palestinians.
    • Amnesties offered to Hamas seem to be unconditional, even if they committed international crimes, denying justice for victims of international crimes. And the plan does not address accountability at all for Israeli international crimes and human rights violations against the Palestinian people. There is no commitment to transitional justice, historical truth-telling or genuine reconciliation. There is also no guaranteed access for independent journalists.
    • Accountability and justice are integral to sustainable peace.
    • The plan does not address other fundamental issues such as ending illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, borders, compensation, and refugees.
    • The plan does not provide a leading role for the United Nations, General Assembly or Security Council, or specifically for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is vital to assisting and protecting Palestinians.
    • Any peace plan must respect the ground rules of international law. The future of Palestine must be in the hands of the Palestinian people – not imposed by outsiders under extreme conditions of duress in yet another scheme to control their destiny.
    • The International Court of Justice has been crystal clear: Conditions cannot be placed on the Palestinian right of self-determination. The Israeli occupation must end immediately, totally and unconditionally, with due reparation made to the Palestinians.
    • Finally, the United Nations – not Israel or its closest ally – has been identified by the ICJ as the legitimate authority to oversee the end of the occupation and the transition towards a political solution in which the Palestinians’ right of self-determination is fully realised.

    Which leaves us in no doubt. Trump is ignorant of international law (or he regards it as a huge inconvenience to his private agenda) and his plan has little to do with lasting peace. He must be persuaded to stand aside and leave all this to the UN. Imperfect though it is, the UN the best we’ve got.

    The post State of Play in US-Israel’s Land-Grab Bid first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • New Zealanders deserve to know how the country’s foreign policy is made, writes John Hobbs.

    ANALYSIS: By John Hobbs

    The New Zealand government remains unwilling to support Palestinian statehood recognition at the United Nations General Assembly.

    This is a disgraceful position which gives support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and seriously undermines our standing. Of the 193 states of the UN, 157 have now provided statehood recognition. New Zealand is not one of them.

    The purpose of this opinion piece is to highlight the troubling lack of transparency in how the government deliberates on its foreign policy choices.

    Government decisions and calculations on foreign policy are being made behind closed doors with limited public scrutiny, unlike other areas of policy, where at least a modicum of transparency occurs.

    The government has, over the past two years, exceeded itself in obscuring the process it goes through, without explaining its approach to the question of Palestine.

    New Zealand still inconceivably lauds the impossible goal of a two-state solution, the hallmark of successive governments’ foreign policy positions on the question of Palestine, but does everything to not bring about its realisation.

    To try to understand the basis for New Zealand’s approach to Gaza and the risks generated by the government’s lack of direct action against Israel, I placed an Official Information Request (OIA) with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Winston Peters. I requested copies of advice that had been received on New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

    Plausible case against Israel
    My initial OIA request was placed in January 2024, after the International Court of Justice had determined there was a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. At that point, about 27,000 people in Gaza had been killed, mainly women and children. My request was denied.

    I put the same OIA request to the minister in June 2025. By this time, nearly 63,000 people had been killed by Israel. At the time of my second request there was abundant evidence reported by UN agencies of Israel’s tactics. Again, my request for information was denied.

    I appealed the refusal by the minister of foreign affairs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reviewed the case and accepted that the minister of foreign affairs was within his right to refuse to provide the material.

    The basis for the decision was that the advice given to the minister was subject to legal professional privilege, and that the right to protect legally privileged advice was not outweighed by the public interest in gaining access to that advice.

    The refusal by the minister and the Ombudsman to make the advice available is deeply worrying. Although I am not questioning the importance of protecting legal professional privilege, I cannot imagine an example that could be more pressing in terms of “public interest” than the complicity of nation states in genocide.

    Indeed, the threshold of legal professional privilege was never meant to be absolute. Parliament, in designing the OIA regime, had this in mind when it deemed that legal professional privilege could, under exceptional circumstances, be outweighed by the public interest.

    The Office of the Ombudsman has ruled in the past that legal professional privilege is not an absolute; it accepted that legal advice received by the Ministry of Health on embryo research had to be released, for example, as it was in the public interest to do so, even though it was legally privileged.

    Puzzling statement
    The Ombudsman concludes his response to my request with the puzzling statement that the “general public interest in accountability and transparency in government decision-making on this issue is best reflected in the decisions made after considering the legal advice, rather than what is contained in the legal advice.”

    The point I was trying to clarify is whether the government is acting in a manner that reflects the advice it has received. If it has received advice that New Zealand must take particular steps to fulfil its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and the government has chosen to ignore that advice, then surely New Zealanders have a right to know.

    The content of the advice is extremely relevant: it would identify any contradictions between the advice the government received and its actions. Through public access to such information, governments can be held to account for the decisions they make.

    The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, concluded on September 16 that Israeli authorities and security forces committed four out of the five underlying acts of genocide. Illegal settlers have been let loose in the West Bank under the protection of the Israeli army to harass and kill local Palestinians and occupy further areas of Palestinian land.

    At the UN General Assembly, the New Zealand government took a stance that is squarely in support of the Israeli genocide, also supported by the United States. International law clearly forbids the act of genocide, in Gaza as much as anywhere else, including the attacks on Palestinian civilians living under occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    In 2015-16, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution that condemned the illegality of Israel’s actions in the Occupied West Bank, with the intention of supporting a Palestinian state. New Zealand’s recent posture at the General Assembly undermines this principled precedent.

    That New Zealand could not bring itself to offer the olive branch of statehood recognition is morally repugnant and severely damages our standing in the international community. The New Zealand public has the right to demand transparency in its government’s decision-making.

    The advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister cannot be hidden behind the veil of legal professional privilege.

    John Hobbs is a doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • There can be no peace without justice, yet this simple truth still hasn’t penetrated at UKgov and USgov levels. Or is it ignored because it squelches the West’s lawless policies in the Middle East?

    Statehood means self-determination with no outside interference. In Palestine’s case international law and relevant UN resolutions must finally be implemented and no longer contemptuously waved aside. Justice must be done and seen to be done. A UN commission of inquiry now confirms what many already knew – that Israel seeks to establish permanent control over Gaza and a Jewish majority in the occupied West Bank. UKGov and others therefore must persuade the UN General Assembly to use the tools available to circumvent the US veto and intervene militarily with a protection force, sending the Israeli war machine, and its settler thugs, back behind the internationally recognised ‘Green Line’ border.

    A reformed Palestinian Authority must be allowed to govern its territories with whatever help they choose, possibly under UN supervision. None of that is acknowledged although it’s the Palestinians’ inalienable right.

    Starmer et al. insist that Hamas, who were democratically elected under the scrutiny of international observers, shall play no part in future governance without explaining how they can legally interfere and dictate who may (and may not) rule the Palestinian state. That is a matter entirely for the Palestinians. They would do better to sanction Netanyahu’s party, Likud, for its decades-long war crimes, crimes against humanity, and now genocide.

    Then there’s the question of Israel’s brazen failure since inception to honour its obligations under the UN Charter and its frequently stated refusal to allow Palestinian statehood to become a reality.

    Now the three most loathsome and discredited creatures on the planet are trying to force on us a one-sided “eternal peace” plan that’s short on detail, ignores international law, bypasses the United Nations, lacks any kind of authorisation from the global community, reeks of sleaze, reads more like a plunder plan and refuses to answer questions. And they claim the Arab nations are ‘on board’. Starmer, having just announced he recognises the Palestinian state, tells the Labour Conference he backs the plan…. but backs what exactly? How does any of it respect Palestinian rights to self-determination or the rights of the Palestinian Authority to run things?

    As for Tony Blair becoming Gaza’s governor, he’s a notorious warmonger and pro-Israel freak who should be behind bars and caused Palestinians much anguish on previous occasions he meddled in the Middle East. Trump shamelessly advertises his complicity in the ongoing genocide by threatening the government in Gaza to accept this abomination of a scheme or he’ll give Israel the OK (and presumably the weapons) to carry on with its extermination programme – which it is doing anyway.

    This vile trio are not aiming to deliver justice for the Palestinians, whose land this is. Theirs is a private club that’s in it for greed and self-aggrandisement. How legally valid is any of that? And is the international community really going to sit back and allow such a preposterous scheme to go ahead with Blair in charge? If so the world is hurtling towards hell with brake failure.

    The post Gaza: “Eternal Peace” Plan or Licence to Plunder? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Margot Staunton, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

    Bougainvilleans went to the polls today, keen to elect a leader who will continue their fight for independence.

    “There’s a mood of excitement among the people here,” said Electoral Commissioner Desmond Tsianai.

    “It is important that this election is successful and credible, because we want legitimate leaders in the government, who will continue discussions with Papua New Guinea over independence,” he said.

    Tsianai said there were more than 239,000 registered voters in the autonomous PNG region and he expects a better turnout than the 67 percent during the 2020 election.

    “We anticipate voter turnout will increase due to the importance of this election in the political aspirations of Bougainville.”

    Tsianai said his office had been proactive, encouraging voters to enrol and reaching out through schools to first-time voters aged 18 and over.

    He is adamant Bougainville could achieve a one-day poll, despite the election being rescheduled at the last minute.

    Polling pushed back
    Polling was scheduled to begin on Thursday but was pushed back a day to allow time to dispatch ballot papers.

    In addition, he said, there were some quality control issues concerning serial numbers.

    “These are an important safeguard against fraud. We, therefore, took measures to ensure that these issues were rectified, so that electoral integrity was assured.”

    The final shipment of ballot papers, which was scheduled for delivery on August 23, finally arrived on September 2, he said.

    This did not allow enough time for packing and distribution to enable polling to take place on Thursday.

    “The printing of the ballot papers and the delay afterwards was out of our hands, however we’ve taken the necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the process.

    The polling period for the elections was from September 2-8, and the office had discretion to select any date within that period based on election planning, he said.

    “Rescheduling allowed sufficient time to resolve ballot delivery delays and to ensure that polling teams are ready to serve voters.”

    Preventing risk
    He said that the rescheduling was done in the interest of voters, candidates and stakeholders, to prevent any risk of disenfranchisement.

    “We remain fully committed to delivering a credible election and will continue to provide regular updates to maintain transparency and confidence in the electoral process,” he said.

    “We have taken the necessary steps and anticipated that some wards within constituencies have a larger voting population so extra teams had been allocated to those wards so polling can be conducted in a day.”

    The dominant issue going into the election remained the quest for independence.

    In 2020, there were strong expectations that the autonomous region would soon achieve that, given the result of an historic referendum.

    A 97.7 percent majority voted for independence in a referendum which began in November 2019.

    However, that has not happened yet, and Port Moresby has yet to concede much ground.

    Toroama not pressured
    Bougainville’s 544 polling stations will open from 8am to 4pm local time (9am-5pm NZT) in what is the first time the Autonomous Bougainville Government has planned a single day poll.

    Some 404 candidates are contesting for 46 seats in the Bougainville Parliament, including a record 34 women.

    Six men are challenging Ishmael Toroama for his job.

    Toroama recently told RNZ Pacific that he was not feeling any pressure as he sought a second five-year term in office.

    “I’m the kind of man that has process. They voted me for the last five years. And if the people wish to put me, the decision, the power to put people, it is democracy. They will vote for me.” he said.

    Counting will take place on September 9-21, and writs will be returned to the Speaker of the House the following day.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies have come out with the expanded and revised second edition of their book War in Ukraine. Defying logic, the subtitle is Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict.

    A blurb from professor Noam Chomsky calls it: “An invaluable guide.” I agree.

    Media analyst Norman Solomon calls the book a “concise primer … historical context with balance and compassion.” Benjamin and Davies are compassionate advocates for peace; this is laudable and undeniable. However, too often information that criticizes all sides in a conflict, more or less equally, is passed off as balanced. Yet, when the preponderance of blame lies with one side in a dispute, to criticize equally would be unbalanced. War in Ukraine often comes across as unbalanced, and that starts with the title.

    The authors give short shrift to the “Russian media narrative” notion of a “special military operation” (SMO, p 149) whereby Russia states that it is not conducting a war. The authors deal marginally with the distinction between SMO and war, (p 149) and it is left to the reader to just accept the authors’ assertion that it is a war and not a SMO. But what is a SMO? Basically, a SMO is a political-military concept used to downplay the severity and scope of a military action, while “war” is a broader, more objective term for a large-scale armed conflict. Thus, calling it a SMO versus war points to a semantic distinction aligning with a certain narrative.

    Putin says Russia’s hands were forced by the US-NATO to launch the SMO:

    They [US-NATO and Ukraine] did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbas have asked Russia for help.

    For the most part, War in Ukraine provides most of the requisite background leading to Russian invasion, inter alia:

    • NATO breaking its agreement to not move one inch eastward toward Russia.
    • The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 affirmed a commitment “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine,” and “obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine…”
    • The US was instrumental in fomenting the Maidan Coup/Revolution to overthrow the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych to install a US-preferred president.
    • The machinations of the US-NATO in the politics of Ukraine and the involvement of US-NATO in a proxy war.
    • Western Ukraine launched war on the eastern oblasts of Ukraine.
    • Kyiv failed to implement the Minsk Agreements to end the west versus east fighting in Ukraine.
    • Nazi ideologues constituted a major fighting force for Kyiv.
    • Western media played a biased role in its coverage.

    Questioning Balance

    The authors write, “… when Russia jumped on the might-makes-right bandwagon by tearing up the UN Charter and invading Ukraine.” (p 6) Thereby, “The people of Ukraine were unwittingly caught in a perfect storm, whipped up not only by brutal Russian aggression but also by astonishing Western hubris and stupidity.” (p 6) This dismisses or ignores that Putin launched the SMO “in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic…” War on Ukraine is somewhat taciturn about the killing and aggression preceding Russia sending its military into Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

    In mid-February 2014, the Maidan Coup (“coup” because an elected government was violently overthrown) resulted in the deaths of 107 civilians and 13 police officers. In the subsequent fighting, 14,000 people were killed, according to the estimates of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 14 April 2014 to 31 January 2022 in eastern Ukraine. In essence, if one posits a Russian aggression, then it seems it can also be posited that it was in response to Ukrainian aggression against Donbass with its sizeable proportion of ethnic Russians. In other words, the Russian aggression is to protect ethnic Russians from the initial aggression of Ukraine.

    Yet, Benjamin and Davies frame one question as: “And why did Russia decide to invade Ukraine?” (p 8) There was no question posed: “And why did western Ukraine decide to invade eastern Ukraine?” Why decide to invade Ukraine? (Balanced another way: Why did Russia feel forced to launch the SMO?) Putin stated,

    The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

    Benjamin and Davies do speak to why the West backed the coup and post-coup governments in Ukraine thorough financing from the IMF: “The thrust of the IMF-mandated reforms was not to give Ukraine back to its people, but to open it up to Western capital and to partnerships between local oligarchs and Western ones with even deeper pockets.” (p 42)

    The authors quoted Putin from a presidential address in April 2021 warning:

    Those behind provocations that threaten the core interests of our security will regret what they have done in a way that they have not regretted anything for a long time. (p 65)

    Yet War on Ukraine is decidedly lacking in presenting and analyzing the speeches Putin made in an attempt to end the warring in Ukraine and preclude Russia’s entry into the fighting.

    It is a fact that the US-NATO rejected the security agreement proffered by the government of Russia to end the fighting in Ukraine and provide for the security of all parties. Neither did the US-NATO come back with a counter proposal. Clearly, Russia was seeking to avoid military action. From the decision of the US-NATO that “summarily dismissed Russia’s proposals” (p 68) one might well surmise that the West was hoping to force Russia to take up arms, which Russia obliged.

    Benjamin and Davies focus on the illegality of Russia’s SMO. (p 72) There certainly are laws that one can cite to criticize Russia on the legality of its SMO. Even if legal arguments might find against Russia’s militarism, should extant law always be the final arbiter on right and wrong? Is the launching of military action to save lives and staunch further killing not morally warranted? Many have clamoured for military action to stop the genocide being wreaked against Palestinians. Should the courageous state of Yemen be legally condemned as a scofflaw state for coming to the aid of Palestine?

    Benjamin and Davies bring up “the allegations of serious Russian war crimes in Bucha and Mariupol.” (p 76) The authors do not consider that this might have been a false flag carried out by Ukraine. The Bucha allegation is forcefully refuted by former US Marine Scott Ritter who says “hundreds of Ukrainian civilians in Bucha … were slaughtered by Ukrainian security forces.” Ritter provides a narrative of what happened and avers, “The evidence of this crime was overwhelming.” That may be so, but what Ritter provided was a narrative and not evidence.

    The authors write that in the first phase of the Russian penetration into Ukraine that Russia failed to take Kyiv. (p 79) The authors are attributing Russian intentionality to take the Ukrainian capital. In stating that, Benjamin and Davies call into question the veracity of Putin who has stated: “It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force.”

    Early in the Russian SMO, the authors cite Amnesty International reports of Russia’s “deliberate killings of civilians, rapes, torture, and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war.” (p 80) Is Amnesty International a credible source? Paul de Rooij has written a few articles highly critical of Amnesty International (“Amnesty International: Trumpeting for war… again,” “Amnesty International: The Case of a Rape Foretold,” “Where was Amnesty International during the Genocide in Gaza?” as have others; e.g., Khaled Amayreh, “Amnesty’s Scandalous Obliquity” and Binoy Kampmark “Finding the Unmentionable: Amnesty International, Israel and Genocide.”) One wonders what exactly is a report? Testimony given by people? That has validity if the testimony is verifiable or at least has genuine verisimilitude.

    Patrick Lancaster, an on-the-ground independent American journalist in Ukraine, for some reason not sourced by Benjamin and Davies, has spoken of several war crimes by Ukraine.

    The authors write that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum. (p 101) This is true, but it shouldn’t be stated without context. The memorandum was to provide security guarantees for Ukraine. But security for one state was not meant to diminish the security of the Russian signatory and be to the detriment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Certainly when Russia signed the memorandum it did not foresee that other signatories to the memorandum, the US and UK, would undermine democracy in Ukraine, weaponize and militarize Ukraine, and seek to draw it into NATO despite it being a Russian redline.

    Benjamin and Davies claim that Russia violated the UN Charter when it launched its SMO against Ukraine. (p 118-120, 128) What the authors do not discuss is the Responsibility to Protect, a global political commitment, endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit. At R2P’s core is that sovereignty is not just a right but a responsibility. When Kyiv attacked eastern Ukraine it violated its responsibility for the security and welfare of all its citizens and opened the door for R2P to be invoked.

    Consider whether the authors are tendentious in the following depictions:

    As reporters got swept up in Zelenskyy’s calls for more Western military involvement, they often became purveyors of fake news. There were surely accurate stories of real Ukrainian heroism, but some turned out to be exaggerated, embellished, or even simply invented. (160)

    If there “surely are accurate stories of real Ukrainian heroism,” — and there must be — then why the need for the fake news? There are several admonitions about accepting the truth of statements when previous statements have been exposed as disinformation, from Aesop’s boy who cried wolf to “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me” and the Latin dictum: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    There is credible evidence of summary executions, rapes, and torture carried out by Russian forces in Ukraine, and evidence of Ukrainian war crimes too. (p 162)

    There is evidence of Ukrainian war crimes, not credible evidence and the crimes are not spelled out as summary executions, rapes, and torture.

    And the question for this reader is: what is the evidence? Is it sufficient for a writer to merely state that there is evidence and that the evidence is credible? Would critical thinkers accept such an assurance?

    The authors write of “Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” (p 181)

    According to DeepSeek: “In international law, annexation is the forcible acquisition of territory by one state at the expense of another state. It involves the formal act of claiming sovereignty over territory that was previously under the control of another sovereign entity.” Much more context is required to just call it an annexation. This was a process whereby the people of Crimea, predominantly ethnic Russians, exercised their right under Article 1 of the UN Charter to self-determination, which they overwhelmingly voted for in a referendum. Also the historical context is relevant. Soviet president Nikita Khrushchev had formally transferred Crimea from the jurisdiction of Russia to Ukraine in 1954.

    *****

    Benjamin and Davies conclude:

    As with this war and the crisis that led up to it, Russia is accountable and responsible for its own actions, which have violated the most fundamental principles of international law. But our leaders in the West are also equally responsible for their actions and they too have acted irresponsibly and dangerously. (p 209)

    It is unassailable logic: that we are all responsible and accountable for our actions. Notable is that no violations of fundamental principles of international law are ascribed to the Western leaders. What about the casus belli; which entity provoked the war? Did Putin provoke the war? That would be a risible contention because Putin made overtures to US-NATO seeking security guarantees, but he was thoroughly rebuffed by the West. US-NATO was going to militarize and arm Ukraine and likeliest place missiles within Ukraine.

    Speaking of responsibility, is it not the responsibility of any country’s leadership to provide security for the country and its people? Putin has identified this as an existential threat to Russia.

    The intentions of the US in its proxy war against Russia have been made clear by several politicians, both Democrats and Republicans. For example, US senator Lindsay Graham, after meeting with President Zelenskyy Kyiv in August 2023, stated:

    “The Ukrainians are fighting to the last person, and we’re funding it. It’s a good deal for us.”

    “It’s the best money we’ve ever spent. Without a single American soldier dying, we can weaken the Russian military.”

    Several other US politicians have made the same argument. For example, Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader said,

    “The Ukrainians are destroying the army of one of our biggest rivals without having to put American soldiers at risk. We’re rebuilding our industrial base. The rest of the world is watching. This is a direct investment in cold, hard American interests.”

    Also, the West has a history of attacking Russia. Would Putin have been faithful to addressing the security situation of Russia if he had allowed NATO to deploy troops and missiles in Ukraine? It is often said that Putin does not bluff. What would his reputation have been if he did not stick to his redlines of no NATO in Georgia and Ukraine?

    Shouldn’t people devoted to peace be focused on arguing for the dismantling of NATO; adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, thereby denuclearizing; and engaging in worldwide disarmament? This is what Benjamin and Davies do best.

    Benjamin and Davies acknowledge the insight offered by several persons for their book. (p 235-236) The absence of certain persons who speak more understandingly of Russia taking on US-NATO-Ukraine, for instance,  former Marine Scott Ritter, retired colonel Douglas Macgregor, and professor Jeffrey Sachs is suggestive of the authors’ leaning. Jeffrey Sachs wrote a recent essay that stands in contrast to many conclusions reached by Benjamin and Davies.

    War in Ukraine is very readable, and it is informative. It is a great primer. But as for any information proffered, by whatever source, demand the evidence, question the evidence, and scrutinize the analysis.

    The post Russia’s Special Military Operation in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.