“Triple-tap” attacks by Israeli and US forces against Palestine, Iran and Lebanon were condemned today at a Stop Wars Aotearoa rally against the atrocities in the Middle East in Auckland’s Aotea Square.
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters was also criticised in satirical theatre over accusations of racism and insults against immigrants.
Thanking people for showing their support and solidarity with the people of Iran — “who have had American and Israeli missiles raining down on them for five months” — a New Zealand Afghan speaker said this “new wave of aggression” had started on February 28 with a demonic US attack on Minab elementary girls’ school in southeastern Iran.
Iranian Kiwi Seyed Derhamy . . . speaking about the tragic killings of the Minab schoolgirls on the first day of the US-Israel war on Iran. Image: Del Abcede/APR
“A triple-tap attack against children in their classrooms,” said Bibi Amena of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). Rescue officials reported 175 people had been killed — most of them young schoolgirls, with 32 of the victims recently being buried in a mass funeral.
“A triple-tap attack is a tactic used to ensure there are no survivors, and to kill anyone responding to the initial attack, in particular it aims to kill any rescue workers and journalists who arrive at the scene after the first strike,” she said.
This was the same tactic used by the “demonic Israeli Occupation Forces in Palestine”.
In August 2025, Israeli forces carried out a triple-tap attack on Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, killing 22 civilians, including 3 journalists who arrived minutes after the initial attack.
“They were all shot, 335 times by Israeli occupation forces. Two paramedics were sent to rescue Hind. A double tap attack followed, deliberately timed to kill the paramedics,” she said.
The shocking tragedy was told in a documentary, The Voice of Hind Rajab, featuring the actual sound track of Hind’s pleas for her life as she lay wounded and talked to rescue dispatchers.
A Palestinian community and justice advocate, Maher Nazzal, posted on social media this week the following response:
“It is heartbreaking beyond words.
“If you are a human being with even the smallest sense of compassion, this film will change you. After watching it, life can never, ever absolutely never go back to ‘life as usual’.”
“We all know her name and her story,” said Amena. “we all know the story of Gaza, and the story of Palestine. And we also know the story of Iran.
“Because their stories are not new to us. We have been witnessing Israeli and American political violence, aggression, torture, terrorism and illegal wars for most of our lives.”
‘Illegal, immoral war’
She said the months-long attack in Iran had been an “illegal, illegitimate, immoral and senseless war, started by the world’s biggest aggressors, America and Israel”.
Over the past 5 months, Iran has had its schools, hospitals, power plants, bridges and other civilian infrastructure deliberately targeted and destroyed.
Amena said this was not new.
The Islamic Republic of Iran had been facing American and Israeli aggression since their Islamic Revolution of 1979.
For 47 years, Iran had been “relentlessly threatened, sanctioned and violently attacked by the American and Israeli regimes”.
“Why? Because the Islamic Republic of Iran fought for sovereignty and independence, and broke free from the clutches of Western imperialism.”
Ironically, as she spoke a counter-protest of Iranian monarchists and supporters who back the claim of dissident and Zionist US-exiled former crown prince Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, tried to drown out the speakers at the Stop War protest.
392 military interventions
Between 1776 and 2019, the US carried out over 392 military interventions worldwide.
“From my home country Afghanistan, to Cuba, to Korea, to the Philippines, Venezuela, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Vietnam, Iraq and beyond.”
Currently, America had more than 600 military bases in at least 63 countries worldwide, Amena said.
“And these are conservative figures, others estimate over 1000 military bases and installations in over 150 countries,” she said.
“Many of us here in Aotearoa who are immigrants, are here because of America’s military interventions in our home countries. And as much as I love Aotearoa, which has been the only home I know for most of my life, no one wants to be a refugee.
“It is not a life of luxury, to leave your home, your ancestral lands, your whānau, your hapu and iwi. No one wants to risk their lives to get on a boat, and travel in inhumane conditions, to a foreign land where they are stripped from all that’s familiar to them, and all that’s sacred to them.
“No, they immigrate because they are escaping American and Israeli bombs. They are escaping poverty caused directly by America’s economic terrorism.”
‘Educate yourself’ on immigration
Amena appealed to people in Aotearoa who had a problem with immigrants and refugees, “please educate yourself as to why and how we came to be here”.
“We are reliant on immigrants to sustain our economy and our public services.
“As a healthcare worker, I can tell you from first hand experience that our healthcare system is falling apart because we don’t have enough healthcare workers.”
The effigy of NZ’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters . . . . guilty as charged at the mock trial in Aotea Square today. Image: Del Abcede/APR
The protesters also held a mock trial of an effigy character representing Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his anti-immigrant and racist statements inside and outside Parliament over recent weeks and failure to take a stand over the Gaza genocide.
The crowd acted as the “jury” and delivered a resounding “guilty” verdict on his “shameful” behaviour.
Peters refused this week to apologise for his attack on a Chinese-Kiwi MP despite Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and other critics describing his insults as “racist”.
The Foreign Minister had stirred a public row by slamming Green Party MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament, ordering him to “go back to where you’ve come from”.
Among several other speakers at the rally was Iranian Kiwi Seyed Derhany, who also spoke about the Minab schoolgirls atrocity and the injustice of the unjustified war on Iran, saying that Iranians were essentially peace loving people who did not like war.
As he spoke, he held aloft photographs in memory of two of the Minab schoolgirls “brutally killed” in the US-Israel attack — 10-year-olds Maryam Bazarak and Asra Zahari.
Photographs of some of the Minab schoolchildren killed in the first day of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran. Image: Del Abcede/APR
It’s a commonly repeated statistic that the US military is the world’s largest institutional polluter, but what exactly does that mean?
The quest to find a real answer to that question led journalist and documentary filmmaker Abby Martin and her husband and co-director Mike Prysner on a five-year journey from defence contractor conferences and international climate gatherings to the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military training exercises and the fight against the construction of a military base in Okinawa that would fill in its iconic Oura Bay.
The result is Earth’s Greatest Enemy, released last year — but just screened in Australia and New Zealand over the past month — independently through Martin and Prysner’s own Empire Files, with editing by Taylor Gill and an original score by Anahedron.
American advocacy journalist and film maker Abby Martin in conversation with Auckland journalist Simon Wilson at the New Zealand premiere of the Earth’s Greatest Enemy documentary in the Academy Cinema last Thursday . . . she challenged the audience to “fight back” for the planet with courage. Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report
The film uses personal narrative, research, investigative reporting, interviews, and live footage to detail all the ways in which the Pentagon poisons the planet, including greenhouse gas emissions, the ecocide of war, and the toxins left behind long after the fighting has stopped.
“When you combine all of this, it is completely undeniable that this force that is upheld by extreme violence is the greatest threat to all living things on Earth,” Martin told Common Dreams.
Hectares and hectares of US military equipment shown in a still from the film Earth’s Greatest Enemy.
Image: Empire Files
World’s largest polluter? Toward the beginning of the film, Martin sets out to explain how the Pentagon can count as the world’s largest institutional polluter, and why the numbers behind that fact actually undersell its impact.
It turns out, Martin told Common Dreams, that this statement is only based on the amount of oil the US military purchases on paper, which comes to 270,000 barrels per day. This puts its emissions at 55 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, more than 150 countries.
This itself is a staggering amount of carbon pollution.
As Martin explains in the film: “It would take the average American driver over 40 years to burn as much fuel as a single flight of a Boeing Pegasus. The US flies more than 600 of these tankers.”
But it’s also only the tip of the melting iceberg. Through an interview with scientist Stuart Parkinson, Martin reveals how that 55 million keeps ballooning when considering life cycle emissions from military equipment and from the equipment purchased by NATO allies, projected to reach 295 million metric tons by 2028, or more than half of all countries.
And that figure excludes the use of military equipment in war, or the emissions from reconstructing cities leveled by US-made bombs.
RIMPAC training exercises shown in a still from Earth’s Greatest Enemy. Image: Empire Files
In one particularly candid interview, a major-general tells Martin that it’s great to develop alternative energy sources, “but let’s not walk away from what fuels today’s national security, which is oil. You have to have it.”
And until something is developed that can completely replace oil, “I think you need to keep the alternatives in check,” he says.
Statements like these give the lie to the idea that the US can have a “green military empire,” Martin said.
They also show how difficult it is to separate the US military’s carbon footprint from that of the fossil fuel industry itself.
“Everything has really been wrapped up into securing the fossil fuel, building the infrastructure for fossil fuel, and maintaining that infrastructure empire in order to maintain a fossil fuel economy,” she told Common Dreams.
“So you have to look at the military as actually the institution that’s actually keeping the fossil fuel infrastructure in place through brutality and violence.”
‘Human detritus’
A helmet and dog tag as seen in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in a still from the film Earth’s Greatest Enemy. Image: Empire Files
The film also makes clear that carbon pollution isn’t the only kind of pollution the military generates.
“Once you get into the research, you realise every stone unturned is an entire other documentary because it’s not just emissions, it’s the totality of pollution that the military is emitting on a daily basis, the dumping of toxic waste, the legacy contamination, that alone is still killing people every day,” Martin said.
The film spends much of its run time digging into the landfill of military waste, from melted down pucks of plastic dumped off Navy boats and unused munitions exploded in the desert to decades of water contamination at Camp Lejeune, the 26 million marine mammals the US Navy is permitted to harm or kill over five years of training, and the more than 250,000 bullets left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan for every person killed.
Martin said that almost every fact or anecdote she unearthed surprised her.
“No matter what you think you know, it’s worse. It’s actually worse because of how big it is and how every face is a story, every victim is a story,” she said.
One of the most devastating stories comes at the film’s beginning, as viewers spend time with Lavon Johnson, an Iraq War veteran who once starred in a US Army commercial and is now living on Veterans Row, a stretch of tents bearing American flags lined up outside the Veterans Affairs hospital in Brentwood, Los Angeles.
“My life is so fucked!” he declares as he lifts his hands from the piano he furiously plays despite the nerve damage caused by exposure to hydraulic fluid while in the Army.
In the next scene, viewers see the camp being demolished by police, juxtaposed with images of war, pollution, and environmental destruction, such as soldiers breaking down doors or dumping trash off of boats, oil pump jacks working, and beachside homes collapsing into a rising tide.
Martin said she was inspired to open the film with Johnson because of a letter that late Iraq War veteran Tomas Young wrote to former President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney before he died, referring to himself and other victims of the invasion as “human detritus your war has left behind”.
“That always stuck with me, that line, ‘the human detritus,’” Martin told Common Dreams. “And that is exactly what they do to veterans. That is exactly what they do to veterans… they’re churned up and spit out. They’re the cannon fodder of the system. And for what?”
Prysner is an Iraq veteran who spoke out against the war, and Martin is very clear that veterans are not the target of the pairs’ critique.
“This isn’t about service members,” she said. “This isn’t about hating the military. This is about accountability and justice for them. We’re fighting for service members and every living person on Earth, because we are all victims of this.”
The demolition of Johnson’s camp cut through with clips of war and weather disaster illustrates this point, and could serve as a sort of thesis for the film, showing that the US military ultimately turns everything it touches into detritus, including, if it’s not stopped, the planet itself.
“Everything on Earth is in Lavon’s tent,” Martin said.
Protesters marching against US militarism at COP26 in Glasgow in a still from Earth’s Greatest Enemy documentary. Image: Empire Files
A movie and a movement This sense of connection is ultimately why Martin decided to keep Earth’s Greatest Enemy as a two-hour feature documentary rather than pivoting to a documentary series, despite the fact that, the more she dug, the more she realised “it could be 10 documentaries.”
She also ran into roadblocks when seeking Hollywood distribution. While environmentalist distributors would praise the film and compare it to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, they also said frankly, “You’re never going to be able to get anyone to buy this stuff.”
But, Martin said, “I was so committed to making a movie because movies were what radicalised me,” citing inspiration from films like The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, War Made Easy, and Michael Moore’s filmography.
Ultimately, her stubbornness paid off.
“It shows that everything from ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to Gaza to the climate, that everything is connected,” she said. “Veterans, soldiers, the Indigenous people on the receiving end of this.
“If you care about cold water and good air, you can’t walk away from this not being impacted. And that was the goal. The goal is to lock people in and explain the totality and to bring you down to the depths of hell.”
She added: “We have to understand those depths, and you can’t get that with a 20-minute segment. You just can’t. You have to go through the pain of all the victims in this community and come out the other side empowered with the truth and the resolve that we have to change this.”
Change is a large part of Martin’s motivation for making the film, by educating people about the scope of the military’s destructive force and connecting them into a broader coalition.
Martin speaks in the film about coming to political consciousness and beginning her career as a journalist during the Iraq War, meeting Prysner through their shared opposition to war and empire, and developing “profound climate anxiety” following the birth of the pair’s first child.
She lamented that the climate and anti-imperialist movements have been largely siloed over the past two decades, though that is beginning to change.
Through local screenings, she said she wanted to “try to build the environmental movement with the anti-war movement together because… even though the consciousness is expanding, it’s not happening fast enough. And we are simply out of the luxury of time.”
The sense of urgency has only increased with US President Donald Trump’s second term. While the film does not cover this period, it points to many developments that have shaped the past 12 months, including Trump’s claim that he attackedVenezuela for oil, his imperialist push to controlGreenland, and his deployment of ICE to terrorise US cities.
‘Big plan for climate crisis’
Toward the end of the movie, Martin includes a segment on the militarisation of US policing and warns that “this is our system’s big plan for the climate crisis.” She also films a panel on “Domain Awareness and Air Superiority in the Arctic” in which the generals speaking tell US companies they have an “open invitation” to experiment in Alaska.
“We know what they want the Arctic for, and it’s to pillage every last drop,” Martin said. “So if environmental organisations are not thinking this together, we have to do it for them. We have to do it for them quickly.”
So far, she has seen encouraging signs, with several Sierra Club chapters stepping up to host screenings and enthusiasm from the mainstream environmental groups, parks departments, and other city officials she has invited to attend.
But education is not her only goal.
“After we educate everyone, I hope to decommission the military empire,” Martin said.
For Martin, that doesn’t mean not having a military for self-defence, but rather decommissioning the 800 or so bases the US military maintains around the world and transforming the infrastructure into something that could help local communities in a climate-friendly way.
It also means accountability for harm caused and redirecting military spending toward basic needs like housing and healthcare, and certainly not giving the Pentagon another $600 billion as Trump desires.
While that may seem like an impossible task given the current political climate, Martin maintains a sense of revolutionary optimism, encouraged by the global mobilisation against the genocide in Gaza and the way that people are increasingly seeing the links between the multiple crises and struggles around the globe.
“There’s so many of us,” Martin told Common Dreams. “We care about the planet. We have a vested stake in life. And that’s our vision.”
“It’s like they have a vision of death and destruction for profit,” she continued. “Our vision is life, and we have to fight for it with every fibre of our being. And let this movie assist you however you can do that.”
Earth’s Greatest Enemy, directed by Abby Martin and Mike Prysner, The Empire Files, 120min.
Republished from Common Dreams under a Creative Commons licence.
If your activist group wants to organise a community screening of this documentary in Aotearoa New Zealand, contact World Beyond War’s Liz Remmerswaal: lizrem@gmail.com
A Nile crocodile, the creature to be deployed in Israel's Ketziot Prison moat . . . “Sadism is no longer just for deviants; it is the new political correctness.” Image: Creative Commons
COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose
Israel’s Environment Ministry has removed the protected status of Nile crocodiles to allow them to be used in a moat guarding the country’s largest detainment camp, a move requested by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
The story has been widely covered by Israel’s English-language press, alternative media worldwide, and news sites in non-English-speaking countries.
But, in the Anglosphere, there is a virtual news blackout.
Searching within New Zealand and Australian internet domains yields nothing. In the UK, only The Telegraph has reported the story; the BBC and The Guardian do not deem it newsworthy.
It feels nigh on impossible that a similar event in Putin’s Russia, Iran, or any number of dictatorships would go unreported by the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Age, The New Zealand Herald, or the English-language newswires.
Democracy Now’s headline — ”Israel strips crocodiles of protected status to pave way for crocodile-infested moat“ — is about as clickbaity as hard news gets.
Barbarism as state policy
Veteran Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote in Haaretz: “National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is taking Israel to the next stage in its development: barbarism as a legal and explicit state policy.”
“Sadism is no longer just for deviants; it is the new political correctness,” he continued.
“After years in which barbarity and sadism toward Palestinians were hidden as something shameful and repressed — and mainly as the exception to the rule — Ben-Gvir is moving them to centre stage to great applause from some of the crowd and silence from the rest.”
A relative in Israel messaged me asking whether I had seen the crocodile story — the “true reality in Israel”. She included this translated snippet from the breaking news story.
“Exclusive: The Crocodile Snatch: The Nature and Parks Authority opposed the establishment of Ben-Gvir’s crocodile prison, but Environmental Minister Silman amended the law, paving the way for the transfer of the animals. Among other things, Silman determined that the Nile crocodile is a ‘cultivated wild animal’ that can be raised within a security entity.”
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir gloating in the controversial Gaza flotilla detainees video. Image: AJ screenshot APR
That Ben-Gvir is monstrous is not news. The Australian and New Zealand governments, along with those of the UK and Canada, have banned him from entering their countries for inciting pogroms against Palestinians in the West Bank and promoting the expansion of illegal settlements.
But the monstrousness of Israel’s gulags is newsworthy — if underreported.
18,500 Palestinians detained
In March, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese released a report stating: “Since October 2023, more than 18,500 Palestinians have been detained across the occupied Palestinian territory, including at least 1500 children. Thousands remain in detention without charge or trial. Many have been forcibly disappeared. Nearly 100 detainees have died in custody.
“Detainees have been abused in unfathomable ways, including rape with bottles, metal rods and knives, starvation, breaking of bones and teeth, burning, being spat upon, and being attacked and urinated upon by dogs.”
Albanese said: “A system that has long been used to dominate, degrade and break Palestinians has evolved and hardened into state doctrine.
“It is defended by politicians, rationalised by legal institutions, sanitised by media narrative and tolerated by governments that continue to arm and shield Israel.”
The name of Ketziot Prison, where the crocodiles are to be deployed, will be familiar to some from news reports of the abuse of Gaza Freedom Flotilla volunteers held there earlier this year. Image: Wikipedia
The name of Ketziot Prison, where the crocodiles are to be deployed, will be familiar to some from news reports of the abuse of Freedom Flotilla volunteers held there earlier this year.
News of their mistreatment and images of Ben-Gvir abusing them cut through the Western media fog and prompted rare condemnations from Western governments.
Israel’s ambassadors in Wellington and Canberra were called in for ritual reprimands.
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong described the images as “shocking and unacceptable”.
Unacceptable face
Similar statements and actions were made by the US, the UK, France, Italy, and Canada. Ben-Gvir is the unacceptable face of an apartheid regime that all those countries accept and, to differing degrees, abet.
The detained Flotilla activists repeatedly pointed out that their treatment — as appalling as it was — was minor compared with what Palestinian prisoners endure daily.
There was nothing like the same reaction from Western governments when a video of Ben-Gvir taunting imprisoned Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti emerged in August last year.
Following the visit, Ben-Gvir reportedly said: “We entered Marwan Barghouti’s cell and he was crying in terror. I told the jailers to keep treating them like that,” adding, “When we enter Israel’s prisons, the Palestinian prisoners piss their pants when they see us, they piss themselves out of fear.”
The video was reported by mainstream media outlets but not as prominently as the one showing the abuse of the international activists.
Ben-Gvir is not just a comic-book villain; he is a high-ranking member of the Israeli cabinet. He has a picture of Baruch Goldstein, the convicted terrorist who killed 29 Palestinians, hanging in his Knesset office, and he himself acts as a state terrorist, marshalling the full force of Israel’s prison system and police in his campaign against Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
Supporters of Israel argue that the country attracts a disproportionate amount of bad publicity.
‘Great negativity’
Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, told the Australian Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion that the ABC’s coverage of Gaza “created an impression of great negativity about Israel.”
Segal claimed there had been a “disproportionate” number of critical stories.
“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing,” she said. “The amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”
The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Israeli defence-tech start-ups working with the Defence Ministry raised nearly US$3 billion in the first six months of 2026 — three times the amount raised in all of 2025.
Israel’s genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and Lebanon, and its bombing and assassination campaigns in the war on Iran have been a boon for the self-described startup nation.
Gaza is history’s first AI-assisted genocide, and our media are paying it too little attention, not too much.
Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. He has a Substack: Towards Democracy.
“This is the last time you’ll see me… they brought me here to kill me.”
These chilling words by detained and tortured Palestinian paediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya were cited by an Amnesty International advocate today at an Auckland rally denouncing the failure of New Zealand media to highlight his plight.
Dr Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, told his lawyer this while on a visit earlier this month, explained Amnesty International’s people power manager Margaret Taylor.
Palestinian paediatrician Dr Hussam Abu Safiya as he looked three years ago before being abducted and detained without charge by Israeli security forces 18 months ago in a photo by Physicians for Human Rights Israel. Image: via Friends of Palestine WA/FB
Speaking to pro-Palestinian activists and supporters in the 145th consecutive week of protests since the genocidal Israeli attacks were unleashed on the besieged Gaza enclave, Taylor described Dr Abu Safiya’s plight.
The frail Dr Hussam Abu Safiya . . . as he appeared last month after 18 months of jail and brutal treatment by Israeli jailors. Image: X/@HussamAbuSafiya
Taylor said lawyer Nasser Odeh had stated that since Dr Abu Safiya’s transfer to the notorious underground detention facility Rakevet, he had faced daily beatings, threats and abuse.
“Nasser observed fresh bruises and torture marks on Dr Abu Safiya’s head and across his body, leaving him barely recognisable,” she said.
“He also said that Dr Abu Safiya arrived at their meeting with his hands and feet shackled, and on the verge of losing consciousness.”
Question the ‘crime’
Taylor challenged the protesters to question the alleged crime — he has never been charged with any offence — that Israel had used as a pretext to “treat him so badly”.
“Is it because Dr Abu Safiya refused to abandon his patients even when the IDF bombed his hospital among many other hospitals in Gaza into inoperability?” she asked.
“Is it because he was one of the most prominent voices denouncing the devastation of Gaza’s healthcare system, the targeting of ambulances and the killing of fellow medical practitioners?
“Is it because Dr Abu Safiya — this specialist in child healthcare — could bear witness to Israel’s deliberate targeting, injuring and killing of Palestinian children?”
Amnesty International’s Margaret Taylor speaking at today’s rally . . . “All those crimes against humanity have also been witnessed by health practitioners like Dr Abu Safiya who have valiantly sought to repair and heal the innocents caught up in targeted attacks by the IDF.” Image: Bruce King/PSNA
Sadly, said Taylor, since Dr Abu Safiya’s detention in December 2024 in increasingly more inhumane conditions, “we don’t need his evidence”.
“Most recently we’ve heard from [Australian expert on international human rights law] Chris Sidoti, talking [in New Zealand] to the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory’s most recent report,” Taylor said.
“More than 20,000 Palestinian kids killed, more than 50,000 Palestinian kids injured and all children living in a dystopian world of fear, death and inadequate access to all but the most basic food, healthcare, housing and education.”
Protesters at today’s pro-Palestine rally in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau with “Free Dr Abu Safiya” posters. Image: Bruce King/PSNA
‘Irrefutably documented’
Taylor explained how Amnesty International continued to “irrefutably document” that Israel had and was continuing to commit genocide in Gaza, apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
“All those crimes against humanity have also been witnessed by health practitioners like Dr Abu Safiya who have valiantly sought to repair and heal the innocents caught up in targeted attacks by an IDF armed and funded by Western governments.
“Dr Abu Safiya is guilty of no crime — yet he has been held without charge or trial for more than 18 months.
“He has been tortured and ill treated — including severe physical and psychological abuse and prolonged solitary confinement.”
Growing calls to release Dr Abu Safiya Video: CBC News
Dr Abu Safiya had been denied adequate medical care and access to independent monitors, including the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC).
“Not only must the Red Cross have access to Dr Abu Safiya — but they must also be granted access to all other Palestinians detainees.
“One of Dr Abu Safiya’s sons was killed in a drone attack on Kamal Adwan hospital. Ibrahim was just 15 and despite that tragedy Dr Abu Safiya kept working.
Palestinian activist Mousa Taher, who has twice broken the illegal Israeli siege of Gaza and was part of the most recent attempt with the Global Sumud Flotilla, speaking at today’s rally . . . with him in the picture is another demonstrator holding a “verified’ photo of Israeli torture of a blindfolded and shackled prisoner. Image: Bruce King/PSNA
Bravely speaking out
“His second son Elias continues to bravely speak out for his father’s release.
“Elias has urged us all to intervene before it is too late — ‘The world’s silence today could mean the loss of an innocent human life,’ he has said.
“It is that silence — in the face of Israel’s overwhelming brutality to this good man and to countless innocent Palestinians — that we all have been challenging month on month. And we must continue to do so.
“Don’t be silent — talk about the amazing Dr Hussam to your friends and whānau.”
Criticising the media for its failure to cover this story, she called on the public to write letters to the editor, spread news on social media — “or submit your own articles”.
Some of the New Zealand children at an earlier Palestine protest vigil outside Auckland City Hospital. Image: David Robie/APR
One of the oldest tropes in journalism is that it should be balanced; that journalists have a responsibility to present all sides of a given issue with equal weight. This view also holds that appearing to be critical of one side and sympathetic to another amounts to “bias”.
That notion of balance sounds ideal. After all, journalists should be neutral observers who favour nobody, so if anybody feels as though their side is not presented with equal measure, the journalist has somehow failed.
That failure was what Jillian Segal accused the ABC of in her evidence to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion last week. In her evidence, the antisemitism envoy lamented that the ABC’s reporting on Gaza “created an impression of great negativity about Israel”.
In her evidence before the Bondi Royal Commission, the antisemitism envoy Jillian Segel claimed that the ABC and SBS’s reporting on Gaza “created an impression of great negativity about Israel”. Image: SBS screenshot APR/Instagram
“It’s the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza, and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light,” she said.
For the country’s supporters, that is understandable. As Segal went on to point out, there has been a “disproportionate” number of stories critical of Israel.
And Liberal MP and prominent member of the Jewish community Julian Leeser told ABC Radio National:
I think the public broadcasters actually have to be prepared to address systemic bias against Israel in their reporting, and I think they need to subject themselves to greater transparency mechanisms as outlined by the envoy.
But the term “balance” implies finding equivalence between the two competing positions. Sometimes journalists cover stories where achieving balance amounts to a serious distortion of what is actually taking place.
Jillian Segal wants ‘independent group’ to examine ABC’s Israel coverage Video: Guardian Australia
The pitfalls of both-sideism A standard, if lazy, tactic for avoiding accusations of bias is to give equal space to opponents in an issue, presenting them as equally valid.
If you give five minutes to a vaccine researcher, you must give the same time to a sceptic. It is something journalists sometimes dub “both-sideism”.
The media grappled with that challenge in covering climate change. In the early heated stages of the debate, news organisations would often place a climate sceptic next to a climate scientist in the name of “balance”.
By 2018, the BBC’s news director Fran Unsworth had had enough. She circulated a briefing note that acknowledged, “Climate change has been a difficult subject for the BBC, and we get coverage of it wrong too often”.
The briefing went on to say, “Manmade climate change exists: if the science proves it we should report it.” And in a section on balance, the note said:
to achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.“
As journalism academic Jonathan Foster of Sheffield University used to tell his students, “If someone tells you it’s raining and another tells you it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the f—ing window and find out which is true.”
Who has the power? The conflicts between Israel and its neighbours (in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran) are not football matches, and journalists are not referees.
But any journalist thinking about how to fairly cover the crises is likely to spend far more time looking at the human cost of Israeli bombs and tanks, than the impact on Israeli civilians.
That is simply because the greater impact of the conflict is felt outside Israel’s borders.
Any reporting that suggests an equivalence of experience between Israelis suffering Hamas rockets, and the Palestinians in Gaza bearing the weight of the Israeli military assault would be plainly disingenuous. Hardliners on both sides are calling for annihilation of the other, but only one side has tanks, fighter jets and control of food, water and medical supplies over the border.
Aid organisations have long reported struggling to get emergency food into Gaza. Image: Mohammad Saber/EPA
That raises another journalistic cliche: “holding power to account”. It is rooted in the idea that the media’s job is to expose the impact of power on those who have none.
Israel has indisputably been projecting its might well beyond its borders, and correspondents in the region who failed to cover the consequences on ordinary civilians would be rightly criticised.
None of this is to suggest the experience of Israelis or the government’s arguments should be ignored.
But in a world of competing perspectives, the job of journalists is not to make everyone happy. Their job is to accurately and fairly represent the views of everyone involved and on that score, the ABC has been succeeding.
Imperfect, but largely accurate The national broadcaster has not been perfect of course. The ombudsman found five breaches of editorial standards (out of more than seven thousand complaints).
Its own editorial director Gavin Fang acknowledged they were far too slow to correct a United Nations report that falsely claimed 14,000 children could die of starvation in Gaza within two days.
In her testimony to the Royal Commission, Jillian Segal conceded the government’s broadcast regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, had not “found a great deal of inaccuracy” in the ABC’s reporting.
But she argued she’s trying to achieve “the more complex, nuanced issues of prioritisation, impartiality and objectivity and balance”.
“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing,” she said. “The amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”
Perhaps she is right. But positive stories explicitly designed to cancel out the negative start to look like propaganda. And that is something journalists should never accept.
Peter Greste is professor of journalism at Macquarie University and the executive director for the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom. He also serves as an independent journalist on the Australian Press Council. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished under Creative Commons.
Flashback 41 years on: One year ago marking the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, Te Aniwaniwa Paterson wrote this article. Further reading: David Robie’s book Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior (Little Island Press). The late investigative journalist John Pilger wrote: “Eyes of Fire is a beautiful book and an anger-making book, a testament to the finest activism and the need always to ‘bear witness’ and stand up to criminal state power, as you did. I was reminded how pleased I was to use the rescue of the people of Rongelap in The Coming War on China [2016 documentary]. Reading your account moved me all over again.”
Forty years ago today [10 July 1985], French secret agents bombed the Greenpeace campaign flagship Rainbow Warrior in an attempt to stop the environmental organisation’s protest against nuclear testing at Moruroa Atoll in Mā’ohi Nui.
People gathered on board Rainbow Warrior III to remember photographer Fernando Pereira, who was killed in the attack, and to honour the legacy of those who stood up to nuclear testing in the Pacific.
The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before the bombing was Operation Exodus, a humanitarian mission to the Marshall Islands. There, Greenpeace helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing.
Greenpeace Aotearoa held a dawn ceremony on board the Rainbow Warrior III on 10 July 2025 commemorating the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior and the death of photographer Fernando Pereira. Image: Paul Hilton/Greenpeace
The dawn ceremony was hosted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and attended by more than 150 people. Speeches were followed by the laying of a wreath and a moment of silence.
Photographer Fernando Pereira and a woman from Rongelap on the day the Rainbow Warrior arrived in Rongelap Atoll in May 1985. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire
Tui Warmenhoven (Ngāti Porou), the chair of the Greenpeace Aotearoa board, said it was a day to remember for the harm caused by the French state against the people of Mā’ohi Nui.
Warmenhoven worked for 20 years in iwi research and is a grassroots, Ruatoria-based community leader who works to integrate mātauranga Māori with science to address climate change in Te Tai Rāwhiti.
She encouraged Māori to stand united with Greenpeace.
“Ko te mea nui ki a mātou, a Greenpeace Aotearoa, ko te whawhai i ngā mahi tūkino a rātou, te kāwanatanga, ngā rangatōpū, me ngā tāngata whai rawa, e patu ana i a mātou, te iwi Māori, ngā iwi o te ao, me ō mātou mātua, a Ranginui rāua ko Papatūānuku,” e ai ki a Warmenhoven.
Tui Warmenhoven and Dr Russel Norman in front of Rainbow Warrior III on 10 July 2025. Image:Te Ao Māori News
A defining moment in Aotearoa’s nuclear-free stand “The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a defining moment for Greenpeace in its willingness to fight for a nuclear-free world,” said Dr Russel Norman, the executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.
He noted it was also a defining moment for Aotearoa in the country’s stand against the United States and France, who conducted nuclear tests in the region.
Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Dr Russel Norman speaking at the ceremony on board Rainbow Warrior III today. Image: Te Ao Māpri News
In 1987, the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act officially declared the country a nuclear-free zone.
This move angered the United States, especially due to the ban on nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships entering New Zealand ports.
Because the US followed a policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons, it saw the ban as breaching the ANZUS Treaty and suspended its security commitments to New Zealand.
The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage before it was bombed was Operation Exodus, during which the crew helped relocate more than 320 residents of Rongelap Atoll in the Marshall Islands, who had been exposed to radiation from US nuclear testing between 1946 and 1958.
The evacuation of Rongelap Islanders to Mejatto by the Rainbow Warrior crew in May 1985. Image: Greenpeace/Fernando Pereira
The legacy of Operation Exodus Between 1946 and 1958, the United States carried out 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands.
For decades, it denied the long-term health impacts, even as cancer rates rose and children were born with severe deformities.
Despite repeated pleas from the people of Rongelap to be evacuated, the US government failed to act until Greenpeace stepped in to help.
“The United States government effectively used them as guinea pigs for nuclear testing and radiation to see what would happen to people, which is obviously outrageous and disgusting,” Dr Norman said.
He said it was important not to see Pacific peoples as victims, as they were powerful campaigners who played a leading role in ending nuclear testing in the region.
Marshallese women greet the Rainbow Warrior as it arrived in the capital Majuro in March 2025. Image: Bianca Vitale/Greenpeace
Between March and April this year, Rainbow Warrior III returned to the Marshall Islands to conduct independent research into the radiation levels across the islands to see whether it’s safe for the people of Rongelap to return.
What advice do you give to this generation about nuclear issues? “Kia kotahi ai koutou ki te whai i ngā mahi uaua i mua i a mātou ki te whawhai i a rātou mā, e mahi tūkino ana ki tō mātou ao, ki tō mātou kōkā a Papatūānuku, ki tō mātou taiao,” hei tā Tui Warmenhoven.
A reminder to stay united in the difficult world ahead in the fight against threats to the environment.
Warmenhoven also encouraged Māori to support Greenpeace Aotearoa.
Tui Warmenhoven and the captain of the Rainbow Warrior, Ali Schmidt, placed a wreath in the water at the stern of the ship in memory of Fernando Pereira. Image: Greenpeace
Dr Norman believed the younger generations should be inspired to activism by the bravery of those from the Pacific and Greenpeace who campaigned for a nuclear-free world 40 years ago.
“They were willing to take very significant risks, they sailed their boats into the nuclear test zone to stop those nuclear tests, they were arrested by the French, beaten up by French commandos,” he said.
This article was first published on 10 July 2025 to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. Republished from Te Ao Māori News with permission.
On June 10, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya appeared on a screen before Israel’s Supreme Court via video link. He looked gaunt, visibly emaciated, and his hands and feet were bound.
It was one of the few times the public had seen the doctor since Israeli soldiers took him from Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza nearly 18 months ago, where he had served as director.
He has been held without charge for more than 500 days, with little known about his condition.
Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beita Lahia in northern Gaza, before being imprisoned by the Israeli forces . . . his lawyer says Dr Abu Safiya’s continued detention without any filing of formal charges demonstrates his imprisonment is unjustified. Image: Social media/Amnesty International/Mondoweiss
After the court hearing, Abu Safiya’s lawyer delivered a message from the doctor to the public: “I am a pediatrician, providing medical care to patients, the wounded, and the vulnerable in Gaza.
“I carried out my work in accordance with international law and humanitarian principles. My detention is unjust and arbitrary.”
According to the lawyer, Nasser Odeh, the court hearing followed an appeal filed by Abu Safiya’s legal team calling for his immediate release, after an earlier District Court decision had renewed his detention on 28 April 2026.
🚨Israeli authorities must immediately release the arbitrarily detained Palestinian paediatrician and director of Kamal Adwan hospital, Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya amidst reports from a lawyer who visited him that there is an imminent threat to his life as a result of torture and other…
The Supreme Court came back with a rejection of Abu Safiya’s appeal. He remains in solitary confinement in Nafha Prison, to which he had been sent earlier in June as the date of his Supreme Court appearance drew near.
No indictment filed
No formal indictment has been filed against Dr Abu Safiya to date, as he is being held under Israel’s so-called “Unlawful Combatants Law,” according to Nasser Odeh.
The law allows Israel to indefinitely detain Palestinians without having to file charges against them, subject to judicial review by the District Court every six months.
“Abu Safiya is one of 14 Palestinian doctors from Gaza currently being held in Israeli detention,” Odeh told Mondoweiss. “If there were actual charges against them, or evidence supporting the allegations made by the Israeli prosecution, indictments would have been filed and evidence presented, as is the case with any other detainee.”
The lawyer added that Dr Abu Safiya’s continued detention without the filing of formal charges demonstrated that his imprisonment was unjustified.
Calls grow for Israel to release Dr Abu Safiya Video: Democracy Now!
To make it more difficult to challenge his detention, Odeh said that Dr Abu Safiya not only continued to be isolated from other detainees but was also cut off from his legal team, making it difficult to obtain verified information about his health condition.
Despite the efforts to suppress information pertaining to Dr Abu Safiya, Mondoweiss has obtained testimony from recently released Palestinian detainees who said they spent time with the doctor in prison before he was moved to solitary confinement.
The ex-detainees, all of whom were released in March this year, said that Dr Abu Safiya was subjected to physical torture, beatings, humiliation, and degrading treatment. They also say that they spent their final days in prison with the doctor.
“We saw him weighing no more than 40 kilograms,” Ahmad Qaddas, 34, alleged. Qaddas had been detained from the Jabalia refugee camp in Gaza in December 2025, and previously knew Dr Abu Safiya as one of north Gaza’s most prominent doctors and public figures.
🚨We are deeply alarmed by the reports that there is an imminent threat to Dr. #HussamAbuSafiya’s life as a result of torture and other ill treatment he has been suffering while in Israeli custody. Israeli authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Abu Safiya.… pic.twitter.com/sNVTL4eQTB
Unable to respond
Qaddas claimed that he had spent six days with Abu Safiya shortly before being released.
“I could not believe my eyes when I saw Dr Hussam,” Qaddas told Mondoweiss. “His weight, his thinness, his health, his face, his hands, his feet, his entire body — I could not believe what I saw.”
Qaddas also claimed that Dr Abu Safiya was minimally communicative, unable to respond to interactions.
“He became so weak that he could barely speak,” Qaddas said. “He had to repeat each word he said at least four times before managing to pronounce it. Even when he ate, he vomited it back up. He always appeared exhausted and barely talked.”
Qaddas also said that the prisoners wore the standard gray prison uniform and appeared relatively clean, but that Abu Safiya “looked filthy” by contrast.
The testimonies from the detainees were the first details to emerge concerning Dr Abu Safiya’s condition since reports of his torture first emerged in January 2025, a month after his arrest, as relayed by released prisoners who had been held at the notorious Sde Teiman torture camp with the doctor.
Each of the prisoners said they spent a limited period of time with the doctor, although the details of when and where they were held remain unclear.
Days and hours shackled
“We had no way of distinguishing one day from another inside the prison,” Rami Abu Amira, 32, who said he spent six days with Abu Safiya, told Mondoweiss. “We spent days and hours shackled and blindfolded, with no sense of how much time had passed.”
Abu Amira was a resident of Jabalia refugee camp, where he was arrested during an invasion of his area in December 2024. He said detainees often relied on other prisoners to learn where they were being held.
“When the opportunity arose, we would ask other detainees where we were. Some would say Sde Teiman. Others would say we’re in Ofer, or another prison,” he recounted.
“Those brief exchanges were the only way we could confirm that we were being held in a detention facility somewhere.”
Dr Abu Safiya’s lawyer, Nasser Odeh, corroborated the substance of the prisoners’ testimonies based on his knowledge of the doctor’s condition, affirming that their descriptions of how he was treated fit with his conditions.
All interviewed former detainees described the doctor being repeatedly subjected to beatings, torture, interrogation, shackling, and food deprivation — conditions which many Palestinian detainees report being subjected to across the board, but which in the case of Dr Abu Safiya were allegedly applied even more harshly.
They said that the doctor was clearly experiencing a deterioration in his health, and that they interacted with him as much as they were allowed to, even though any detainee who attempted to help him was allegedly beaten.
‘Soldiers placed their boots on his chest and forced him to insult himself’ Rami Abu Amira said that detainees, including Dr Abu Safiya, were kept shackled by their hands and feet for an entire week, without their restraints being removed even for eating or using the bathroom.
Their restraints would only be removed for 10 minutes every 3 days to shower, before being shackled again. “Occasionally, our restraints would also be removed so we could eat,” Abu Amira added.
Ahmad Qaddas emphasised that Abu Safiya “was constantly asking for medical treatment,” noting his advanced age. “Whenever he would ask for treatment, a doctor from the prison would come by and give him a single blood pressure pill.”
Nasser Odeh confirmed Qaddas’s testimony, asserting that Dr Abu Safiya continued to suffer from chronic health conditions that have been exacerbated by his systematic abuse and mistreatment.
The doctor’s lawyer said that Dr Abu Safiya suffered from high blood pressure, for which he required regular medication, as well as from other health issues affecting his back, eyes, and neck. One of the most serious concerns is what Odeh described as a policy of “deliberate medical neglect” by prison authorities, which had deprived Dr Abu Safiya of access to essential medications and treatment.
“We previously submitted a legal petition to the prison authorities,” Odeh said. “We were requesting that the detention facility’s physician examine Dr Abu Safiya and that his blood pressure medication be restored.”
Ahmad Qaddas also said that “soldiers would wrap him in a blanket and move him from one place to another, while soldiers placed their boots on his chest, and forced him to insult himself and call himself a donkey.”
“He would insult himself and cry as he did it,” Qaddas said, adding that the point was to humiliate him “in front of all the prisoners”.
The degrading treatment often crossed into torture and physical assault, the detainees added, alleging that they could hear Dr Abu Safiya screaming while he was being interrogated nearby.
“When we heard his screams, we first feared for ourselves,” Qaddas recounted. “Then we grieved for what Dr Hussam Abu Safiya was enduring.”
First image of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya from his court hearing currently taking place before the Israeli military court in occupied Jerusalem.
The image shows Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya in a state of severe exhaustion and clear physical deterioration after more than a year of detention… pic.twitter.com/0nCpp6N25O
— Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya د.حسام أبو صفية (@HussamAbuSafiya) June 10, 2026
Beatings, dog attacks, and food deprivation Rami Abu Amira alleged that he witnessed some of these moments firsthand when Israeli soldiers moved the doctor from the prison section to interrogation, or when they returned him to his cell.
“Dr Abu Safiya was tortured. They stripped his clothes, dragged him across the ground, slammed him into walls, and attacked him with dogs,” he said. At other times, he added, he would only hear the doctor’s screams, but would later see him after the interrogation session when prisoners were released from their cells for brief periods of yard time.
Abu Amira also said that he witnessed soldiers raiding Abu Safiya’s cell at night as he slept, waking him up by throwing stun grenades beneath the bunk bed before storming his cell and taking him away. He would disappear for a day before being returned at night, or the following day, Abu Amira recounted.
Ahmad Qaddas said that Israeli soldiers would regularly unleash dogs on him to attack and pin him to the ground.
“At that moment, he would cry like a child from fear and exhaustion,” Qaddas said, adding that the dogs would claw at him with their paws and nails.
He described how Dr Abu Safiya would sit for long hours in prison, unable to speak to anyone because he had neither the energy nor the ability to talk.
“When we spoke to him, he could not answer, and we ourselves would be tortured for approaching him,” Qaddas said. These ranged from beatings, having dogs set on them, being denied food, or being sent to solitary confinement, he detailed.
‘We feared being tortured’
“I wanted to help him and serve him in whatever he needed, but we could not. We feared being tortured ourselves.”
He explained that when prisoners were transferred from one place to another while shackled by their hands and feet, soldiers would beat prisoners on their legs, causing them to fall onto their knees.
But with Dr Abu Safiya, Qaddas said he saw the doctor totally collapse when hit, bumping his head on the ground from the fall. “He was that weak,” Qaddas explained. “But despite that, the soldiers kept beating him without mercy.”
He noted that although he himself was a man in his 30s, when he was beaten, he felt that he might die from the severity of the abuse, while “Dr Hussam was an older man suffering from illness.”
“Now, when I remember what happened before my eyes in prison, I feel like crying from the cruelty of the scenes I witnessed and the torture inflicted on the doctor,” Qaddas said.
Breaking a symbol The picture the ex-detainees paint is one in which every moment of Dr Abu Safiya’s life in prison is geared toward torture and degrading treatment. “They singled him out for torture and humiliation more than the other prisoners,” Qaddas noted.
According to the ex-detainees’ testimonies, doctors were the most tortured prisoners in the facility. For Qaddas, this was because the Israeli army intended to “break their convictions,” explaining how doctors in Gaza had repeatedly been a thorn in the side of Israeli ground invasions by refusing the army’s evacuation orders throughout the war.
A photo of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya that went viral on social media, showing him in his white coat walking amid the rubble towards Israeli tanks surrounding the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beita Lahia in northern Gaza. Image: Mondoweiss/via X
During the Israeli invasion of northern Gaza in late 2024, Dr Abu Safiya refused to evacuate Kamal Adwan Hospital, turning the medical compound into a last refuge of civilians and becoming a symbol of north Gaza’s defiance of the Israeli army’s invasion.
Dr Abu Safiya quickly became the face of that steadfastness, even in how he surrendered to the army, walking toward two armored tanks with nothing but his white coat amid the rubble.
During an earlier invasion of northern Gaza in late 2023, Dr Adnan al-Bursh of al-Awda Hospital played a similar role. He was arrested on 19 December 2023, alongside other doctors and displaced civilians.
Death announced
Later, his death was announced in Ofer Prison in mid-April 2024. According to testimony obtained by Sky News via the Israeli rights group HaMoked, al-Bursh died shortly after being brought into Section 23 of Ofer Prison, outside Ramallah.
The prison guards had reportedly brought al-Bursh into the section “in a deplorable state,” with “injuries around his body,” which was naked from the waist down.
“The prison guards threw him in the middle of the yard and left him there,” one source told Sky News, adding that one of the prisoners helped him afterward and took him to one of the rooms, where he died shortly thereafter.
To this day, Dr Al-Bursh’s body remains withheld by Israeli authorities. He stands as an example of the severe torture endured by Palestinian doctors who refused to abandon their posts and leave their patients to their fate, choosing instead to carry out their duties until they were arrested or killed.
Dr Abu Safiya’s fellow prisoners fear he is on the same trajectory.
“We heard doctors inside the prison repeatedly wishing for death because of the torture they endured,” Qaddas said. “If there isn’t an urgent intervention to save Dr Hussam, he will inevitably die inside the prison.”
Tareq S. Hajjaj is the Gaza correspondent for Mondoweiss and a member of the Palestinian Writers Union. Follow him on Twitter/X at @Tareqshajjaj. This article was first published by Mondoweiss.
“Kiwi journalists . . . is there a reason for so little solidarity with Palestinian colleagues,” he mused over a haunting portrait of emaciated Palestinian journalist Mujahid Abu Mufleh showing his appalling state after 14 months inside an Israel torture prison.
The image of Palestinian journalist Mujahid Abu Mufieh after 14 months in an Israeli jail that prompted the question about New Zealand media empathy. Image: ED/KJA
This is what Palestinian hostages look like after release: emaciated, exhausted, and visibly scarred by prolonged detention.
Occupied Palestine has become the deadliest place for journalists in the world. Yet merely three media people responded to Doyle’s question.
Broadcaster and singer Moana Maniapoto (Te Arawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa)
summed up the cruel image as “journacide”, citing the use of the label by UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine and the Occupied Territories Francesca Albanese: “Absolutely shocking.”
Journacide is a neologism used by scholars, journalists, and human rights experts to describe deliberate mass killing and hunting down of journalists and media workers in conflict zones. It is also the title of a harrowing new documentary on the topic: Journacide: The War on Truth.
Courage and fortitude
Community broadcaster and educator Victoria Quade commented: “I think few people living and working in relatively protected environments like New Zealand can imagine the courage and fortitude it takes to be a journalist under an oppressive regime where reporting on those regimes can be physically dangerous.
“And, if they can imagine it, would be able to match that courage in their own lives.”
A third comment was posted by communications adviser and journalist Susan Belt: “I think people are battle-worn after so much general genocide, kids and press included, on the part of Israel. There’s so much press targeting etc that it almost becomes ridiculous to keep posting on it. Stuff and NZME keep running Gaza, Lebanon stuff but because our govt like some others has not made much of a fuss about Israel’s illegal civilian and press killing in Gaza and its unprovoked attack on Iran and illegal forays into Lebanon, it leaves people feeling hopeless.
“I am very pro-Palestinian rights and have been since the 1970s but even my Facebook friends despair at the sad postings I seem to always be doing. They know it’s very bad behaviour but we’re in a trance at the hopelessness of it. When our ally the US is backing Israel (though cooling of late) our govt is too scared to say what’s right because it doesn’t want to offend Trump’s team.”
These comments reminded me that I have been puzzling over the generally poor and weak response from New Zealand journalists over what is currently the toughest moral and ethical challenge of our times. Yet, instead of facing up to the Gaza genocide and the accompanying journacide, most of our media colleagues have preferred to look away and remain silent.
The prevailing attitude is that it is something remote and of little relevance to Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a response of denial, astonishing given that there have been protests across the motu against the Israeli genocide — and lately the unjustified US-Israeli war on Iran and fragile peace — for the past 142 weeks: by far the longest and sustained political protests ever in this country, yet largely ignored by the media.
This has led to many public protests over media coverage. These too have rarely been reported.
Palestinian protesters at TVNZ headquarters while demonstrating against the public broadcaster’s coverage of the Israeli war against Gaza on World Press Freedom Day, 3 May 2025. Image: Asia Pacific Report
And the cost in lives of hundreds of Palestinian journalists trying to bear witness on the annihilation of their own communities is deeply shocking. Yet this barely raises a shrug from New Zealand journalists.
In a report released last week by the Freedoms Committee of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate, a chilling new statistic was revealed — out of an estimated 1200 journalists in Gaza between 60 and 75 percent of them have lost their homes or been forcibly displaced since 7 October 2023.
The report, titled “Media Without Walls”, also said that approximately 265 journalists had been killed since the start of the conflict, by far the highest death toll recorded globally against journalists in a single conflict.
More than 80 percent of media offices and institutions had been completely or partially destroyed, leading to an “almost complete collapse” of journalistic infrastructure, it said.
The report added that journalists in Gaza no longer work from newsrooms but from tents, footpaths and shelter centres, with mobile phones as their primary production tool and intermittent internet dictating when they can publish.
“I lost my home and my office in the same week,” said one displaced journalist, Dr Ahed Farwana. “I no longer have a place to write, but I write from my phone among people, sometimes while searching for water for my family.”
‘Trying to concentrate’
Another Gaza journalist, Ola Kassab, said: “I work from inside a displacement shelter, choosing the quietest corner I can find. The hardest part is not the bombing itself, but trying to concentrate amid the overcrowding and fear.”
Photojournalist Wisam Zughair said: “The camera is no longer the heaviest thing I carry; it is the feeling that I may also be documenting what could happen to me.”
Al Jazeera photojournalist Ahmed Wishah, 25, . . . killed in an Israeli air attack on central Gaza’s Bureij refugee camp. Image: AJ screenshot APR
Just two weeks ago, an Al Jazeera photojournalist, Ahmed Wishah, 25, was killed in an Israeli air attack on central Gaza’s Bureij refugee camp. He was the 12th Al Jazeera journalist killed by Israel in Gaza since 2023.
His targeted murder came just weeks after his brother Mohammed Wishah, who also worked for the Doha-based global television network, was killed in a deliberate Israeli shelling of his car.
Syrian journalists protesting over the killing of reporters in Gaza. Image: AJ screenshot APR
“Let the martyrdom of Mohammed Wishah be the end to the killing of journalists. This is my message to the world . . . Stop the Israeli occupation from targeting journalists.”
Smearing journalists
The routine response of Israeli military authorities is a hamfisted attempt to smear all Gazan journalists as “Hamas terrorists”. There is never any credible evidence to back this up and it is shameful that New Zealand media simply echo these lies from a discredited regime whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in a “false balance”.
Al Jazeera called on press freedom organisations and “people of conscience around the world” to take urgent action to safeguard all journalists in the Gaza Strip. Image: AJ screenshot APR
In a statement, Al Jazeera said it condemned the Israeli occupation army’s “baseless accusations”, which sought to “justify its crimes against Al Jazeera journalists and cameramen in Gaza, most recently the killing of cameraman Ahmed Wishah”.
“Since October 2023, the Israeli campaign of incitement has relentlessly spread false allegations and baseless accusations against Al Jazeera staff. The Network considers this smear campaign a transparent and futile attempt to justify the deliberate targeting of journalists and cameramen whose only ‘crime’ has been their courageous determination to document and expose the genocide being perpetrated by Israeli occupation forces in the Gaza Strip.
“These attempts deceive no one and cannot obscure the truth witnessed by the world.”
Al Jazeera called on press freedom organisations and “people of conscience around the world” to take urgent action to safeguard all journalists in the Gaza Strip and ensure their safety.
Reporters Without Borders has filed at least five complaints with the ICC over alleged war crimes against journalists, and together with other media freedom groups such as the Foreign Press Association, has repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, sought an Israeli Supreme Court ruling overturning the IDF’s ban on global journalists being allowed into Gaza to see the reality for themselves.
Gaza bloodlust spreading
Another disturbing factor about the slaughter of journalists is the fact that the Israeli bloodlust against journalists in Gaza is spreading also to the illegally occupied West Bank and the invaded Lebanon.
Journacide: The War on Truth Video: Democracy Now!
Irish filmmaker Seán Murray has investigated Israel’s killings of journalists in his new feature documentary Journacide: The War on Truth, which was featured by Democracy Now! earlier this month. Murray says the term “journacide” applies to Israel’s military actions because of the “explicit nature of the targeting and killing of journalists” as a way to silence the truth.
The filmmaker describes it as “the Gaza doctrine that is now being applied in Lebanon”.
Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman highlighted the attempted killing on June 15 of Iranian journalist Hadi Hoteit, who was working for the news outlet Press TV in southern Lebanon. He was attacked by an Israeli drone while reporting live for his network at Kafr Tebnit.
Although he survived the attack, he was struck by six pieces of shrapnel.
With the latest invasion of Lebanon by Israel, the death toll of journalists has now topped 29.
Murray investigated the killings of four of those journalists for his documentary Journacide.
On March 28, journalists Ali Shoeib and brother and sister Fatima and Mohamed Ftouni were killed — all together — in an Israeli drone strike on their car.
The following month, on April 22, Amal Khalil was injured in an airstrike and died from her injuries after waiting for hours inside a bombed building as rescuers awaited clearance from Israeli forces to reach her, reports Democracy Now!
About the silence
In a trailer for the documentary, Murray says the film is not about war, it is about the silence. “As Lebanon burns, silence has now become the greatest weapon of oppression. This is a tale of those that fought different, the story of the gatekeepers of truth.”
In the Democracy Now! interview about his film, Murray explores the lengths that Israeli military authorities go to create false narratives about journalists, even to falsifying documents and creating fake images.
“I think Journacide effectively gives the explicit nature of the targeting and killing of journalists. I think that it fits perfectly. Not only do we see the targeting of journalists, but it’s the double-tap strikes that we see with the Gaza doctrine, that is now being applied in Lebanon.
“So, in the case of Ali, Fatima and Mohamed, the original strike killed Ali and Mohamed, and it was a double tap then that killed Fatima, Mohamed’s sister, in the second strike.
“This is a deliberate targeting of journalists. The reasons behind that is to, of course, silence what is happening in Lebanon, the ethnic cleansing that’s going on, the mass war crimes that’s being committed.
“But Lebanon is a little bit different. Israel doesn’t have the geographical repressive abilities that they did in Gaza. And we see that now playing out.”
A wake up call surely for the Middle East realities for New Zealand journalists.
Dr David Robie is convenor of Pacific Media Watch.
It is a peculiar kind of defeat — one dressed in the language of victory. Operation Epic Fury was sold to the world as a decisive strike to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat once and for all.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had lobbied Washington for precisely this moment. He got his war. What he didn’t get was the outcome he promised.
The US-Iran MOU is Israel’s strategic nightmare rendered in diplomatic text. And the consequences extend far beyond the terms of any single agreement.
Left out of the room
Let us begin with the most humiliating fact. The MOU’s second paragraph mentions Lebanon three times and declares the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts — without once mentioning Israel.
A new deconfliction mechanism for Lebanon has been announced, including the United States, Iran, Pakistan, and Qatar. Israel is excluded from that too.
Think about what that means. The country that triggered this war, that flew alongside American aircraft, that provided the intelligence Netanyahu boasted had been decisive — was not in the room when peace was made.
Washington negotiated Israel’s strategic future without Israel.
Vice-President JD Vance’s message to Israeli critics of Trump and the MOU was blunt: they need to “wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in”. That is not the language of alliance. That is the language of managed irrelevance.
What Iran kept
The nuclear question — the ostensible casus belli for the entire war — remains unresolved.
The MOU suffices with rhetorical promises, deferring the actual mechanics of blocking Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capacity, with no guarantee of agreement on that most critical issue.
Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal? Untouched. The MOU offers no treatment of Iran’s ballistic missile programme or its patronage of regional proxies — leaving Israel to contend with those threats as before.
Iran’s financial position? All US sanctions on Iran have been lifted, giving Tehran immediate and significant financial relief — resources that will flow into rebuilding military capabilities.
Tehran emerged from this war battered but unbowed, its theocratic system intact, its strategic leverage demonstrated to the entire world.
Foreign Policy and The Atlantic described the outcome as a defeat for the United States and Israel. The BBC’s international editor assessed that while US and Israeli air forces scored tactical victories, they were not enough to avoid strategic defeat.
The death of the Abraham Accords
Let me be categorical: the Abraham Accords are dead.
That architecture — the crown jewel of American-brokered Middle East diplomacy, the grand bargain that promised Arab “normalisation” with Israel in exchange for security guarantees and Palestinian deferral — has been buried by the post-war regional reality now taking shape.
The Saudi-Iran reconciliation summit now gathering momentum tells the whole story.
Riyadh is actively convening Gulf states and Tehran around a new regional order. And at the centre of that order sits the Palestinian question — not deferred, not managed, but central.
Saudi normalisation with Israel, once dangled as the great prize Netanyahu sought, is now explicitly conditional on Palestinian statehood in terms his government categorically rejects and always will.
The Abraham Accords were premised on one fundamental assumption: that Arab states could be peeled away from the Palestinian cause by American inducements and Israeli economic partnerships.
The Iran war has demolished that premise. Arab publics watching Gaza, Lebanon, and now Iran have made their governments’ calculations for them. No Arab leader can now normalise with Israel without paying a catastrophic domestic political price.
The Abraham Accords are not merely stalled. They are finished.
Some will argue that normalisation architecture, once built, has institutional momentum that survives political setbacks. This misreads what has changed. It was not merely the political temperature that shifted — it was the foundational premise of the entire enterprise.
The Abraham Accords assumed American power could permanently reshape Arab strategic calculations. The MOU has demonstrated that American power in the Middle East is now conditional, transactional, and self-limiting.
The architecture built on that power has no foundation left to stand on.
The dual hegemony: Iran and Turkey
Most analysts have framed Turkey’s rise as a consequence of Iran’s weakening — the great power stepping into the vacuum left by a damaged adversary. This framing is fundamentally wrong, and it misreads the emerging regional order.
My thesis is this: what this war has produced is not a Turkish replacement of Iranian power, but the consolidation of a dual hegemony over the Middle East — Iran and Turkey together, each dominant in its own sphere, each with its own tools of regional influence, and collectively forming the twin poles around which the new Middle East will organise itself.
Iran has survived this war with something more valuable than military capability — it has demonstrated to every state in the region that it possesses a weapon of genuine mass economic destruction in the Strait of Hormuz, with strategic leverage over both the Gulf region and the world economy that no military strike can eliminate.
Iran will rebuild. Its reconstruction will be funded by sanctions relief. And it will re-emerge as the dominant power of the Persian Gulf and the Shia arc from Baghdad to Beirut.
Battered, yes. Eliminated as a regional hegemon? Absolutely not.
Turkey simultaneously consolidates its own distinct hegemony — Sunni, NATO-anchored, commercially formidable, and diplomatically agile in ways Iran can never be.
Turkey maintains a permanent military base in Qatar. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are among its largest defence clients, with Riyadh reportedly in final-stage discussions to join Turkey’s KAAN fifth-generation stealth fighter programme — which would make it the first Gulf state with a stake in an advanced combat aircraft project outside direct American control.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has already called for the formation of a Middle East security pact to build trust and stability across the region after the war.
Crucially, these two hegemonies are not necessarily in fatal conflict with each other. The restraint that Turkey and Iran have historically shown towards one another, particularly at moments of regional and global crisis, constitutes a managed rivalry — one that involves compartmentalisation, coexistence of competing strategic depths, and mutual calculation that outright confrontation serves neither.
They will compete, yes — in Syria, Iraq, and across the Levant. But they will also tacitly coordinate where their interests converge, above all in containing Israeli power and ensuring that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv can dictate the regional order.
For Israel, this dual hegemony is a strategic nightmare of the first order. It faced Iran as a declared enemy — isolated, sanctioned, and manageable within a US-led containment architecture. It now faces two hegemonic powers operating across every theatre in which Israeli interests are engaged, one of them a NATO member with a domestically built defence industry and deepening Gulf partnerships that Israeli power cannot easily reach.
Israel traded a weakened, contained adversary for two formidable and rising ones.
Netanyahu’s shattered grand design
History will not be kind to Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic vision. Behind the stated objectives of eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme lay a grander ambition — the consolidation of Israeli regional dominance, the permanent suppression of Palestinian statehood, and the realisation of a Greater Israel stretching from the Jordan River to the sea, secured by Arab normalisation and American military backing.
That project is now in ruins.
Reports cited Israeli intelligence provided by Netanyahu as a decisive factor in Trump’s authorisation of Operation Epic Fury. He designed this war. He lobbied for it. He provided the intelligence that launched it. And the outcome — Iran surviving with its strategic leverage intact, Turkey ascending, a dual hegemony replacing the old order, the Abraham Accords collapsing, and Palestinian statehood returning irresistibly to the regional agenda — is the precise opposite of everything his grand design required.
The Greater Israel project required three things simultaneously: permanent American backing, Arab acquiescence, and the suppression of Palestinian nationhood. All three pillars have collapsed in the same season.
A recent poll shows that 92.1 percent of Israelis, including Jews and Arabs, believe Iran gained the most from the MOU, and 86 percent hold a negative view of the agreement.
Netanyahu faces elections in September or October. He went to war promising existential resolution. He faces the ballot box having delivered existential ruin.
The greatest blow: The loss of the American shield
But the deepest and most consequential damage inflicted by this war on Israel is not the MOU’s terms, not the dual hegemony, not the death of the Abraham Accords. It is something more fundamental.
Israel can no longer be assured of American support in future conflicts.
This is a tectonic shift in the foundations of Israeli security doctrine. Since 1973, Israel has operated on one unshakeable assumption: that the United States would underwrite its military adventurism, absorb its diplomatic costs, and stand between Israel and strategic consequences. That assumption is now shattered.
Trump refused to share a preliminary text of the MOU with Netanyahu, whose judgment he questioned using multiple expletives, while simultaneously describing Iranian interlocutors as “very rational people who were nice to deal with.” Washington did not merely negotiate over Israel’s head — it negotiated against Israel’s preferences, excluded it from the peace architecture, and then told it to accept the outcome.
The lesson every future Israeli government must now absorb is devastating in its simplicity: America will pursue its own interests. When those interests align with Israeli military action, Washington will partner.
When they diverge — as they did the moment the Strait of Hormuz closure threatened the global economy — Washington will deal. And Israel will not be in the room.
This is not a temporary rupture that a change of American administration will repair. It is a structural shift. The United States has demonstrated, in front of the entire world, that Israeli military adventurism carries costs that Washington will not indefinitely absorb. Every future Israeli prime minister will govern in the shadow of that demonstration.
A bleak horizon
Israel enters this new era already deeply wounded from within.
More than 150,000 people have left Israel in the past two years, and more than 200,000 since the current government took office in December 2022. This is not the normal ebb and flow of migration. A Knesset report described it as a “tsunami” — and those departing are disproportionately the young, educated, tax-paying professionals who constitute the backbone of Israel’s high-tech economy.
For the second consecutive year, more people left Israel than arrived — a negative net migration balance unprecedented in the country’s modern history. Population growth slowed in 2025 for the first time in decades, driven primarily by emigration alongside declining fertility rates and war-related mortality.
More than 25 percent of Israelis are now considering leaving. The number of official requests to terminate residency in 2024 was more than double the total requests made between 2015 and 2021.
For a state that defines itself as the ultimate sanctuary for world Jewry, this exodus carries a verdict more damning than any diplomatic agreement. Jews are leaving Israel because of Israel’s wars. The state founded to make Jews safe has become, in the eyes of growing numbers of its own citizens, a state that makes them perpetually and inescapably unsafe.
The economy mirrors the demography. The departure of high-tech workers — the engineers, physicians, and entrepreneurs who drove Israel’s “Start-Up Nation” identity — carries compounding consequences. Capital, talent, and tax revenue leave together. The sectors that remain are progressively more dependent on state subsidies and less capable of generating the growth that underwrites military spending.
A state in permanent war cannot indefinitely sustain a first-world economy, and the numbers are beginning to reflect that truth.
The only path forward: A Palestinian state
There is only one exit from this strategic catastrophe, and it requires Israel to face a truth it has spent 70 years refusing to acknowledge.
Israel’s long-term survival as a viable state — economically, demographically, diplomatically — now depends on a single political act: the acceptance of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
This is no longer a moral argument, though the moral case is overwhelming. It is a cold strategic calculation. The post-war regional order being assembled — the dual hegemony of Iran and Turkey, the Saudi-led Gulf reconciliation, the death of the Abraham Accords — has Palestinian statehood as its non-negotiable foundation.
Every regional power that matters has made this clear. The price of Israel’s reintegration into a workable Middle Eastern order, and by extension the restoration of something resembling normal economic and diplomatic life, is Palestinian statehood.
Without it, Israel faces permanent regional hostility, no prospect of Arab normalisation, a continuing haemorrhage of its most productive citizens, an economy under sustained pressure, and an American patron whose support is now conditional and transactional rather than unconditional and structural.
The Zionist founders understood something Netanyahu’s generation has forgotten: that Israel’s survival ultimately depends not merely on military power but on legitimacy — the legitimacy that comes from being a state that other states and peoples can live alongside.
That legitimacy has been catastrophically squandered. It can only begin to be rebuilt through justice for the Palestinian people.
The reckoning has arrived. And the path forward, however painful, is clear.
Accept Palestinian statehood — with East Jerusalem as its capital — or face a future of accelerating isolation, demographic decline, and strategic irrelevance in a Middle East that has irrevocably moved on.
Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator on geopolitical affairs. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform.
Global Voices has interviewed veteran Aotearoa New Zealand writer and educator David Robie who discussed the state of Pacific media, journalism education, and the role of the press in addressing decolonisation and the climate crisis.
Professor Robie was among the 2024 New Zealand Order of Merit awardees and on the inaugural King’s Birthday Honours list for his “services to journalism and Asia-Pacific media education”.
His career in journalism has spanned six decades. He was the founding editor of the Pacific Journalism Review journal in 1994 and in 1996 he established the Pacific Media Watch, a media rights watchdog group. He was head of the journalism department at the University of Papua New Guinea from 1993–1997 and at the University of the South Pacific from 1998–2002. While teaching at the Auckland University of Technology, he founded the Pacific Media Centre in 2007.
Global Voices interviewed him in June 2024 about the challenges faced by journalists in the Pacific and his illustrious career. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Mong Palatino (MP): What are the main challenges faced by the media in the region?
David Robie (DR): Corruption, viability, and credibility — the corruption among politicians and influence on journalists, the viability of weak business models and small media enterprises, and weakening credibility. After many years of developing a reasonably independent Pacific media in many countries in the region with courageous and independent journalists in leadership roles, many media groups are becoming susceptible to growing geopolitical rivalry between powerful players in the region, particularly China, which is steadily increasing its influence on the region’s media — especially in Solomon Islands — not just in development aid.
However, the United States, Australia and France are also stepping up their Pacific media and journalism training influences in the region as part of “Indo-Pacific” strategies that are really all about countering Chinese influence.
Indonesia is also becoming an influence in the media in the region, for other reasons. Jakarta is in the middle of a massive “hearts and minds” strategy in the Pacific, mainly through the media and diplomacy, in an attempt to blunt the widespread “people’s” sentiment in support of West Papuan aspirations for self-determination and eventual independence.
David Robie talks to the Fabian Society about the Rainbow Warrior, the bombing and French colonial culture in the Pacific Video: Fabian Society
MP: What should be prioritised in improving journalism education in the region?
DR: The university-based journalism schools, such as at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, are best placed to improve foundation journalism skills and education, and also to encourage life-long learning for journalists. More funding would be more beneficial channelled through the universities for more advanced courses, and not just through short-course industry training. I can say that because I have been through the mill both ways — 50 years as a journalist starting off in the “school of hard knocks” in many countries, including almost 30 years running journalism courses and pioneering several award-winning student journalist publications. However, it is important to retain media independence and not allow funding NGOs to dictate policies.
MP: How can Pacific journalists best fulfill their role in highlighting Pacific stories, especially the impact of the climate crisis?
DR: The best strategy is collaboration with international partners that have resources and expertise in climate crisis, such as the Earth Journalism Network to give a global stage for their issues and concerns. When I was still running the Pacific Media Centre, we had a high profile Pacific climate journalism Bearing Witness project where students made many successful multimedia reports and award-winning commentaries. An example is this one on YouTube: Banabans of Rabi: A Story of Survival
MP: What should the international community focus on when reporting about the Pacific?
DR: It is important for media to monitor the Indo-Pacific rivalries, but to also keep them in perspective — so-called ”security” is nowhere as important to Pacific countries as it is to its Western neighbours and China. It is important for the international community to keep an eye on the ball about what is important to the Pacific, which is “development” and “climate crisis” and why China has an edge in some countries at the moment. Australia and, to a lesser extent, New Zealand have dropped the ball in recent years, and are tying to regain lost ground, but concentrating too much on “security”. Listen to the Pacific voices.
There should be more international reporting about the “hidden stories” of the Pacific such as the unresolved decolonisation issues — Kanaky New Caledonia, “French” Polynesia (Mā’ohi Nui), both from France; and West Papua from Indonesia. West Papua, in particular, is virtually ignored by Western media in spite of the ongoing serious human rights violations. This is unconscionable.
This article was first published by Global Voices on 25 June 2024. It has been republished with permission.
