It’s been so surreal watching empire managers issue solemn words in honor of Holocaust Memorial Day while enthusiastically facilitating a modern-day genocide in Gaza. Image: Caitlin Johnstone: Notes
COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone
The United States and eight of its allies have suspended funding to UNRWA, the primary humanitarian agency in Gaza, following Israeli allegations that a dozen employees of the 30,000-staff organisation were involved in the October 7 attack by Hamas.
The allegations conveniently sprang up at the same time as the International Court of Justice rulings against Israel in the genocide case brought against it by South Africa, quickly supplanting the ICJ ruling in Western mass media headlines.
The US has continued to dismiss the South African case as unfounded.
A senior Israeli official told Axios that Israeli intelligence agencies came upon the information about the UNRWA staffers largely through “interrogations of militants who were arrested during the October 7 attack.
Accusations of genocide deemed credible by the International Court of Justice: Preposterous lies. Not worth opposing a single massacre over.
Unsubstantiated claims about UNRWA staff extracted via torture: Gospel truth. Worthy of ending humanitarian support to Gazans for.
❖
How does ANY unproven claim by the Israeli government get treated seriously by ANYONE anymore? There ought to be a limit on how many lies you can get caught circulating before the entire political/media class just starts laughing at you whenever you make any claim about anything.
❖
It’s been so surreal watching empire managers issue solemn words in honor of Holocaust Memorial Day while enthusiastically facilitating a modern-day genocide in Gaza.
Commemorating the Holocaust while cheerleading for the current holocaust is next-level dystopia.
2023 and 2024 exposed the true hypocrisy of the West, fake democracy, double standards on international laws, and the rights and protection of women and children. The shameful decision to withdraw #UNHRA funding for Palestinians facing genocide is a testament to this hypocrisy! https://t.co/0vwKoCC7Dl
The IDF shot and killed a Palestinian man who had a white flag in a designated “safe zone” right in front of an ITV News crew, drawing headlines around the world.
A re-election campaign year for a Democrat president coinciding with an active genocide backed by that same president is exposing the true face of the Democratic Party clearer than anything I can remember.
Biden is preparing to send Israel 50 child murder jets and 12 child murder helicopters, but oh no no we mustn’t focus on this too much because it’s an election year and Trump is a very bad person.
❖
I understand the logic of lesser-evil voting. I just don’t understand the logic of designating a president who backs a literal genocide and engages in nuclear brinkmanship a “lesser evil”.
❖
A political establishment which tells you you have to choose between two presidential candidates who both want to help Israel murder children by the thousands is a political establishment which must not be permitted to exist.
❖
Israel has been caught in lie after lie after lie after lie since October 7, yet we’re meant to believe it’s crazy anti-semitic holocaust denialism to think it may have lied about some of the stuff that happened on October 7 as well.
❖
Young people spent 2020 protesting against racism and injustice and spent 2022 being told that it’s bad for an occupying force to drop bombs on people, but when Israel started a racist and unjust bombing campaign in 2023 older generations were still somehow surprised to see young people stand against it.
❖
To defend Israel is to defend the US empire, because the military might of the US empire is what makes Israel’s existence possible. You can’t separate the two.
Israel apologists pretend they’re defending a plucky little underdog country in the Middle East and a persecuted religious minority, when really they’re defending the most powerful empire that has ever existed and the most murderous and tyrannical power structure of the 21st century.
South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa (back to camera) . . . embraced by keffiyeh-wearing government and party officials celebrating the favourable interim ICJ ruling on its genocide case against Israel. Image: Asia Pacific Report screenshot
ANALYSIS: By Trita Parsi
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The court has imposed several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law.
In its order, the court fell short of South Africa’s request for a ceasefire, but this ruling, however, is overwhelmingly in favour of South Africa’s case and will likely increase international pressure for a ceasefire as a result.
On the question of whether Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide, that will still take more time, but today’s news will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts.
This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimiSe Israel internationally.
However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel’s legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved.
Just as much as Israel’s political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide.
As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the US under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too.
I have deleted my previous posts on the ICJ ruling to ensure accurate representation of their decision.
Having read and listened to expert analysis of the ruling, it remains the case that the New Zealand government, a signatory to the Genocide Convention, now has a clear duty… pic.twitter.com/GOulkTJ4Kv
Significant implications for US
The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling.
Instead, the matter will go to the UN Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.”
So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ’s decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the US and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented.
The double standards of US foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling.
It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7.
It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct.
Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t.
Unconditional support, zero criticism
Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel’s conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide.
This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around.
As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis.
This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation.
What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the US and UK’s military action against the Houthis?
The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The US is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not.
International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm.
Moderated war conduct
One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct.
Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application.
If so, it shows that the court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and executive vice-president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. First published at Responsible Statecraft.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to take steps to prevent acts of genocide in South Africa’s case over the war on the Gaza Strip.
But it stopped short of ordering a ceasefire in what is being seen as a historical ruling on emergency measures requested by the South African government which analysts say will put pressure on Tel Aviv and its Western backers.
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, ordered Israel to take measures to prevent and punish direct incitement of genocide, and also to take immediate, effective measures to enable provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance in the besieged enclave.
Hailing the emergency measures as a victory for international law, South African Minister of International Relations Dr Naledi Pandor said outside the court in The Hague that Israel would have to halt fighting in Gaza if it wanted to adhere to the orders of the United Nations’ top court.
“How else is it going to comply with the ruling?” she asked, adding that it was up to the global community to ensure the measures were applied to “stop the suffering of the Palestinian people”.
“How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Dr Pandor said.
“If you read the order, by implication a ceasefire must happen.”
In South Africa, government officials welcomed the ruling.
“It’s a watershed judgment for all those who want to see peace in Palestine,” Fikile Mbalula, secretary-general of the ruling African National Congress party, told reporters.
Palestinian human rights attorney @dianabuttu reacts to the ICJ ruling on Gaza: “This court has overwhelmingly decided in favor of South Africa, has overwhelmingly determined that there is plausible risk of genocide, and it becomes imperative upon the world community to now act.” pic.twitter.com/eXQuyIBlbA
Years to decide
The ICJ judges have not yet ruled on the merits of the genocide allegations, which may take years to decide. However, a big majority of the judges ruled that South Africa had presented a “plausible case” with its genocide allegations that led to the emergency measures.
Since October 7 when Hamas launched a deadly raid on Israel, Tel Aviv’s military campaign has killed at least 26,083 people and wounded 64,487 others, according to officials in Gaza. Thousands more are missing under the rubble, most of them presumed dead.
Al Jazeera’s senior analyst Marwan Bishara told the network that “Israel is on trial for genocide”, saying that the provisional ruling would cause a seismic split between the Global North and South depending on which side people aligned, even if the ICJ had not called for an immediate ceasefire.
He said Israel’s major backer, the United States, which had vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions seeking a ceasefire in recent months, now needed to “look in the mirror”.
ICJ ruling is a ‘major legal and moral blow’ to Israel, says analyst Marwan Bishara. Video: Al Jazeera
“The UK, Germany and other countries who supported Israel in the past three months unconditionally also need to look in the mirror and reconsider their decision because the World Court has taken up the case of genocide against Israel for its actions in the past three months,” Bishara said.
The principle outcome was that the ICJ would take on the case and had put Israel “on notice” and demand that the state carry out a number of steps.
“I think that legally and morally sends a strong message to Israel and its backers that they need to cease and desist — even if the court did not spell it out.”
International Court of Justice preliminary ruling: “Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide.” pic.twitter.com/ArtpoFbZ3M
Plausible case of genocide
Thomas Macmanus, director of international state crime initiative at Queen Mary University of London, stressed that the court had said there “is a plausible case of genocide in Gaza”.
“So, we now have a serious risk of genocide,” he said, noting that the law stipulated that once there is “a serious risk”, then states needed to do “everything they can to stop enabling that genocide and to start taking all action in their capacity to prevent it”.
Riyadh al-Maliki, Palestinian Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued a statement welcoming the ICJ’s provisional measures “in light of the incontrovertible evidence presented to the court about the unfolding genocide”.
“The ICJ ruling is an important reminder that no state is above the law or beyond the reach of justice. It breaks Israel’s entrenched culture of criminality and impunity, which has characterised its decades-long occupation, dispossession, persecution, and apartheid in Palestine.”
Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir mocked the ICJ after the court ended its reading.
“Hague shmague,” the minister wrote on X, formerly Twitter, in the first comments by an Israeli official.
All of those genocidal statements including that of Palestinians being human animals. Well here they are being quoted again to the world by Judge Donoghue at the ICJ. #ICJGazaGenocidepic.twitter.com/RmBQRBInU3
Liberal democracy was not the form of government Britain established in Aotearoa New Zealand in 1840. Māori political authority is found in tino rangatiratanga and through shared decision making on matters of common interest. Image: 1News screenshot APR
ANALYSIS: By Dominic O’Sullivan
The ACT Party’s election promise of a referendum for Aotearoa New Zealand to redefine and enshrine the “principles” of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is likely to dominate debate at this year’s Rātana and Waitangi Day events.
ACT’s coalition agreement with the National Party commits the government to supporting a Treaty Principles Bill for select committee consideration. The bill may not make it into law, but the idea is raising considerable alarm.
Leaked draft advice to Cabinet from the Ministry of Justice says the principles should be defined in legislation because “their importance requires there be certainty and clarity about their meaning”. The advice also says ACT’s proposal will:
change the nature of the principles from reflecting a relationship akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori to reflecting the relationship the Crown has with all citizens of New Zealand. This is not supported by either the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty.
Setting aside arguments that the notion of “partnership” diminishes self-determination, the 10,000 people attending a hui at Tūrangawaewae marae near Hamilton last weekend called by King Tūheitia were motivated by the prospect of the Treaty being diminished.
Do we need Treaty principles? The Treaty principles were developed and elaborated by parliaments, courts and the Waitangi Tribunal over more than 50 years to guide policy implementation and mediate tensions between the Māori and English texts of the document.
The Māori text, which more than 500 rangatira (chiefs) signed, conferred the right to establish government on the British Crown. The English text conferred absolute sovereignty; 39 rangatira signed this text after having it explained in Māori, a language that has no concept of sovereignty as a political and legal authority to be given away.
Because the English text wasn’t widely signed, there is a view that it holds no influential standing, and that perhaps there isn’t a tension to mediate. Former chief justice Sian Elias has said: “It can’t be disputed that the Treaty is actually the Māori text”.
On Saturday, Tūheitia said: “There’s no principles, the Treaty is written, that’s it.”
This view is supported by arguments that the principles are reductionist and take attention away from the substance of Te Tiriti’s articles: the Crown may establish government; Māori may retain authority over their own affairs and enjoy citizenship of the state in ways that reflect equal tikanga (cultural values).
Author and Professor of Māori Studies at the University of Auckland, Margaret Mutu, who was in attendance at the recent hui-ā-iwi at Tūrangawaewae marae, says the government is required to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.https://t.co/zSusoi5RERpic.twitter.com/dMrxjtMRan
Democratic or undemocratic? The ACT Party says this is undemocratic because it gives Māori a privileged voice in public decision making. Of the previous government, ACT has said:
Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose. It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here.
Liberal democracy was not the form of government Britain established in 1840. There’s even an argument that state government doesn’t concern Māori. The Crown exercises government only over “its people” – settlers and their descendants. Māori political authority is found in tino rangatiratanga and through shared decision making on matters of common interest.
Tino rangatiratanga has been defined as “the exercise of ultimate and paramount power and authority”. In practice, like all power, this is relative and relational to the power of others, and constrained by circumstances beyond human control.
But the power of others has to be fair and reasonable, and rangatiratanga requires freedom from arbitrary interference by the state. That way, authority and responsibility may be exercised, and independence upheld, in relation to Māori people’s own affairs and resources.
Assertions of rangatiratanga Social integration — especially through intermarriage, economic interdependence and economies of scale — makes a rigid “them and us” binary an unlikely path to a better life for anybody.
However, rangatiratanga might be found in Tūheitia’s advice about the best form of protest against rewriting the Treaty principles to diminish the Treaty itself:
Be who we are, live our values, speak our reo (language), care for our mokopuna (children), our awa (rivers), our maunga (mountains), just be Māori. Māori all day, every day.
As the government introduces measures to reduce the use of te reo Māori in public life, repeal child care and protection legislation that promotes Māori leadership and responsibility, and repeal water management legislation that ensures Māori participation, Tūheitia’s words are all assertions of rangatiratanga.
Those government policies sit alongside the proposed Treaty Principles Bill to diminish Māori opportunities to be Māori in public life. For the ACT Party, this is necessary to protect democratic equality.
In effect, the proposed bill says that to be equal, Māori people can’t contribute to public decisions with reference to their own culture. As anthropologist Dr Anne Salmond has written, this means the state cannot admit there are “reasonable people who reason differently”.
Today thousands answered the Māori Kings call for unity by descending on Tūrangawaewae marae for a national hui to discuss Act’s proposal to redefine the principles of the treaty. Here’s David Seymour being grilled by @moanatribe on his questionable use of the word apartheid. pic.twitter.com/1E9pItTqLm
Liberal democracy and freedom Equality through sameness is a false equality that liberal democracy is well-equipped to contest. Liberal democracy did not emerge to suppress difference.
It is concerned with much more than counting votes to see who wins on election day.
Liberal democracy is a political system intended to manage fair and reasonable differences in an orderly way. This means it doesn’t concentrate power in one place. It’s not a select few exercising sovereignty as the absolute and indivisible power to tell everybody else what to do.
This is because one of its ultimate purposes is to protect people’s freedom — the freedom to be Māori as much as the freedom to be Pakeha. If we want it to, democracy may help all and not just some of us to protect our freedom through our different ways of reasoning.
Freedom is protected by checks and balances on power. Parliament checks the powers of government. Citizens, including Māori citizens with equality of tikanga, check the powers of Parliament.
One of the ways this happens is through the distribution of power from the centre — to local governments, school boards and non-governmental providers of public services. This includes Māori health providers whose work was intended to be supported by the Māori Health Authority, which the government also intends to disestablish.
The rights of hapū (kinship groups), as the political communities whose representatives signed Te Tiriti, mean that rangatiratanga, too, checks and balances the concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Checking and balancing the powers of government requires the contribution of all and not just some citizens. When they do so in their own ways, and according to their own modes of reasoning, citizens contribute to democratic contest — not as a divisive activity, but to protect the common good from the accumulation of power for some people’s use in the domination of others.
Te Tiriti supports this democratic process.
Dr Dominic O’Sullivan is adjunct professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and professor of political science, Charles Sturt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.
Since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza in October, Israeli soldiers have been posting what can only be described as snuff videos on social media platforms. In the videos, soldiers can be seen — often gleefully — committing war crimes against Palestinians.
In one video, an Israeli soldier dressed in a dinosaur costume loads artillery shells into a tank and dances as the shells are fired in the direction of Gaza.
In another video, a soldier is filmed dedicating an explosion to his two-year-old daughter for her birthday. Seconds later, a Palestinian residential building behind him is blown up.
Israel soldiers mock Palestinians. Video: Al Jazeera
There has been shock and outrage over the videos on social media platforms by Palestinians and their allies with many noting that the videos should be used as evidence in the case against the Israeli regime for genocide before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Even those who support the Israeli regime seem to be shocked at the brazenness with which Israeli soldiers are sharing these videos.
‘Makes them look callous’
British broadcaster Piers Morgan, for example, asked on X, formerly Twitter: “Why do Israeli soldiers keep filming themselves doing this kind of crass, insensitive thing? Why don’t their commanders stop them?
“Makes them look callous when so many children in Gaza are being killed.” For Morgan, it seems, the problem is not what the soldiers are doing but rather that they are filming themselves doing it.
People less informed on the context might find it strange that these soldiers are implicating themselves in such horrific crimes without a second thought.
But those with deeper knowledge of the Zionist settler colonial project in Palestine know that decades of impunity not only for the Israeli regime but also for Israeli individuals guilty of war crimes has led us to this point.
Indeed, the Israeli regime has yet to face any serious consequences from third states for the crimes it has been committing against the Palestinian people since its inception.
Rather, it enjoys exceptional diplomatic and trade relations with much of the Western world and has been the largest recipient of United States aid.
Rather than being shunned from global institutions and events, it is included and celebrated from Eurovision to the Olympics.
Horrific crimes routinely admitted
And there is another aspect of Israeli impunity that is often overlooked: Israeli soldiers routinely admit to horrific crimes they commit against the Palestinians to clear their conscience and absolve themselves of personal responsibility but never face any accountability.
Israelis themselves describe the practice as “yorim ve bochim”, which translates from Hebrew as “shooting and crying”. A favourite pastime of the Zionist Left, it takes centre stage in dozens of Israeli films and documentaries.
Take the widely celebrated film Tantura, named after a Palestinian fishing village that was subjected to a massacre in 1948. In this film, several Israeli veterans talk with ease about the fact that they killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians.
Others openly admit to participating in ethnic cleansing, yet all are portrayed as complicated individuals who are traumatised by the trauma they inflicted on Palestinians.
“Yorim ve bochim” is also epitomised in the work of the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence. A darling of the liberal West, the organisation of Israeli army veterans tries to expose the reality of the “Occupied Territories” by providing a space to Israeli soldiers to confidentially recount their experiences in the Israeli army and at times admit to taking part in systematic abuse and destruction.
The testimonies on its website make for incredibly difficult reading, particularly in this moment when we are seeing what is happening in Gaza.
And yet nowhere does this organisation call for accountability or address what justice might look like for the Palestinians whom the soldiers they work with have systematically abused over decades.
The reality is that over the last seven and a half decades, there has been complete impunity for brutalising and slaughtering Palestinians. The ongoing genocide in Gaza and the way in which it is being so brazenly shared on social media by the perpetrators is a manifestation of that impunity.
The only way to make sure that it stops and never happens again is to hold not only those who have taken part in the genocide accountable but also those who are complicit.
Yara Hawari is the Palestine Policy Fellow of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.
Palestinian photojournalist Motaz Azaiza, who has been documenting the impact of the war in the Gaza Strip, has left the enclave for Qatar and gave his first interview there with the Doha-based Al Jazeera global news channel.
Azaiza announced on Instagram yesterday that he was leaving the besieged enclave before boarding a Qatari military airplane at Egypt’s El Arish International Airport.
However, it was unclear how he was able to leave Gaza or why he had evacuated, reports Al Jazeera.
“This is the last time you will see me with this heavy, stinky [press] vest. I decided to evacuate today. … Hopefully soon I’ll jump back and help to build Gaza again,” Azaiza said in a video.
The 24-year-old Palestinian captured the attention of millions globally — including in the South Pacific — as he filmed himself in a press vest and helmet to document conditions during Israel’s war, which has killed more than 25,000 people in Gaza.
“Motaz Azaiza – A 24-year-old man from Gaza, in 108 days, did what CNN, Fox, the BBC, and all their ‘journalism’ predecessors refused to do for 75 years.
“Humanise a people!”
– Khaled Beydoun
Israel launched its offensive after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, killing 1,139 people and taking more than 200 people captive. However, there are demands within Israel for an inquiry into allegations that some hostages were killed by “friendly fire” from a tank.
Azaiza’s coverage often took the form of raw, unfiltered videos about injured children or families crushed under rubble in the aftermath of Israeli air strikes.
He said he has had to “evacuate for a lot of reasons you all know some of it but not all of it”.
In his post, he was seen on a video about to board a grey plane emblazoned with the words “Qatar Emiri Air Force”.
“First video outside Gaza,” he said in one clip, revealing that it was his first time on a aircraft. “Heading to Qatar.”
He also shared a video of the inside of the plane as it landed in Doha.
Palestinian photojournalist Motaz Azaiza leaves Gaza after his “heroic” humanitarian reporting . . . “we are all Palestinian.” Video: Al Jazeera
Since the start of the war, the photojournalist has amassed millions of followers across multiple platforms.
His Instagram following has grown from about 27,500 to 18.25 million in the more than 108 days since October 7, according to an assessment of social media analytics by Al Jazeera.
His Facebook account grew from a similar starting point to nearly 500,000 followers. He now has one million followers on X, formerly known as Twitter.
As well as his social media posts, Azaiza has produced content for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNWRA).
I left Gaza with a broken heart and eyes filled with tears.
There was no other option after 108 days of continuous massacres against us.
It’s time to move somewhere else so I can do more work and I pray that I can be a reason to stop this war and help rebuild Gaza again.
I’ve… pic.twitter.com/kg3FwTi38d
Social media users thanked Azaiza for his coverage of the war, many saluting him as a hero.
“Thank you for everything you have done, you have moved mountains, what you have done in the last 100 days people can’t do in their whole lifetime. You were a pivotal voice in showing the world the Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Wishing you well and safety,” one user said on X.
Another, Khaled Beydoun, wrote on Instagram, “Motaz Azaiza – A 24-year-old man from Gaza, in 108 days, did what CNN, Fox, the BBC, and all their ‘journalism’ predecessors refused to do for 75 years.
“Humanise a people!”
“I’m so glad you had the opportunity to get out, God willing, YOU WILL RETURN TO A FREE PALESTINE,” wrote another.
“We love you so deeply,” American musician Kehlani wrote, adding, “Thank you for your humanity.”
“Frame that vest. It’s the armor of one of history’s greatest heroes,” comedian Sammy Obeid said.
The Sydney Morning Herald's coverage of the "Israel bias" furore today . . . ABC managing director David Anderson (from left), and critics journalist Antoinette Lattouf and ABC global affairs editor John Lyons. Image: Screenshot AAPMI
Union members at the Australian public broadcaster ABC have today passed a vote of no confidence in managing director David Anderson for failing to defend the integrity of the ABC and its staff from outside attacks, reports the national media union.
The vote was passed overwhelmingly at a national online meeting attended by more than 200 members of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), the union said in a statement.
Union members have called on Anderson to take immediate action to win back the confidence of staff following a series of incidents which have damaged the reputation of the ABC as a trusted and independent source of news.
The vote of ABC union staff rebuked Anderson, with one of the broadcaster’s most senior journalists, global affairs editor John Lyons, reported in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age as saying he was “embarrassed” by his employer, which he said had “shown pro-Israel bias” and was failing to protect staff against complaints.
This followed revelations of a series of emails by the so-called Lawyers for Israel lobby group alleged to be influential in the sacking of Lebanese Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf for reposting on social media a Human Rights Watch item about Israel’s use of “starvation” as a tactic in its genocidal war on Gaza that has killed 25,000 people so far, mostly women and children.
Another pro-Israel WhatsApp lobbying the ABC.
It makes me sick in the stomach to see people celebrate my sacking.
It makes me sick in the stomach to see an alleged Ita Buttrose response saying I’m now gone.
It makes me worry about the ABC’s integrity https://t.co/6qTeU7f8Wzpic.twitter.com/L9Te8A1Ynx
Staff have put management on notice that if it does not begin to address the current crisis by next Monday, January 29, staff will consider further action.
The acting chief executive of MEAA, Adam Portelli, said staff had felt unsupported by the ABC’s senior management when they have been criticised or attacked from outside.
Message ‘clear and simple’
“The message from staff today is clear and simple: David Anderson must demonstrate that he will take the necessary steps to win back the confidence of staff and the trust of the Australian public,” he said.
“This is the result of a consistent pattern of behaviour by management when the ABC is under attack of buckling to outside pressure and leaving staff high and dry.
“Public trust in the ABC is being undermined. The organisation’s reputation for frank and fearless journalism is being damaged by management’s repeated lack of support for its staff when they are under attack from outside.
BREAKING NEWS:
Censorship Crisis at the ABC.
Senior ABC journalist accuses ABC of bowing to “a group of lawyers lobbying for a foreign power.”
👉 “The clue is in the name: ‘Lawyers for Israel’ thought that they could run a campaign to bully an ABC journalist out of her job —… pic.twitter.com/VbyFfGqpnB
“Journalists at the ABC — particularly First Nations people, and people from culturally diverse backgrounds — increasingly don’t feel safe at work; and the progress that has been made in diversifying the ABC has gone backwards.
“Management needs to act quickly to win that confidence back by putting the integrity of the ABC’s journalism above the impact of pressure from politicians, unaccountable lobby groups and big business.”
The full motion passed by MEAA members at today’s meeting reads as follows:
MEAA members at the ABC have lost confidence in our managing director David Anderson. Our leaders have consistently failed to protect our ABC’s independence or protect staff when they are attacked. They have consistently refused to work collaboratively with staff to uphold the standards that the Australian public need and expect of their ABC.
Winning staff and public confidence back will require senior management:
Backing journalism without fear or favour;
Working collaboratively with unions to build a culturally informed process for supporting staff who face criticism and attack;
Take urgent action on the lack of security and inequality that journalists of colour face;
Working with unions to develop a clearer and fairer social media policy; and
Upholding a transparent complaints process, in which journalists who are subject to complaints are informed and supported.
A further resolution passed unanimously by the meeting read:
MEAA members at the ABC will not continue to accept the failure of management to protect our colleagues and the public. If management does not work with us to urgently fix the ongoing crisis, ABC staff will take further action to take a stand for a safe, independent ABC.
This is the 100% accurate video that Australia’s @ABCNews fired Antoinette Lattouf for posting on Instagram. Why? Because it was “controversial,” a euphemism for criticizing Israel. @antoinette_newshttps://t.co/xBRWTpbnVV
"Censored" . . . the cover image on In-depth Solomons' revelations about Chinese media interference in the Solomon Islands press. Image: In-Depth Solomons
By Ronald Toito’ona and Charley Piringi in Honiara
China’s interference and moves to control the media in the Solomon Islands have been exposed in leaked emails In-depth Solomons has obtained.
On Monday last week [15 January 2024], Huangbi Lin, a diplomat working at the Chinese Embassy in Honiara, called the owner of Island Sun newspaper, Lloyd Loji, and expressed the embassy’s “concern” in a viewpoint article that the paper published on page 6 of the day’s issue.
The article, which appeared earlier in an ABC publication, was about Taiwan’s newly-elected president William Lai Ching-te, and what his victory means to China and the West.
Lin’s phone call and his embassy’s concern was revealed in an email Loji wrote to the editorial staff of Island Sun, which In-depth Solomons has cited. Loji wrote:
“I had received a call this morning from Lin (Chinese Embassy) raising their concern on the ABC publication on today’s issue, page 6.
“Yesterday, he had sent us a few articles regarding China’s stance on the elections taking place in Taiwan which he wanted us to publish.
“Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Solomon Islands) made a press release (as attached) reaffirming Solomon Island’s position with regards to the Taiwan elections (recognition of one China principle).
“Let us align ourselves according to the position in which our country stands.
“Be mindful of our publication since China is also a supporter of Island Sun.
“Please collaborate on this matter and (be) cautious of the news that we publish especially with regards to Taiwan’s election.”
No response
Loji has not responded to questions In-depth Solomons sent to him for comments.
The day before on Sunday, Lin sent an email to owners and editors of Solomons Islands’ major news outlets, asking for their cooperation in their reporting of the Taiwanese election outcome. His email said:
“Dear media friends.
“As the result of the election in the Taiwan region of the People’s Republic of China being revealed, a few media reports are trying to cover it from incorrect perspectives.
“The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China would like to remind that both inappropriate titles on newly-elected Taiwan leaders and incorrect name on the Taiwan region are against the one-China policy and the spirit of UN resolution 2758.”
In the same email, he also sent two articles from the State Council Taiwan Affairs Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China on the results of the Taiwan elections.
He requested that the articles be published in the next day’s papers.
Articles published
None of the two articles appeared in the Island Sun the next day, but the paper eventually published them on Tuesday.
The Solomon Star featured both articles, along with a government statement issued at the behest of the Chinese Embassy, on its front page.
Lin failed to respond to questions In-depth Solomons sent to him for comments.
Taiwan has been Solomons Islands’ diplomatic ally until 2019 when Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare ditched Taiwan for China.
In the last two years, China has provided both financial support and thousands of dollars’ worth of office and media equipment to the Island Sun and Solomon Star.
China’s reported manipulation of news outlets around the Pacific has been a topic of discussion in recent years. The communist nation is one of the worst countries in the world for media freedom. It ranks 177 on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.
Responding to the incident, the Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) has urged China to respect the independence of the media.
MASI criticism
“This incident is regrettable,” MASI President Georgina Kekea told In-depth Solomons.
“Any attempts to control or manipulate the media compromise the public’s right to information,” Kekea added.
“Despite the one-China Policy, China must respect the rights of Solomon Islanders in their own country.
“The situation shows the big difference between the values of the Solomon Islands and China. Respect goes both ways.
“Chinese representatives working in Solomon Islands must remember that Solomon Islands is a democratic country with values different to that of their own country and no foreign policy should ever dictate what people can and cannot do in their own country.”
Kekea further added that it was disheartening to hear interference by diplomatic partners in the day-to-day operations of an independent newsroom.
She said in a democratic country like Solomon Islands, it was crucial that the autonomy of newsrooms remained intact, and free from any external government influence on editorial decisions.
Kekea also urged Solomon Islands newsroom leaders to be vigilant and not allow outsiders to dictate their news content.
“There are significant long-term consequences if we allow outsiders to dictate our decisions.
“Solomon Islands is a democratic country, with the media serving as the fourth pillar of democracy.
“It is crucial not to permit external influences in directing our course of action.”
Kekea also highlighted the financial struggles news organisations in Solomon Islands face and the financial assistance they’ve received from external donors.
She pointed out that this sort of challenge arose when news organisations lacked the financial capacity to look after themselves.
“The concern is not exclusive to China but extends to all external support.
“It is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the funding support received but there should be limits.
“We must enable the media to fulfil its role independently. Gratitude for funding support should not translate into allowing external entities to exploit us for their own agenda or geopolitical struggles.
“Media is susceptible to the influence of major powers. Thus, we must try as much as possible to not get ourselves into a position that we cannot get out of.
“It is important to keep our independence. We must try as much as possible to be self-reliant. To work hard and not rely solely on external partners for funding support.
“If we are not careful, we might lose our freedom.”
Pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to genocide in Israel's war on Gaza in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau yesterday. Image: David Robie/APR
A Palestinian advocate has appealed to the New Zealand government to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and to back the South African genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
“A sovereign state like New Zealand that has historically stood for what is morally correct must not bend to foreign pressure, and must reject policies aligned with the United Kingdom of Israel and the United States of Israel which blindly endorse and support the apartheid regime,” said Billy Hania of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).
He was speaking at the pro-Palestinian rally and march in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau yesterday as the Gaza death toll rose above 25,000 dead, mostly women and children.
Palestinian advocate Billy Hania speaking in Aotea Square yesterday . . . “The Zionist project is failing in Palestine.” Image: David Robie/APR
Belgium is among the latest of 61 countries — and the first European nation — to support the genocide case and a growing number of other lawsuits are also being brought against Israel.
Swiss prosecutors have also confirmed that a “crimes against humanity” case has been filed against Israeli President Isaac Herzog during his visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos last week. No further details were given.
“The Zionist project is failing in Palestine — the apartheid entity with 75 years of colonial terror has achieved nothing for the Jewish people, oppressing and killing Palestinians through a violent settler colonial approach,” Hania said.
“Mass killing of Palestinians will achieve nothing for the Jewish people. Without respect for Palestinian rights and respect for life in Palestine, there will be no peace period.”
‘One holocaust not enough?’
Constrasting the shrinking support for Israel with massive citizen protests “in their millions” taking place around the world, Hania criticised Germany’s intervention in the genocide case supporting Tel Aviv while also planning to provide 10,000 tank munitions to “the apartheid regime with which to massacre Palestinians — as if one holocaust was not enough”.
“We are calling on the New Zealand government to support the South African ICJ case in addition to supporting the recent Chile-Mexico ICC war crimes initiative. This initiative is technically important with Israel being a signatory to the ICC,” Hania said.
He also thanked Indonesia for its legal initiative.
“Stop the genocide now” placard in yesterday’s Auckland rally calling for a ceasefire in the war in Gaza. Image: David Robie/APR
“More than 100 days of targeting Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure to exterminate Palestinian life is committing genocide, the crime of all crimes and with total impunity,” Hania said.
“More than 60,000 tons of explosives dropped over Gaza in 100 days equals three nuclear bombs, more than the infamous nuclear tragedy on Japan that led to its immediate surrender. It’s fundamentally different for Gaza as surrendering does not exist in Palestine vocabulary.”
He said the more than 100 Israel hostages would remain in Gaza until the “thousands of Palestinian hostages are freed”.
“The Gaza siege must end, West Bank Israeli settler extremist violence must end, there must be respect for worshippers and Muslim religious sites attacks by Israeli extremists is well documented and must end.”
Pro-Palestinian protesters march down Auckland’s Queen Street yesterday calling for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the killing of children in the Israeli war on Gaza. Image: David Robie/APR
24 massacres cited
Hania stressed that the current war did not start on October 7 with the deadly Hamas resistance movement attack on southern Israel as claimed by the Israeli government.
He cited a list of 24 massacres of Palestinians by Zionist militia that began at Haifa in 1937 and Jerusalem the same year, including the Nakba – “the Catastrophe” — in 1948 when 750,000 Palestinians were forced out of their homes and lands with the destruction of towns and villages.
Hania also referred to a recent New York Times article that warned Israel was in a strategic bind over its failed military policies, saying Israel’s objectives were “mutually incompatible”.
The cited New York Times article saying Israel’s two main goals in its war on Gaza are “mutually incompatible”. Image: NYT screenshot APR
“Israel’s limited progress in dismantling Hamas has raised doubts within the military’s high command about the near-term feasibility of achieving the country’s principal wartime objectives: eradicating Hamas and also liberating the Israeli hostages still in Gaza,” wrote the authors Ronen Bergman and Patrick Kingsley.
Israel had established control over a smaller part of Gaza at this stage of the war than originally envisaged in battle plans from the start of the invasion, which were reviewed by The Times.
Citing Dr Andreas Krieg, a war analyst at King’s College London, from the article, Hania quoted:
“It’s not an environment where you can free hostages.
“It is an unwinnable war.
“Most of the time when you are in an unwinnable war, you realise that at some point — and you withdraw.
“And they didn’t.”
“Adolf and his zombie” poster at the rally in Auckland yesterday calling for an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza. Image: David Robie/APR
Pro-Palestinian protesters carrying the Fijian and Tongan national flags march down Auckland's Queen Street today . . . "resistance is not the crime". Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report
ANALYSIS:By Samer Jaber
For two months now, the United States and other Western countries backing Israel have been talking about “the day after” in Gaza. They have rejected Israeli assertions that the Israeli army will remain in control of the Strip and pointed to the Palestinian Authority (PA) as their preferred political actor to take over governance once the war is over.
In so doing, the US and its allies have paid little regard to what the Palestinian people want. The current leadership of the PA lost the last democratic elections held in the occupied Palestinian territory in 2006 to Hamas and since then, it has steadily lost popularity.
In a recent public opinion poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), some 90 percent of respondents were in favour of the resignation of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and 60 percent called for the dismantling of the PA itself.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas . . . low public trust in the PA, but there is a reason why the US insists on supporting its takeover of Gaza. Image: Al Jazeera
Washington is undoubtedly aware of the low public trust in the PA, but there is a reason why it insists on supporting its takeover of Gaza: its leadership has been a reliable partner for decades in maintaining a status quo in the interests of Israel.
The US would like that arrangement to continue, so its backing for the PA may be accompanied by an attempt to revamp it in order to solve its legitimacy problem. But even if this effort succeeds, it is unlikely the new iteration of the PA would be sustainable.
A reliable partner Perhaps one of the main factors that has convinced the US that the PA is a “good choice” for post-war governance in Gaza is its anti-Hamas stance and willingness to conduct security coordination with Israel.
Since the Israel’s war on Gaza began on October 7, the PA and its leadership have not issued an official statement offering explicit political support for the Palestinian resistance. Their rhetoric has predominantly focused on condemning and disapproving of attacks on civilians on both sides, while also rejecting the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland.
In a political address on the ninth day of the war, Abbas criticised Hamas, asserting that their actions did not represent the Palestinian people. He emphasised that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and underscored the importance of peaceful resistance as the only legitimate means to oppose Israeli occupation.
This statement was later retracted by his office.
In December, Hussein al-Sheikh, a PA official and secretary-general of the executive committee of the PLO, also criticised Hamas in an interview with Reuters. He suggested its armed resistance “method and approach” has failed and led to many casualties among the civilian population.
The stance of the PA is consistent with its own narrow political and economic interests which have come at the expense of the Palestinian national cause. It has systematically and brutally stamped out any opposition and any support for other factions, including Hamas, in order to maintain its rule over West Bank cities while Israel continues with its brutal occupation and dispossession of the Palestinian people.
In Israel’s war on Gaza in 2008–2009, the PA leadership hoped to regain administrative control of Gaza with assistance from Israel. During that conflict, the PA prohibited any activities in the West Bank in support of Gaza and threatened to arrest participants.
I, myself, faced harassment and the threat of arrest for attempting to join a demonstration against the war. Similar positions were adopted by the PA, albeit with less aggressive measures, in subsequent Israeli assaults on Gaza, as its leadership came to recognise that Hamas was unlikely to relinquish its control over the Strip.
Since October 7, the PA has taken a bolder stance, marked by more aggressive actions. Its security forces have suppressed demonstrations and marches held in support of Gaza, resorting to shooting live ammunition at participants. Additionally, the PA has recently detained individuals expressing support for the Palestinian resistance.
While cracking down on Palestinian protests, the PA has done nothing to protect its people from attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinian communities, which have resulted in deaths, injuries and the displacement of hundreds of people in the occupied West Bank.
Additionally, the Israeli army has intensified its raids in the PA-administered areas, leading to the arrest of thousands and the killing of hundreds of Palestinians, with no reaction from the PA.
The PA’s inability to offer basic protection has added to the deterioration of its legitimacy among Palestinians. Furthermore, by taking a stance against the Palestinian resistance and aligning itself with Israel and the US, the PA is only further undermining its own legitimacy.
Palestine Authority – PA 1.0
Washington is aware of the growing unpopularity of the PA and its leadership among Palestinians but it is not giving up on it because it seems to believe that that can be fixed. That is because the US has tried to revamp the authority before as it has always faced problems with legitimacy due to the way it was set up.
As a governing institution, the PA was established to bring an end to the first Intifada.
Conceived under the interim peace agreements in Oslo, it was envisioned as an administrative body to oversee civil affairs for Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip and certain parts of the West Bank, excluding occupied East Jerusalem.
It effectively took on a role as an Israeli security contractor in exchange for certain benefits related to administering Palestinian population centres. The PA faithfully fulfilled its mandate, carrying out routine arrests and surveillance of Palestinian individuals, whether they were involved in actions against Israel or were activists opposing its corrupt practices.
Thus, Israel strategically benefitted from the establishment of the PA, but the same cannot be said for the Palestinian people, as they continued to experience the ravages of a military occupation.
Expected independent state
“Despite this, the PA under Yasser Arafat — or what we can call PA 1.0 — leveraged patronage and corruption to maintain some level of support. Notably, Arafat viewed the Oslo process as an interim measure, expecting a fully independent Palestinian state by 2000.
He pragmatically engaged in security collaboration with Israel, hoping to build trust and ultimately achieve peaceful coexistence. In 1996, responding to ongoing Palestinian resistance, he even declared a “war on terror” and convened a security summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, involving Israel, Egypt and the US.
In 2000, the civil and security arrangements overseen by the PA became increasingly fragile and eventually collapsed, triggering the eruption of the second Intifada. This uprising was a response to Israel’s policies of settlement expansion, its firm refusal to accept any form of Palestinian sovereignty between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and broader social and economic grievances.
In 2002, the Bush administration conceived the idea of refurbishing the PA as part of the Road map for peace. While Arafat’s leadership was perceived as a hindering factor, he had already collaborated with the US by implementing structural reforms, including the creation of a prime minister’s position.
Seeking to reshape the Palestinian leadership, the US engaged with potential alternative leaders, including Mahmoud Abbas, who eventually assumed the presidency of the PA in 2005 after the suspicious death of Arafat.
The PA took its first blow when Hamas won the elections in 2006 and was able to form a government. The US and EU rejected the results, boycotted the government and suspended financial assistance to the PA, while Israel halted the transfer of tax revenues.
Meanwhile, the PA security apparatus leadership refused to deal with the Hamas government and continued their work as usual, claiming they reported to the PA president’s office.
For several months, Hamas struggled to maintain its PA government, while Abbas and his supporters made significant efforts to isolate it.
In 2007, Hamas took over the PA security apparatus in the Gaza Strip and assumed control of all PA institutions. Abbas declared Hamas an unwanted entity in the West Bank and ordered the expulsion of the Hamas government and the imprisonment of many Hamas operatives.
After splitting the PA into two entities, one in the Gaza Strip and another in the West Bank, Abbas, along with allies Mohammed Dahlan and Salam Fayyad, led efforts to restructure the PA in the West Bank with full support from the US and the EU.
Restructuring PA 2.0
Under what we can call PA 2.0, two major restructuring efforts took place. First, it consolidated the Palestinian security apparatus under a united command. Led by US Army General Keith Dayton, the revamping of the Palestinian security forces aimed at deepening their partnership with the Israeli state and army.
Additionally, it sought to cultivate a vested interest among PA personnel in maintaining the role of the PA. Second, the restructuring of the PA consolidated its budget, placing all its resources under the Ministry of Finance.
This restructuring did not result in a “better” PA. It remained a dysfunctional entity, which mismanaged resources and service provision, leading to a severe deterioration in living standards for the majority of Palestinians.
Its leadership enjoyed certain privileges due to its security coordination with Israel and engaged in widespread corruption practices that have raised concerns even among PA supporters.
Meanwhile, Israel’s settlement enterprises continued expanding without limits and the violence employed by the Israeli army and settlers against ordinary Palestinians only worsened.
Restructuring PA 3.0? The lack of support for the PA leadership and its dysfunction have raised concerns about whether it can play a role in the upcoming post-Gaza war arrangements that the US administration is trying to put together.
That is why Washington has signalled it will seek to revamp the PA once again — into PA 3.0 — with the aim of addressing the needs of various parties. The US administration and its allies seek an authority that can provide security to Israel and engage in a peace process without altering the status quo.
Since the start of the war, several US envoys have visited Ramallah carrying the same message: that the PA needs to be revamped. In December US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with Abbas and al-Sheikh (the PLO secretary-general) urging them to “bring new blood” into the government. Al-Sheikh is considered a possible successor to Abbas, who could be part of these efforts to restructure the PA.
However, after more than 100 days since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, it looks like Washington does not have a concrete plan and only has some general ideas which the PA has declared a readiness to discuss. More importantly, the US vision does not seem to take into account the will of the Palestinian people.
The Palestinian public clearly demands a leadership that can head a democratic, national entity capable of fulfilling the Palestinian national aspirations, including creating an independent state and realising the Palestinians’ right of return to their homelands.
Revamping the PA implies intensifying cooperation with Israel and providing Israeli settlers with more security, which effectively means more insecurity and dispossession for the Palestinians.
As a result, the Palestinian people will continue to perceive the PA as illegitimate and public anger, upheaval and resistance will continue to grow.
In this sense, the US vision for revamping the PA would fail because it would not address the core issues of Israeli occupation and apartheid, which successive American administrations have systematically and purposefully ignored.
Samer Jaber is a political activist and PhD researcher specialising in political economy at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is also a fellow with the Council for At-Risk Academics (CARA). He focuses on the Arab world and the Middle East region. This article was first published by Al Jazeera.
