Winston Peters has been accused of “pure racism” in Parliament by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who has called out National ministers for failing to combat or challenge it.

The Greens say Peters is scapegoating migrants, while ACT’s David Seymour — his own Cabinet colleague — says Peters is simply seeking attention.

The condemnation came following Parliament’s Question Time yesterday when the NZ First leader singled out a Green MP for his Rarotongan heritage.

Green MP Teanau Tuiono had used the word “Aotearoa” to refer to New Zealand while asking questions about climate aid in the Pacific.

It prompted Peters to interrupt: “Why is [the minister] answering a question from someone who comes from Rarotonga to a country called New Zealand . . . ”

Speaker Gerry Brownlee cut him off to object to noise from other MPs in the debating chamber.

Hipkins then leapt to his feet: “Members in this House are equal. For a member of the House to stand up and question whether someone is entitled to ask a question because of their country of origin is pure racism, and you should’ve stopped him in the beginning.”

Brownlee said he did not hear Peters’ remark, but would review the transcription later.

Peters then completed his question, asking why somebody from Rarotonga had decided “without any consultation with the New Zealand people” to change the country’s name.

In response, Brownlee said that was “not an acceptable question at all”.

“I want that to be the last time that those sort of questions are directed so personally at members of this House,” Brownlee said.

Tuiono has both Māori and Cook Islands Māori heritage but was born in New Zealand.

Hipkins calls out ‘ugly side’ to politics
In a speech to Parliament shortly later, Hipkins decried an “ugly side to New Zealand politics”, calling out “outright race-baiting” and “direct racism” being expressed in the debating chamber.

“Attacks on our Chinese and Asian communities in New Zealand, attacks on our Indian communities in New Zealand, and just today, attacks on whether those who have Pasifika heritage are entitled to ask questions in this house.

“And what have we heard from the government side on those attacks? Absolutely nothing.”

Hipkins said National ministers needed to “combat and challenge that racism” during this year’s election campaign, saying it was “totally unacceptable” for them to “say nothing and do nothing”.

“They are quite happy to stand by while members of their own government attack our Chinese community, our Indian community, our Pasifika community, migrants to New Zealand who work damn hard and contribute to New Zealand, and it’s an absolute disgrace.”

Hipkins said government ministers should celebrate diversity and not cast aspersions on it.

Speaking to reporters later, Hipkins said Peters’ behaviour “had no place in government and Parliament” — but he still would not say whether Labour would be prepared to work with NZ First after the election.

“I’m going make judgements about those things closer to the election, but I’ll call out bad behaviour when I see it.”

Greens call Peters ‘Temu Trump’
Addressing reporters outside Parliament, Tuiono said Peters was using “culture wars” to distract from the real harm he was causing New Zealanders.

“Just like Trump, he’s not very good with geography,” he said. “He just needs to get an atlas. A bilingual one preferably.”

His Green colleague Ricardo Menéndez March said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had failed to show leadership by allowing Peters — “a Temu Trump” — to spread anti-migrant sentiment.

“It’s migrant scapegoating . . .  it’s emboldens people outside of these four walls who wish to cause harm on our migrant communities,” Menéndez March said.

Speaking afterwards, ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would never make such comments but would leave others to judge them for themselves.

“Do I like those comments? No. Would I make those comments? No. But I think if we all go on a 2019-style witch-hunt, we’re actually just fuelling it,” he said.

“If we all get ourselves in a lather, giving them the attention that they want, then that’s just as bad.”

‘Utter nonsense’ claim
In response, Peters told reporters Hipkins was talking “utter nonsense” and he did not care about Seymour’s views.

“How can somebody from another country who’s come to New Zealand decide to change my country’s name?” Peters said.

When told that Tuiono was actually born in New Zealand, Peters said, regardless, the Green MP claimed to be a “Cook Islander”.

“I would never go to the Cook Islands and start changing their name, would I?”

Peters said he was regularly being “literally mobbed” by New Zealanders on matters like the use of the word Aotearoa.

“I’m not indulging fools here. Let me tell you something: stand back and watch the polls go.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

What happened at New Zealand human rights campaigner John Minto’s home? Let me tell you.

Let me tell you that he wrote about it and Facebook took it down. Yep. Wrong after wrong.

Minto, national co-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) advocacy and protest group, has been arrested at least 23 times for standing against racism.

A couple of nights ago two Palestinian flags were stolen from the Christchurch Ōtautahi home of John and his partner, Bronwen. “Nazi scum” was spray-painted in large letters on his footpath.

The sign “make poverty history” ripped off the fence and the Te Tiriti sign spray-painted.

But John, who has been a leader in New Zealand protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza which has killed at least 71,000 people since October 2023, has been unable to report this because Facebook removed his original post about this crime.

Why? Because white supremacists and their allies want to win this round, their complaints are supported by oppressive social media mechanisms.

Human rights are under threat. A genocide in Gaza is supported by our New Zealand government. Propaganda is rife. And the Treaty that represents partnership, that should uphold the rights of the tangata whenua is being pushed to the gutter.

And speaking of gutter. Here you see it.

People who feel entitled to storm private property and tear down signs that stand against extermination and exile.

Facebook is blocking shares about the details about the vandalism. Censorship! To thwart the censorship, share this commentary if you wish to share the truth and disempower those who want supreme power.

Saige England is an award-winning journalist and author of The Seasonwife, a novel exploring the brutal impacts of colonisation. She is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. Republished from a social media post with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Israeli government has offered to train senior Australian police officers in Israel as part of efforts to combat terrorism and antisemitism, reports OnePath Network.

In a letter to Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said his government was “ready and willing to assist” following the Bondi beach massacre on December 14 which killed 15 civilians.

“We bring extensive experience in combating radical Islamic terrorism and antisemitism,” Chikli wrote.

“We would welcome the opportunity to host and train senior Australian police officers and security personnel in Israel, sharing our expertise and best practices in countering terrorism and antisemitism.”

This comes amid growing public scrutiny over the handling of the Bondi attack and broader concerns around antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia.

The Israeli offer has sparked criticism. Writing on social media, handala.bds said: “Might as well rollout the red carpet for Mossad [Israeli secret service]”.

Juju_b.22 asked about the Israeli training offer: “To commit genoc1de?”

Adam_h_y_k asked: “Train them in what? The Hannibal directive?”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Sitiveni Rabuka, the instigator of Fiji’s coup culture, took to the witness stand for the first time today — fronting the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Suva.

The TRC was set up by Rabuka’s coalition government with the aim of promoting truth-telling and reconciliation regarding political upheavals dating back to 1987.

The five-member TRC began its work earlier this year. It was led by Dr Marcus Brand, who was appointed in January, and has reportedly already finished his role.

Rabuka had stated earlier this year he would “voluntarily appear” before the commission and disclose names of individuals involved in his two racist coups almost four decades ago.

The man, often referred to as “Rambo” for his military past, has been a permanent fixture in the Fijian political landscape since first overthrowing a democratically elected government as a 38-year-old lieutenant-colonel.

But now, at 77, he has a weatherbeaten face yet still carries the resolute confidence of a young soldier. He faced the TRC commissioners, wearing a tie in the colours of the Fiji Army, to give a much-anticipated testimony by Fijians locally and in the diaspora.

He began by revisiting his childhood and the influences in his life that shaped his worldview. He fundamentally accepted the actions of 1987 were rooted in his racial worldview.

Protecting Indigenous Fijians
He acknowledged those actions were a result of his background, being raised in an “insulated” environment (i.e. village, boarding school, military), and it is his view that he was acting to protect Indigenous Fijians.

Asked if the coups had served their purpose, Rabuka said: “The coups have brought out more of a self-realisation of who we are, what we’re doing, where we need to be.”

“If that is a positive outcome of the coup, I encourage all of us to do that. Let us be aware of the sensitivity of numbers, the sensitivity of a perceived imbalance in the distribution of assets, or whatever.”

But perhaps the most important response from him came toward the end of the almost 1hr 50min submission to a question from the facilitator and veteran journalist Netani Rika, who asked Rabuka: “Do you see the removal of immunity for coup perpetrators from the [2013] Constitution as a way towards preventing a repeat of these incidents [coups]?”

“There should be [a] very objective assessment of what can be done,” Rabuka replied.

“There are certain things that we cannot do unless we all agree [to] leave the amendment to the [2013] Constitution open to the people. If that is the will of the people, let it be.

“At the moment our hands are tied,” confirming indirectly that the removal of immunity for coup perpetrators is off the table as it stands.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Israeli prison guards punish the prisoners “by breaking their thumbs” said a released detainee as lawyers speak out about torture, abuse, rape, starving and killings in a notorious underground Israeli prison facility where detainees are held without sunlight, brutalised.

And nobody in New Zealand says a word.

Scores of detainees from Gaza have also been held in a notorious Israeli military detention camp known as Sde Teiman, where reports of killings, torture and sexual violence, including rape, have been rife since the Gaza war began in October 2023.

There’s about 9200 Palestinians being held in detention by Israel but there’s no word from Prime Minister Christopher Luxon about them like there was over 20 Israeli hostages.

And Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has not said anything about a new law that Israel just voted for that would impose the death penalty for so-called “terrorism” offences based on “racist” motives against Israelis.

That’s a law exclusively aimed at Palestinians while Israeli settlers are exempt.

Go ahead, terrorise the people living there.

Winston Peters is silent on behalf of you and me. He’s representing us on the world stage.

We not only do not condemn this, we don’t even mention it. New Zealand doesn’t care.

They are not us, they are not “we”.

Gerard Otto is a digital creator, satirist and independent commentator on politics and the media through his G News column and video reports. This article is an excerpt from a G News commentary and republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Keith Rankin – One of our least-discussed discriminatory ‘isms’ is what I call ‘lookism’. Discrimination on the basis of a person’s or a group’s appearance, noting in particular features of ancestry, age, and culture. Discrimination based on how individuals and peoples look to other people.

Discrimination on the basis of the presence or absence of ‘beauty’

This form of discrimination falls most particularly on females. Commonly we too easily see the death of a ‘beautiful’ woman as the greatest of all human tragedies, while regarding the death of an ‘ugly’ woman as the least of all such tragedies. The perfect victim is a beautiful woman.

Early yesterday (10 Sep 2025) I watched Al Jazeera Live, to get information about the Israeli attack on Qatar which had taken place about four hours earlier. (Refer Maps: Israel has attacked six countries in the past 72 hours, Al Jazeera, 10 Sep 2015.) At about 5:35am NZ time, the news network crossed to a White House press briefing, expecting to hear for the first time the official US take on the event.

Karoline Leavitt: “Today I would like to address the tragedy that had not received nearly enough media attention; the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska. Here are the facts that many outlets have shamefully and intentionally failed to report until the President drew attention to it. On August 22nd Iryna Zarutska was stabbed to death on the rail system in Charlotte North Carolina by a savage career criminal. This is a public transportation system that many in the area use every single day to go to school and work. Iryna was on the train that night, travelling home from her job at a pizzeria, still in uniform from her shift. This beautiful innocent 23-year-old young woman was a Ukrainian refugee who had recently fled her country for a chance at a safer life and a promising new beginning here in the United States of America. But tragically, the public transportation system in a major American city was more dangerous than the active war zone that she left. … “

Eventual break-back: Cyril Vanier [Al Jazeera anchor] “We are listening in intently because we are expecting that there may be comments from the White House on Israel’s attack on Doha just a few hours ago.” After more than 10 minutes Karoline Leavitt, a beautiful blond woman, made her short White House response to the Israeli attack.

After a couple of questions, she said; “As I told you, the President was notified by the United States’ military that Israel was attacking Hamas …”. The language indicated that the President was notified by the United States’ military rather than by the Israeli authorities; and that the attack on Qatar was already underway when the President first heard of it. (Maybe the United States is a proxy of Israel, and not the other way around?)

Note that Leavitt’s tale of Iryna Zarutska suggests, if taken at face value, that the “active war zone” in Ukraine is relatively safe?!

Back to my story

I had heard about the Iryna Zarutska case earlier this week (refer BBC: Suspect in fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee charged with federal crime), so this tragic story was not as underplayed as the White House intimated. Violent crime is ubiquitous throughout the western world; much of it is senseless, committed by underclass perpetrators, many with mental illness. For many African and Native American communities, terrifying violence, including femicide, is an all too frequent fact of their lives and deaths. Pretty blond immigrant victims are the exception, not the rule.

Terror is also perpetrated by the western world’s ruling classes, and much of it is aimed at immigrants with black or brown skin.

Especially on Al Jazeera, because Palestine is on their patch and because they do not downplay the violence perpetrated by the Israeli Einsatzgruppen, we see many victims – especially mothers wearing culturally-traditional black clothing and head coverings. To western viewers, these victims look quite unattractive; they are all-to-easily dismissed as mothers-of-terrorists, mothers of future terrorists, and future mothers of future terrorists. These women look less like westerners than the Palestinian men do, making it particularly hard for some of us to identify with them as humans like us.

Lookism regards as the most tragic of victims the young, the blond, the blue-eyed, the fair-skinned, the slim (but not emaciated). Lookism favours long or plaited hair; uncovered heads. Lookism is racism, ageism, culturism, and individualism.

Stereotypes of bad people (and non-people) are ugly, and dark. A problematic piece of twentieth-century literature which perpetuates these stereotypes is Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. These books became very popular with the ‘hippie’ generation, as well as with other generations which were into deeply problematic books such as Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand galvanised coteries of young men (and some young women, such as Liz Truss); her fans vary in age from 99 (eg Alan Greenspan) to 57 (eg Peter Thiel) to 19. Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, became the launching-pad for the 0.001 percenters and for people who aspire to the success-cocktail of concentrated-wealth, power-sex, and techno-utopia.

(Note How Bad Writing Destroyed the World: Ayn Rand and the Literary Origins of the Financial Crisis, 2016, by Adam Weiner; Weiner observes that 500,000 copies sold in the crisis year of 2009. And note the tech-focussed New Zealand school curriculum changes, New push for AI as Education Minister Erica Stanford announces curriculum changes RNZ 11 September 2025.)

The techno-supremacist 0.001 percenters seem to like three types of literature. Ultra-individualist rationalisations of ‘rationalism’ such as Atlas Shrugged and books recommended by the Mises Society, certain types of science fiction (see Do billionaires even understand the sci-fi they’re inspired by? The Listening Post Al Jazeera 7 September 2025), and mythic fantasies, such as Lord of the Rings.

Back to Lord of the Rings (noting that this was mentioned in the Listening Post story, and that Peter Thiel has read it “over ten times” as an adult). On reflection, it is drawn-out racist fantasia in which Middle Earth is a thinly veiled map of Europe. Mordor is the former caliphate, the Ottoman Empire. And Mordor’s maritime allies were from the coasts of North Africa, the Barbary Coast. The ugly (thereby evil!) Orcs were seemingly without women (though Peter Jackson made a joke about this in the second movie) and children; certainly, if present in the story, we would have wished for the death of them as the ugly mothers and future-mothers of ugly terrorists. There was however a big and ugly female spider Shelob; an embodiment of all tropes of wicked ugly women.

The beautiful people – which very much include blond and other fair-skinned women – draw on Celtic, Scandinavian and possibly Ukrainian identities (noting The Counteroffensive: How Ukraine uses ‘The Lord of the Rings’ to frame its battle for survival Mariana Lastovyria Kyiv Independent 29 August 2014, and Ukraine and the Orcs: Leaders slip into ‘Tolkien mindset’ Gwynne Dyer Manawatu Standard6 May 2022). The Kievan Rus’ were a people of Varangian – ie Scandinavian – origin. Aryan, for sure. By this view, if you want to know if someone is good – or, on the other hand, ‘deserves to die’ – just find out what their race is!

Conclusion – Lookism

Mythology, especially ethnic and pseudo-ethnic mythology, is dangerous at the best of times. Ugly myths about individualism and the virtue of beauty – and their flipsides (collectivism, and the vice of ugliness) – create a recipe for conflict without any point of resolution. Ugly won’t concede because (by conflation) it’s evil; and ‘beauty’ won’t concede because either it’s evil too, or because its adversary is too evil.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

The grim facts should speak for themselves. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has deliberately killed an unprecedented number of Palestinian journalists in Gaza.

Those brave individuals are smeared as Hamas operatives and terrorists by Israel and its supporters.

But the real story behind this, beyond just Western racism and dehumanisation towards Arab reporters who don’t work for the corporate media in London or New York, is an Israeli military strategy to deliberately (and falsely) link Gazan journalists to Hamas.

The outlet +972 Magazine explains the plan:

“The Israeli military has operated a special unit called the ‘Legitimization Cell,’ tasked with gathering intelligence from Gaza that can bolster Israel’s image in the international media, according to three intelligence sources who spoke to +972 Magazine and Local Call and confirmed the unit’s existence.

“Established after October 7, the unit sought information on Hamas’ use of schools and hospitals for military purposes, and on failed rocket launches by armed Palestinian groups that harmed civilians in the enclave.

“It has also been assigned to identify Gaza-based journalists it could portray as undercover Hamas operatives, in an effort to blunt growing global outrage over Israel’s killing of reporters — the latest of whom was Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif, killed in an Israeli airstrike this past week [august 10].

According to the sources, the Legitimisation Cell’s motivation was not security, but public relations. Driven by anger that Gaza-based reporters were “smearing [Israel’s] name in front of the world,” its members were eager to find a journalist they could link to Hamas and mark as a target, one source said.

As a journalist who has visited and reported in Gaza since 2009, here is a short film I made after my first trip, Palestinian journalists are some of the most heroic individuals on the planet. They have to navigate both Israeli attacks and threats and Western contempt for their craft.

I stand in solidarity with them. And so should you.

After the Israeli murder of Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif on August 10, I spoke to Al Jazeera English about him and Israel’s deadly campaign:

Antony Loewenstein speaking on Al Jazeera English on 11 August 2025.   Video: AJ

Antony Loewenstein interviewed by Al Jazeera on 11 August 2025.  Video: AJ

Republished from the Substack of Antony Lowenstein, author of The Palestine Laboratory,  with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The grim facts should speak for themselves. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has deliberately killed an unprecedented number of Palestinian journalists in Gaza.

Those brave individuals are smeared as Hamas operatives and terrorists by Israel and its supporters.

But the real story behind this, beyond just Western racism and dehumanisation towards Arab reporters who don’t work for the corporate media in London or New York, is an Israeli military strategy to deliberately (and falsely) link Gazan journalists to Hamas.

The outlet +972 Magazine explains the plan:

“The Israeli military has operated a special unit called the ‘Legitimization Cell,’ tasked with gathering intelligence from Gaza that can bolster Israel’s image in the international media, according to three intelligence sources who spoke to +972 Magazine and Local Call and confirmed the unit’s existence.

“Established after October 7, the unit sought information on Hamas’ use of schools and hospitals for military purposes, and on failed rocket launches by armed Palestinian groups that harmed civilians in the enclave.

“It has also been assigned to identify Gaza-based journalists it could portray as undercover Hamas operatives, in an effort to blunt growing global outrage over Israel’s killing of reporters — the latest of whom was Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif, killed in an Israeli airstrike this past week [august 10].

According to the sources, the Legitimisation Cell’s motivation was not security, but public relations. Driven by anger that Gaza-based reporters were “smearing [Israel’s] name in front of the world,” its members were eager to find a journalist they could link to Hamas and mark as a target, one source said.

As a journalist who’s visited and reported in Gaza since 2009, here’s a short film I made after my first trip, Palestinian journalists are some of the most heroic individuals on the planet. They have to navigate both Israeli attacks and threats and Western contempt for their craft.

I stand in solidarity with them. And so should you.

After the Israeli murder of Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif on August 10, I spoke to Al Jazeera English about him and Israel’s deadly campaign:

Antony Loewenstein speaking on Al Jazeera English on 11 August 2025.   Video: AJ

Antony Loewenstein interviewed by Al Jazeera on 11 August 2025.  Video: AJ

Republished from the Substack of Antony Lowenstein, author of The Palestine Laboratory,  with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

The word antisemitism has become so debased that depending on who is using it I might well take it as a sign that the accused is worth listening to.

When the World Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest, he responded by saying the court was being antisemitic. One of the court’s legal advisers was Theodor Meron, a former Israeli ambassador and legal adviser who spent a chunk of his childhood in a Nazi concentration camp.

Last month, Netanyahu declared the leaders of France, the UK and Canada of fuelling antisemitism.

Their “crime”? Threatening “concrete action” against Israel if it continues its “egregious” blockade of aid entering Gaza.

Egregious not genocidal. And the concrete action referred to wasn’t sanctions or a full arms embargo but stalling free trade talks.

The bitter irony is that with none of those countries having yet imposed a complete ban on arms exports to Israel they are all in a sense fuelling a genocide.

The Army-McCarthy hearings
We’re coming up to the 71st anniversary of the Army-McCarthy hearings where an army lawyer, Joseph Welch, rebuked Senator Joseph McCarthy with the famous line: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

We’ll be waiting a long time for the wanted war criminal Netanyahu to show any decency, but could we be approaching a tipping point where the establishment finally calls off a witch hunt after realising no one is safe from false accusations.

The McCarthyite red scare, which began in the late 1940s, saw more than 2000 federal workers sacked, thousands of academics, teachers, and union members pressured or forced to resign due to anti-communist policies, and up to 500 Hollywood directors and actors blacklisted for being leftwing or refusing to name names.

Welch’s rebuke was triggered by none of that. It was McCarthy turning his metaphorical guns onto the military implying he would expose high ranking army personnel that saw the army lawyer return fire.

The conflating of criticism of Israel with antisemitism has been spectacularly successful in making any criticism of Israel a potentially career ending move. Three Ivy League presidents have been pushed out of their jobs for failing to crack down hard enough on students protesting the brutality of Israel’s ongoing genocide.

UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose popularity had seen the party become the biggest political movement in Europe, was toppled in 2016 after bogus accusations of antisemitism.

In the purge of the Labour Party that followed Jews were five times more likely to be investigated for antisemitism than goys.

It’s the same story in Germany where Jews feature prominently among those cancelled for alleged antisemitism. Renowned professor of Jewish studies Peter Schäfe was forced to resign as the director of Berlin’s Jewish Museum after it retweeted a post critical of Germany’s anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolutions.

Greece’s former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis — not a Jew — has been banned from Germany or even appearing via Zoom for this response, on 8 October 2023, to being asked if he condemned Hamas:

“I condemn every single atrocity, whomever is the perpetrator or the victim. What I do not condemn is armed resistance to an apartheid system designed as part of a slow-burning, but inexorable, ethnic cleansing programme.
As a European, it is important to refrain from condemning either the Israelis or the Palestinians when it is us, Europeans, who have caused this never-ending tragedy: after practising rabid anti-Semitism for centuries, leading up to the uniquely vile Holocaust, we have been complicit for decades with the slow genocide of Palestinians, as if two wrongs make one right.”

That nuanced response, with its acknowledgement of the dreadful legacy of real antisemitism, has not only seen him banned from speaking — in person or virtually — but dropped by his German publisher.

Antisemitism is often referred to as the oldest hatred — with good reason — but the word itself is relatively recent.

A ‘scientific’ word for an old hatred
Nineteenth century German journalist, Wilhelm Marr, popularised the term in a pamphlet the title of which translates as: The way to victory of Germanism over Judaism.

What distinguished antisemitism from the commonly used Judenhass — or Jewish hate — was the idea that it was a Jew’s race not their religion that was deserving of hate.

Antisemitism was a prejudice proud to speak its name. It was respectable in a way that religious intolerance wasn’t. Prominent professors and politicians happily declared themselves antisemites and adherents of “scientific racism”.

It was an old idea dressed up in new clothing. Fifteenth century Spain passed Limpieza de Sangre (cleanliness of blood) statutes to allow discrimination against Jewish and Muslim converts to Christianity.

The Judeo-Christian civilisational conflict with Islam, often referred to by right-wing supporters of Israel, is a relatively new construct. When the Jews were expelled from Spain, the Ottomans sent ships to take them to new homes in Istanbul, Thessaloniki and Izmer.

Times change and while it was once possible — even common — to be a respectable antisemite and scientific racist but frowned upon to discriminate based on religious belief, now the reverse is true.

So-called new atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins declare all religions bad but Islam worse.

“Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive sounding “Allahu Akhbar.” Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” Dawkins once tweeted.

The cultures of Europe have indeed cultivated racist ideas for centuries. And just as half a millennia ago conversion offered you no protection from the racism of the Spanish court, embracing Buddhism didn’t protect Columbia University student Moshen Mahdawi from being snatched from a naturalisation interview by balaclava-clad ICE agents.

His crime? Being Palestinian and telling his story.

It’s a topsy-turvy world where life-long anti-fascists like Jeremy Corbyn and Yanis Varoufakis are sanctioned on bogus claims of antisemitism while the likes of Elon Musk and Hungarian PM Victor Orban — both peddlers of old-style antisemitic conspiracies — are welcomed to Israel as friends and allies in a contrived battle of civilisations.

One thing that differentiates antisemitism from the Judeophobia, which has been a European disease since the early days of Christianity, is that it places Jews among the victims of the continent’s white supremacist legacy.

It’s perhaps no coincidence the Christopher Columbus set sail for the Americas in the same year, 1492, that Spain expelled its Jews and Muslims.

The settler colonisation of the Americas has been estimated by historian David Stannard to have resulted in the death of 100 million indigenous people — many from introduced diseases but tens of millions also died in genocides only recently making their way into history books.

Last month, when Netanyahu declared Israel’s attacks on Gaza “a war against human beasts” he was echoing the words of settler colonialists from Alaska to Aotearoa and the dehumanising language of the Nazis against the Jews.

So, back to that question about whether we’ve reached a tipping point where unfair accusations of antisemitism will be seen in a similar light to McCarthy’s red scare.

With Netanyahu accusing the leader of the Democrats party, Yair Golan, an IDF reserve major-general, of promoting a blood libel for speaking out against the starving of babies in Gaza, it’s hard not to draw parallels with the Army-McCarthy hearings.

It’s worth quoting the words that saw Israel’s PM accuse Golan of a blood libel — a reference to the lie that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish children in the baking of matzos, and a trigger for centuries of pogroms.

“A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not set goals for itself like the expulsion of a population.”

The idea that an IDF general speaking out against the killing of babies is propagating racist hatred of Jews is surely a leap too far even for many fervent Zionists.

Another sign that the tide might be turning is Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, saying the US administration’s weaponisation of the IHRA definition is making academics and students (including Jews) less safe.

The self-described Zionist said the definition was being distorted and used to silence anti-Israel critics.

The IHRA working definition has been widely adopted internationally — including by institutions in New Zealand and Australia.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both criticised the definition claiming it has seen those documenting Israel’s human rights abuses being falsely accused of antisemitism.

It’s a tragedy that weaponised accusations of antisemitism aimed at protecting Israel from criticism are obscuring a rise in Judeophobic conspiracy theories and attacks on Jewish community centres and synagogues around the world.

And even more tragically that those accusations are blunting criticisms of Israel that could help bring the ongoing genocide in Gaza to an end.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist. He has a Substack: Towards democracy

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s Parliament has confirmed the unprecedented punishments proposed for opposition indigenous Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in protest against the Treaty Principles Bill.

Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi will be suspended for 21 days, and MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke suspended for seven days, taking effect immediately.

Opposition parties tried to reject the recommendation, but did not have the numbers to vote it down.

Te Pati Maori MPs speak after being suspended.  Video: RNZ/Mark Papalii

The heated debate to consider the proposed punishment came to an end just before Parliament was due to rise.

Waititi moved to close the debate and no party disagreed, ending the possibility of it carrying on in the next sitting week.

Leader of the House Chris Bishop — the only National MP who spoke — kicked off the debate earlier in the afternoon saying it was “regrettable” some MPs did not vote on the Budget two weeks ago.

Bishop had called a vote ahead of Budget Day to suspend the privileges report debate to ensure the Te Pāti Māori MPs could take part in the Budget, but not all of them turned up.

Robust, rowdy debate
The debate was robust and rowdy with both the deputy speaker Barbara Kuriger and temporary speaker Tangi Utikare repeatedly having to ask MPs to quieten down.

Tākuta Ferris spoke first for Te Pāti Māori, saying the haka was a “signal of humanity” and a “raw human connection”.

He said Māori had faced acts of violence for too long and would not be silenced by “ignorance or bigotry”.

“Is this really us in 2025, Aotearoa New Zealand?” he asked the House.

“Everyone can see the racism.”

He said the Privileges Committee’s recommendations were not without precedent, noting the fact Labour MP Peeni Henare, who also participated in the haka, did not face suspension.

Henare attended the committee and apologised, which contributed to his lesser sanction.

‘Finger gun’ gesture
MP Parmjeet Parmar — a member of the Committee — was first to speak on behalf of ACT, and referenced the hand gesture — or “finger gun” — that Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer made in the direction of ACT MPs during the haka.

Parmar told the House debate could be used to disagree on ideas and issues, and there was not a place for intimidating physical gestures.

Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said New Zealand’s Parliament could lead the world in terms of involving the indigenous people.

She said the Green Party strongly rejected the committee’s recommendations and proposed their amendment of removing suspensions, and asked the Te Pāti Māori MPs be censured instead.

Davidson said the House had evolved in the past — such as the inclusion of sign language and breast-feeding in the House.

She said the Greens were challenging the rules, and did not need an apology from Te Pāti Māori.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party speeches so far showed “no sincerity, saying countless haka had taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker.

“They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn’t tell the Speaker did they?

‘Bunch of extremists’
“The Māori party are a bunch of extremists,” Peters said, “New Zealand has had enough of them”.

Peters was made to apologise after taking aim at Waititi, calling him “the one in the cowboy hat” with “scribbles on his face” [in reference to his traditional indigenous moko — tatoo]. He continued afterward, describing Waititi as possessing “anti-Western values”.

Labour’s Willie Jackson congratulated Te Pāti Māori for the “greatest exhibition of our culture in the House in my lifetime”.

Jackson said the Treaty bill was a great threat, and was met by a great haka performance. He was glad the ACT Party was intimidated, saying that was the whole point of doing the haka.

He also called for a bit of compromise from Te Pāti Māori — encouraging them to say sorry — but reiterated Labour’s view the sanctions were out of proportion with past indiscretions in the House.

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the debate “would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious”.

“Get an absolute grip,” she said to the House, arguing the prime minister “is personally responsible” if the House proceeds with the committee’s proposed sanctions.

Eye of the beholder
She accused National’s James Meager of “pointing a finger gun” at her — the same gesture coalition MPs had criticised Ngarewa-Packer for during her haka. The Speaker accepted he had not intended to; Swarbrick said it was an example where the interpretation could be in the eye of the beholder.

She said if the government could “pick a punishment out of thin air” that was “not a democracy”, putting New Zealand in very dangerous territory.

An emotional Maipi-Clarke said she had been silent on the issue for a long time, the party’s voices in haka having sent shockwaves around the world. She questioned whether that was why the MPs were being punished.

“Since when did being proud of your culture make you racist?”

“We will never be silenced, and we will never be lost,” she said, calling the Treaty Principles bill a “dishonourable vote”.

She had apologised to the Speaker and accepted the consequence laid down on the day, but refused to apologise. She listed other incidents in Parliament that resulted in no punishment.

NZ Parliament TV: Te Pāti Māori Privileges committee debate.  Video: RNZ

Maipi-Clarke called for the Treaty of Waitangi to be recognised in the Constitution Act, and for MPs to be required to honour it by law.

‘Clear pathway forward’
“The pathway forward has never been so clear,” she said.

ACT’s Nicole McKee said there were excuses being made for “bad behaviour”, that the House was for making laws and having discussions, and “this is not about the haka, this is about process”.

She told the House she had heard no good ideas from the Te Pāti Māori, who she said resorted to intimidation when they did not get their way, but the MPs needed to “grow up” and learn to debate issues. She hoped 21 days would give them plenty of time to think about their behaviour.

Labour MP and former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe started by saying there were “no winners in this debate”, and it was clear to him it was the government, not the Parliament, handing out the punishments.

He said the proposed sanctions set a precedent for future penalties, and governments might use it as a way to punish opposition, imploring National to think twice.

He also said an apology from Te Pāti Māori would “go a long way”, saying they had a “huge opportunity” to have a legacy in the House, but it was their choice — and while many would agree with the party there were rules and “you can’t have it both ways”.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said there had been many instances of misinterpretations of the haka in the House and said it was unclear why they were being punished, “is it about the haka . . . is about the gun gestures?”

“Not one committee member has explained to us where 21 days came from,” he said.

Hat and ‘scribbles’ response
Waititi took aim at Peters over his comments targeting his hat and “scribbles” on his face.

He said the haka was an elevation of indigenous voice and the proposed punishment was a “warning shot from the colonial state that cannot stomach” defiance.

Waititi said that throughout history when Māori did not play ball, the “coloniser government” reached for extreme sanctions, ending with a plea to voters: “Make this a one-term government, enrol, vote”.

He brought out a noose to represent Māori wrongfully put to death in the past, saying “interpretation is a feeling, it is not a fact . . .  you’ve traded a noose for legislation”.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

US President Donald Trump and his team is pursuing a white man’s racist agenda that is corrupt at its core. Trump’s advisor Elon Musk, who often seems to be the actual president, is handing his companies multiple contracts as his team takes over or takes down multiple government departments and agencies.

Trump wants to be the “king” of America and is already floating the idea of a third term, an action that would be an obvious violation of the US Constitution he swore to uphold but is doing his best to violate and destroy.

Every time we hear the Trump team spouting a “return to America’s golden age,” they are talking about 60-80 years ago, when white people ruled and schools, hospitals, restrooms and entire neighborhoods were segregated and African Americans and other minority groups had little opportunity.

Every photo of leaders from that time features large numbers of white American men. Trump’s cabinet, in contrast to recent cabinets of Democratic presidents, is mainly white and male.

This is where the US going. And lest any white women feel they are included in the Trump train, think again. Anything to do with women’s empowerment — including whites — is being scrubbed off the agenda by Trump minions in multiple government departments and agencies.

“Women” along with things like “climate change,” “diversity,” “equality,” “gender equity,” “justice,” etc are being removed from US government websites, policies and grant funding.

The white racist campaign against people of colour has seen iconic Americans removed from government websites. For example, a photo and story about Jackie Robinson, a military veteran, was recently removed from the Defense Department website as part of the Trump team’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Broke whites-only colour barrier
Robinson was not only a military veteran, he was the first African American to break the whites-only colour barrier in Major League Baseball and went on to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame for his stellar performance with the Brooklyn Dodgers.

How about the removal of reference to the Army’s 442nd infantry regiment from World War II that is the most decorated unit in US military history? The 442nd was a fighting unit comprised of nearly all second-generation American soldiers of Japanese ancestry who more than proved their courage and loyalty to the United States during World War II.

The Defense Department removing references to these iconic Americans is an outrage. But showing the moronic level of the Trump team, they also deleted a photo of the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan at the end of World War II because the pilot named it after his mother, “Enola Gay.”

Despite the significance of the Enola Gay airplane in American military history, that latter word couldn’t get past the Pentagon’s scrubbing team, who were determined to wash away anything that hinted at, well, anything other than white, heterosexual male. And there is plenty more that was wiped off the history record of the Defense Department.

Meanwhile, Trump, his team and the Republican Party in general while claiming to be focused on eliminating corruption is authorising it on a grand scale.

Elon Musk’s redirection of contracts to Starlink, SpaceX and other companies he owns is one example among many. What is happening in the American government today is like a bank robbery in broad daylight.

The Trump team fired a score of inspectors general — the very officials who actively work to prevent fraud and theft in the US government. They are eliminating or effectively neutering every enforcement agency, from EPA (which ensures clean air and other anti-pollution programmes) and consumer protection to the National Labor Relations Board, where the mega companies like Musk’s, Facebook, Google and others have pending complaints from employees seeking a fair review of their work issues.

Huge cuts to social security
Trump with the aid of the Republican-controlled Congress is going to make huge cuts to Medicaid and Social Security — which will affect Marshallese living in America as much as Americans — all in order to fund tax cuts for the richest Americans and big corporations.

Then there is Trump’s targeting of judges who rule against his illegal and unconstitutional initiatives — Trump criticism that is parroted by Fox News and other Trump minions, and is leading to things like efforts in the Congress to possibly impeach judges or restrict their legal jurisdiction.

These are all anti-democracy, anti-US constitution actions that are already undermining the rule of law in the US. And we haven’t yet mentioned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its sweeping deportations without due process that is having calamitous collateral damage for people swept up in these deportation raids.

ICE is deporting people legally in the US studying at US universities for writing articles or speaking about justice for Palestinians. Whether we like what the writer or speaker says, a fundamental principle of democracy in the US is that freedom of expression is protected by the US constitution under the First Amendment.

That is no longer the case for Trump and his Republican team, which is happily abandoning the rule of law, due process and everything else that makes America what it is.

The irony is that multiple countries, normally American allies, have in recent weeks issued travel advisories to their citizens about traveling to the United States in the present environment where anyone who isn’t white and doesn’t fit into a male or female designation is subject to potential detention and deportation.

The immigration chill from the US will no doubt reduce visitor flow resulting in big losses in revenue, possibly in the billions of dollars, for tourism-related businesses.

Marshallese must pay attention
Marshallese need to pay attention to what’s happening and have valid passports at the ready. Sadly, if Marshallese have any sort of conviction no matter how ancient or minor it is likely they will be targets for deportation.

Further, even the visa-free access privilege for Marshallese and other Micronesians is apparently now under scrutiny by US authorities based on a statement by US Ambassador Laura Stone published recently by the Journal

It is a difficult time being one of the closest allies of the US because the RMI must engage at many levels with a US government that is presently in turmoil.

Giff Johnson is the editor of the Marshall Islands Journal and one of the Pacific’s leading journalists and authors. He is the author of several books, including Don’t Ever Whisper, Idyllic No More, and Nuclear Past, Unclear Future. This editorial was first published on 11 April 2025 and is reprinted with permission of the Marshall Islands Journal. marshallislandsjournal.com

Freedom of speech at the Marshall Islands High School

The above is one section of the outer wall at Marshall Islands High School. Surely, if this was a public school in America today, these messages would already have been whitewashed away by the Trump team censors who don’t like any reference to “inclusiveness,” “women,” and especially “gender equality.”

However, these messages painted by MIHS students are very much in keeping with Marshallese society and customary practices of welcoming visitors, inclusiveness and good treatment of women in this matriarchal society.

But don’t let President Trump know Marshallese think like this. — Giff Johnson

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The 1981 Springbok Tour was one of the most controversial events in Aotearoa New Zealand’s history. For 56 days, between July and September, more than 150,000 people took part in more than 200 demonstrations in 28 centres.

It was the largest protest in the country’s history.

It caused social ruptures within communities and families across the country. With the National government backing the tour, protests against apartheid sport turned into confrontations with both police and pro-tour rugby fans — on marches and at matches.

The success of these mass protests was that this was the last tour in either country between the two teams with the strongest rivalry among rugby playing nations.

This deeply rooted antipathy towards the racism of apartheid helps provide context to today’s growing opposition by New Zealanders to the horrific actions of another apartheid state.

Understanding apartheid
Apartheid is a humiliating, repressive and brutal legislated segregation through separation of social groups. In South Africa, this segregation was based on racism (white supremacy over non-whites; predominantly Black Africans but also Asians).

For nearly three centuries before 1948, Africans had been dispossessed and exploited by Dutch and British colonists. In 1948, this oppression was upgraded to an official legal policy of apartheid.

Apartheid does not have to be necessarily by race. It could also be religious based. An earlier example was when Christians separated Jews into ghettos on the false claim of inferiority.

In August 2024, Le Monde Diplomatic published article (paywalled) by German prize-winning journalist and author Charlotte Wiedemann on apartheid in both Israel and South Africa under the heading “When Apartheid met Zionism”:

She asked the pointed question of what did it mean to be Jewish in a country that saw Israel through the lens of its own experience of apartheid?

It is a fascinating question making her article an excellent read. Le Monde Diplomatic is a quality progressive magazine, well worth the subscription to read many articles as interesting as this one.

Relevant Wiedemann observations
Wiedemann’s scope is wider than that of this blog but many of her observations are still pertinent to my analysis of the relationship between the two apartheid states.

Most early Jewish immigrants to South Africa fled pogroms and poverty in tsarist Lithuania. This context encouraged many to believe that every human being deserved equal respect, regardless of skin colour or origin.

Blatant widespread white-supremacist racism had been central to South Africa’s history of earlier Dutch and English colonialism. But this shifted to a further higher level in May 1948 when apartheid formally became central to South Africa’s legal and political system.

Although many Jews were actively opposed to apartheid it was not until 1985, 37 years later, that Jewish community leaders condemned it outright. In the words of Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris to the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

“The Jewish community benefited from apartheid and an apology must be given … We ask forgiveness.”

On the one hand, Jewish lawyers defended Black activists, But, on the other hand, it was a Jewish prosecutor who pursued Nelson Mandela with “extraordinary zeal” in the case that led to his long imprisonment.

Israel became one of apartheid South Africa’s strongest allies, including militarily, even when it had become internationally isolated, including through sporting and economic boycotts. Israel’s support for the increasingly isolated apartheid state was unfailing.

Jewish immigration to South Africa from the late 19th century brought two powerful competing ideas from Eastern Europe. One was Zionism while the other was the Bundists with a strong radical commitment to justice.

But it was Zionism that grew stronger under apartheid. Prior to 1948 it was a nationalist movement advocating for a homeland for Jewish people in the “biblical land of Israel”.

Zionism provided the rationale for the ideas that actively sought and achieved the existence of the Israeli state. This, and consequential forced removal of so many Palestinians from their homeland, made Zionism a “natural fit” in apartheid South Africa.

Nelson Mandela and post-apartheid South Africa
Although strongly pro-Palestinian, post-apartheid South Africa has never engaged in Holocaust denial. In fact, Holocaust history is compulsory in its secondary schools.

Its first president, Nelson Mandela, was very clear about the importance of recognising the reality of the Holocaust. As Charlotte Wiedemann observes:

“Quite the reverse . . .  In 1994 Mandela symbolically marked the end of apartheid at an exhibition about Anne Frank. ‘By honouring her memory as we do today’ he said at its opening, ‘we are saying with one voice: never and never again!’”

In a 1997 speech, on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela also reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights:

“We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

There is a useful account of Mandela’s relationship with and support for Palestinians published by Middle East Eye.

Mandela’s identification with Palestine was recognised by Palestinians themselves. This included the construction of an impressive statue of him on what remains of their West Bank homeland.

Comparing apartheid in South Africa and Israel
So how did apartheid in South Africa compare with apartheid in Israel. To begin with, while both coincidentally began in May 1948, in South Africa this horrendous system ended over 30 years ago. But in Israel it not only continues, it intensifies.

Broadly speaking, this included Israel adapting the infamously cruel “Bantustan system” of South Africa which was designed to maintain white supremacy and strengthen the government’s apartheid policy. It involved an area set aside for Black Africans, purportedly for notional self-government.

In South Africa, apartheid lasted until the early 1990s culminating in South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994.

Tragically, for Palestinians in their homeland, apartheid not only continues but is intensified by ethnic cleansing delivered by genocide, both incrementally and in surges.

Apartheid Plus: ethnic cleansing and genocide
Israel has gone further than its former southern racist counterpart. Whereas South Africa’s economy depended on the labour exploitation of its much larger African workforce, this was relatively much less so for Israel.

As much as possible Israel’s focus was, and still is, instead on the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homeland.

This began in 1948 with what is known by Palestinians as the Nakba (“the catastrophe”) when many were physically displaced by the creation of the Israeli state. Genocide is the increasing means of delivering ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas by deporting or forcibly displacing people belonging to particular ethnic groups.

It can also include the removal of all physical vestiges of the victims of this cleansing through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

This destructive removal has been the unfortunate Palestinian experience in much of today’s Israel and its occupied or controlled territories. It is continuing in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Genocide involves actions intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

In contrast with civil war, genocide usually involves deaths on a much larger scale with civilians invariably and deliberately the targets. Genocide is an international crime, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

Today the Israeli slaughter and destruction in Gaza is a huge genocidal surge with the objective of being the “final solution” while incremental genocide of Palestinians speeds up in the occupied West Bank.

Notwithstanding the benefits of the recent ceasefire, it freed up Israel to militarily focus on repressing West Bank Palestinians.

Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the current vulnerable hiatus of the ceasefire has shifted from military action to starvation.

The final word
One of the encouraging features has been the massive protests against the genocide throughout the world. In a relative context, and while not on the same scale as the mass protests against the racist South African rugby tour in 1981, this includes New Zealand.

Many Jews, including in New Zealand and in the international protests such as at American universities, have been among the strongest critics of the ethnic cleansing through genocide of the apartheid Israeli state.

They have much in common with the above-mentioned Bundist focus on social justice in contrast to the dogmatic biblical extremism of Zionism.

Amos Goldberg, professor of genocidal studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem is one such Jew. Let’s leave the final word to him:

“It’s so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. Jewish history will henceforth be stained.”

This is a compelling case for the New Zealand government to join the many other countries in formally recognising the state of Palestine.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An independent Jewish body has condemned the move by Australia’s 39 universities to endorse a “dangerous and politicised” definition of antisemitism which threatens academic freedom.

The Jewish Council of Australia, a diverse coalition of Jewish academics, lawyers, writers and teachers, said in a statement that the move would have a “chilling effect” on legitimate criticism of Israel, and risked institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.

The council also criticised the fact that the universities had done so “without meaningful consultation” with Palestinian groups or diverse Jewish groups which were critical of Israel.

The definition was developed by the Group of Eight (Go8) universities and adopted by Universities Australia.

“By categorising Palestinian political expression as inherently antisemitic, it will be unworkable and unenforceable, and stifle critical political debate, which is at the heart of any democratic society,” the Jewish Council of Australia said.

“The definition dangerously conflates Jewish identities with support for the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism.”

The council statement said that it highlighted two key concerns:

Mischaracterisation of criticism of Israel
The definition states: “Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions.”

The definition’s inclusion of “calls for the elimination of the State of Israel” would mean, for instance, that calls for a single binational democratic state, where Palestinians and Israelis had equal rights, could be labelled antisemitic.

Moreover, the wording around “harmful tropes” was dangerously vague, failing to distinguish between tropes about Jewish people, which were antisemitic, and criticism of the state of Israel, which was not, the statement said.

Misrepresentation of Zionism as core to Jewish identity
The definition states that for most Jewish people “Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.

The council said it was deeply concerned that by adopting this definition, universities would be taking and promoting a view that a national political ideology was a core part of Judaism.

“This is not only inaccurate, but is also dangerous,” said the statement.

“Zionism is a political ideology of Jewish nationalism, not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity.

“There is a long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism, from the beginning of its emergence in the late-19th century, to the present day. Many, if not the majority, of people who hold Zionist views today are not Jewish.”

In contrast to Zionism and the state of Israel, said the council, Jewish identities traced back more than 3000 years and spanned different cultures and traditions.

Jewish identities were a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel were not, the council said.

Growing numbers of dissenting Jews
“While many Jewish people identify as Zionist, many do not. There are a growing number of Jewish people worldwide, including in Australia, who disagree with the actions of the state of Israel and do not support Zionism.

“Australian polling in this area is not definitive, but some polls suggest that 30 percent of Australian Jews do not identify as Zionists.

“A recent Canadian poll found half of Canadian Jews do not identify as Zionist. In the United States, more and more Jewish people are turning away from Zionist beliefs and support for the state of Israel.”

Sarah Schwartz, a human rights lawyer and the Jewish Council of Australia’s executive officer, said: “It degrades the very real fight against antisemitism for it to be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and Palestinian political expressions.

“It also risks fomenting division between communities and institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls’ first two days in New Caledonia have been marred by several clashes with local pro-France, anti-independence movements, who feared he would side with their pro-independence opponents.

However, he remained confident that all stakeholders would eventually come and sit together at the table for negotiations.

Valls arrived in the French Pacific territory on Saturday with a necessary resumption of crucial political talks regarding New Caledonia’s political future high on his agenda, nine months after the deadly May 2024 civil unrest.

His visit comes as tensions have risen in the past few days against a backdrop of verbal escalations and rhetoric, the pro-France camp opposing independence stressing that three referendums had resulted in three rejections of independence in 2018, 2020, and 2021.

But the third referendum in December 2021 was boycotted by a large part of the pro-independence, mainly Kanak community, and they have since disputed the validity of its result (even though it was deemed valid in court rulings).

On Saturday, the first day of his visit to the Greater Nouméa city of Mont-Dore, during a ceremony paying homage to a French gendarme who was killed at the height of the riots last year, Valls and one of the main pro-France leaders, French MP Nicolas Metzdorf, had a heated and public argument.

‘First Nation’ controversy
Metzdorf, who was flanked by Sonia Backès, another major pro-France local leader, said Valls had “insulted” the pro-France camp because he had mentioned the indigenous Kanak people as being the “first people” in New Caledonia — equivalent to the notion of “First Nation” people.

Hours before, Valls had just met New Caledonia’s Custom Senate (a traditional gathering of Kanak chiefs) and told them that “nothing can happen in New Caledonia without a profound respect towards [for] the Melanesian people, the Kanak people, and the first people”.

Metzdorf told Valls in an exchange that was filmed on the road and later aired on public broadcaster NC la 1ère: “When you say there are first people, you don’t respect us! Your statements are insulting.”

“If there are first peoples, it means there are second peoples and that some are more important than others.”

To which Valls replied: “When you are toying with these kinds of concepts, you are making a mistake.”

🗣 Manuel Valls en Nouvelle-Calédonie : échange tendu entre le ministre des Outre-mer et des personnalités non-indépendantistes

👉 Nicolas Metzdorf et Sonia Backès lui reprochent certaines prises de position depuis la reprise des discussions

📱💻 https://t.co/f5YyK6KDUf pic.twitter.com/GKa938egkR

— La1ère.fr (@la1ere) February 22, 2025

Every word counts
The 1998 Nouméa Accord’s preamble is largely devoted to the recognition of New Caledonia’s indigenous community (autochtone/indigenous).

On several occasions, Valls faced large groups of pro-France supporters with French tricolour flags and banners (some in the Spanish language, a reference to Valls’s Spanish double heritage), asking him to “respect their democratic (referendum) choice”.

Some were also chanting slogans in Spanish (“No pasaran”), or with a Spanish accent.

“I’m asking for just one thing: for respect towards citizens and those representing the government,” an irate Valls told the crowd.

Questions have since been raised from local organisations and members of the general public as to why and how an estimated 500 pro-France supporters had been allowed to gather while the French High Commissioner still maintains a ban on all public gatherings and demonstrations in Nouméa and its greater area.

“We voted three times no. No means no,” some supporters told the visiting minister, asking him not to “let them down”.

“You shouldn’t believe what you’ve been told. Why wouldn’t you remain French?”, Valls told protesters.

“I think the minister must state very clearly that he respects those three referendums and then we’ll find a solution on that basis,” said Backès.

However, both Metzdorf and Backès reaffirmed that they would take part in “negotiations” scheduled to take place this week.

“We are ready to make compromises”, said Backès.

Valls carried on schedule
Minister Valls travelled to Northern parts and outer islands of New Caledonia to pay homage to the victims during previous insurrections in New Caledonia, including French gendarmes and Kanak militants who died on Ouvéa Island (Loyalty group) in the cave massacre in 1988.

During those trips, he also repeatedly advocated for rebuilding New Caledonia and for every stakeholder to “reconcile memories” and sit at the negotiation table “without hatred”.

Valls believes ‘everyone will be at the table’
In an interview with local public broadcaster NC la 1ère yesterday, the French minister said he was confident “everyone will be at the table”.

The first plenary meeting is to be held this afternoon.

It will be devoted to agreeing on a “method”.

“I believe everyone will be there,” he said.

“All groups, political, economic, social, all New Caledonians, I’m convinced, are a majority who wish to keep a strong link within France,” he said.

He also reiterated that following New Caledonia’s Matignon (1988) and Nouméa (1998) peace accords, the French Pacific territory’s envisaged future was to follow a path to “full sovereignty”.

“The Nouméa Accord is the foundation. Undeniably, there have been three referendums. And then there was May 13.

“There is a before and and after [the riots]. My responsibility is to find a way. We have the opportunity of these negotiations, let’s be careful of the words we use,” he said, asking every stakeholder for “restraint”.

“I’ve also seen some pro-independence leaders say that [their] people’s sacrifice and death were necessary to access independence. And this, also, is not on.”

Valls also said the highly sensitive issue of “unfreezing” New Caledonia’s special voters’ roll for local elections (a reform attempt that triggered the May 2024 riots) was “possible”, but it will be part of a wider, comprehensive agreement on the French Pacific entity’s political future.

A mix of ‘fear and hatred’
Apart from the planned political negotiations, Valls also intends to devote significant time to New Caledonia’s dire economic situation, in post-riot circumstances that have not only caused 14 dead, but also several hundred job losses and total damage estimated at some 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion).

A first, much-expected economic announcement also came yesterday: Valls said the State-funded unemployment benefits (which were supposed to cease in the coming days) woud now be extended until June 30.

For the hundreds of businesses which were destroyed last year, he said a return to confidence was essential and a prerequisite to any political deal . . .  And vice-versa.

“If there’s no political agreement, there won’t be any economic investment.

“This may cause the return of fresh unrest, a form of civil war. I have heard those words coming back, just like I’ve heard the words racism, hatred . . . I can feel hope and at the same time a fear of violence.

“I feel all the ferments of a confrontation,” he said.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: As we continue to look at Donald Trump’s return to the White House, we turn now to look at what it means for the world, from Israel’s war on Gaza to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. During his victory speech, Trump vowed that he was going to “stop wars”.

But what will Trump’s foreign policy actually look like?

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Fatima Bhutto, award-winning author of several works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways, New Kings of the World. She is co-editing a book along with Sonia Faleiro titled Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year. She writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Start off by just responding to Trump’s runaway victory across the United States, Fatima.

Fatima Bhutto on the Kamala Harris “support for genocide”.   Video: Democracy Now!

FATIMA BHUTTO: Well, Amy, I don’t think it’s an aberration that he won. I think it’s an aberration that he lost in 2020. And I think anyone looking at the American elections for the last year, even longer, could see very clearly that the Democrats were speaking to — I’m not sure who, to a hall of mirrors.

They ran an incredibly weak and actually macabre campaign, to see Kamala Harris describe her politics as one of joy as she promised the most lethal military in the world, talking about women’s rights in America, essentially focusing those rights on the right to termination, while the rest of the world has watched women slaughtered in Gaza for 13 months straight.

You know, it’s very curious to think that they thought a winning strategy was Beyoncé and that Taylor Swift was somehow a political winning strategy that was going to defeat — who? — Trump, who was speaking to people, who was speaking against wars. You know, whether we believe him or not, it was a marked difference from what Kamala Harris was saying and was not saying.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Fatima, you wrote a piece for Zeteo earlier this year titled “Gaza Has Exposed the Shameful Hypocrisy of Western Feminism.” So, you just mentioned the irony of Kamala Harris as, you know, the second presidential candidate who is a woman, where so much of the campaign was about women, and the fact that — you know, of what’s been unfolding on women, against women and children in Gaza for the last year. If you could elaborate?

FATIMA BHUTTO: Yeah, we’ve seen, Nermeen, over the last year, you know, 70 percent of those slaughtered in Gaza by Israel and, let’s also be clear, by America, because it’s American bombs and American diplomatic cover that allows this slaughter to continue unabated — 70 percent of those victims are women and children.

We have watched children with their heads blown off. We have watched children with no surviving family members find themselves in hospital with limbs missing. Gaza has the largest cohort of child amputees in the world. And we have seen newborns left to die as Israel switches off electricity and fuel of hospitals.

So, for Kamala Harris to come out and talk repeatedly about abortion, and I say this as someone who is pro-choice, who has always been pro-choice, was not just macabre, but it’s obscene. It’s an absolute betrayal of feminism, because feminism is about liberation. It’s not about termination.

And it’s about protecting women at their most vulnerable and at their most frightened. And there was no sign of that. You know, we also saw Kamala Harris bring out celebrities. I mean, the utter vacuousness of bringing out Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé and others to talk about being a mother, while mothers are being widowed, are being orphaned in Gaza, it was not just tone deaf, it seemed to have a certain hostility, a certain contempt for the suffering that the rest of us have been watching.

I’d also like to add a point about toxic masculinity. There was so much toxicity in Kamala Harris’s campaign. You know, I watched her laugh with Oprah as she spoke about shooting someone who might enter her house with a gun, and giggling and saying her PR team may not like that, but she would kill them.

You don’t need to be a man to practice toxic masculinity, and you don’t need to be white to practice white supremacy, as we’ve seen very clearly from this election cycle.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Fatima Bhutto, if you look at what Trump represented, and certainly the Muslim American community, the Arab American community, Jewish progressives, young people, African-Americans certainly understood what Trump’s policy was when he was president.

And it’s rare, you know, a president comes back to serve again after a term away. It’s only happened once before in history.

But you have, for example, Trump moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. You have an illegal settlement named after Trump in the West Bank. The whole question of Netanyahu and his right-wing allies in Israel pushing for annexation of the West Bank, where Trump would stand on this.

And, of course, you have the Abraham Accords, which many Palestinians felt left them out completely. If you can talk about this? These were put forward by Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who, when the massive Gaza destruction was at its height, talked about Gaza as waterfront real estate.

FATIMA BHUTTO: Absolutely. There’s no question that Trump has been a malign force, not just when it concerns Palestinians, but, frankly, out in the world. But I would argue there’s not very much difference between what these two administrations or parties do. The difference is that Trump doesn’t have the gloss and the charisma of an Obama or — I mean, I can’t even say that Biden has charisma, but certainly the gloss.

Trump says it. They do it. The difference — I can’t really tell the difference anymore.

We saw the Biden administration send over 500 shipments of arms to Israel, betraying America’s own laws, the fact that they are not allowed to export weapons of war to a country committing gross violations of human rights. We saw Bill Clinton trotted out in Michigan to tell Muslims that, actually, they should stop killing Israelis and that Jews were there before them.

I mean, it was an utterly contemptuous speech. So, what is the difference exactly?

We saw Bernie Sanders, who was mentioned earlier, write an op-ed in The Guardian in the days before the election, warning people that if they were not to vote for Kamala Harris, if Donald Trump was to get in, think about the climate crisis. Well, we have watched Israel’s emissions in the first five months of their deadly attack on Gaza release more planet-warming gases into the atmosphere than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations release in a year.

So, I don’t quite see that there’s a difference between what Democrats allow and what Trump brags about. I think it’s just a question of crudeness and decorum and politeness. One has it, and one doesn’t. In a sense, Trump is much clearer for the rest of the world, because he says what he’s going to do, and, you know, you take him at his word, whereas we have been gaslit and lied to by Antony Blinken on a daily basis now since October 7th.

Every time that AOC or Kamala Harris spoke about fighting desperately for a ceasefire, we saw more carnage, more massacres and Israel committing crimes with total impunity. You know, it wasn’t under Trump that Israel has killed more journalists than have ever been killed in any recorded conflict. It’s under Biden that Israel has killed more UN workers than have ever been killed in the UN’s history. So, I’m not sure there’s a difference.

And, you know, we’ll have to wait to see in the months ahead. But I don’t think anyone is bracing for an upturn. Certainly, people didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not sure they voted for Trump. We know that she lost 14 million votes from Biden’s win in 2020. And we know that those votes just didn’t come out for the Democrats. Some may have migrated to Trump. Some may have gone to third parties. But 14 million just didn’t go anywhere.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Fatima, if you could, you know, tell us what do you think the reasons are for that? I mean, the kind of — as you said, because it is really horrifying, what has unfolded in Gaza in the last 13 months. You’ve written about this. You now have an edited anthology that you’re editing, co-editing. You know, what do you think accounts for this, the sheer disregard for the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza?

FATIMA BHUTTO: It’s a total racism on the part not just of America, but I’m speaking of the West here. This has been betrayed over the last year, the fact that Ukraine is spoken about with an admiration, you know, Zelensky is spoken about with a sort of hero worship, Ukrainian resisters to Russia’s invasion are valorised.

You know, Nancy Pelosi wore a bracelet of bullets used by the Ukrainian resistance against Trump [sic]. But Palestinians are painted as terrorists, are dehumanised to such an extent. You know, we saw that dehumanisation from the mouths of Bill Clinton no less, from the mouths of Kamala Harris, who interrupted somebody speaking out against the genocide, and saying, “I am speaking.”

What is more toxically masculine than that?

We’ve also seen a concerted crackdown in universities across the United States on college students. I’m speaking also here of my own alma mater of Columbia University, of Barnard College, that called the NYPD, who fired live ammunition at the students. You know, this didn’t happen — this extreme response didn’t happen in protests against apartheid. It didn’t happen in protests against Vietnam in quite the same way.

And all I can think is, America and the West, who have been fighting Muslim countries for the last 25, 30 years, see that as acceptable to do so. Our deaths are acceptable to them, and genocide is not a red line.

And, you know, to go back to what what was mentioned earlier about the working class, that is absolutely ignored in America — and I would make the argument across the West, too — they have watched administration after, you know, president and congressmen give billions and billions of dollars to Ukraine, while they have no relief at home.

They have no relief from debt. They have no relief from student debt. They have no medical care, no coverage. They’re struggling to survive. And this is across the board. And after Ukraine, they saw billions go to Israel in the same way, while they get, frankly, nothing.

AMY GOODMAN: Fatima Bhutto, we want to thank you so much for being with us, award-winning author of a number of works of fiction and nonfiction, including The Runaways and New Kings of the World, co-editing a book called Gaza: The Story of a Genocide, due out next year, writes a monthly column for Zeteo.

Coming up, we look at Trump’s vow to deport as many as 20 million immigrants and JD Vance saying, yes, US children born of immigrant parents could also be deported.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz