thedailyblog--2020-05-16--Mild rebuke instead of sanctions serves Zionism

According to a Times of Israel report on the unity government agreement , on 1 July this year , between Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz may begin the process of formal annexation of parts of the Occupied West Bank , including the Jordan Valley and all illegal Israeli settlements .
In February , Israel announced the introduction of thousands of new housing units in illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank , including East Jerusalem .
The UK Government , among others , reacted to this , as always , with a simple condemnation .
But condemnation alone is proving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it does , the imposition of sanctions against Israel .
Israel must be called to account for its flagrantly illegal human rights abuses against the Palestinian people which constitute a war crime under international law .
The Zionist state is driven by an ideological conviction of the superiority of its territorial and ethnocentric goals over both international law and human rights .
The international community must recognise this reality because it shares responsibility and obligations to support international law and oppose serious breaches , especially when they inflict injustice and hardship .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of co-operation that may grant or reinforce the offending state ’ s impunity and ability to profit from its illegal actions .
A powerful Security Council member , such as the UK , does not deny Israel ’ s war crimes .
Recently , on 29 April , Britain ’ s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ( FO ) , James Cleverly , was asked the following parliamentary question concerning : “ .
.
.
what assessment he has made of the effect of recent demolitions and seizures of Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) water and hygiene structures , and ( c ) clinics on the Palestinian Authority ’ s ability to contain the spread of covid-19 in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
” The FO Secretary of State replied as follows : “ The UK is seriously concerned by any demolition and seizure of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities .
In all but the most exceptional circumstances demolitions are contrary to International Humanitarian Law ( IHL ) .
We are particularly concerned that demolitions are continuing at this time .
Such actions weaken the capacity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under IHL , an occupying power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining public health and hygiene in the occupied territory to the fullest extent of the means available to it .
We call on both parties to avoid any provocative action which might undermine the co-operation that is so critical.
” While in no way attempting to deny the facts of Israel ’ s human rights violations outlined in the question , Cleverly ’ s final sentence disgracefully suggests a degree of equality and responsibility between perpetrator and victim .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well they asked for it .
For over half a century , Israel has been shrinking the space it allows the people of the Occupied Palestinian homeland for developing their economy and agriculture or even to build homes .
Worse still , Israeli Occupation forces actually destroy Palestinian homes at gunpoint , while forcing the people to accept the building and expansion of Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land .
In addition , Israel ’ s ever-encroaching annexation Wall , settler-only by-pass roads and military checkpoints impose further crippling restrictions on Palestinian freedom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 120 UK parliamentarians , including former Conservative cabinet ministers , wrote to Boris Johnson , urging him to impose economic sanctions against Israel should it annex parts of the West Bank .
The letter unequivocally states that annexation would be clearly illegal under international law .
Even diplomats and prominent campaigners against so-called ‘ anti-semitism ’ in the Labour Party , such as Margaret Hodge , have signed .
In September last year , the UK Government joined with France , Germany , Italy and Spain by warning that unilateral annexation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a serious breach of international law .
The case for sanctions is unchallengeable yet , even though Britain has joined with ten EU diplomats in a call , warning the Israeli Foreign Ministry against annexation , the imposition of sanctions , as opposed to mere condemnation , would be unprecedented .
In the British Parliament House of Lords , Baroness Tonge asked “ Her Majesty ’ s Government what assessment they have made of reports that Israeli aircraft have sprayed toxic herbicides onto crops near the border fence in the east of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what steps they intend to take in response.
” The Minister of State , Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development , Lord Ahmed , did not contest the facts raised and simply replied : “ .
.
.
we are troubled by reports of assaults on farmers and vandalism of agricultural land .
We continue to raise with Israeli counterparts our concerns about Israeli action.
” This month , up to and including 12 May , there were one Palestinian and 44 Israeli Gaza ceasefire violations .
The Israeli violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fishing boats and 15 Israeli Army attacks on agriculture in Gaza .
On 12 May , the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs ( OCHA ) reported a sharp increase in settler violence that is “ undermining already fragile farming livelihoods in various West Bank areas .
Attacks have increased since the [ Covid-19 ] emergency was declared , despite movement restrictions , lockdowns and social distancing .
The attacks have included physical assault , torching of Palestinian vehicles , theft of livestock and vandalising of fruit trees.
” The Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Bank , destroying homes , sabotaging the Palestinian economy and interfering with the people ’ s attempts to manage Covid-19 transmission – here are one or two examples , from each day : In Kafr Qaddum , Israeli forces fired rubber-coated steel bullets , stun grenades and tear gas canisters at villagers protesting against the closure of their village , wounding six residents , including two children , and causing several tear gas casualties .
Just after midnight , Israeli forces , firing rubber-coated steel bullets , stun grenades and tear gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the day , they raided the Cremisan area in north-west Beit Jallah , seizing and destroying beehives , the property of a resident , Nasr Nimr Abd Rabbo .
In Azzun Atma village the Israeli Army seized Palestinian farmland planted with olive and almond trees and trapped behind the Israeli Occupation Wall .
Israeli forces seized construction equipment from a man , Na ’ im Abdel-Qadder , who was digging a well in an area between Ras Atiya and Magharat Al-Dab ’ a villages , and issued a destruction order against another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , Israeli forces destroyed a barn near al-Aqbat village in the North Jordan Valley , as well as destroying a well under construction in al-Jiftlik village .
Israeli soldiers also beat up and hospitalised a resident , Naseem Ayman Na ’ im Abdel-Qadder , near the entrance to Turmusaya .
The firing of a missile by Palestinian Resistance members was met with a further eight Israeli Gaza ceasefire violations , including five acts of agricultural/economic sabotage .
Israelis from the Efrat Occupation settlement invaded farmland in al-Khadr and uprooted 450 Palestinian grapevines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Homish Israeli Occupation settlement invaded Palestinian pastoral land in the Bab al-Wad area , near Burqa village , and assaulted a goatherd , Harbi Mohammad Ali Abboud , leaving him hospitalised with a fractured foot and severe bruising .
The settlers also made off with 70 goats belonging to Abboud .
With two 14-year-old boy refugees abducted and armed soldiers robbing a man of his bulldozer , the daily Israeli Army population-control violence also included the beating and hospitalisation of 15-year-old Ameer Ziyad Rushdi Yusef who , as a result , suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his pelvis and upper chest .
Two members of a fishing crew were wounded during five Israeli Navy attacks on Palestinian fishing boats off Gaza .
In the West Bank , Occupation settler malevolence included the destruction of 40 olive trees and the theft of crops from Palestinian farmland .
The number of Palestinian wounded totalled six by the end of the day .
Four people were wounded and a journalist was taken prisoner after Israeli troops invaded his home .
Murad Bassam Al-Bayed , aged 12 , was shot and wounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were also wounded .
Another four Israeli Navy attacks on Palestinian fishing boats and two armed Israeli Army incursions into Gaza , together with the familiar agricultural sabotage , marked another miserable day in Gaza .
In Nablus , in the West Bank , Israeli settler militants raided an agricultural nursery and stole fruit tree seedlings , water reticulation material and other agricultural equipment .
At 4:30am , the Israeli Army , firing live ammunition , rubber-coated steel bullets , stun grenades and tear gas canisters , raided Ya ’ bad , earched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the soldiers moved out with their prisoners , one of them , 21-year-old Staff Sgt Amit Ben Ygal , was hit by a stone thrown from a nearby roof and died of his injury a few hours later .
The four people taken prisoner during the invasions of their homes were identified as : Ali Muhammad Nazmi Abu Bakr , Yazen Kamel Abu Shamla , Marcel Bassem Lotfi Abu Bakr and Anas Kamel Abu Shamla .
On 6 May , Israeli Defence Minister , Naftali Bennett , announced his approval of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Israeli Efrat settlement on Occupied land in al-Khadr , Bethlehem .
Bennett tweeted that he had instructed the military to continue to strengthen settlements .
The US Ambassador to Israel , David Friedman , gave a newspaper interview in which he said America is prepared to recognise an Israeli declaration of sovereignty over settlements in ‘ Judea and Samaria ‘ and the Jordan Valley , so long as the Jewish state accepts conditions requested by the Trump Administration .
Zionist influence over the US On 7 May , it was reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropping its case against Trump ’ s former National Security Adviser , Mike Flynn , even though he has admitted that he lied to the FBI .
In 2016 , Flynn called on a number of countries , in an attempt to get them to counter a US decision to allow the New Zealand-sponsored Security Council Resolution 2334 to go unchallenged .
According to the original Justice Department charge sheet , to which Flynn pleaded guilty : “ On or about December 22 , 2016 , a very senior member of the Presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from foreign governments , including Russia , to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution .
.
.
” Fortunately , Flynn failed in the attempt and , with the US abstaining , the resolution was adopted 14-0 .
In 2017 , the New York Times expressed unease over the role of Israel in the case and today the issue of Israel ’ s ability to influence US politics has been exposed once again .
Due to the Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the immediate release of all Palestinian children held in captivity in Israel and Palestine .
In a joint Press Statement , Jamie McGoldrick , Humanitarian Co-ordinator in the Occupied Palestinian territory , Genevieve Boutin , UNICEF Special Representative in the State of Palestine and James Heenan , Head of the UN Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian territory reminded the world that , according to the Israeli Prison Service , 194 Palestinian children were being detained in prisons and detention centres , mainly in Israel .
This is higher even than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
The UN appeal states : “ Children in detention face heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 , with physical distancing and other preventive measures often absent or difficult to achieve.
” The majority of these children have not been convicted of any offence but are being held , while awaiting trial .
The removal of abducted children from Palestine to Israel is a gross violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention .
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states : “ The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occupies.
” It also prohibits the “ individual or mass forcible transfers , as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory ” .
Under Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV , “ unlawful deportation or transfer .
.
.
of a protected person ” constitutes a grave breach of the Convention .
See also Statement by the Committee on the Rights of the Child .
The law clearly recognises that such population transfer is often a step towards intended colonisation and annexation , yet the international community does nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime under international criminal law .
New Zealand should stand by its declared support for rules-based international law and human rights .
On its website , MFAT reminds us that : “ After a 10 year campaign New Zealand was voted onto the UN Security Council in 2014 and served two years in 2015 and 2016 .
Our seat on the Security Council placed New Zealand at the heart of international decisions on peace and security.
” In 2016 , this country successfully promoted Security Council Resolution 2334 which , sadly , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to halt Israel ’ s gross violations of international humanitarian law .
An appeal by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian territory , Professor Michael Lynk , calls upon the international community to ensure that Israel must face the cost of its violations of international law .
It is high time the UN imposed sanctions upon Israel .
The Israel lobby is used to getting its way in the US and the UK .
The power and influence of these UN Security Council members is immense but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have us stay silent , whether they be our ‘ traditional allies ’ or those closer to home who are dedicated to serving Zionism ’ s ambitions , must be opposed and told so in no uncertain terms .
MFAT tells us : “ The United Nations works to make the world peaceful and secure , and to promote social progress , better living standards and human rights.
” The highest judicial body in the world , the International Criminal Court ( ICJ ) , finds Israel guilty of war crimes which violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and long-standing global conventions that prohibit the threat or use of force and the acquisition of territory that way , as well as principles upholding the right of peoples to self-determination.
” New Zealand could , and should , lead the demand for an end to the shameful lack of decisive international action that is required if Israel is ever to be brought to account .

According to a Times of Israel report on the unity government agreement, on 1 July this year, between Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz may begin the process of formal annexation of parts of the Occupied West Bank, including the Jordan Valley and all illegal Israeli settlements. In February, Israel announced the introduction of thousands of new housing units in illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The UK Government, among others, reacted to this, as always, with a simple condemnation.
But condemnation alone is proving totally ineffectual as a deterrent lacking, as it does, the imposition of sanctions against Israel. Israel must be called to account for its flagrantly illegal human rights abuses against the Palestinian people which constitute a war crime under international law. The Zionist state is driven by an ideological conviction of the superiority of its territorial and ethnocentric goals over both international law and human rights. The international community must recognise this reality because it shares responsibility and obligations to support international law and oppose serious breaches, especially when they inflict injustice and hardship. That means the withdrawal of all forms of co-operation that may grant or reinforce the offending state’s impunity and ability to profit from its illegal actions.
Security Council member acknowledges Israeli war crimes
A powerful Security Council member, such as the UK, does not deny Israel’s war crimes. Recently, on 29 April, Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (FO), James Cleverly, was asked the following parliamentary question concerning:
“. . . what assessment he has made of the effect of recent demolitions and seizures of Palestinian (a) homes, (b) water and hygiene structures, and (c) clinics on the Palestinian Authority’s ability to contain the spread of covid-19 in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
The FO Secretary of State replied as follows:
“The UK is seriously concerned by any demolition and seizure of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities. In all but the most exceptional circumstances demolitions are contrary to International Humanitarian Law (IHL). We are particularly concerned that demolitions are continuing at this time. Such actions weaken the capacity of Palestinians to withstand the impact of COVID-19. Under IHL, an occupying power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining public health and hygiene in the occupied territory to the fullest extent of the means available to it. We call on both parties to avoid any provocative action which might undermine the co-operation that is so critical.”
While in no way attempting to deny the facts of Israel’s human rights violations outlined in the question, Cleverly’s final sentence disgracefully suggests a degree of equality and responsibility between perpetrator and victim. He might just as well have said, well they asked for it.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
For over half a century, Israel has been shrinking the space it allows the people of the Occupied Palestinian homeland for developing their economy and agriculture or even to build homes. Worse still, Israeli Occupation forces actually destroy Palestinian homes at gunpoint, while forcing the people to accept the building and expansion of Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land. In addition, Israel’s ever-encroaching annexation Wall, settler-only by-pass roads and military checkpoints impose further crippling restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement.
On 1 May, more than 120 UK parliamentarians, including former Conservative cabinet ministers, wrote to Boris Johnson, urging him to impose economic sanctions against Israel should it annex parts of the West Bank. The letter unequivocally states that annexation would be clearly illegal under international law. Even diplomats and prominent campaigners against so-called ‘anti-semitism’ in the Labour Party, such as Margaret Hodge, have signed. In September last year, the UK Government joined with France, Germany, Italy and Spain by warning that unilateral annexation of any part of the West Bank would be a serious breach of international law. The case for sanctions is unchallengeable yet, even though Britain has joined with ten EU diplomats in a call, warning the Israeli Foreign Ministry against annexation, the imposition of sanctions, as opposed to mere condemnation, would be unprecedented.
Further acknowledgment
In the British Parliament House of Lords, Baroness Tonge asked “Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that Israeli aircraft have sprayed toxic herbicides onto crops near the border fence in the east of Gaza City and damaged farmlands; and what steps they intend to take in response.”
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development, Lord Ahmed, did not contest the facts raised and simply replied: “. . . we are troubled by reports of assaults on farmers and vandalism of agricultural land. We continue to raise with Israeli counterparts our concerns about Israeli action.”
Israeli Occupation update
This month, up to and including 12 May, there were one Palestinian and 44 Israeli Gaza ceasefire violations. The Israeli violations included 23 Israeli Navy attacks on Palestinian fishing boats and 15 Israeli Army attacks on agriculture in Gaza.
On 12 May, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported a sharp increase in settler violence that is “undermining already fragile farming livelihoods in various West Bank areas. Attacks have increased since the [Covid-19] emergency was declared, despite movement restrictions, lockdowns and social distancing. The attacks have included physical assault, torching of Palestinian vehicles, theft of livestock and vandalising of fruit trees.”
The Israeli Occupation continued its population-control tyranny in the West Bank, destroying homes, sabotaging the Palestinian economy and interfering with the people’s attempts to manage Covid-19 transmission – here are one or two examples, from each day:
1 May 2020:
In Kafr Qaddum, Israeli forces fired rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters at villagers protesting against the closure of their village, wounding six residents, including two children, and causing several tear gas casualties. Just after midnight, Israeli forces, firing rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters, raided al-Eisawiya village while, during the day, they raided the Cremisan area in north-west Beit Jallah, seizing and destroying beehives, the property of a resident, Nasr Nimr Abd Rabbo.
2 May:
In Azzun Atma village the Israeli Army seized Palestinian farmland planted with olive and almond trees and trapped behind the Israeli Occupation Wall.
3 May:
Israeli forces seized construction equipment from a man, Na’im Abdel-Qadder, who was digging a well in an area between Ras Atiya and Magharat Al-Dab’a villages, and
issued a destruction order against another well in Deir Istiya.
Israeli Occupation settler militants invaded Immatin village farmland, bulldozed crops and uprooted 24 olive trees.
4 May:
During the morning, Israeli forces destroyed a barn near al-Aqbat village in the North Jordan Valley, as well as destroying a well under construction in al-Jiftlik village. Israeli soldiers also beat up and hospitalised a resident, Naseem Ayman Na’im Abdel-Qadder, near the entrance to Turmusaya.
5 May:
The firing of a missile by Palestinian Resistance members was met with a further eight Israeli Gaza ceasefire violations, including five acts of agricultural/economic sabotage.
6 May:
Israelis from the Efrat Occupation settlement invaded farmland in al-Khadr and uprooted 450 Palestinian grapevines. That evening, a gang from the Homish Israeli Occupation settlement invaded Palestinian pastoral land in the Bab al-Wad area, near Burqa village, and assaulted a goatherd, Harbi Mohammad Ali Abboud, leaving him hospitalised with a fractured foot and severe bruising. The settlers also made off with 70 goats belonging to Abboud.
7 May:
With two 14-year-old boy refugees abducted and armed soldiers robbing a man of his bulldozer, the daily Israeli Army population-control violence also included the beating and hospitalisation of 15-year-old Ameer Ziyad Rushdi Yusef who, as a result, suffered broken bones as well as internal bleeding in his pelvis and upper chest.
8 May:
Two members of a fishing crew were wounded during five Israeli Navy attacks on Palestinian fishing boats off Gaza. In the West Bank, Occupation settler malevolence included the destruction of 40 olive trees and the theft of crops from Palestinian farmland. The number of Palestinians wounded totalled six by the end of the day.
9 May:
Four people were wounded and a journalist was taken prisoner after Israeli troops invaded his home.
10 May:
Murad Bassam Al-Bayed, aged 12, was shot and wounded by Israeli troops. Two 16-year-old youths were also wounded.
11 May:
Another four Israeli Navy attacks on Palestinian fishing boats and two armed Israeli Army incursions into Gaza, together with the familiar agricultural sabotage, marked another miserable day in Gaza. In Nablus, in the West Bank, Israeli settler militants raided an agricultural nursery and stole fruit tree seedlings, water reticulation material and other agricultural equipment.
12 May:
At 4:30am, the Israeli Army, firing live ammunition, rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters, raided Ya’bad, searched several homes and took prisoner four people. As the soldiers moved out with their prisoners, one of them, 21-year-old Staff Sgt Amit Ben Ygal, was hit by a stone thrown from a nearby roof and died of his injury a few hours later. The four people taken prisoner during the invasions of their homes were identified as: Ali Muhammad Nazmi Abu Bakr, Yazen Kamel Abu Shamla, Marcel Bassem Lotfi Abu Bakr and Anas Kamel Abu Shamla.
Settlement expansion
On 6 May, Israeli Defence Minister, Naftali Bennett, announced his approval of the addition of 7,000 new housing units in the Israeli Efrat settlement on Occupied land in al-Khadr, Bethlehem. Bennett tweeted that he had instructed the military to continue to strengthen settlements. The US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, gave a newspaper interview in which he said America is prepared to recognise an Israeli declaration of sovereignty over settlements in ‘Judea and Samaria‘ and the Jordan Valley, so long as the Jewish state accepts conditions requested by the Trump Administration.
Zionist influence over the US
On 7 May, it was reported that the US Department of Justice is dropping its case against Trump’s former National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, even though he has admitted that he lied to the FBI. In 2016, Flynn called on a number of countries, in an attempt to get them to counter a US decision to allow the New Zealand-sponsored Security Council Resolution 2334 to go unchallenged. According to the original Justice Department charge sheet, to which Flynn pleaded guilty: “On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed Flynn to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution . . .” Fortunately, Flynn failed in the attempt and, with the US abstaining, the resolution was adopted 14-0. In 2017, the New York Times expressed unease over the role of Israel in the case and today the issue of Israel’s ability to influence US politics has been exposed once again.
UN Appeals
Due to the Covid-19 crisis, UN officials are calling for the immediate release of all Palestinian children held in captivity in Israel and Palestine. In a joint Press Statement, Jamie McGoldrick, Humanitarian Co-ordinator in the Occupied Palestinian territory, Genevieve Boutin, UNICEF Special Representative in the State of Palestine and James Heenan, Head of the UN Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian territory reminded the world that, according to the Israeli Prison Service, 194 Palestinian children were being detained in prisons and detention centres, mainly in Israel. This is higher even than the monthly average number of children held in 2019. The UN appeal states: “Children in detention face heightened risk of contracting COVID-19, with physical distancing and other preventive measures often absent or difficult to achieve.”
The majority of these children have not been convicted of any offence but are being held, while awaiting trial. The removal of abducted children from Palestine to Israel is a gross violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”. Under Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “unlawful deportation or transfer . . . of a protected person” constitutes a grave breach of the Convention. See also Statement by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The law clearly recognises that such population transfer is often a step towards intended colonisation and annexation, yet the international community does nothing to stop what amounts to a war crime under international criminal law.
NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)
New Zealand should stand by its declared support for rules-based international law and human rights. On its website, MFAT reminds us that: “After a 10 year campaign New Zealand was voted onto the UN Security Council in 2014 and served two years in 2015 and 2016. Our seat on the Security Council placed New Zealand at the heart of international decisions on peace and security.” In 2016, this country successfully promoted Security Council Resolution 2334 which, sadly, although passed without opposition, has achieved nothing to halt Israel’s gross violations of international humanitarian law. An appeal by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian territory, Professor Michael Lynk, calls upon the international community to ensure that Israel must face the cost of its violations of international law. It is high time the UN imposed sanctions upon Israel.
The Israel lobby is used to getting its way in the US and the UK. The power and influence of these UN Security Council members is immense but it is not absolute. Those who would have us stay silent, whether they be our ‘traditional allies’ or those closer to home who are dedicated to serving Zionism’s ambitions, must be opposed and told so in no uncertain terms. MFAT tells us: “The United Nations works to make the world peaceful and secure, and to promote social progress, better living standards and human rights.” The highest judicial body in the world, the International Criminal Court (ICJ), finds Israel guilty of war crimes which violate “principles outlined in the UN Charter and long-standing global conventions that prohibit the threat or use of force and the acquisition of territory that way, as well as principles upholding the right of peoples to self-determination.”
New Zealand could, and should, lead the demand for an end to the shameful lack of decisive international action that is required if Israel is ever to be brought to account.


thedailyblog--2020-05-18--On Matthew Hooton Against Winston Against China

There was something odd about Matthew Hooton ’ s NZ Herald piece this morning castigating Winston for his remarks about the People ’ s Republic of China .
Namely , in a piece that was significantly about NZ ’ s stance on Taiwan rejoining the WHO … he did not use “ Taiwan ” once .
Instead , it was “ Chinese Taipei ” all the way through – and in a manner that seemed almost calculated to emphasize that name .
Which is , if you were unaware , the PRC ’ s preferred way of talking about its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage .
The only time Hooton came anywhere near saying “ Taiwan ” , was when he was comparing “ ” Taiwanese Splitters ” ” [ in scare-quotes , presumably because he ’ s quite keen to kow-tow not only to the PRC ’ s preferred proper nouns , but also to try and make out that Taiwan ’ s divergence from the PRC isn ’ t really a real thing , either , whatever the nomenclature under which it occurs ] … to the Chatham Islands pretending to break away from New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of us here in Kiwiland empathizing with Beijing upon the matter .
Now I know Hooton ’ s no fan of Jacinda Ardern , but I somewhat suspect that obliquely insinuating she ’ s Chairman Mao circa the late 1940s , is more than a few Bridges too far .
There ’ s legitimate space to discuss Winston ’ s remarks pertaining to the PRC recently – that ’ s one of the benefits of a free and democratic society , we can have free and democratic conversations about what our elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our collective behalves .
And while I do think that Winston is , in effect , coasting towards mixing metaphors by playing bull-rush in a China shop by openly disclosing that the PRC attempted to get us not to enter Lockdown , or asserting that Beijing wouldn ’ t impose significant trade-penalties upon us for supporting the Australian call for independent inquiry into the origins of Covid-19 etc .
… … that doesn ’ t mean I think he ’ s in the wrong for doing so .
He ’ s standing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independence .
Hooton ’ s perspective , by contrast , appears to be that letting China have its way – and at least as importantly , being seen to do so – is the best way to support New Zealand ’ s interests .
I ’ m not sure if he ’ s to bothered about the “ Independence ” side of that equation .
Still , look on the bright-side .
If Beijing chooses to make good on Hooton ’ s implied threats to stop accepting our exports , etc .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also stop buying up our politicians and newspaper columnists .

There was something odd about Matthew Hooton’s NZ Herald piece this morning castigating Winston for his remarks about the People’s Republic of China. Namely, in a piece that was significantly about NZ’s stance on Taiwan rejoining the WHO … he did not use “Taiwan” once. Instead, it was “Chinese Taipei” all the way through – and in a manner that seemed almost calculated to emphasize that name. Which is, if you were unaware, the PRC’s preferred way of talking about its “renegade province” on the international stage.
The only time Hooton came anywhere near saying “Taiwan”, was when he was comparing “”Taiwanese Splitters”” [in scare-quotes, presumably because he’s quite keen to kow-tow not only to the PRC’s preferred proper nouns, but also to try and make out that Taiwan’s divergence from the PRC isn’t really a real thing, either, whatever the nomenclature under which it occurs] … to the Chatham Islands pretending to break away from New Zealand in a bid to get the rest of us here in Kiwiland empathizing with Beijing upon the matter.
Now I know Hooton’s no fan of Jacinda Ardern, but I somewhat suspect that obliquely insinuating she’s Chairman Mao circa the late 1940s, is more than a few Bridges too far.
There’s legitimate space to discuss Winston’s remarks pertaining to the PRC recently – that’s one of the benefits of a free and democratic society, we can have free and democratic conversations about what our elected representatives come out with upon all of our collective behalves.
And while I do think that Winston is, in effect, coasting towards mixing metaphors by playing bull-rush in a China shop by openly disclosing that the PRC attempted to get us not to enter Lockdown, or asserting that Beijing wouldn’t impose significant trade-penalties upon us for supporting the Australian call for independent inquiry into the origins of Covid-19 etc. …
… that doesn’t mean I think he’s in the wrong for doing so. He’s standing up for New Zealand’s interests and independence.
Hooton’s perspective, by contrast, appears to be that letting China have its way – and at least as importantly, being seen to do so – is the best way to support New Zealand’s interests. I’m not sure if he’s to bothered about the “Independence” side of that equation.
Still, look on the bright-side. If Beijing chooses to make good on Hooton’s implied threats to stop accepting our exports, etc. …
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
… perhaps that means they’ll also stop buying up our politicians and newspaper columnists.


thedailyblog--2020-05-18--Conceding Nothing – To The Undemanding Non-Voter.

TO SAY the Left ’ s reaction to Grant Robertson ’ s “ Recovery Budget ” has been mixed would be a considerable understatement .
Everyone from Mike Treen and John Minto to Susan St John and Gordon Campbell have criticised the Coalition Government for failing to piggy-back a socialist programme on its economic response to the Covid-19 recession .
To which I feel obliged to call : Bullshit !
Had Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson followed the advice of those who are now so loud in their condemnation of the Budget , their 26 percentage-point poll advantage would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the additional 10-15 percent of popular support Labour appears to have attracted over the past two months can only have come from former National supporters .
How long , I wonder , do Labour ’ s critics on the Left suppose these people would have stuck around had Jacinda decided to go all Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders on them ?
That is not a trick question .
The answer is – not long at all .
The bad news wouldn ’ t have stopped there , however , it would just be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Grant ’ s critics not imagine how right-wing commentators like Mike Hosking and Matthew Hooton would have seized upon the Government ’ s sudden lurch to the left as proof of its fundamental dishonesty .
Oh yes , they may have pretended to be responsible managers of the New Zealand economy , but when the crisis/opportunity came – in the form of a critical public health emergency , for God ’ s sake !
– they fell upon it cynically to implement a radical agenda – the full content of which they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what about that NZ First , eh ?
What about Winston Peters !
That sly old fox had been a radical socialist all along .
Forget about the Manchurian Candidate – this guy was the original Moscow Sleeper !
And the rest of his caucus – what consummate actors !
Ron Mark a socialist – who knew ?
I mean , the Greens never made the slightest effort to hide their radical credentials – and didn ’ t NZ First give them stick for it .
That decision , back in 2005 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : what a masterstroke !
Put everyone off their guard .
Talk about your long-term , far-left agenda .
Yes , I ’ m being facetious , but only to remind this government ’ s left-wing critics that it is a coalition ; and that one of the constituent parties of that coalition was formed by a former National Party cabinet minister .
Which is just another way of saying that even if Jacinda and Grant had been foolish enough to try and drive through the measures demanded by the radical Left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have broken up the coalition ?
Yes .
Would Winston and NZ first have suffered for pulling the emergency hand-brake ?
No .
Would Labour and the Greens have been punished electorally ?
Yes .
Would Simon Bridges have become New Zealand ’ s next prime minister ?
Of course .
Now , I ’ ve been around long enough to know exactly how the radical and revolutionary Left would answer these arguments .
They would say that driving all those cross-over Nats back into Simon ’ s waiting arms wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a radical left-wing response to the Covid-19 induced recession would , on balance , be favourable to the Government .
All those beneficiaries whose lives would have been improved immeasurably by its decision to implement the Welfare Expert Advisory Group ’ s recommendations , for example , would have turned out in their droves to re-elect Jacinda and her colleagues .
This is yet another iteration of the “ Missing Million ” argument : a political proposition that the Left has been kicking around for at least the last three general elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for and they will reward their political benefactors at the ballot-box .
Increasingly , electoral politics is an activity restricted to those whose lives are still buoyant enough to warrant engagement with “ mainstream ” New Zealand institutions .
Unionised workers ; church members in good standing ; newly-minted professionals who have scraped and clawed their way out of the immigrant communities into which they were born .
By-and-large , these are not people with a revolutionary mindset .
On the contrary , many of them have little or no respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , have given up the struggle to make a better life for themselves and their children .
That ’ s why the Missing Million : generally despised by mainstream New Zealand ; mistrusted by the respectable members of their own communities ; has moved well beyond the reach of conventional electoral politics .
Whenever the Missing Million argument is used by left-wingers seeking to reconcile electoral politics with revolutionary aspirations , I think of Len Richards in Mangere .
Len , a staunch and thoroughly engaging socialist , stood for the NewLabour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ran a very good campaign , winning 11.79 percent of the votes cast – more than twice the NLP ’ s 5.16 percent of the popular vote nationally .
And yet , even after everything the Labour Party had done to the working people of the Mangere electorate ; even after six years of Rogernomics ; even with unemployment skyrocketing ; David Lange romped home with 51.1 percent of the votes cast .
The most fundamental problem confronting the radical Left has never really been about the people who don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the political parties supported by the people who do .
New Zealanders will vote for parties positioned to Labour ’ s left – sometimes in impressive numbers – but only when those parties are offering policies demanded by a significant percentage of the electorate , and which Labour , for reasons best known to itself , refuses to endorse .
Clearly , this is not the situation in 2020 .
In this year ’ s election there will be only one viable party to Labour ’ s left , the Greens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now marginal – at best .
On its current standing in the Newshub-Reid Research poll ( 56 percent ) Labour will be looking to retain office with the support of former right-wing voters – not radical leftists .
It ’ s not a situation which any democratic-socialist activist enjoys , but one that can not be avoided without giving up the game of electoral politics altogether .
Grant Robertson ’ s Budget is offering what most New Zealanders are hoping for – economic recovery .
More importantly , it ’ s offering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are demanding .
Is that the same as offering what so many poor and marginalised New Zealanders desperately need ?
No , it ’ s not .
But if people ’ s economic and social needs are not translated into serious political demands , then they are unlikely to be fulfilled in any serious way .
In the immortal words of the Black abolitionist and former slave , Frederick Douglass : “ Power concedes nothing without a demand – it never has and it never will.
” When the wretched of the earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mangere and Porirua – organise themselves to the point of convincing mainstream politicians that there is more to be gained by acceding to their demands than ignoring them , then their lives will improve immeasurably .
Put enough community organisers in New Zealand ’ s most deprived suburbs and all the exclusions of the 2020 Budget , which have so upset the radical Left , will very rapidly become inclusions .
Until then , Labour – riding so very high in the polls – will go on listening to and meeting the demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves heard where it counts – in the ballot-box .

TO SAY the Left’s reaction to Grant Robertson’s “Recovery Budget” has been mixed would be a considerable understatement. Everyone from Mike Treen and John Minto to Susan St John and Gordon Campbell have criticised the Coalition Government for failing to piggy-back a socialist programme on its economic response to the Covid-19 recession. To which I feel obliged to call: Bullshit!
Had Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson followed the advice of those who are now so loud in their condemnation of the Budget, their 26 percentage-point poll advantage would have evaporated practically overnight. Why? Because the additional 10-15 percent of popular support Labour appears to have attracted over the past two months can only have come from former National supporters. How long, I wonder, do Labour’s critics on the Left suppose these people would have stuck around had Jacinda decided to go all Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders on them? That is not a trick question. The answer is – not long at all.
The bad news wouldn’t have stopped there, however, it would just be getting started. Can Jacinda’s and Grant’s critics not imagine how right-wing commentators like Mike Hosking and Matthew Hooton would have seized upon the Government’s sudden lurch to the left as proof of its fundamental dishonesty. Oh yes, they may have pretended to be responsible managers of the New Zealand economy, but when the crisis/opportunity came – in the form of a critical public health emergency, for God’s sake! – they fell upon it cynically to implement a radical agenda – the full content of which they had concealed from the electorate.
And what about that NZ First, eh? What about Winston Peters! That sly old fox had been a radical socialist all along. Forget about the Manchurian Candidate – this guy was the original Moscow Sleeper! And the rest of his caucus – what consummate actors! Ron Mark a socialist – who knew? I mean, the Greens never made the slightest effort to hide their radical credentials – and didn’t NZ First give them stick for it. That decision, back in 2005, to keep the Greens out of government: what a masterstroke! Put everyone off their guard. Talk about your long-term, far-left agenda.
Yes, I’m being facetious, but only to remind this government’s left-wing critics that it is a coalition; and that one of the constituent parties of that coalition was formed by a former National Party cabinet minister. Which is just another way of saying that even if Jacinda and Grant had been foolish enough to try and drive through the measures demanded by the radical Left, Winston would have vetoed them. Would that have broken up the coalition? Yes. Would Winston and NZ first have suffered for pulling the emergency hand-brake? No. Would Labour and the Greens have been punished electorally? Yes. Would Simon Bridges have become New Zealand’s next prime minister? Of course.
Now, I’ve been around long enough to know exactly how the radical and revolutionary Left would answer these arguments. They would say that driving all those cross-over Nats back into Simon’s waiting arms wouldn’t matter, because the political consequences of a radical left-wing response to the Covid-19 induced recession would, on balance, be favourable to the Government. All those beneficiaries whose lives would have been improved immeasurably by its decision to implement the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations, for example, would have turned out in their droves to re-elect Jacinda and her colleagues.
This is yet another iteration of the “Missing Million” argument: a political proposition that the Left has been kicking around for at least the last three general elections. Give the poor and marginalised something to vote for and they will reward their political benefactors at the ballot-box.
Except they won’t.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Increasingly, electoral politics is an activity restricted to those whose lives are still buoyant enough to warrant engagement with “mainstream” New Zealand institutions. Unionised workers; church members in good standing; newly-minted professionals who have scraped and clawed their way out of the immigrant communities into which they were born. By-and-large, these are not people with a revolutionary mindset. On the contrary, many of them have little or no respect for those who, as they see it, have given up the struggle to make a better life for themselves and their children. That’s why the Missing Million: generally despised by mainstream New Zealand; mistrusted by the respectable members of their own communities; has moved well beyond the reach of conventional electoral politics.
Whenever the Missing Million argument is used by left-wingers seeking to reconcile electoral politics with revolutionary aspirations, I think of Len Richards in Mangere. Len, a staunch and thoroughly engaging socialist, stood for the NewLabour Party against David Lange in 1990. He ran a very good campaign, winning 11.79 percent of the votes cast – more than twice the NLP’s 5.16 percent of the popular vote nationally. And yet, even after everything the Labour Party had done to the working people of the Mangere electorate; even after six years of Rogernomics; even with unemployment skyrocketing; David Lange romped home with 51.1 percent of the votes cast.
The most fundamental problem confronting the radical Left has never really been about the people who don’t vote. It’s always been about the political parties supported by the people who do. New Zealanders will vote for parties positioned to Labour’s left – sometimes in impressive numbers – but only when those parties are offering policies demanded by a significant percentage of the electorate, and which Labour, for reasons best known to itself, refuses to endorse.
Clearly, this is not the situation in 2020. In this year’s election there will be only one viable party to Labour’s left, the Greens, and the policy differences between the two are now marginal – at best. On its current standing in the Newshub-Reid Research poll (56 percent) Labour will be looking to retain office with the support of former right-wing voters – not radical leftists. It’s not a situation which any democratic-socialist activist enjoys, but one that cannot be avoided without giving up the game of electoral politics altogether.
Grant Robertson’s Budget is offering what most New Zealanders are hoping for – economic recovery. More importantly, it’s offering what the New Zealanders who actually vote are demanding. Is that the same as offering what so many poor and marginalised New Zealanders desperately need? No, it’s not. But if people’s economic and social needs are not translated into serious political demands, then they are unlikely to be fulfilled in any serious way. In the immortal words of the Black abolitionist and former slave, Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand – it never has and it never will.”
When the wretched of the earth – and that includes the people of Mangere and Porirua – organise themselves to the point of convincing mainstream politicians that there is more to be gained by acceding to their demands than ignoring them, then their lives will improve immeasurably. Put enough community organisers in New Zealand’s most deprived suburbs and all the exclusions of the 2020 Budget, which have so upset the radical Left, will very rapidly become inclusions.
Until then, Labour – riding so very high in the polls – will go on listening to and meeting the demands of those who know how to make themselves heard where it counts – in the ballot-box.


thedailyblog--2020-05-17--Budget fallout – Child poverty was once at the heart of this government

Without a shred of empathy or appreciation for what it means Budget 2020 says— • None “ [ Child Poverty ] Rates on measures of low income with a fixed threshold are expected to increase ” .
And • rates are expected to rise sharply , as previous New Zealand experience suggests that these rates are particularly sensitive to economic changes .
Does child poverty now not matter ?
Why , since the problem was so clearly identified was it then ignored ?
And of course , these children live in families with adults who are also impoverished- so does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working age , especially in tourism and hospitality , but widespread across the economy , will bear the brunt of the economic fall-out .
Children in low-income or benefit dependent families will be pushed even further into poverty that will stunt their life chances and damage the recovery and social cohesion for decades to come .
Yes , the budget had to protect jobs and employment as a priority , but many firms will not survive the enhanced wage subsidy period and nor should they if they are not well suited to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need nearly as many cafes and restaurants without the same numbers of tourists for example .
With unemployment forecast to rise to around 10 % it is inevitable that tens of thousands more will need to access the run-down welfare system .
While optimistic projections see unemployment quickly reversing in a V-shaped recovery , it is hard to share that optimism .
Benefit levels are far below the poverty line so that means-tested supplementary hardship payments will soar , but the newly unemployed will have to be really poor to qualify .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accommodation supplement and recoverable assistance are means-tested and further lock families into the poverty trap .
These expenditures are projected to grow 40 % to $ 3.72 billion by 2024 .
Low income families in and out of benefits and casual work in the protracted recession will see their balance sheets rapidly eroded and many may never recover .
I see no evidence in this budget that the costs of COVID-19 will be shared fairly .
Throwing a few million at foodbanks is a band aid that dangerously normalises private charity as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already at breaking point .
It will be a shocking winter .
Older people have had no reduction in their NZ super payments and will get the doubled winter energy payments whether they need it or not .
They have been protected health wise in this pandemic and while their investment income may drop , many will find themselves better off from two months of reduced spending .
It is doubly tiresome that $ 10 billion will be allocated to the New Zealand Super fund over the next four years when Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.5 Billion necessary to fix the discrimination against poor children in Working for Families .
Why borrow more to put money into a treasure chest today for a far-off time when that money is needed so desperately today ?
The pre-budget announcement removed the need to satisfy the hours test for the In Work Tax Credit ( IWTC ) BUT it is only for “ working ” families who are not receiving a main benefit and have some level of employment income each week or the wage subsidy .
Thus , there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ undeserving ’ unemployed : some whose children will retain the IWTC and some who won ’ t even though both have income support payments from the state .
This adds yet another layer of discrimination that offends child rights .
Worse still , a penny-pinching mentality is displayed when the budget says the change to the In Work Tax Credit will cost “ an additional $ 128 million over four years ” .
It looks like they are trying to take credit for their ‘ generosity ’ .
This is a false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ deserving ’ unemployed should always have been allowed to keep their child payments regardless of losing hours of work .
Astonishing for a government that cares about children it continues to penalise poor children in order to provide a neoliberal work incentive in a pandemic recession .
When the ‘ deserving ’ families lose their wage subsidy and have to go onto a benefit , the payment to the caregiver FOR THE CHILDREN falls by the IWTC amount of $ 72.50 a week .
This penalty applies even if they end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Working for Families is hardly a secure cushion to protect children .
Shame on Labour .
Budget 2020 should have corrected this policy and enabled all families on low incomes whether on benefits or not to have the full Working for Families package .

Without a shred of empathy or appreciation for what it means Budget 2020 says—
“[Child Poverty] Rates on measures of low income with a fixed threshold are expected to increase”. And
“On measures of material hardship, rates are expected to rise sharply , as previous New Zealand experience suggests that these rates are particularly sensitive to economic changes.
Does child poverty now not matter? Why, since the problem was so clearly identified was it then ignored? And of course, these children live in families with adults who are also impoverished- so does that not matter either?
Adults of working age, especially in tourism and hospitality, but widespread across the economy, will bear the brunt of the economic fall-out. Children in low-income or benefit dependent families will be pushed even further into poverty that will stunt their life chances and damage the recovery and social cohesion for decades to come.
Yes, the budget had to protect jobs and employment as a priority, but many firms will not survive the enhanced wage subsidy period and nor should they if they are not well suited to the post covid world. We won’t need nearly as many cafes and restaurants without the same numbers of tourists for example. With unemployment forecast to rise to around 10% it is inevitable that tens of thousands more will need to access the run-down welfare system. While optimistic projections see unemployment quickly reversing in a V-shaped recovery, it is hard to share that optimism.
Benefit levels are far below the poverty line so that means-tested supplementary hardship payments will soar, but the newly unemployed will have to be really poor to qualify. All the special needs grants, the accommodation supplement and recoverable assistance are means-tested and further lock families into the poverty trap. These expenditures are projected to grow 40% to $3.72 billion by 2024. Low income families in and out of benefits and casual work in the protracted recession will see their balance sheets rapidly eroded and many may never recover.
I see no evidence in this budget that the costs of COVID-19 will be shared fairly. Throwing a few million at foodbanks is a band aid that dangerously normalises private charity as the answer. The demands on budgeting services are already at breaking point. It will be a shocking winter.
Older people have had no reduction in their NZ super payments and will get the doubled winter energy payments whether they need it or not. They have been protected health wise in this pandemic and while their investment income may drop, many will find themselves better off from two months of reduced spending.
It is doubly tiresome that $10 billion will be allocated to the New Zealand Super fund over the next four years when Government couldn’t find even the $0.5 Billion necessary to fix the discrimination against poor children in Working for Families. Why borrow more to put money into a treasure chest today for a far-off time when that money is needed so desperately today?
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The pre-budget announcement removed the need to satisfy the hours test for the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) BUT it is only for “working” families who are not receiving a main benefit and have some level of employment income each week or the wage subsidy. Thus, there will now be the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ unemployed: some whose children will retain the IWTC and some who won’t even though both have income support payments from the state. This adds yet another layer of discrimination that offends child rights.
Worse still, a penny-pinching mentality is displayed when the budget says the change to the In Work Tax Credit will cost “an additional $128 million over four years”. It looks like they are trying to take credit for their ‘generosity’. This is a false way to cost this policy as the ‘deserving’ unemployed should always have been allowed to keep their child payments regardless of losing hours of work.
Astonishing for a government that cares about children it continues to penalise poor children in order to provide a neoliberal work incentive in a pandemic recession. When the ‘deserving’ families lose their wage subsidy and have to go onto a benefit, the payment to the caregiver FOR THE CHILDREN falls by the IWTC amount of $72.50 a week. This penalty applies even if they end up with part-time hours of work. Thus Working for Families is hardly a secure cushion to protect children. Shame on Labour.
Budget 2020 should have corrected this policy and enabled all families on low incomes whether on benefits or not to have the full Working for Families package.


thedailyblog--2020-05-20--Does National Still Need A Street-Fighting Man?

WHO WILL EMERGE from Friday ’ s emergency meeting of National caucus as the party ’ s No.1 and No .
2 ?
Will it be the incumbents : Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett ?
Or will the election of Todd Muller and Nikki Kaye signal National ’ s return to a kinder , gentler conservatism ?
Does Judith “ Crusher ” Collins ’ very public renunciation of her leadership ambitions indicate her intention to swing her support behind Bridges and Bennett ?
Or , is she backing Muller and Kaye in return for the crucial Finance portfolio ?
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing this contest , or will Mark Mitchell ’ s handful of votes be required to nudge the eventual winners over the line ?
If so , what will Mitchell ’ s price be ?
On the face of it , the election of Muller and Kaye is a no-brainer .
New Zealanders are clearly in no mood for a “ dirty little street-fighter ” and , if the polls are any indication , resent strongly Bridges ’ implication that they are .
To be at all competitive with Labour , National needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacinda ’ s “ Kindness ” will require of the Right a credible presentation of “ Kindness+ ” .
In the best of all possible contests that “ plus ” would be “ Wisdom ” .
In its present mood , however , the best “ plus ” the Right is likely to offer the voters is “ Competence ” .
Like everything in electoral politics it will all come down to numbers .
Who has them and who doesn ’ t .
In the February 2018 caucus contest that gave New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the liberal wing of the party backing Amy Adams didn ’ t have the numbers .
The question to be answered now is whether or not the 27 months under Bridges/Bennett have convinced enough of National ’ s hard-liners that dirty street-fighting is not going to win them back the treasury benches .
If the polls have sufficiently spooked them , then they may be persuaded to reluctantly shuffle left .
Unspooked , they will keep their nerve and wait for Covid-19 ’ s economic shit to hit the fan .
Empirically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive solidity of National ’ s public support across all but a few of those 27 months ( the big exception being the period following the Christchurch Mosque Shootings ) .
They might also cite the salutary impact of Bridges ’ dirty social media street-fighting on Labour ’ s popularity .
Unbuttressed by crisis and calamity , they can fairly argue , Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues are sitting ducks .
Thinking of political feather-brains like Phil Twyford , David Clark and Kelvin Davis it ’ s hard not to agree !
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history might compare National ’ s position with that of the Germans at the Battle of the Somme .
The Covid-19 health crisis , like the British artillery ’ s horrendous opening barrage , has indisputably shaken the defenders ’ confidence – but has it been destroyed ?
When the whistles blew and the poor Tommies rose out of their trenches and began moving steadily across no man ’ s land towards what they had been assured was a pulverised enemy , the German machine-gunners mowed them down like corn .
Substitute utter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the analogy becomes strikingly clear .
The problem with political hardliners of every stripe is that they lack the flexibility of mind to put themselves in the position of their opponents .
Not being able to imagine – and hence anticipate – what their enemy might do to thwart their plans , they are rendered incapable of adapting fixed strategies and tactics .
The National Right has convinced itself that the Coalition Government lacks the experience and talent required to steer New Zealand safely through the Covid-19 induced recession .
Confronted with ever-increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they see Jacinda and her colleagues freezing in the headlights of the Right ’ s oncoming truck .
As far as National ’ s hardliners are concerned , all they have to do to win is make sure those headlights are kept on full-beam .
What they have singularly failed to grasp is that , as Laila Harré observed on Q+A on Monday night , the Covid-19 emergency has elevated Jacinda well above the plane of a mere party leader or prime minister .
It has transformed her into New Zealand ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the right thing to defend her people by an astonishing 92 percent of Reid Research ’ s respondents .
A political dynamic is operating here that goes way beyond mere partisanship .
Jacinda has not only changed the way her people look at her , she has changed the way she looks at herself .
You can not bring down such leaders , you can only wait for them to fall .
Jacinda does not have to do anything more between now and 19 September than urge New Zealanders to endure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she need offer them nothing more in the immediate term than “ blood , toil , tears and sweat ” .
But , if they can hold out in these fortunate islands ; if they are willing to give her and Labour the votes they need to finish the job of rebuilding and recovery ; ah well , then , in Churchill ’ s wonderfully evocative words : “ the life of the world can move forward into broad sunlit uplands ” .
This is the new reality that the National Opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not need to win the battle of the present , if it has already won the battle of the future .
Which is not to suggest that Jacinda and her government are incapable of slipping and falling .
Unanticipated obstacles , new disasters , may yet send dark clouds scudding across those sunlit uplands .
If they do , then who is better placed to comfort and inspire their dispirited compatriots : Simon Bridges and Paula Bennet , or Todd Muller and Nikki Kaye ?
There have been times in New Zealand ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens have been in the market for “ a dirty little street-fighter ” .
One thinks of Sid Holland , who tamed the militant unions in 1951 .
Or Rob Muldoon in 1975 , promising conservatives New Zealand the way they ( not the Left ) wanted it .
In 2005 , it was Don Brash who asserted the rights of “ Kiwi ” over “ Iwi ” .
These were the leaders chosen by National for times of “ Us ” versus “ Them ” .
These are not such times .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought the New Zealand people closer together .
They are not looking for a National Opposition determined to drive them apart .

WHO WILL EMERGE from Friday’s emergency meeting of National caucus as the party’s No.1 and No. 2? Will it be the incumbents: Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett? Or will the election of Todd Muller and Nikki Kaye signal National’s return to a kinder, gentler conservatism? Does Judith “Crusher” Collins’ very public renunciation of her leadership ambitions indicate her intention to swing her support behind Bridges and Bennett? Or, is she backing Muller and Kaye in return for the crucial Finance portfolio? Are Collins’ supporters even numerous enough to swing this contest, or will Mark Mitchell’s handful of votes be required to nudge the eventual winners over the line? If so, what will Mitchell’s price be?
On the face of it, the election of Muller and Kaye is a no-brainer. New Zealanders are clearly in no mood for a “dirty little street-fighter” and, if the polls are any indication, resent strongly Bridges’ implication that they are. To be at all competitive with Labour, National needs a radical change of faces. Beating Jacinda’s “Kindness” will require of the Right a credible presentation of “Kindness+”. In the best of all possible contests that “plus” would be “Wisdom”. In its present mood, however, the best “plus” the Right is likely to offer the voters is “Competence”.
Like everything in electoral politics it will all come down to numbers. Who has them and who doesn’t. In the February 2018 caucus contest that gave New Zealand the Bridges/Bennett combination it seemed pretty clear that the liberal wing of the party backing Amy Adams didn’t have the numbers. The question to be answered now is whether or not the 27 months under Bridges/Bennett have convinced enough of National’s hard-liners that dirty street-fighting is not going to win them back the treasury benches. If the polls have sufficiently spooked them, then they may be persuaded to reluctantly shuffle left. Unspooked, they will keep their nerve and wait for Covid-19’s economic shit to hit the fan.
Empirically, the hardliners can point to the impressive solidity of National’s public support across all but a few of those 27 months (the big exception being the period following the Christchurch Mosque Shootings). They might also cite the salutary impact of Bridges’ dirty social media street-fighting on Labour’s popularity. Unbuttressed by crisis and calamity, they can fairly argue, Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues are sitting ducks. Thinking of political feather-brains like Phil Twyford, David Clark and Kelvin Davis it’s hard not to agree!
Those hardline Nats with a bent for military history might compare National’s position with that of the Germans at the Battle of the Somme. The Covid-19 health crisis, like the British artillery’s horrendous opening barrage, has indisputably shaken the defenders’ confidence – but has it been destroyed? When the whistles blew and the poor Tommies rose out of their trenches and began moving steadily across no man’s land towards what they had been assured was a pulverised enemy, the German machine-gunners mowed them down like corn. Substitute utter economic carnage for those German machine-gunners and the analogy becomes strikingly clear.
The problem with political hardliners of every stripe is that they lack the flexibility of mind to put themselves in the position of their opponents. Not being able to imagine – and hence anticipate – what their enemy might do to thwart their plans, they are rendered incapable of adapting fixed strategies and tactics. The National Right has convinced itself that the Coalition Government lacks the experience and talent required to steer New Zealand safely through the Covid-19 induced recession. Confronted with ever-increasing numbers of failed businesses and unemployed workers, they see Jacinda and her colleagues freezing in the headlights of the Right’s oncoming truck. As far as National’s hardliners are concerned, all they have to do to win is make sure those headlights are kept on full-beam.
What they have singularly failed to grasp is that, as Laila Harré observed on Q+A on Monday night, the Covid-19 emergency has elevated Jacinda well above the plane of a mere party leader or prime minister. It has transformed her into New Zealand’s leader: the woman credited with doing the right thing to defend her people by an astonishing 92 percent of Reid Research’s respondents. A political dynamic is operating here that goes way beyond mere partisanship. Jacinda has not only changed the way her people look at her, she has changed the way she looks at herself. You cannot bring down such leaders, you can only wait for them to fall.
Jacinda does not have to do anything more between now and 19 September than urge New Zealanders to endure the pain. Like Winston Churchill in 1940, she need offer them nothing more in the immediate term than “blood, toil, tears and sweat”. But, if they can hold out in these fortunate islands; if they are willing to give her and Labour the votes they need to finish the job of rebuilding and recovery; ah well, then, in Churchill’s wonderfully evocative words: “the life of the world can move forward into broad sunlit uplands”. This is the new reality that the National Opposition has to grasp: that Labour does not need to win the battle of the present, if it has already won the battle of the future.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Which is not to suggest that Jacinda and her government are incapable of slipping and falling. Unanticipated obstacles, new disasters, may yet send dark clouds scudding across those sunlit uplands. If they do, then who is better placed to comfort and inspire their dispirited compatriots: Simon Bridges and Paula Bennet, or Todd Muller and Nikki Kaye?
There have been times in New Zealand’s political history when its more conservative citizens have been in the market for “a dirty little street-fighter”. One thinks of Sid Holland, who tamed the militant unions in 1951. Or Rob Muldoon in 1975, promising conservatives New Zealand the way they (not the Left) wanted it. In 2005, it was Don Brash who asserted the rights of “Kiwi” over “Iwi”. These were the leaders chosen by National for times of “Us” versus “Them”.
These are not such times. The Covid-19 global pandemic of 2020 has brought the New Zealand people closer together. They are not looking for a National Opposition determined to drive them apart.


thedailyblog--2020-05-20--New Zealand government silent on deals with Israel

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa is accusing the New Zealand government of developing a back-door policy entanglement with the State of Israel .
PSNA says it only discovered that New Zealand had actually signed a Technical , Innovation , Research and Development Agreement with Israel through a Facebook post by the Israeli Embassy .
National Chair , John Minto , says New Zealand Minister , Megan Woods signed the Agreement on 5 March , but kept it totally quiet at the time .
“ Normally a major bilateral deal would involve photo opportunities at Parliament and press releases .
On this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” John Minto says he concludes that the government is embarrassed about an increasing set of agreements with Israel .
“ They know that they shouldn ’ t be doing deals when Israel is poised to illegally annex major parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
” “ They know they should be breaking off agreements with Israel at this time – not signing new ones.
” John Minto says the previous government delayed signing the New Zealand-Israel Film Coproduction Agreement until 2015 , because it thought that signing the Agreement while Israel was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a good look.
’ “ The current government has never criticised Israeli actions .
Not even in 2018 when Israeli snipers were gunning down unarmed Palestinian protesters through the Israeli blockade fence around Gaza .
And now not when the Israeli government is ready to steal more Palestinian land.
” Respect for international law and the most basic human rights demands New Zealand suspend all bi-lateral agreements with Israel until the threat of annexation is lifted .

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa is accusing the New Zealand government of developing a back-door policy entanglement with the State of Israel.
PSNA says it only discovered that New Zealand had actually signed a Technical, Innovation, Research and Development Agreement with Israel through a Facebook post by the Israeli Embassy.
National Chair, John Minto, says New Zealand Minister, Megan Woods signed the Agreement on 5 March, but kept it totally quiet at the time.
“Normally a major bilateral deal would involve photo opportunities at Parliament and press releases. On this occasion, with the Israelis, nothing.”
John Minto says he concludes that the government is embarrassed about an increasing set of agreements with Israel.
“They know that they shouldn’t be doing deals when Israel is poised to illegally annex major parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
“They know they should be breaking off agreements with Israel at this time – not signing new ones.”
John Minto says the previous government delayed signing the New Zealand-Israel Film Coproduction Agreement until 2015, because it thought that signing the Agreement while Israel was attacking Gaza the previous year was ‘not a good look.’
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“The current government has never criticised Israeli actions. Not even in 2018 when Israeli snipers were gunning down unarmed Palestinian protesters through the Israeli blockade fence around Gaza. And now not when the Israeli government is ready to steal more Palestinian land.”
Respect for international law and the most basic human rights demands New Zealand suspend all bi-lateral agreements with Israel until the threat of annexation is lifted.


thedailyblog--2020-05-22--West Papua’s highway of blood – a case of destruction not development

David Robie , who also blogs at Cafe Pacific , profiles a new book on the struggle for independence in West Papua .
The 4300-km Trans-Papua Highway costing some US $ 1.4 billion was supposed to bring “ wealth , development and prosperity ” to the isolated regions of West Papua .
At least , that ’ s how the planners and politicians envisaged the highway far away in their Jakarta offices .
President Joko “ Jokowi ” Widodo is so enthusiastic about the project as a cornerstone for his infrastructure strategies that he had publicity photographs taken of him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highway .
But that isn ’ t how West Papuans see “ The Road ” .
In reality , writes Australian journalist John Martinkus in his new book The Road : Uprising in West Papua published this week , the highway brings military occupation by Indonesian troops , exploitation by foreign companies , environmental destruction and colonisation by Indonesian transmigrants .
“ The road would bring the death of their centuries-old way of life , previously undisturbed aside from the occasional Indonesian military incursion and the mostly welcome arrival of Christian missionaries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the plan by the Indonesian state to develop the isolated interior of the West Papua and Papua provinces would meet resistance.
” Nduga pro-independence stronghold The Nduga area in the rugged and isolated mountains north of Timika , near the giant Freeport copper and gold mine , has traditionally been a stronghold of pro-independence supporters .
For centuries the Dani and Nduga tribespeople had fought ritualistic battles against each other – and outsiders .
That is , until the Indonesians brought troops and military aircraft to the highlands that “ did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 December 2018 , a ceremony marking the declaration of independence from the Dutch in 1961 by raising the Morning Star flag of a free Papua – as Papuans do every year – ended in bloodshed .
Usually the flag waving – illegal as far the Indonesian authorities are concerned – goes unnoticed .
But the highway has now come to this remote village .
Indonesians took photos on their cellphones of the flag raising and this sparked the kidnapping of 19 road construction workers and a soldier ( although pro-independence sources argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact soldiers ) and they were shot dead .
The Indonesian military have carried out reprisal raids In the 18 months since then forcing some 45,000 people to flee their villages and become internal refugees .
Two thousand soldiers , helicopters and 650 commandos are involved in security operations and protecting the highway .
‘ Helicopters are the worst ’ “ It is the helicopters that are the worst .
They are used as platforms to shoot or drop white phosphorous grenades or bomblets that inflict horrible injuries on the populace , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realise the boast of the founding Indonesian President Sukarno for a unified nation – “ From Sabang to Merauke ” , is what he would chant to cheering rallies .
Sabang is in Aceh in the west of the republic and Merauke is in the south-east corner of Papua , just 60 km from the Papua New Guinean border .
The Indonesian generals , not wanting anything to interfere with their highway exploitation plans , have vowed to “ crush ” the resistance .
However , the contemporary Papuan rebels are better armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the earlier rebellion that followed the United Nations mandated , but flawed , “ Act of Free Choice ” in 1969 when 1026 handpicked men and women voted under duress to become part of Indonesia .
Martinkus , a four-time Walkley Award-nominated investigative journalist specialising in Asia and the Middle East , has travelled to both ends of this highway .
He reported in the early 2000s from West Papua until the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan became his major beats .
His earlier book A Dirty Little War exposed the hidden side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Road traverses the winding down of Dutch rule , early history of Indonesian colonialism in West Papua , the environmental and social devastation caused by the Grasberg mine , the petition to the United Nations , the Nduga crisis , the historic tabling of a 40 kg petition – 1.8 million signatures – by the United Liberation Movement for West Papua calling for a referendum on independence , the so-called 2019 “ monkey ” uprising that began as a student clash in the Java city of Surabaya and led to rioting across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tribute to journalists reporting Martinkus pays tribute to the handful of earlier journalists who have risked much to tell the story that Australian and New Zealand diplomats do not want to hear and has been denied by Indonesian authorities .
An ABC Foreign Correspondent programme , including West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor , last week was one of the rare exceptions .
Amnesty International has estimated that more than 100,000 Papuans have died since the Indonesian takeover .
Four Australian-based researchers have embarked on a new project to map the violence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s and the 90s , writers such George Monbiot ventured into the areas cleared out by the Indonesians [ for palm oil plantations and timber ] .
Robin Osborne also produced a landmark account of that time , ” he writes .
“ Filmmaker Mark Worth , photojournalist Ben Bohane and ABC-then-SBS reporter Mark Davis continued to try to cover events in West Papua .
Lindsay Murdoch of Fairfax provided excellent coverage of the massacre on the island of Biak , off the north coast of Papua.
” As in Timor-Leste , Martinkus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime in May 1998 provided a “ period of confusion among the military commanders on the ground ” .
“ They didn ’ t know if they could expel , arrest or kill journalists as they had in the past , and it created an environment where it was finally possible for reporters to get to previously inaccessible places and speak to people .
“ The turmoil in Jakarta had created a kind of stasis among the military commanders in the far-flung provinces.
” Nevertheless , the Indonesian military watched and waited – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissenters were .
Who to arrest and kill when political conditions became more helpful .
The Papuan story and gatekeepers Why has it been so difficult to tell the Papuan story – to get past the media gatekeepers ?
There are several reasons , according to Martinkus .
First , the daily oppression that West Papuan people face – and have faced for half a century – was of little interest to news editors .
“ But it [ is ] that daily fear , and the casual violence and intimidation , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Martinkus .
“ For Papuans it [ has ] become a way of life : constant intimidation and violence and extortion by the Indonesian military , punctuated by short , sharp moments of protest and resistance , followed by the inevitable crackdown.
” Martinkus recalls his experience of when reporting in East Timor , “ in order to get a story run you had to have more than 10 dead ; the daily grind of one shot there , one beating there , one arrest there , never made it into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forget the cynical words delivered down the phone by one Australian editor after I had wanted a man – a boy , really – shot dead in front of my eyes as I cowered in a ditch to avoid Indonesian gunfire in East Timor .
“ ’ So what are your plucky brown fellows up to today ?
’ he said .
He didn ’ t run the story.
” ‘ Cosy relationship ’ between Australia , Indonesia Another factor is the “ cosy relationship ” between Indonesia and Australia ( and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was tested in January 2006 when 43 Papuan asylum seekers beached in Cape York , Queensland .
They had sailed for five days from the southern coast of Papua to escape Indonesian “ genocide ” .
While they were detained on the remote Christmas Island centre for refugees , they were all – except one – eventually granted with a temporary visa .
Another reason for the media silence , according to Martinkus , is the “ lingering memory of the Balibo Five ” – the Australian-based journalists , including a New Zealander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Timor in 1975 .
“ They were killed in cold blood in the border town of Balibo as the Indonesians prepared to invade , and [ a sixth executed ] at the wharf in Dili on the first day of the invasion .
“ The ruthlessness of those killings , the utter disregard of any international norms and the spineless and reprehensible cover up of the circumstances of their deaths by both the Indonesian and Australian governments had spooked the journalists and media organisations .
“ If the Indonesians said you couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t go ; the assumption was that they would kill you and no one would intervene.
” Martinkus says that “ same attitude prevailed ” when he began reporting in Indonesia in the mid-1990s .
‘ Random killings , endless arrests ’ The author is critical of the “ centrist ” President Widodo who was elected in a landslide in 2014 – and for a second term last year – on a promise of a more relaxed policy on access to West Papua .
“ Six years later , the random @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue .
“ One recent video shows a Papuan man being bound the sliced with a large military knife as Indonesian troops stand around laughing .
“ Another shows a Papuan man restrained in a cell as Indonesian soldiers throw in a snake and take pictures of his terror.
” Martinkus questions the cruel rationale for the need of Indonesian soldiers and police to “ drip-feed appalling abuses ” on social media .
“ Is it some kind of warning to Papuans not to support independence , or just a symptom of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployed to Papua ?
” Martinkus believes that , in spite of the bravado and harsh treatments , Indonesians are “ fundamentally scared of the Papuans ” .
Although Indonesians have been in West Papua for more than 50 years , “ West Papua and its people are still very foreign to them.
” They have tried to create a society that is a “ mirror image of their own in a land they occupied against the wishes of the local population ” .
The attempt has failed , and the Papuans will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

David Robie, who also blogs at Cafe Pacific, profiles a new book on the struggle for independence in West Papua.
The 4300-km Trans-Papua Highway costing some US$1.4 billion was supposed to bring “wealth, development and prosperity” to the isolated regions of West Papua.
At least, that’s how the planners and politicians envisaged the highway far away in their Jakarta offices.
President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo is so enthusiastic about the project as a cornerstone for his infrastructure strategies that he had publicity photographs taken of him on his Kawasaki trail motorbike on the highway.
But that isn’t how West Papuans see “The Road”.
READ MORE: Indonesia’s development dilemmas – green info gap and budget pressure
In reality, writes Australian journalist John Martinkus in his new book The Road: Uprising in West Papua published this week, the highway brings military occupation by Indonesian troops, exploitation by foreign companies, environmental destruction and colonisation by Indonesian transmigrants.
“The road would bring the death of their centuries-old way of life, previously undisturbed aside from the occasional Indonesian military incursion and the mostly welcome arrival of Christian missionaries.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“It was inevitable, really, that the plan by the Indonesian state to develop the isolated interior of the West Papua and Papua provinces would meet resistance.”
Nduga pro-independence stronghold
The Nduga area in the rugged and isolated mountains north of Timika, near the giant Freeport copper and gold mine, has traditionally been a stronghold of pro-independence supporters.
For centuries the Dani and Nduga tribespeople had fought ritualistic battles against each other – and outsiders.
That is, until the Indonesians brought troops and military aircraft to the highlands that “did not play by these rules”.
On 1 December 2018, a ceremony marking the declaration of independence from the Dutch in 1961 by raising the Morning Star flag of a free Papua – as Papuans do every year – ended in bloodshed.
Usually the flag waving – illegal as far the Indonesian authorities are concerned – goes unnoticed. But the highway has now come to this remote village.
Indonesians took photos on their cellphones of the flag raising and this sparked the kidnapping of 19 road construction workers and a soldier (although pro-independence sources argue that many of the workers are in fact soldiers) and they were shot dead.
The Indonesian military have carried out reprisal raids In the 18 months since then forcing some 45,000 people to flee their villages and become internal refugees. Two thousand soldiers, helicopters and 650 commandos are involved in security operations and protecting the highway.
‘Helicopters are the worst’
“It is the helicopters that are the worst. They are used as platforms to shoot or drop white phosphorous grenades or bomblets that inflict horrible injuries on the populace,” writes Martinkus.
The Trans-Papua Highway would realise the boast of the founding Indonesian President Sukarno for a unified nation – “From Sabang to Merauke”, is what he would chant to cheering rallies.
Sabang is in Aceh in the west of the republic and Merauke is in the south-east corner of Papua, just 60 km from the Papua New Guinean border.
The Indonesian generals, not wanting anything to interfere with their highway exploitation plans, have vowed to “crush” the resistance. However, the contemporary Papuan rebels are better armed, better organised and more determined than the earlier rebellion that followed the United Nations mandated, but flawed, “Act of Free Choice” in 1969 when 1026 handpicked men and women voted under duress to become part of Indonesia.
Martinkus, a four-time Walkley Award-nominated investigative journalist specialising in Asia and the Middle East, has travelled to both ends of this highway. He reported in the early 2000s from West Papua until the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan became his major beats.
His earlier book A Dirty Little War exposed the hidden side to the Timor-Leste struggle for independence.
The Road traverses the winding down of Dutch rule, early history of Indonesian colonialism in West Papua, the environmental and social devastation caused by the Grasberg mine, the petition to the United Nations, the Nduga crisis, the historic tabling of a 40 kg petition – 1.8 million signatures – by the United Liberation Movement for West Papua calling for a referendum on independence, the so-called 2019 “monkey” uprising that began as a student clash in the Java city of Surabaya and led to rioting across Papua, and now the coronavirus outbreak.
Tribute to journalists reporting
Martinkus pays tribute to the handful of earlier journalists who have risked much to tell the story that Australian and New Zealand diplomats do not want to hear and has been denied by Indonesian authorities. An ABC Foreign Correspondent programme, including West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor, last week was one of the rare exceptions.
Amnesty International has estimated that more than 100,000 Papuans have died since the Indonesian takeover. Four Australian-based researchers have embarked on a new project to map the violence in West Papua.
“Eventually in the 1980s and the 90s, writers such George Monbiot ventured into the areas cleared out by the Indonesians [for palm oil plantations and timber]. Robin Osborne also produced a landmark account of that time,” he writes.
“Filmmaker Mark Worth, photojournalist Ben Bohane and ABC-then-SBS reporter Mark Davis continued to try to cover events in West Papua. Lindsay Murdoch of Fairfax provided excellent coverage of the massacre on the island of Biak, off the north coast of Papua.”
As in Timor-Leste, Martinkus recalls, the fall of the Suharto regime in May 1998 provided a “period of confusion among the military commanders on the ground”.
“They didn’t know if they could expel, arrest or kill journalists as they had in the past, and it created an environment where it was finally possible for reporters to get to previously inaccessible places and speak to people.
“The turmoil in Jakarta had created a kind of stasis among the military commanders in the far-flung provinces.”
Nevertheless, the Indonesian military watched and waited – and noted and recorded who the Papuan dissenters were. Who to arrest and kill when political conditions became more helpful.
The Papuan story and gatekeepers
Why has it been so difficult to tell the Papuan story – to get past the media gatekeepers? There are several reasons, according to Martinkus.
First, the daily oppression that West Papuan people face – and have faced for half a century – was of little interest to news editors.
“But it [is] that daily fear, and the casual violence and intimidation, that [is] the story,” says Martinkus.
“For Papuans it [has] become a way of life: constant intimidation and violence and extortion by the Indonesian military, punctuated by short, sharp moments of protest and resistance, followed by the inevitable crackdown.”
Martinkus recalls his experience of when reporting in East Timor, “in order to get a story run you had to have more than 10 dead; the daily grind of one shot there, one beating there, one arrest there, never made it into the press.
“I’ll never forget the cynical words delivered down the phone by one Australian editor after I had watched a man – a boy, really – shot dead in front of my eyes as I cowered in a ditch to avoid Indonesian gunfire in East Timor.
“’So what are your plucky brown fellows up to today?’ he said. He didn’t run the story.”
‘Cosy relationship’ between Australia, Indonesia
Another factor is the “cosy relationship” between Indonesia and Australia (and New Zealand) and Martinkus describes how this was tested in January 2006 when 43 Papuan asylum seekers beached in Cape York, Queensland. They had sailed for five days from the southern coast of Papua to escape Indonesian “genocide”.
While they were detained on the remote Christmas Island centre for refugees, they were all – except one – eventually granted with a temporary visa.
Another reason for the media silence, according to Martinkus, is the “lingering memory of the Balibo Five” – the Australian-based journalists, including a New Zealander, who met their fate in East Timor in 1975.
“They were killed in cold blood in the border town of Balibo as the Indonesians prepared to invade, and [a sixth executed] at the wharf in Dili on the first day of the invasion.
“The ruthlessness of those killings, the utter disregard of any international norms and the spineless and reprehensible cover up of the circumstances of their deaths by both the Indonesian and Australian governments had spooked the journalists and media organisations.
“If the Indonesians said you couldn’t go to an area, you didn’t go; the assumption was that they would kill you and no one would intervene.”
Martinkus says that “same attitude prevailed” when he began reporting in Indonesia in the mid-1990s.
‘Random killings, endless arrests’
The author is critical of the “centrist” President Widodo who was elected in a landslide in 2014 – and for a second term last year – on a promise of a more relaxed policy on access to West Papua.
“Six years later, the random killings, endless arrests and egregious torture continue.
“One recent video shows a Papuan man being bound the sliced with a large military knife as Indonesian troops stand around laughing.
“Another shows a Papuan man restrained in a cell as Indonesian soldiers throw in a snake and take pictures of his terror.”
Martinkus questions the cruel rationale for the need of Indonesian soldiers and police to “drip-feed appalling abuses” on social media.
“Is it some kind of warning to Papuans not to support independence, or just a symptom of the moral vacuum they enter once they are deployed to Papua?”
Martinkus believes that, in spite of the bravado and harsh treatments, Indonesians are “fundamentally scared of the Papuans”.
Although Indonesians have been in West Papua for more than 50 years, “West Papua and its people are still very foreign to them.” They have tried to create a society that is a “mirror image of their own in a land they occupied against the wishes of the local population”.
The attempt has failed, and the Papuans will never stop resisting until they are free.