'Look Busy – The People Are Angry' In The Face Of Genocide – Government Brings Shame On Us All
Press Release – Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa
The government's decision to sanction Israeli cabinet ministers is a cynical diversionary gesture, according to the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa.
New Zealand has joined the UK, Australia, Canada, and Norway in banning the entry of Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
PSNA Co-Chair, Maher Nazzal, says the just announced move is simply to placate New Zealanders angry at the government's complicity with the mass killing of Palestinians and deliberate starvation of Occupied Gaza.
'The New Zealand government statement was quite explicit that the sanctions were 'not designed to sanction the wider Israeli government' of which Ben-Gvir and Smotrich are ministers.'
'The New Zealand government's official statement is laying the blame for Israeli barbarity on just two ministers. Our government is pretending that they alone are responsible for the military violence in the Gaza Strip, and Israel's annexation of Palestinian land, expanding settlements, and forced displacement.'
'All these war crimes are supported and stated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. These measures are all being carried out by the Israeli government. These two ministers are quite rabid, but they are not just freelancers or 'bad apples'.'
'Netanyahu himself is wanted for trial on war crimes charges, so why does he escape the travel ban?'
Nazzal says Ben-Gvir and Smotrich would never plan to come to New Zealand anyway.
'The last time such an individual visited in 2006 the Auckland District Court issued a warrant for his arrest to face war crime charges.' (That was Israeli General Moshe Ya'alon – the 'Butcher of Qana'. The warrant was quashed by the then Attorney-General Michael Cullen)
'Even if the government sanctioned the entire Israeli cabinet, it would be meaningless.'
'Israel has made Gaza hell on earth for Palestinians, and is making it worse by the hour. We should be cutting trade ties – including military technology, which might be finding its way to Israel, or sending up satellites from Mahia used by Israel to spy on Gaza.
'New Zealand has bilateral agreements with Israel over science and movie-making. They should stop.'
'The government needs to ban Israeli soldiers coming here for genocide holidays, instead of Winston Peters going out of his way to welcome them.'
'And it goes without saying that the Israeli ambassador should be booted out.'
Nazzal says the forced starvation in Gaza has reached a crisis point.
'The choice for the international community is stark. Let tens of thousands starve to death in the next few weeks, or impose a no-fly zone over Gaza and provide military protection for UNRWA aid convoys.'
'In that context, by limiting the travel options for two Israeli politicians our government feels like it's conveying a message of 'Look busy – New Zealanders are angry, we must be seen to be doing something, but really, we don't care.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
So, when the music's over, turn out the lights, turn out the lights
What song is David Seymour dancing to, Sir Ian Taylor asks. I have to confess, I underestimated David Seymour. Like many, I was distracted by the sequins. The man who tangoed into our living rooms on Dancing with the Stars . More jester than artist. A novelty act in lycra. But back then we kept him in the game long after the judges had given up on him. And we have done it again. We have allowed Seymour to dance his way into the second-most powerful position in the country, wielding power far beyond the mandate given by his 8.6% share of the public vote. And he has wasted no time laying out his vision. A week before stepping into the role of deputy prime minister, Seymour offered this reflection in the Listener on the state of the world, and the ideology he believes brought us here: "At the end of the day, people have never lived this long, this happy, this healthy, this free from violence, this prosperous and well-nourished. I think the jury is in, and liberalism won. Our job is to keep expanding those spheres of liberty." This was classic Seymour. Sharp, certain, self-congratulatory and completely at odds with the world we see unravelling around us. " ... people have never lived this long, this happy, this healthy, this free from violence, this prosperous, this well-nourished ... " — this is not just tone deaf. It is detached from the reality that confronts a growing number of New Zealanders every day. When a political leader declares victory on behalf of a system clearly failing so many, both here and abroad, he is not just ignoring reality, he is giving permission for that failure to continue. Ironically, the vision Seymour now claims as reality was first built by a libertarian, Richard Seddon, who, in the 1890s, laid the groundwork for New Zealand's welfare state, introducing old-age pensions and protections for workers. By the 1930s, under Michael Joseph Savage, we became global leaders in social policy. The Social Security Act delivered universal superannuation, unemployment and sickness benefits, state housing, free healthcare, strong unions and full employment. The world looked to us as a bold example of what a compassionate democracy could achieve when it put people's wellbeing at the heart of policy. Growing up in the 1950s and '60s, I was a beneficiary of many of these policies. I lived in a warm state house and began school at the Raupunga Native School (yes, that's what they were called), where truancy was rare, probably because all our parents had jobs. I gained a free university degree and entered a job market where unemployment was virtually zero. If Seymour's vision ever existed, it was then. It is clearly not the case today. So, what is the "liberalism" that Seymour claims as the winner? Putting aside the vagaries of an electoral system that gifted him Epsom in 2014 and which now lets him wield disproportionate influence with just 8.6% of the vote, we have to ask: where do his ideas come from? To answer that, we need to look beyond his upbringing in the far north, beyond the whakapapa that ties him to this land. We need to look to Canada. This was where Seymour worked as a policy analyst for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) from 2006 to 2010. The FCPP is a right-wing collective publicly associated with climate change denial, free market ideology, deregulation, privatisation and cuts to public spending. Sound familiar? Just four years after leaving the FCPP, Seymour became Act New Zealand's leader. His colleagues back in Canada have taken keen interest in his rise to power. In 2023, in a gushy press release after the new coalition government was announced, the president of the FCPP proclaimed: "The winds of political change are sweeping across New Zealand as David Seymour, leader of the Act Party, brings a renewed emphasis on classical liberal values ... . The Act Party's principle-driven approach is evident in its opposition to identity politics, specifically regarding special benefits for the Maori community." That specific reference to Māori can be placed in context by views recently shared with Mahinerangi Forbes (RNZ) by Prof Tom Flanagan, chairman of the FCPP's Aboriginal Governance Board. In answer to a question on indigenous rights, he replied: "There is a difference between civilised and non-civilised people, what used to be called savagery, although we can't use that term today. Civilised people are, in the long run, more powerful than uncivilised people, so the task of the government today is not to indulge in continual breast beating about colonialism but to invite people whose ancestors lacked these elements of civilisation into the tent. Call that assimilation if you like. But it has to happen." That idea was echoed here in New Zealand in 2017 by a group called 1Law4All who distributed flyers declaring: "Māori have benefited from colonisation lifting them out of a violent stone-age existence." To be clear, Seymour has rejected this radical view. He does, after all, trace whakapapa back to the early voyagers we both share as tupuna. But the neoliberal notion of "one law for all" remains central to his argument on te Tiriti. He claims it is not racist. I guess he sees it as an invitation into the tent. His tent. And despite his latest protestations about computer bots, Seymour must have known his Treaty Principles Bill was going nowhere. His dancing partners in the coalition had made that clear. But this is where Seymour performs best. I believe the Bill was his lycra outfit, costing taxpayers millions, but meant to distract us from the real prize: the Regulatory Standards Bill. This Bill is Seymour's rewrite of the legislative rulebook. Framed as neutral and technical, it is anything but. Beneath its bland title lies a blunt instrument. One that can be used to strike out laws that honour te Tiriti o Waitangi, protect the environment or support collective wellbeing. One law for all, but only if it fits the script Seymour began writing in a Canadian neoliberal think-tank, years ago. And, on the day his colleagues clashed in the chamber over the Te Pāti Māori haka ruling, Seymour, the man who lit this particular fire, had left the tent. He was on a new dance floor at Oxford University, in the land of Queen Victoria, the Crown's signatory to te Tiriti, dancing his Treaty tango. The question we have to ask ourselves is: when the music stops, who will be left to face the consequences? ■Sir Ian Taylor is founder and managing director of Animation Research Ltd.
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Kāinga Ora to use wool carpet in new state homes
Kāinga Ora has announced it will use wool carpet in new state homes from July, following a directive that government agencies use wool in the construction and refurbishment of their buildings. The change in procurement rules, to make wool the preferred option in government buildings, was a directive to about 130 agencies in April and takes effect from July. On Wednesday, the state housing provider announced it would follow suit, with 4500 new state houses expected to be fitted out in the next three years. The return of wool carpets to state homes was welcomed by Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis and Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson at Fieldays the same day. "The decision is great news for sheep farmers, and all the New Zealanders whose jobs and incomes are tied to the fortunes of our world-leading wool industry," Willis said. ADVERTISEMENT The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including passengers stuck on ferry overnight, new flights to Sydney coming, and the weirdest things we leave in Ubers. (Source: 1News) She said the Government wanted wool producers to have more opportunities to supply woollen products to the construction industry "wherever practical and appropriate". "Kāinga Ora's new supplier agreement was made possible because the agency chose to re-open an initially nylon-only carpet tender and give wool a chance to compete. "I'm told woollen carpet manufacturers responded very strongly to that opportunity and that the new carpet supply agreements come with no additional cost." The new procurement requirements covered government-owned buildings that cost $9 million or more, and refurbishments of more than $100,000. A spokesperson said the total value of the Kāinga Ora contract was commercially sensitive and couldn't be disclosed. Nicola Willis speaks to media at Parliament on May 6. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT They said some contracts for carpet in homes had already been let, but under the new supply agreement newly contracted fit-outs would be met through the wool-carpet supply contract. Where nylon carpet had already been installed in existing homes Kāinga Ora would continue to use nylon carpet for single room or smaller patch repairs. Willis said the message was clear. "When wool was put back on the table it more than held its own, delivering value for taxpayers and a win for sheep farmers." She said the new policy directed government agencies to identify opportunities to use woollen products, and to properly consider a range of factors in procurement including whole-of-life cost, sustainability and health benefits. "We're leveraging government spending to back the wool industry and the New Zealand economy. I hope private businesses will follow our lead." A new Kāinga Ora home in Richmond, August 2023. Photo: RNZ / Samantha Gee (Source: ADVERTISEMENT She previously said natural qualities allowed wool to dampen sound and absorb pollutants, while woollen fibres contributed to healthier indoor environments by naturally regulating humidity and improving air quality. Patterson said the move continued to deliver on a New Zealand First and National Party coalition agreement to prefer woollen fibres in government buildings. "Woollen fibres create safer, healthier and more sustainable living environments for families." He said the sector contributed $549m to the economy in the financial year ending 2024 from exporting processed and unprocessed wool products. "The Government is determined to help lift the fortunes of the strong wool sector in supporting our sheep farmers."
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
A Bold Dream Gets A Cut As Predator Free 2050 Ltd Is Disestablished
Article – RNZ Predator Free 2050 was hit by a budget blow, and now the 'moonshot' goal is under threat, for The Detail The environmental sector worries that the future of a predator-free Aotearoa is in jeopardy after the Government swung the axe in the latest budget. It was billed as a 'moonshot' for New Zealand's environment – a bold, world-leading goal launched by Sir John Key in 2016, aimed at eradicating rats, possums and stoats from our islands by 2050. The vision has been clear – bring back birdsong to every valley, protect the flightless kiwi, and restore what once thrived. But today, the future of Predator Free 2050 looks uncertain. Predator Free 2050 Ltd, the Crown-owned company established to drive and fund large-scale eradication and breakthrough science, is now being disestablished, as announced as part of Budget 2025. Funding for the company will cease by the end of the year, with its responsibilities shifted to the Department of Conservation (DOC), which the government says will reduce duplication, increase efficiency and save about $12 million. 'People are now worried for this programme,' Newsroom environment editor David Williams tells The Detail. 'They say without ongoing funding, we will not only not go forward, but we will go backwards. This programme needs funding, and that's up to the government.' The government insists the broader goal of predator eradication remains. But Dr Kayla Kingdon-Bebb, chief executive of WWF New Zealand, is not entirely convinced. 'New Zealanders believe in the Predator Free 2050 dream, and we want the government to get behind them too. But I'm not sure this will happen. 'I've not been seeing a lot of enthusiasm for environmental outcomes from this government, full stop. We describe the government's policy agenda as a war on nature, and I think it is disappointing that a previous National government got so strongly behind this moonshot objective, and this government does not seem to care so much.' Both Williams and Kingdon-Bebb say the country has 'overwhelmingly' backed the Predator Free 2050 initiative, allowing it to 'come a long way, in a relatively short time'. Already, predator-elimination projects cover more than 800,000 hectares. 'This is a big amount of land,' says Williams. 'And the goal is big … but they have done well. 'They also said they wanted to fund scientific research, and 15 or 20 projects have already had money to try and sort this problem out. 'A lot of community groups have latched on to this – someone said to me that this is the one conservation project that has captured the imagination of New Zealanders more than any other.' Kingdon-Bebb agrees. 'It has certainly captured the hearts and minds like nothing else,' she says. 'We have seen an explosion of community trapping groups and landscape-scale projects over the last nine years, which has been amazing … now I feel the government is taking its foot off the pedal. 'What is apparent is that the government has had a look at the delivery model of the programme as a whole, which is complex. 'So, if it is the case that the government has reviewed it and determined that a crown-owned corporation is not the best delivery methodology, I can accept that. 'DOC has a lot of capability … and perhaps it is appropriate for DOC to be coordinating this work, perhaps there was duplication of roles and functions and costs. 'But where I would be concerned is that in the wider scale of what has happened in the last two budgets, the Department of Conservation will see, in total, about 300 million dollars in savings exacted from it. 'So, it does beg the question whether a very stretched department can pick up the leadership of this initiative in a way we would want to see it done.' Critics say that move will slow momentum, bury innovation under bureaucracy and confuse local projects already stretched thin. They also argue that across the country, hundreds of predator-free community groups, many driven by volunteers, will be left wondering what support will look like without the company's funding, research backing and strategic oversight. But the government insists the predator-free projects and contracts funded by the company are not affected and it is committed to the predator-free 2050 goal.
