IINZ Calls For Resignation Of Peter Davis From Helen Clark Foundation Over Antisemitism Comments
The Israel Institute of New Zealand is calling for Professor Peter Davis to step down as trustee of the Helen Clark Foundation following his recent comments dismissing the seriousness of antisemitic graffiti discovered in Wellington.
The graffiti was widely condemned by community leaders and human rights advocates. However, Davis, in a public social media post, appeared to downplay the incident or even justify it, writing 'you reap what you sow'.
'At a time when Jewish communities are feeling increasingly vulnerable, this kind of response from a high-profile public figure is deeply irresponsible,' said Dr David Cumin, spokesperson for the Institute. 'Antisemitism is not a political football. It is a real and rising threat that demands unequivocal condemnation.'
The call for Davis's resignation is especially urgent given his role as a trustee of a foundation that seeks to influence public policy. The Helen Clark Foundation recently released a report on social cohesion in Aotearoa New Zealand, highlighting the importance of inclusive leadership and the dangers of racial and religious scapegoating. Davis's dismissive remarks directly contradict those values.
'You cannot claim to champion social cohesion while minimising or rationalising antisemitic hate,' the Institute said. 'Social trust depends on moral consistency, especially from those in leadership. Peter Davis's actions erode that trust.'
The Israel Institute of New Zealand is urging the Helen Clark Foundation to take a public stance against antisemitism and to reaffirm its commitment to inclusivity by appointing new leadership.
'There must be zero tolerance for hate in any form,' the statement concluded. 'If the Foundation is to maintain its credibility, Professor Davis must resign.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Bad Old Habits: Israel Backs Palestinian Militias In Gaza
It is one of those things that should be recorded and replayed for eternity: Israel, in order to guard some misplaced sense of security, happily backs Palestinian groups in order to divide themselves. Hamas, seen now as an existential monster, was tolerated and even supported for lengthy stints in efforts to undermine the various factions in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation represented by Fatah. In his 2008 work, Hamas vs. Fatah, Jonathan Schanzer, writes how the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the inspirational font for Hamas, was seen as an opportunity by the Israelis when taking root in Gaza. 'By the late 1970s, the Israelis believed that they had found Fatah's Achilles' heel.' Israeli strategy permitted the Brotherhood to thrive, going so far as to allow the cleric Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to operate a network of welfare, medical and education services. These had been sorely neglected by Fatah in the Gaza Strip. This approach effectively licensed the emergence of fundamentalism, seen, curiously enough, as more manageable than the military adventurism of the PLO. The First Intifada in 1987 spurred on the creation by Yassin and his followers of Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya ('Islamic Resistance Movement'). The 1988 charter of the organisation we know as Hamas, more youthful, and leaner, and hungrier than their Fatah rivals, made its purpose clear: 'There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad'. In 2009, while surveying the ruins of a neighbour's bungalow in Moshav Tekuma, the retired Israeli officer Avner Cohen, who had served in Gaza for over two decades, was rueful. 'Hamas, to my regret,' he told the Wall Street Journal, 'is Israel's creation.' Sustenance and encouragement from the Jewish state had effectively emboldened a mortal enemy. Such a record should chasten wise legislators and leaders. But the only lesson history teaches is that its grave lessons are left unlearned, with disastrous, inimical mistakes made anew. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is proof of that contention. His various governments proudly backed the policy of division between the Gaza Strip and West Bank, defanging Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the latter while propping up Hamas in the former. Every now and then, the Israeli Defense Forces would keep Hamas in bloody check, a strategy that came to be called 'mowing the grass'. Israel's support for Hamas has come in the form of work permits (up to 3,000 granted to Gazans in 2021, rising to 10,000 during the Bennett-Lapid government), and suitcases, heavy with Qatari cash, entering the Strip through crossings since 2018. In 2019, Netanyahu was quoted as telling a Likud faction meeting that opponents of a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Hamas. Five years prior, Bezalel Smotrich, the current firebrand, pro-ethnic cleansing Finance Minister, declared with candour that 'The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset.' With Hamas now the target and sworn enemy, the PM feels that the same, failed experiment adopted at stages since the 1970s can be replicated: backing and encouraging yet another group of Palestinians to undermine any sovereign cause. The central figure and beneficiary of this latest folly is the shady Yasser Abu Shabab, a Rafah resident from a Bedouin family known for a spotty criminal record. Calling itself the 'Anti-Terror Service' or the Popular Forces, and possessing assault rifles and equipment seized from Hamas, his 'clan', as reports have described it, has a committed record of looting humanitarian aid in Gaza. In Netanyahu's eyes, these rapacious poachers have turned into opportunistic game keepers, partially guarding the paltry aid that is currently being sent into Gaza under the supervision of the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Georgios Petropoulos, a senior United Nations official based in Gaza last year, calls Abu Shabab 'the self-styled power broker of east Rafah.' For his part, Abu Shabab admits to looting aid trucks, but only 'so we can eat, not so we can sell.' The looting proclivities of such groups is well noted, with the head of the UN office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs in occupied Palestinian territories, Jonathan Whittall, making a damning accusation on May 28: 'The real theft of aid since the beginning of the war has been carried out by criminal gangs, under the watch of Israeli forces, and they were allowed to operate in proximity to the Kerem Shalom crossing point in Gaza.' On May 21, Abu Shabab's group posted on Facebook that '92 trucks were secured and entered areas under the protection of our popular forces, and exited safely under our supervision.' Details on which organisation was behind hiring the transporting vehicles were not given. With rumours bubbling that the Israeli government had embarked on this latest course of action, Netanyahu came clean. 'On the advice of security officials, we activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas,' he announced in a posted video with usual, glowing cynicism. 'What's wrong with that?' The strategy 'only saves the lives of Israeli soldiers and publicising this only benefits Hamas.' The advice purportedly given by Shin Bet to Netanyahu to arm Gaza militias opposed to Hamas was an expedient measure, largely occasioned by the PM's continued refusal to involve the Palestinian Authority in the strip. Not all Israeli lawmakers were impressed by Netanyahu's latest effort at supposed cleverness. Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats in the Knesset, condemned him as a threat to Israeli security. 'Instead of bringing about a deal, making arrangements with the moderate Sunni axis, and returning the hostages and security of Israeli citizens, he is creating a new ticking bomb in Gaza.' The leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, Avigdor Lieberman, is of the view that the transfer of weapons to Abu Shabab's outfit was done unilaterally. 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with the Islamic State group,' he told the public broadcaster Kan. 'To my knowledge, this did not go through approval by the cabinet.' With humanitarian aid now at the mercy of a group scorned by UN officials, humanitarian workers and certain Israeli politicians – a rare coming together of minds – the next round of errors is playing out with rich, quixotic stupidity. Israel further adds to its own insecurity, while Abu Shabab knows all too well the views of his family, expressed in chilling statement: 'We affirm that we will not accept Yasser's return to the family. We have no objection to those around him liquidating him immediately, and we tell you that his blood is forfeit.'
Kiwiblog
5 days ago
- Kiwiblog
Maybe it is time for a Korea type partition for Gaza?
I am a resolute defender of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state (as are all two state solution proponents), and of its right to defend itself after the terrible 7 October attacks which saw civilians, women, children tortured, raped and murdered. A huge amount of the criticism of Israel's response has been hysterical and illegitimate. Those who label it genocide just wish to smear Israel, and make the Holocaust seem less uniquely evil. No country in the world would not respond with ferocity and military might to an attack like October 7. However being a defender of the right of Israel to respond, doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the Netanyahu Government does. While many of the attacks on the response are bad faith, there is considerable division inside Israel about whether the continued military action is a good idea. The way you can tell a good faith criticism from a bad faith criticism is often by whom the criticism is targeted at. If they refer to Zionists of the State of Israel, it is almost always bad faith. If they refer to the Netanyahu Government, then it is more likely to be good faith – recognising Governments take actions that not everyone in a country supports. I am now one of those who finds it hard to see a coherent strategic end game from the Netanyahu Government. I can't honestly say that I see a military strategy that will result in a safer Israel. Look there are no easy options. The longer the military action goes on, the more Palestine civilians get killed, and the more future terrorists you end up with. But leaving Hamas in power isn't a great idea either. However the ratio of legitimate targets to collateral damage is getting uncomfortably high. One solution I have been toying with, is to abandon Gaza entirely. Don't just have one wall, but have a massive DMZ like between North and South Korea. Build two massive walls around a km apart, and have the space in between littered with mines so no attacks can be made through the DMZ. This would mean abandoning the policy of allowing people to cross from Palestinian territory into Israel for work. It was a noble goal that boost incomes through employment, and working together would lead to peaceful co-existence. Around 200,000 Palestinians were able to cross into Israel every day to work. Peace through prosperity gas failed as a strategy though. If Hamas remains in Gaza, you can't have border crossings. So build a huge DMZ to secure Israel's border with Gaza. Drop bombs on it every so often to take out any attempted tunnels. That will prevent another 7 October. Sure there may still be missile attacks from Gaza, but you just retaliate to those as they occur (as you do with the Houthi etc). So I am no longer convinced that the current military strategy of the Netanyahu Government is justified. If 21 months of military attacks hasn't got rid of Hamas, then how confident are you another six months will? Or another 12 months or 24 months? Do you have continual war? But returning to pre-October 7 settings is not an option either. I think you need to be pragmatic and say that peaceful co-existence is off the agenda for decades. Therefore Israel should effectively recognise Gaza as part of a Palestinian State, and build a huge DMZ to prevent any crossings between Israel and Gaza. This is not an ideal solution, but it works in Korea and has kept the peace for decades.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Scoop
Postscript On Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide And New Zealand Recognition Of Palestine
My last Political Bytes post (28 May) discussed why New Zealand should officially recognise the state of Palestine: New Zealand should recognise Palestinian state. The heading I gave the post was Reasons for supporting ethnic cleansing, through genocide, in Palestine. This was my attempt at irony; by exploring the reasons that underpin the support for the genocidal ethnic cleansing in order to rebut them. Broadly speaking it appeared to work although, for some, it raised some eyebrows of initial confusion; was I actually supporting ethnic cleansing. It also generated two particularly thoughtful responses that deserve further comment. The first concerned Jews who are horrified over, and vehemently opposed to, Israel's war against Palestinians, particularly in Gaza but also the occupied West Bank. The second involved the two-state solution proposal. Both are worthy of further consideration. Jews against ethnic cleansing (and genocide) Dr David Galler is a retired intensive care specialist who spent most of his medical career in Middlemore Hospital. He was also a longstanding National Executive member of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (including as Vice President and President) while I was its Executive Director. Today he is actively involved in Healthcare Aotearoa with its strong focus on public (population) heath and is a health commentator. Dr David Galler outraged by genocide pursued in the name of Jews like him Coincidentally Dr Galler emailed the Israeli Embassy in New Zealand the day before my above-mentioned post. I reprint it below (with his express permission): I am Jewish My parents were Polish Jews My mother was a child in Auschwitz and survived the Death March She lost her family in the Katowice ghetto and at Auschwitz She arrived in Haifa in 1947 My father escaped Poland in 1939 but lost most of his family and married my mother in Tel Aviv My great father was the Chief Rabbi of Poland I am writing to express my utter disgust at Israel's vile and horrific genocide in Gaza Say what you will, but there's no excuse for what you are doing there – you have destroyed any good will the world had for you and the plight of my ancestors. You have brutalised your own population and actively stoked the fires of antisemitism across the world How dare your PM, a man who has done more damage to Israel than the Palestinians ever could, and your state accuse people like me of antisemitism for criticising your disregard for international law and human rights. Shame on you and shame on your government. David Galler Jews opposed to Zionism is not new Opposition among Jews to Zionism is not new. On 15 March I posted in Political Bytes about the relationship between apartheid and Zionism: When Apartheid met Zionism. Jewish immigration to South Africa from the late 19th century brought two powerful competing ideas to from Eastern Europe. One was Zionism while the other was the Bundists with a strong radical commitment to justice. It is easy to forget that historically speaking, since Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ, Zionism is a relatively new ideology. Further, Jewish opposition to Israel is as old as Zionism itself. A critical turning point in my understanding of Palestine and Israel was reading Maxime Rodinson's Israel and the Arabs first published in 1968. Rodinson was from a Jewish family (his father was a prominent Bundist leader). His central argument was that the Israel-Palestinian conflict was essentially …the struggle of an indigenous population against the occupation of its normal territory by foreigners… I was also struck by his clarifying explanation of the word 'semitic.' The common perception is that semitic refers to the Hebrew language. In fact, it also includes the Arabic language. In other words, Palestinians are as semitic as Jews, but Zionism has monopolised the use of the term to apply exclusively to the latter. Joseph Massad, of Christian Palestinian origin and from Jordan, is Professor of Modern Arab Politics at New York's Columbia University. In Middle East Eye (29 February 2024) he reports that European and American Jews have been at the forefront of opposition to Zionism since its birth as a colonial-settler movement at the end of the 19th century: Jewish opposition to Zionist Israel is as old as Zionism itself. Witness this article published in the UK Jewish News (16 April) on the critical views of some Jewish leaders to Israel's conduct in Gaza now: UK Jewish leaders oppose Israel's war in Gaza. It is noteworthy that many Jews are at the forefront of the large protests over Israel's war against Palestinians in Gaza (and oppression of Palestinians on the West Bank) throughout the world, including New Zealand. It is hardly surprising that David Galler is so frustrated and angry. Ethnic cleansing through genocide is being justified in the name of his ethnicity. The extremist Israeli government has weaponised antisemitism to apply to genocide in his and many other Jews names. Two-state solution: a delusion? The second response came from retired journalist John Trezise who publishes on his Kiwis website. He posted the following: New Zealand should recognise Palestinian statehood as an expression of solidarity with the Palestinians in their struggle for equal rights against the Zionists and their apartheid state Israel. However, I agree with Gideon Levy that the possibility of a Palestinian state becoming a reality is long gone: 'The two-state solution died a long time ago, unfortunately, and it cannot be revived in the present circumstances. We have a government that in the last 15 years did anything possible to destroy this solution; it was destroyed. There are 7,00,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank who will never be replaced or evacuated. Without their evacuation, there is no room, no physical room for a Palestinian state, not for a viable one. Therefore, I think it's time to stop dreaming about the two-state solution. The only vision left, except for an apartheid state, is obviously a democracy between the river and the sea. I don't see any other alternative. It's a long way to go, but at least let's start talking about it. Let's start dreaming about it. Let's start realising that the only choice now is between an apartheid state between the river and the sea or a democracy between the river and the sea.' His quote from Gideon Levy is important. Levy is an Israeli journalist and author. He writes opinion pieces and a weekly column for the newspaper Haaretz that often focus on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Levy is a courageous journalist who truly practices truth to power. He has won prizes for his articles on human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories. In 2021 he won Israel's top award for journalism. In short, I agree with what he says in the above quote forwarded by John Trezise. Levy was right to advocate starting a conversation over a democratic one-state solution from the Jordanian River to the Mediterranean. That is what British Mandate Palestine was (minus the democratic bit) before 1948. Subsequently, but still decades ago, Fatah advocated a secular democratic Palestine on the same landmass as under the Mandate. I agreed with this position then and still do, despite how inconceivable this appears in this moment of historical time. Interestingly, when he was close to Fatah 'back in the day' (when this organisation was dominant among Palestinians) Palestinian intellectual Edward Said advocated a two-state solution. It was rejected by Fatah at the time. However, Said promoted it on a more robust geographic basis than what the Oslo Accords subsequently provided for. He saw his proposal as providing the basis for discussion on transitioning to the single state idea. Rightly so Said was a strong critic of the Oslo Accords because it was well short of this objective. Instead, they resembled the infamous and racist 'Bantustans' of apartheid South Africa. Recognising Palestinian Territories as a sovereign country could be the starting point for a wider conversation about the future of Israel and Palestine My support for New Zealand recognising the Palestinian Territories as the official state of Palestine, however, was in the context of a small step in the right direction towards Gideon Levy's above-mentioned conversation and the importance of solidarity with the victims of repression in one territory and genocide in the other. Final word I will leave the final word to Don Carson who has been persistently and cogently advocating for Palestinian rights since the 1970s. An email he sent me after reading my post prompted this postscript. In his words: Great piece Ian, especially the historical context and demography Only issue I would have is that sanctions on Israel should be the priority; IDF [Israel Defence Force] visitors Close the Embassy Trade and bilateral Suspend Israel from the UN I could not agree more. Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
