Latest news with #PoliticalBytes
Scoop
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
David Seymour And The Political Left
If there was a most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog ( TDB ). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion … If there was a 'most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking' award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog (TDB). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion and a strong sense of both justice and outrage towards injustice. For me he has been an acquired taste. It took a while and had its moments, but the acquiring proved to be a fascinating journey with the taste acquisition destination reached. I have also appreciated that he republishes my health system (Otaihanga Second Opinion) and politics (Political Bytes) blogs in TDB. He doesn't pull his punches. Occasionally he misses his target but more often he succeeds. He never leaves one wondering what he means. More importantly he invariably raises serious questions which deserve to be addressed. A recent case in point was his 3 July post concerning the challenge of ACT leader and current Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour to the political left in Aotearoa New Zealand: Can the left beat David Seymour and ACT. There are few questions more politically pertinent than this. As Bradbury observes, Seymour has, since 2014, taken ACT from less than 1% to, depending on which poll, a little under or over 10%. However, I have two points of disagreement – TDB's comments on 'woke' and what it means by being leftwing. 'Woke', identity politics and the absence of nuance TDB attributes in part David Seymour's and ACT's relative electoral success to the left allowing itself to be distracted by what it calls 'middle class woke Identity Politics'. I discussed this disagreement over 'woke' in an earlier post (9 October 2023): Structure and superstructure. I considered Bomber Bradbury's then published views on 'woke' too blunt and lacking nuance. Instead I advocated that identity and class politics are better understood in the context of the relationship between structure and superstructure. My criticism was that his argument: …counterposes economic discrimination and oppression to its other forms; it's either class or identity politics! This approach ignores nuance, complexity and layered relationships. In fact, these politics have overlapping layers. The use of the terms 'structure' and 'superstructure' are helpful in this respect. In this context the structure based on the mode and relations of production. Class is defined by its relationship to this production mode. The superstructure, on the other hand, incorporates the various belief systems and ideologies that help rationalise what people do and think (and why), including the law, education systems and religion. This superstructure also includes other forms of discrimination and oppression such as race, sex, sexual orientation and transgender. Sometimes it also includes religion. They exist in a largely capitalist world. But they aren't products of capitalism. They existed in earlier forms of class societies for centuries. It is legitimate to locate them in a superstructure but with an important qualification. To differing degrees, they interact with the underlying structure. Sometimes it is to the extent that it becomes difficult to differentiate. It is these 'superstructural' forms of discrimination and oppression that get labelled as identity politics. The point is not so much the label but whether they are counterposed to class discrimination and oppression or run alongside it, sometimes reinforcing and interactively. A word that should never have been invented A year later (13 April 2024) I discussed 'woke' in the context of a wider discourse on sectarianism: From French Revolution to 'woke'. I concluded by observing that: In my view the word 'woke' should never have been invented….Politics in New Zealand would benefit from a healthy debate on the relationship between class and identity politics. I regard them as interconnected and supplementary rather than opposites. Bomber Bradbury's argument about 'woke' would be strengthened by dropping the term completely (leave it to the political right; it's their political plaything) and instead articulate a more nuanced narrative about identity and class politics. He could take a leaf out of West Indian socialist intellectual and cricket commentator CLR James' 'book' who famously said 'what do they know of cricket if cricket is all that they know'. This could then be turned into 'what do they know of identity politics if identity politics is all that they know'. This could be similarly adapted for class politics. What is leftwing My second disagreement is when TDB refers to the political left in New Zealand it means the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Unfortunately most of the commentary in the mainstream media around leftwing and rightwing is along the lines that one is what the other isn't; one ends where the other starts and vice versa. This becomes at best bland or meaningless and at worse absurd. Even more unfortunately TDB is uncharacteristically consistent with this mainstream media paradigm. I discussed this question well over two years ago in Political Bytes (30 April 2023): What being leftwing really means. I said that: One way of looking at differentiating between the political left and right is a continuum between collective responsibility and individual responsibility. This leads into the role of the state and to questions over whether healthcare access and educational opportunities, for example, are a right or privilege to one degree or another. …It isn't a bad way of looking at what is left-wing and what isn't. However, it is not enough. We can to better than this. Being left-wing has to be seen in the context of the material system that governs our daily lives. Today in New Zealand, and for the overwhelming majority of the planet, it is capitalism. Wealth accumulation the main driver of capitalism After discussing capitalism's prime driver (limitless wealth accumulation) I observed that: Being left-wing is about wanting to end, or even significantly curtail, the dynamic of wealth accumulation as a driver of societies. This might be through evolutionary or revolutionary means. But what it does require is transformational change. There is a good argument that both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are transformational (or at least significantly so) this can not be said of the Labour Party. Writing in the context of Labour then being in government, I commented that: Transformational is what the current Labour Party in government is not. It is a political party not of the left but instead of social liberal technocrats with some collectivist impulses. Social liberal values are good and the political left benefits from sharing them. In fact, many people on the political right also share these same values (or at least some of them). In conclusion: …social liberalism of itself does not transform a society which, more than anything else, has wealth accumulation as its dynamic. …The political left needs to expressly differentiate itself from social liberalism in order to overtly focus on economic (as well as social) justice and protecting nature from the ravages of wealth accumulation. If the term 'left-wing' is to mean anything other than not being right-wing or just having some collectivist impulses, then this needs to happen. Bomber's aim nevertheless deadly accurate In his own expressive literary way, however, TDB is right on the mark in describing the effectiveness and interconnections of the hard rightwing Taxpayers' Union, New Zealand Initiative and Atlas Network. TDB is correct in identifying the high level of their lobbying power, particularly through social media describing them as a '…stable of astroturf organisations to generate lobbyist talking points camouflaged as the opinion of the people.' Bomber Bradbury's most telling point, however, is his assessment of David Seymour describing the latter as '… a philosopher before he is a politician and he believes in a far right libertarian economic platform…' Elsewhere he has approvingly quoted leading Labour MP Willie Watson who has described Seymour has the most dangerous MP in Parliament. Again he is on the mark. The reason behind this assessment is that Seymour is a conviction politician; a hard right libertarian. It does not mean that he isn't contradictory. For example, whereas a libertarian might be expected to support small business, Seymour and ACT have a strong orientation to big business, including as donors, with all its consequential anti-libertarian monopolistic traits. But it contrasts with the prevailing opportunism traits of both Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Opportunism allows the ability to bend and change somewhat; conviction much less so. In Bomber Bradbury's forthright manner he concludes: The Left [sic] have underestimated Seymour for too long. They need to engage with him in a completely different way and understand they need to push back by offering better solutions and by defining him far more ruthlessly when they do attack him. I agree although I would put it this way. The far right speak in slogans, the rightwing speak in sentences, the leftwing speak in paragraphs, and the far left speak in footnotes. This gives the political right a big advantage. To counter this the political left (plus social liberal technocrats) need to express themselves in plain language sentences that are also translatable into good soundbites.
Scoop
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
David Seymour And The Political Left
If there was a 'most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking' award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog (TDB). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion and a strong sense of both justice and outrage towards injustice. For me he has been an acquired taste. It took a while and had its moments, but the acquiring proved to be a fascinating journey with the taste acquisition destination reached. I have also appreciated that he republishes my health system (Otaihanga Second Opinion) and politics (Political Bytes) blogs in TDB. He doesn't pull his punches. Occasionally he misses his target but more often he succeeds. He never leaves one wondering what he means. More importantly he invariably raises serious questions which deserve to be addressed. A recent case in point was his 3 July post concerning the challenge of ACT leader and current Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour to the political left in Aotearoa New Zealand: Can the left beat David Seymour and ACT. There are few questions more politically pertinent than this. As Bradbury observes, Seymour has, since 2014, taken ACT from less than 1% to, depending on which poll, a little under or over 10%. However, I have two points of disagreement – TDB's comments on 'woke' and what it means by being leftwing. 'Woke', identity politics and the absence of nuance TDB attributes in part David Seymour's and ACT's relative electoral success to the left allowing itself to be distracted by what it calls 'middle class woke Identity Politics'. I discussed this disagreement over 'woke' in an earlier post (9 October 2023): Structure and superstructure. I considered Bomber Bradbury's then published views on 'woke' too blunt and lacking nuance. Instead I advocated that identity and class politics are better understood in the context of the relationship between structure and superstructure. My criticism was that his argument: …counterposes economic discrimination and oppression to its other forms; it's either class or identity politics! This approach ignores nuance, complexity and layered relationships. In fact, these politics have overlapping layers. The use of the terms 'structure' and 'superstructure' are helpful in this respect. In this context the structure based on the mode and relations of production. Class is defined by its relationship to this production mode. The superstructure, on the other hand, incorporates the various belief systems and ideologies that help rationalise what people do and think (and why), including the law, education systems and religion. This superstructure also includes other forms of discrimination and oppression such as race, sex, sexual orientation and transgender. Sometimes it also includes religion. They exist in a largely capitalist world. But they aren't products of capitalism. They existed in earlier forms of class societies for centuries. It is legitimate to locate them in a superstructure but with an important qualification. To differing degrees, they interact with the underlying structure. Sometimes it is to the extent that it becomes difficult to differentiate. It is these 'superstructural' forms of discrimination and oppression that get labelled as identity politics. The point is not so much the label but whether they are counterposed to class discrimination and oppression or run alongside it, sometimes reinforcing and interactively. A word that should never have been invented A year later (13 April 2024) I discussed 'woke' in the context of a wider discourse on sectarianism: From French Revolution to 'woke'. I concluded by observing that: In my view the word 'woke' should never have been invented….Politics in New Zealand would benefit from a healthy debate on the relationship between class and identity politics. I regard them as interconnected and supplementary rather than opposites. Bomber Bradbury's argument about 'woke' would be strengthened by dropping the term completely (leave it to the political right; it's their political plaything) and instead articulate a more nuanced narrative about identity and class politics. He could take a leaf out of West Indian socialist intellectual and cricket commentator CLR James' 'book' who famously said 'what do they know of cricket if cricket is all that they know'. This could then be turned into 'what do they know of identity politics if identity politics is all that they know'. This could be similarly adapted for class politics. What is leftwing My second disagreement is when TDB refers to the political left in New Zealand it means the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Unfortunately most of the commentary in the mainstream media around leftwing and rightwing is along the lines that one is what the other isn't; one ends where the other starts and vice versa. This becomes at best bland or meaningless and at worse absurd. Even more unfortunately TDB is uncharacteristically consistent with this mainstream media paradigm. I discussed this question well over two years ago in Political Bytes (30 April 2023): What being leftwing really means. I said that: One way of looking at differentiating between the political left and right is a continuum between collective responsibility and individual responsibility. This leads into the role of the state and to questions over whether healthcare access and educational opportunities, for example, are a right or privilege to one degree or another. …It isn't a bad way of looking at what is left-wing and what isn't. However, it is not enough. We can to better than this. Being left-wing has to be seen in the context of the material system that governs our daily lives. Today in New Zealand, and for the overwhelming majority of the planet, it is capitalism. Wealth accumulation the main driver of capitalism After discussing capitalism's prime driver (limitless wealth accumulation) I observed that: Being left-wing is about wanting to end, or even significantly curtail, the dynamic of wealth accumulation as a driver of societies. This might be through evolutionary or revolutionary means. But what it does require is transformational change. There is a good argument that both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are transformational (or at least significantly so) this can not be said of the Labour Party. Writing in the context of Labour then being in government, I commented that: Transformational is what the current Labour Party in government is not. It is a political party not of the left but instead of social liberal technocrats with some collectivist impulses. Social liberal values are good and the political left benefits from sharing them. In fact, many people on the political right also share these same values (or at least some of them). In conclusion: …social liberalism of itself does not transform a society which, more than anything else, has wealth accumulation as its dynamic. …The political left needs to expressly differentiate itself from social liberalism in order to overtly focus on economic (as well as social) justice and protecting nature from the ravages of wealth accumulation. If the term 'left-wing' is to mean anything other than not being right-wing or just having some collectivist impulses, then this needs to happen. Bomber's aim nevertheless deadly accurate In his own expressive literary way, however, TDB is right on the mark in describing the effectiveness and interconnections of the hard rightwing Taxpayers' Union, New Zealand Initiative and Atlas Network. TDB is correct in identifying the high level of their lobbying power, particularly through social media describing them as a '…stable of astroturf organisations to generate lobbyist talking points camouflaged as the opinion of the people.' Bomber Bradbury's most telling point, however, is his assessment of David Seymour describing the latter as '… a philosopher before he is a politician and he believes in a far right libertarian economic platform…' Elsewhere he has approvingly quoted leading Labour MP Willie Watson who has described Seymour has the most dangerous MP in Parliament. Again he is on the mark. The reason behind this assessment is that Seymour is a conviction politician; a hard right libertarian. It does not mean that he isn't contradictory. For example, whereas a libertarian might be expected to support small business, Seymour and ACT have a strong orientation to big business, including as donors, with all its consequential anti-libertarian monopolistic traits. But it contrasts with the prevailing opportunism traits of both Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Opportunism allows the ability to bend and change somewhat; conviction much less so. In Bomber Bradbury's forthright manner he concludes: The Left [sic] have underestimated Seymour for too long. They need to engage with him in a completely different way and understand they need to push back by offering better solutions and by defining him far more ruthlessly when they do attack him. I agree although I would put it this way. The far right speak in slogans, the rightwing speak in sentences, the leftwing speak in paragraphs, and the far left speak in footnotes. This gives the political right a big advantage. To counter this the political left (plus social liberal technocrats) need to express themselves in plain language sentences that are also translatable into good soundbites. 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.
Scoop
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
David Seymour And The Political Left
If there was a 'most prolific blogger while still being consistently thought-provoking' award it would be hard to beat Bomber (Martyn) Bradbury and his The Daily Blog (TDB). His writing is turbo-charged and opinionated but underpinned by powerful compassion and a strong sense of both justice and outrage towards injustice. For me he has been an acquired taste. It took a while and had its moments, but the acquiring proved to be a fascinating journey with the taste acquisition destination reached. I have also appreciated that he republishes my health system (Otaihanga Second Opinion) and politics (Political Bytes) blogs in TDB. He doesn't pull his punches. Occasionally he misses his target but more often he succeeds. He never leaves one wondering what he means. More importantly he invariably raises serious questions which deserve to be addressed. A recent case in point was his 3 July post concerning the challenge of ACT leader and current Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour to the political left in Aotearoa New Zealand: Can the left beat David Seymour and ACT. There are few questions more politically pertinent than this. As Bradbury observes, Seymour has, since 2014, taken ACT from less than 1% to, depending on which poll, a little under or over 10%. However, I have two points of disagreement – TDB's comments on 'woke' and what it means by being leftwing. 'Woke', identity politics and the absence of nuance TDB attributes in part David Seymour's and ACT's relative electoral success to the left allowing itself to be distracted by what it calls 'middle class woke Identity Politics'. I discussed this disagreement over 'woke' in an earlier post (9 October 2023): Structure and superstructure. I considered Bomber Bradbury's then published views on 'woke' too blunt and lacking nuance. Instead I advocated that identity and class politics are better understood in the context of the relationship between structure and superstructure. My criticism was that his argument: …counterposes economic discrimination and oppression to its other forms; it's either class or identity politics! This approach ignores nuance, complexity and layered relationships. In fact, these politics have overlapping layers. The use of the terms 'structure' and 'superstructure' are helpful in this respect. In this context the structure based on the mode and relations of production. Class is defined by its relationship to this production mode. The superstructure, on the other hand, incorporates the various belief systems and ideologies that help rationalise what people do and think (and why), including the law, education systems and religion. This superstructure also includes other forms of discrimination and oppression such as race, sex, sexual orientation and transgender. Sometimes it also includes religion. They exist in a largely capitalist world. But they aren't products of capitalism. They existed in earlier forms of class societies for centuries. It is legitimate to locate them in a superstructure but with an important qualification. To differing degrees, they interact with the underlying structure. Sometimes it is to the extent that it becomes difficult to differentiate. It is these 'superstructural' forms of discrimination and oppression that get labelled as identity politics. The point is not so much the label but whether they are counterposed to class discrimination and oppression or run alongside it, sometimes reinforcing and interactively. A word that should never have been invented A year later (13 April 2024) I discussed 'woke' in the context of a wider discourse on sectarianism: From French Revolution to 'woke'. I concluded by observing that: In my view the word 'woke' should never have been invented….Politics in New Zealand would benefit from a healthy debate on the relationship between class and identity politics. I regard them as interconnected and supplementary rather than opposites. Bomber Bradbury's argument about 'woke' would be strengthened by dropping the term completely (leave it to the political right; it's their political plaything) and instead articulate a more nuanced narrative about identity and class politics. He could take a leaf out of West Indian socialist intellectual and cricket commentator CLR James' 'book' who famously said 'what do they know of cricket if cricket is all that they know'. This could then be turned into 'what do they know of identity politics if identity politics is all that they know'. This could be similarly adapted for class politics. What is leftwing My second disagreement is when TDB refers to the political left in New Zealand it means the Labour Party, Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Unfortunately most of the commentary in the mainstream media around leftwing and rightwing is along the lines that one is what the other isn't; one ends where the other starts and vice versa. This becomes at best bland or meaningless and at worse absurd. Even more unfortunately TDB is uncharacteristically consistent with this mainstream media paradigm. I discussed this question well over two years ago in Political Bytes (30 April 2023): What being leftwing really means. I said that: One way of looking at differentiating between the political left and right is a continuum between collective responsibility and individual responsibility. This leads into the role of the state and to questions over whether healthcare access and educational opportunities, for example, are a right or privilege to one degree or another. …It isn't a bad way of looking at what is left-wing and what isn't. However, it is not enough. We can to better than this. Being left-wing has to be seen in the context of the material system that governs our daily lives. Today in New Zealand, and for the overwhelming majority of the planet, it is capitalism. Wealth accumulation the main driver of capitalism After discussing capitalism's prime driver (limitless wealth accumulation) I observed that: Being left-wing is about wanting to end, or even significantly curtail, the dynamic of wealth accumulation as a driver of societies. This might be through evolutionary or revolutionary means. But what it does require is transformational change. There is a good argument that both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are transformational (or at least significantly so) this can not be said of the Labour Party. Writing in the context of Labour then being in government, I commented that: Transformational is what the current Labour Party in government is not. It is a political party not of the left but instead of social liberal technocrats with some collectivist impulses. Social liberal values are good and the political left benefits from sharing them. In fact, many people on the political right also share these same values (or at least some of them). In conclusion: …social liberalism of itself does not transform a society which, more than anything else, has wealth accumulation as its dynamic. …The political left needs to expressly differentiate itself from social liberalism in order to overtly focus on economic (as well as social) justice and protecting nature from the ravages of wealth accumulation. If the term 'left-wing' is to mean anything other than not being right-wing or just having some collectivist impulses, then this needs to happen. Bomber's aim nevertheless deadly accurate In his own expressive literary way, however, TDB is right on the mark in describing the effectiveness and interconnections of the hard rightwing Taxpayers' Union, New Zealand Initiative and Atlas Network. TDB is correct in identifying the high level of their lobbying power, particularly through social media describing them as a '…stable of astroturf organisations to generate lobbyist talking points camouflaged as the opinion of the people.' Bomber Bradbury's most telling point, however, is his assessment of David Seymour describing the latter as '… a philosopher before he is a politician and he believes in a far right libertarian economic platform…' Elsewhere he has approvingly quoted leading Labour MP Willie Watson who has described Seymour has the most dangerous MP in Parliament. Again he is on the mark. The reason behind this assessment is that Seymour is a conviction politician; a hard right libertarian. It does not mean that he isn't contradictory. For example, whereas a libertarian might be expected to support small business, Seymour and ACT have a strong orientation to big business, including as donors, with all its consequential anti-libertarian monopolistic traits. But it contrasts with the prevailing opportunism traits of both Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Opportunism allows the ability to bend and change somewhat; conviction much less so. In Bomber Bradbury's forthright manner he concludes: The Left [sic] have underestimated Seymour for too long. They need to engage with him in a completely different way and understand they need to push back by offering better solutions and by defining him far more ruthlessly when they do attack him. I agree although I would put it this way. The far right speak in slogans, the rightwing speak in sentences, the leftwing speak in paragraphs, and the far left speak in footnotes. This gives the political right a big advantage. To counter this the political left (plus social liberal technocrats) need to express themselves in plain language sentences that are also translatable into good soundbites. 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.
Scoop
04-06-2025
- General
- 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.
