Will Invercargill Join Councils Taking Ethical Stand On Illegal Israeli Settlements?
Invercargill City Council is set to vote on Tuesday on a change to its procurement policy to exclude companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land.
The proposal was brought by local residents and members of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. If adopted, Invercargill would become the latest in a growing wave of local councils – including Christchurch, Nelson, and Environment Canterbury – aligning spending in this way.
'This is about responsible stewardship' said the group, 'making sure ratepayer money isn't used in ways that contradict New Zealand's foreign policy or international law.'
A staff report released ahead of the vote supports adopting the change into the Council's Supplier Code of Conduct. It confirms the move aligns with UN Security Council Resolution 2334 — co-sponsored by New Zealand in 2016 under a National government — which called the settlements a 'flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle' to peace.
'Western governments have failed for decades to hold Israel to account,' said the group. 'Last year the International Court of Justice ruled Israel's 57 year long occupation breaches international law on apartheid and racial segregation. No council wants to fund companies complicit in war crimes — this is the moment to act.'
The staff report noted that the proposal, which targets a narrow list of companies named by the UN as involved in illegal settlements, would add weight to government rules which allow companies to be excluded on human rights grounds. Councils, while not legally required, are encouraged by the Auditor-General to follow these to avoid stakeholder challenge.
'International law protects all of us — especially New Zealand as a small country,' the group added. 'When we let powerful countries violate the rules with impunity, we all become more vulnerable.'
The initiative has drawn support from a wide range of national and local organisations, including trade unions, faith leaders, and businesses.
The group will present the same proposal to Environment Southland the following day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Directive To Iran: Retaliation Bad; De-Escalation Good
De-escalation has become one of those coarse words in severe need of banishment, best kept in an index used by unredeemable hypocrites. It is used by the living dead in human resources, management worthies and war criminals. It's almost always used to target the person or entity that exerts retribution or seeks to avenge (dramatic) or merely overcome (mildly) a state of affairs imposed upon them. You might be bullied in the workplace for being fastidious and conscientious, showing up your daft colleagues, or reputationally attacked by a member of the establishment keen to conceal his corrupt practices. When contemplating retaliation, the self-appointed middle ground types will call upon you to 'de-escalate' the situation, insisting that you appeal to the better side of your bruised nature. After all, you know it was your fault. The joining of the United States in the war against Iran made Washington a co-conspirator to soiling international law and profaning its salient provisions. The US was in no immediate danger, nor was there any imminent threat, existential or otherwise, to its interests vis-à-vis Tehran. Yet President Donald Trump, having had the poison of persuasion poured into his ear by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had succumbed. His will annexed to that of the Israeli premier, Trump ordered the US Air Force on June 22 to conduct bombing raids on three Iranian nuclear facilities: Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. They were recipients of that hefty example of phallocratic lethality known as the bunker buster, the GBU-57A Massive Ordnance Penetrator. With his usual unwavering confidence, Trump declared in an address to the nation that all the country's 'nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' In violating international law and desecrating that important canon injuncting states from committing crimes against peace, Israel and the United States are not the ones being told to restrain their violence and acknowledge breaching the United Nations Charter, risking yet another conflagration in the Middle East. It is their targeted state, the Republic of Iran, whose officials must 'de-escalate' and play nice before the diplomatic table, abandoning a nuclear program, civil or military. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East,' Trump directs, 'must now make peace.' With suddenness, the advocates and publicists for international law vanished across the broadly described West. In Europe, Canada, the US and Australia, the mores and customs observed by states could be conveniently forgotten and retired. In its place reigned the logic of brute force and unquestioned violence. Provided such violence is exercised by that rogue combine of Amerisrael, deference and dispensation will be afforded. The same could never be said for such countries as China and Russia, abominated for not accepting the 'rules-based order' imposed by Western weaponry and force. The lamentable, plaintiff responses from Brussels to Canberra tell a sorry tale: pre-emptive war waged against a country's nuclear and oil facilities is just the sort of thing that one is allowed to do, since the rotter in question is a theocratic state of haughty disposition and regional ambition. You can get away with murdering scientists in their sleep, along with their families, liquidating the upper echelons of their military leadership and killing journalists along the way. The approved formula behind these responses is as follows. From the outset, mention that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. If possible, underline any relevant qualities that render it ineligible to any other state that has nuclear weapons. Instruct Tehran that diplomacy is imperative, and retaliation terrible. Behave and exercise restraint. Here is Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer of the UK, speaking from his Chequers country retreat: it was 'clear Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon', which was 'why our focus has been on de-escalating, getting people back around to negotiate what is a very real threat in relation to the nuclear program.' If one was left in any doubt who the guilty party was, UK Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds helped dispel it, calling Iran 'a threat to this country, not in an abstract way, not in a speculative way'. The German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, after convening his security cabinet on the morning of June 22, conveyed his views through German government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius: 'Friedrich Merz reiterated his call for Iran to immediately begin negotiations with the US and Israel and to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict.' French President Emmanuel Macron similarly got on the de-escalation bandwagon with gusto, giving a teacherly warning to Iran to 'exercise the greatest restraint' and dedicate itself to renouncing nuclear weapons. It was the only credible path to peace and security for all. The president conveniently skipped past the huge elephant in the room: Israel's illicit possession of nuclear weapons, undeclared, unmonitored and extra-legal, as a factor that severely compromises the issue of stability in the Middle East. From the European Union, the attackers and the attacked were given equal billing. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' urged Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission. The obligatory 'Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, as it would be a threat to international security' followed. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also thought it perfectly sensible to matronly instruct the Iranians on the next step: 'Now is the moment for Iran to engage in a credible diplomatic solution. The negotiating table is the only way to end this crisis.' All these comments are deliciously rich given that Israel has never entertained negotiations on any level with Iran, dismissive of its nuclear energy needs, while the first Trump administration sabotaged the diplomatically brokered Joint Plan of Comprehensive Action that successfully diverted Tehran away from a military nuclear program in favour of a lifting of sanctions. Talk from Amerisrael and their allies would seem to be heavily discounted, if not counterfeit. The glaring, coruscating message to Iran: retaliation bad; de-escalation good.
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
On Trump's Anti-Bomb Bombing Campaign
If the US really wanted to stop nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East, it would have long ago supported the moves to declare the region a nuclear weapon free zone, and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor it. Despite our anti-nuclear credentials, New Zealand has never supported the Middle East becoming a nuclear weapon free zone. At a press conference, I remember asking the then-PM Bill English why New Zealand didn't support the concept, and he answered that he could see what I was trying to get him to do i.e. to take sides against Israel, the region's only nuclear power. (Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is.) Basically, the West aims to ensure that Team Israel continues to be the neighbourhood's bully, thanks to its US backing, its overwhelming superiority in conventional arms and its nuclear arsenal, which reportedly consists of 90 nuclear warheads. we are seeing carnage in the Middle East because Iran has had a nuclear energy programme that might possibly, conceivably one day enable it to possess one such weapon – even though on all of the available US intelligence evidence, it had not done so, and was still engaged in talks to achieve trade gains for itself from not doing so. Moreover, if the Trump administration was ever serious about using peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it would have honoured the US side of the deal that the Obama administration signed with Iran back in 2015. At that time, Iran had agreed to limit nuclear enrichment at below weapons-grade levels, and to submit itself to regular IAEA monitoring, in return for the lifting of US/European trade sanctions. Instead, Donald Trump ripped up that deal, and confirmed the suspicions of the hardline clerics in Tehran that expecting the Americans to act in good faith was naive, and bound to end in disaster. Trump repeated this bad faith by engaging in diplomacy that - according to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – it had engaged in as a form of deliberate 'mis-direction' and cover for bombing raids that the US had been planning for months. Incidentally, this underlines how pathetic it is for New Zealand to be now calling for diplomacy to resolve this crisis. The whole process of diplomacy has been hopelessly degraded by America's repeated displays of bad faith. History on repeat To an eery degree, the US is repeating the precedents it set in Iraq, in 2003. After the 9/11 attack, US President George W. Bush became obsessed with causing regime change in Baghdad, bypassed the IAEA and waged a ruinous war - on the basis of a bogus existential threat that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Here we go again. After October 7.2023, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu became obsessed with causing regime change in Tehran, bypassed the IAEA, and is waging a ruinous war – on the basis of a bogus existential threat that Iran was about to possess a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. In reality, regime change in Iran has been front and central of Israel's plans for a very long time, whatever Iran tried to do to avert it. That is why, prior to its onslaught against Iran, Israel first chose to unilaterally attack and weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon. In both cases – and as in Gaza – Israel has had no compunction about bombing residential centres and inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties. Again, and as was also the case with the invasion of Iraq, delusionary beliefs have been expressed that the people of Iran will now rise up against an unpopular regime and embrace them as 'liberators.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Given Iran's proud history, the only thing capable of uniting the Iranian people behind the widely despised clerical regime would be an attack by a foreign invader. At this point, the situation in Iran looks a lot like the conditions in 1991, immediately after the First Gulf War. At that point in 1991, an oppressive regime in Baghdad had seen its military forces decimated by the US. Yet the West chose to leave Saddam Hussein in power for 13 more years, as a lesser threat to Western interests than a popular uprising that would be likely to put the oppressed Shia majority in power. For that reason, the West then sat by and watched while Saddam's forces slaughtered thousands of people who had risen up, in the mistaken belief that the West had wanted to see democracy triumph in Iraq. Similarly, the US may now be hoping that yesterday's bombing raids will be the sum total of its involvement, and that a weakened regime in Tehran can now be left to cling to power as best it can, within a ruined country. Yet if Israel does go ahead and bring about regime change, it will get bogged down – as it is already in Gaza – in administering the shattered remains of its field of 'victory.' Currently, Israel is getting away with committing genocide against the 2 million inhabitants of Gaza. But Iran is a country of 95 million people, and a genocide on that scale may be beyond even the Netanyahu government. If instead, Israel creates in Iran another failed state -another Libya of warring factions - then this will inevitably become a fertile recruiting ground for the likes of Islamic State. Except this time, Iran and Hezbollah will not be around to do the bulk of the fighting, and to help defeat the jihadis on the West's behalf. Israel may think regime change in Iran will solve its problems. But if it ' succeeds' in removing the clerical regime by military means, forces even more dangerous to its survival are likely to fill the vacuum. Neither the US or Israel appear to have a feasible end game in mind, for what they have started. Footnote One: Short term, what are Iran's options for retaliation? It could adopt Islamic State tactics and bring suicide raids and terrorism back to European cities, and to US diplomatic missions abroad. Iran's Doomsday option would be to mine the straits of Hormuz and bring international shipping trade – including global oil supplies – to a standstill. This would deal a serious blow to the world economy, and to Iran itself. One restraint against it doing so would be China, which is not only the sole remaining market for Iran's oil, but itself is not self-sufficient in oil. It has come to rely on the oil that it extorts at a cheap price from Iran. So under pressure from China, Iran might not play that final, desperate card in the straits of Hormuz. the thing. Iran may now have nothing left to lose. The Israeli bombing raids have targeted Iran's oil facilities. By doing so, Israel may have removed the key restraint against Iran taking destructive action to mine the sea lanes or sink its own ships to block the straits of Hormuz. After Iran's ability to pump and export its oil has been destroyed, there may now be no reason to abstain from shutting down the global economy. The Saudis? They have been doing nothing for Iran in its time of need. Nothing much for Iran to lose there, either. the very least, New Zealand should be taking a serious look at its oil supply chains, and at how long our current oil reserves might last. Footnote Two: As usual in any Middle East crisis, New Zealand's media coverage is being dominated by Israeli/US voices. To support the claim that Iran had posed an existential threat to Israel, the hoary old cliche has been repeated on RNZ that Iran does not recognise Israel's right to exist. For the record, this is an age-old argument about legitimacy, not about a current existential threat. When there is talk about a 'right to exist' what Iran and other regional powers are refusing to endorse is the legitimacy of Israel's seizure of Palestinian land, its forced displacement of Palestinian people, and the ongoing Israeli settlement encroachment onto Palestinian land that Israel illegally occupies in violation of UN resolutions. For exactly the same reasons – i.e. a refusal to put a stamp of legitimacy on the historical wrongs done to Palestinians - Saudi Arabia also does not recognise Israel's 'right to exist.' Yet Israel isn't bombing Riyadh. Instead, it is doing its best to normalise diplomatic relations with the Saudis. This diplomatic engagement has been sabotaged by Israel's ongoing aggressions in Gaza, in Lebanon and now, in Iran. Lets be clear. On the evidence, the expansionist power that is actively undermining the cause of peace, stability and diplomacy across the Middle East is Israel, not Iran. Bombardier Blues
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Luxon's Complicity Puts Aotearoa At Risk: Te Pāti Māori Stands Against Global Military Aggression
Te Pāti Māori stands firmly against the rising tide of global military aggression. While the Luxon scrambles to appease Trump and Israel, we choose peace, sovereignty, and an independent foreign policy grounded in justice and truth. More than 56,000 Palestinians have been murdered by Israel over the past 20 months. In that time, Israel have launched attacks on Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. These countries have for a long time been barriers to US imperialism in the Middle East. It is why our government remains silent on Israel, and why Judith Collins signed off on $12bn in military spending right before the US bombs Iran. 'When the US bombs Iran, Luxon calls it an 'opportunity'. But when Cook Islanders assert their sovereignty or Chinese vessels travel through international waters, he leaps to condemnation' said Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi. 'Israel continues to maintain an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Yet this Government won't say a word. It condemns non-Western powers at every turn but remains silent when its allies act with impunity.' Te Pāti Māori is reaffirming our position of military neutrality, rejecting participation in imperial alliances, foreign wars, and warmongering masquerading as diplomacy. 'You don't send planes into a war zone 'just in case.' Not without a mandate. Not without telling the people. This Government is dragging us toward World War 3, in secret, without debate, and with zero accountability.' 'Luxon's complicity is putting everyone in Aotearoa at risk.' 'Aotearoa is not a puppet of Western militarism. We do not answer to NATO. We do not answer to the Five Eyes. We answer to our people and our values' said Waititi. 'This Government speaks boldly against the East but cowers before the West. It has no credibility on international law when its outrage is selective, and its silence bought.' 'Te Pāti Māori will not be silent. We will not stand by while bombs fall, sovereignty is trampled, and innocent people are killed. Whether it's in the Middle East, the Pacific, or here at home' concluded Waititi.
