I will send the below letter to the Helen Clark Foundation. It is not intended to be aggressive or an attack. It is a good faith attempt at reaching out and asking them to live up to their values and demonstrate their commitment to social cohesion.
Ani O’Brien
[Email Redacted]
Friday 9th May 2025
To the Board and Leadership of the Helen Clark Foundation
Auckland, New Zealand
Subject: Open Letter Regarding Public Comments by Professor Peter Davis
Dear Trustees and Leadership of the Helen Clark Foundation,
I am writing to express deep concern regarding recent public comments made by Professor Peter Davis, a trustee of your Foundation, on the social media platform X. In a post dated 8th May 2025, Professor Davis stated:
"Netanyahu govt actions have isolated Israel from global south and the west and stoked anti-semitism. Yitzhak Rabin was the last leader to effectively foster a political-diplomatic solution to the Palestine-Israel impasse. He was assassinated by a settler. You reap what you sow."
This statement was shared alongside an image of graffiti on a wall in Wellington that read: "I hated Jews before it was cool."
I am an advocate of free speech and the right to hold political beliefs are protected in New Zealand, however the implications of this statement are deeply troubling. I have decided to use my own right to speak politically to reach out to your foundation to discuss why Professor Davis’ comments concern me.
By appearing to draw a causal line between the actions of the Israeli government and rising antisemitism—including graffiti explicitly expressing hate toward Jews—Professor Davis' comment risks minimising or even rationalising hatred toward Jewish people globally and within New Zealand. The phrase “You reap what you sow” particularly echoes the appalling ‘logic’ that victims of hatred are somehow responsible for the violence or bigotry directed at them.
As a trustee of a respected organisation like the Helen Clark Foundation—which is committed to public policy that promotes inclusion, fairness, and social cohesion—Professor Davis holds a position that carries significant public influence and responsibility. His remarks do not appear consistent with the values of the Foundation as publicly stated.
In particular, I draw attention to:
[Email Redacted]
Friday 9th May 2025
To the Board and Leadership of the Helen Clark Foundation
Auckland, New Zealand
Subject: Open Letter Regarding Public Comments by Professor Peter Davis
Dear Trustees and Leadership of the Helen Clark Foundation,
I am writing to express deep concern regarding recent public comments made by Professor Peter Davis, a trustee of your Foundation, on the social media platform X. In a post dated 8th May 2025, Professor Davis stated:
"Netanyahu govt actions have isolated Israel from global south and the west and stoked anti-semitism. Yitzhak Rabin was the last leader to effectively foster a political-diplomatic solution to the Palestine-Israel impasse. He was assassinated by a settler. You reap what you sow."
This statement was shared alongside an image of graffiti on a wall in Wellington that read: "I hated Jews before it was cool."
I am an advocate of free speech and the right to hold political beliefs are protected in New Zealand, however the implications of this statement are deeply troubling. I have decided to use my own right to speak politically to reach out to your foundation to discuss why Professor Davis’ comments concern me.
By appearing to draw a causal line between the actions of the Israeli government and rising antisemitism—including graffiti explicitly expressing hate toward Jews—Professor Davis' comment risks minimising or even rationalising hatred toward Jewish people globally and within New Zealand. The phrase “You reap what you sow” particularly echoes the appalling ‘logic’ that victims of hatred are somehow responsible for the violence or bigotry directed at them.
As a trustee of a respected organisation like the Helen Clark Foundation—which is committed to public policy that promotes inclusion, fairness, and social cohesion—Professor Davis holds a position that carries significant public influence and responsibility. His remarks do not appear consistent with the values of the Foundation as publicly stated.
In particular, I draw attention to:
1. Your recent initiative to address sexual violence against women, a commendable and necessary undertaking. In that context, we must also acknowledge the sexual violence committed against Israeli women on October 7, 2023, by Hamas operatives—a reality that has been well documented. It is reasonable to question if Professor Davis is willing to acknowledge this atrocious victimisation or if he would victim-blame as he has done in relation to anti-semitic rhetoric and vandalism.
2. Your work on social cohesion in New Zealand, which seeks to counteract division and extremism. The Jewish community in New Zealand, like other minority groups, deserves to live in safety and dignity. Suggesting that any community is “reaping what it sowed” in the face of rising antisemitic sentiment—including violent or hateful public expression—is incompatible with the promotion of social unity and respect.
I may not agree with all of the politics of the Foundation, but I value the important work it is doing, in particular, related to justice and advocacy for women.
I respectfully urge the Helen Clark Foundation to consider how justifying antisemitism reflects on its work and if it aligns with the Foundation’s mission to advance progressive, inclusive public policy. I also ask whether the Foundation intends to issue any public clarification or reassurance to New Zealand’s Jewish community, which has legitimate cause for concern?
I hope you will consider how a simple statement to the Jewish community could mean a lot in the current climate.
Yours sincerely,
Ani O’Brien
Click to view
Ani O'Brien comes from a digital marketing background, she has been heavily involved in women's rights advocacy and is a founding council member of the Free Speech Union. This article was originally published on Ani's Substack Site and is published here with kind permission.
14 comments:
Whilst the graffiti and its association with the statement is problematic, Davis' observation seems otherwise to be objective and reasonable. Totally unquaified support for Israel does not do the right a lot of good.
Has Prof Peter Davis joined PM Luxon NET ZERO group .? Fits.
The Labour government went as as the Supreme Court to remove the charity status of Family First. Maybe the charity status of the Helen Clark Foundation should be looked at.
And any public funding.
It is a statement of fact no matter who uttered it.
Well said, Ani.
Davis, has increasingly used his public platform since October 7 to push narratives that minimize, rationalize, or outright excuse the Hamas-led massacre of Israeli civilians. His rhetoric — suggesting that Israel is merely “reaping what it sowed” — is not only morally appalling, but intellectually dishonest and ethically indefensible.
Let’s lay out the facts Davis refuses to face.
On October 7, Hamas terrorists crossed into Israel and carried out the most horrific mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Civilians were burned alive in their homes. Children were executed in front of their parents. Women were raped and mutilated. These were not “resistance fighters” or “freedom seekers.” They were jihadist murderers fueled by genocidal hatred, not political grievance.
But to Peter Davis and others of his ideological ilk, this bloodbath was somehow “understandable” — the logical outcome of Israeli policy. Let’s translate that: If Jews are murdered in their homes, Davis believes they had it coming. That’s not just immoral — it’s antisemitism with a PhD.
The “reaping what you sow” line is particularly grotesque. Try applying that logic to any other people group on Earth. Imagine suggesting that 9/11 was payback for U.S. foreign policy, or that women who are assaulted “asked for it” because of how they dressed. We would rightly recoil in disgust. Yet when Jews are massacred, somehow the global academic class rushes to “contextualize” the killing.
That’s not analysis. That’s justification. And it’s not subtle.
Davis’s status as a trustee of Helen Clark’s foundation also raises serious questions. What kind of foundation sees no problem with one of its public representatives justifying terrorism and broadcasting antisemitic dog whistles to thousands? If this is the intellectual leadership the Clark Foundation promotes, then the public deserves to know.
It’s important to make a distinction here. Criticism of Israeli government policy is fair game — Israel, like every democracy, should be held to account. But when that criticism crosses into the delegitimization of Jewish life and the excusing of mass murder, it’s no longer political analysis. It’s bigotry. Plain and simple.
Davis’ views should be rebutted forcefully because they give academic cover to hatred. They are the intellectual equivalent of holding the door open for terrorism. And in a world where antisemitism is on the rise — in universities, on social media, and even in city streets — we cannot allow public figures, no matter how credentialed, to peddle these narratives unchallenged.
We must demand moral clarity. And excusing atrocities simply because their victims are Jews isn’t progressive — it’s poisonous.
If Peter Davis wants to stand on the wrong side of history, that’s his choice. But we won’t stay silent while he does it.
Thank is an excellent post. I would like to add that whatever Israel does the Jews living in NZ are in no way responsible.
Perhaps someone should clarify what group the "settler" belonged.
Oct 7th Hamas soldiers broke out of the open-air prison they were trapped in. Israel knew about a planned attack and had a detailed plan a year in advance. A group of female IDF intelligence soldiers had been pounding the table for months about a pending attack and were ignored. Hamas broke out. And everything we know and have been told ever since has been a lie.
The totally controlled media (and you cannot speculate as to what group controls the media lest you be accused of being an antisemite) calls them Hamas terrorists. But Hamas was founded by Israel to offset the influence of the PA. As recently as 2019 Netanyahu told the Knesset to support Hamas as a way of thwarting the two-state solution. Nobody in the media is going to tell you but Hamas is and was the democratically elected government of Gaza. Israel claims to be the only democratically elected country in the Middle East but like everything else they say, they lied.
According to international law, Hamas had all the right in the world to escape their prison. They had the right under the Geneva Convention to conduct warfare against their captors. Since Israel feels an unlimited right to hold hostages, Hamas thought taking hostages was a great idea to exchange for the thousands held illegally by Israel. Hamas wasn’t in the murder business as Israel is every day, they were in the hostage business. They were no better off by murdering innocent people.
Col. Douglas Macgregor reports that only 1139 Jews died in the events of October 7th 2023. Of those about 350 were either IDF or security forces which made them perfectly legal military targets for Hamas. So, we are left with just 789 civilian and presumably innocent Jews who died. We have no idea of how many Muslims and Christians died that day because Israel is doing the counting and non-Jews are worth nothing at all.
We know the IDF embraced the Hannibal Directive that day and destroyed over 1,000 vehicles around and headed back to Gaza. We know there were tanks firing on civilian Jewish homes with hostages inside. We know there were many helicopter gunship attacks. We don’t know exactly how many innocent Jews died at the bloodstained hands of the IDF but it’s entirely possible that the majority of the 789 innocent civilians died from the IDF, not Hamas. But of course, that is never mentioned in the controlled media only the free press.
We were never told that Hamas as the legally elected government of Gaza had an absolute right of self-defense under the Geneva Convention. We are never told that in fact the ICC determined ten years ago that as an occupying power Israel does not have a right of self-defense. We know the stories of the 40 beheaded babies or the rapes or the baby cooked in a microwave were all lies coming from Israel. We watched with horror the IDF commander claim that Hamas blew up the building behind him when in fact it was his tank that blew it up and he knew it. But the Zionists always lie.
Strong accusations. How about some evidence?
Anon 2:20pm:
Your Conspiracy theories Don’t Excuse Terrorism
In the wake of the October 7 Hamas massacre — where over 1,200 Israelis were murdered in a brutal, coordinated attack — a disturbing narrative has taken root in fringe corners of the internet and academia. One such screed, now circulating widely, spins a tale that Hamas were freedom fighters, Israel “deserved it,” and the media is part of a grand cover-up.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t political commentary. It’s conspiracy theory — and worse, it’s an attempt to sanitize terrorism.
The claim that Hamas was “breaking out of an open-air prison” is an obscene euphemism for the systematic slaughter of civilians. The Geneva Conventions — frequently misquoted by these apologists — do not grant any group the right to massacre innocents, rape women, or burn families alive. Those are war crimes, full stop.
The fantasy that “Israel created Hamas” is another tired distortion. Yes, Israel tolerated Islamist charities decades ago to counterbalance the PLO — a miscalculation, not a blueprint. Hamas is now a jihadist terror group, proudly committed to Israel’s destruction and the murder of Jews. That’s their charter, not an Israeli invention.
Next, we’re told Hamas is a democratically elected government. What’s ignored is that no elections have been held in Gaza since 2006, and Hamas rules through fear, executions, and repression. A one-time election doesn’t make them legitimate — it makes them a dictatorship.
The claim that most civilians killed on October 7 may have been killed by Israel is a blood libel with no basis in fact. It is drawn from the fringe ramblings of Col. Douglas Macgregor and others long discredited in serious military circles. There is no credible evidence that the IDF massacred its own citizens. The perpetrators were filmed, live, by Hamas itself — celebrating as they shot children and dragged elderly women into Gaza.
Then there’s the antisemitic trope that “you can’t say who controls the media.” This isn’t journalism; it’s conspiracy dressed up as critique. It recycles the oldest canard in the book: that Jews secretly run the world and manipulate truth. That rhetoric doesn’t just distort history — it puts real lives at risk.
This kind of denialism isn’t new. It echoes those who said 9/11 was an inside job or that the Holocaust was exaggerated. What’s new — and dangerous — is how quickly it’s mainstreamed in some academic and activist circles.
There’s room for legitimate criticism of Israel. But when that criticism becomes justification for terror, revision of atrocities, or antisemitic conspiracy, it crosses a moral line.
Let’s call this what it is: an attempt to rationalize barbarism and dehumanize its victims. We owe it to truth, justice, and the future to reject it outright.
Anon at 2;20pm.
You keep saying we like you are royalty.
Who is we? You, John Minto and a dog named Boo?
‘We’ certainly don’t speak for everyone.
Haaretz | Middle East News
Mossad Chief Visited Doha, Urged Qatar to Continue Hamas Financial Aid
Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen visited Doha on February 5 2020 in order to ensure Qatar continues its financial aid policy to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
It's sad to see the spiteful bile being expressed by Anon 2.20, and one can only presume it is the product of a troubled mind. But full marks to Anon 8.01 for their rational response. I will only add one thought, and that is to call out the sheer ignorance of Anon 2.20 in asserting HAMAS is not in "the murder business". HAMAS' sole purpose in life is to ensure the ascendancy of Islam as demanded by the Koran, and that includes the murder of anybody who refuses to cooperate. Which tends to focus the minds of their potential victims who have no illusions about their fate if HAMAS is allowed to prevail. Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza once before as part of a peace process. They will understandably not make that mistake again.
Post a Comment