Belgian king denounces Gaza abuses in unusually direct remarks
"I add my voice to all those who denounce the serious humanitarian abuses in Gaza, where innocent people are dying of hunger and being killed by bombs while trapped in their enclaves," he said speaking at his palace in Brussels.
"The current situation has gone on for far too long. It is a disgrace to all of humanity. We support the call by the United Nations Secretary-General to immediately end this unbearable crisis."
It was the first time Philippe has spoken out so strongly and unambiguously about a conflict in public. Belgium's federal government has been more reserved in its criticism of the conflict in Gaza.
The king's role in Belgium is limited to giving advice, support, and warnings to the government without making any political decisions.
Israel launched its assault on Gaza following an October 2023 attack on Israeli towns by Hamas-led fighters who killed 1,200 people and captured 251 hostages. Since then, Israeli forces have killed more than 59,000 people in Gaza, according to health officials there. Much of the territory has been laid to waste and Israel has restricted food and other supplies.
Israel denies that its forces commit abuses in Gaza and says restrictions on supplies are needed to prevent aid from being diverted by militants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Anti-Trump protests make me embarrassed to be Scottish
During a previous visit to Scotland by Donald Trump, the late comedian Janey Godley caused a stir by holding up a placard describing the president as a c-word. To many this appeared vulgar and offensive, and just a little lacking in imagination. But to many within Scotland, this insult soared into the stratosphere of Wildean pithiness, revealing Godley's genius, courage and – this is Scotland, after all – her downright goodness as a human being. To many Scots, however, the knowledge that Godley's insult was being broadcast across the globe and would be seen by our American friends was a source of embarrassment. Name-calling? That's the apotheosis of political satire in Scotland? Really? Today there will be more protests at the start of the president's five-day visit to Scotland, which will take in his two golf courses here. If only there were a way of explaining to our American cousins that such protests are less about the president himself or his policies, or even about the contempt in which the protesters hold the US citizens who voted for him last year. They are about one thing and one thing only: the protesters themselves. The Trump visit is a public relations opportunity for the likes of Scottish Green MSPs and activists, as well as a hodgepodge of the usual people: the climate change, refugee rights, trans rights and, naturally, anti-Israel activists. Perhaps they imagine that their earnest sloganising and placard-waving will have some influence on the president himself – in which case, it's disturbing that they harbour such ignorance of the nature of their hated target. More likely, they probably believe that their antics will impress and attract their fellow Scots, although to what end who can tell? When the president has dusted off his golf clubs and set off home across the Atlantic, the chief aim of the protesters will have been achieved: they will feel good about themselves. They will still retain just a modicum of the righteous indignation that motivated them to rehearse, memorise and perform the weekend's radical slogans, but the feeling will be one of overwhelming self-satisfaction that they stuck it to The Man and – more importantly – that they were captured on video doing so. For the sane majority of Scots and their fellow Brits, the visit by an American president – any American president – is a valuable opportunity to forge a deeper friendship and to develop new trade, political and military ties. Having Trump could be particularly advantageous to the UK, given the uncertainty in the global economy over the US administration's threatened and actual tariff regime. Britain has managed so far to escape the worst of the policy's impacts and even secured a comprehensive US-UK trade deal. There is far more to be gained from treating the president with respect than with derision. But that's not how our domestic army of middle-class, virtue-signalling, keffiyeh-adorned protesters see things. Their need to be seen protesting Trump – and it is a need, not a preference – simply must be sated. During the president's first term, even the House of Commons surrendered to this performative self-indulgence, with the then Speaker, John Bercow, shredding his obligations to political neutrality and announcing that he would not authorise the use of Westminster Hall for Trump to address both houses of Parliament – even before such a request was made. The announcement had its intended effect, not so much in its rebuke to the president (even if he had been aware of the Speaker's snub) but in the thousands of Twitter users praising Bercow as 'progressive'. Consider this question: were this weekend's protesters unable to share memes and videos of their activities on social media, if the TV news cameras didn't cover their activities or invite them to explain their personal animosity towards the president, would they bother to turn out at all? If a protest happens and nobody notices, does it make a sound? Fortunately for the semi-skimmed oat milk latte crowd, such a scenario is unlikely. They will have their few seconds of notoriety on the TV news bulletins and across Twitter/X and Instagram. They will not seek to try to understand why a man like Donald Trump was elected in the first place, or why their preferred candidate was so humiliatingly rejected. It is enough for them to be angry – or appear to be angry – at the president's very presence in their country. But a plea to all my American friends: please don't assume that these protests represent the whole, or even a large minority, of Scotland. They do not. They're just embarrassing attention-seekers that we all must put up with in a modern democracy. Like toddlers, they'll eventually get tired of their own tantrums and have to be put to bed, leaving the grown-ups to have an adult conversation in their absence.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
If the king of Belgium can speak the truth about Gaza, why can't Europe's cowardly politicians?
Just when it seemed that Europe's moral failure over Gaza was complete, the head of state of one EU country has stood up with a powerful message of moral clarity. King Philippe of Belgium, whose direct political statements are rare, condemned the grave humanitarian abuses in Gaza as 'a disgrace to humanity'. In a televised address to mark Belgium's national day on 21 July, Philippe said: 'I stand with all those who denounce the grave humanitarian abuses in Gaza, where innocent civilians, trapped in their enclave, are dying of hunger and being killed by bombs.' The monarch said he fully supported the calls of the UN secretary general, António Guterres, to end 'this unbearable crisis'. From the royal palace in Brussels, the king added: 'The current situation has dragged on for far too long. It is a disgrace to humanity.' After a weekend in which at least 100 people across Gaza were killed as they sought food and water – violence that elicited no formal EU response – the monarch's message stood out. He spoke of a recent meeting with Rami Elhanan and Bassam Aramin – two fathers, one Israeli and one Palestinian, who had each lost a daughter in earlier outbreaks of violence in the Middle East. 'They have put aside any desire for revenge and have chosen to transform their pain into a message of peace,' he said. 'It is always human dignity that is at stake.' The king's speech resonated beyond Belgium. The Dutch national broadcaster NOS openly questioned why King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands had not made a similar statement. As a constitutional monarch, Philippe has limited formal powers. His two annual addresses – on Belgium's national day and Christmas Eve – are reviewed by the prime minister before broadcast. But this year's remarks stood in sharp contrast to the federal government and the prime minister, Bart De Wever, a Flemish nationalist. His party, the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), Belgium's largest, includes several outspoken defenders of Israel's military operations in Gaza. De Wever has resisted calls to impose sanctions on Israel. He even questioned whether Belgium would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, as international law would require if the Israeli prime minister were to visit the country. Transcending domestic politics, Philippe issued a broader call to action: 'Europe must assert its leadership even more strongly. It must stand as a bulwark against – and a worthy alternative to – the brutal power struggles we are witnessing today.' Given the EU's intolerable silence on Israel's war crimes, human rights violations and the deepening humanitarian catastrophe, it was a relief to hear at least one head of state speak the truth out loud. EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels last week failed to take action against Israel, prompting an accusation of 'cruel and unlawful betrayal' of Palestinians from Amnesty International. Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France would recognise Palestinian statehood in September, while important, remains symbolic in the absence of any economic, financial or diplomatic sanctions. The king, who was speaking just days after an audience with humanitarian organisations working in Gaza, highlighted the failure to uphold international law. 'For decades, international law was the cornerstone upon which states could rely,' he said. 'Today, that is being openly called into question. But when international law is trampled, the whole world suffers. Unpredictability and violence are then given free rein.' While praising collective efforts to meet challenges such as the climate crisis, digital transformation and defence cooperation, Philippe urged EU leaders to 'remain true to our values: democracy, justice and the rule of law'. In a political landscape increasingly dominated by realpolitik, here was a voice insisting on the ethical foundations of the European project. The Belgian king has a consistent record of opposing discrimination and upholding human rights. After a deadly terror attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels in 2014, he made an official visit to the site. In 2015, he invited a large delegation of rabbis and Jewish community leaders to the palace after the dismantling of Islamist terrorist cells in Brussels and Verviers. His moral stance has deep roots in the Belgian monarchy. His great-grandmother Queen Elisabeth was recognised by Yad Vashem as one of the Righteous Among the Nations. During the second world war, she used her position as queen mother to intervene on behalf of Jews facing deportation. According to Yad Vashem, 'these interventions by a member of a royal family in Europe on behalf of Jews were unparalleled'. Since its independence in 1830, Belgium has granted full civil rights to Jews – except during the years of Nazi occupation. Those rights, including freedom of religion, expression and the press, are enshrined in the Belgian constitution. More recently, in 2022, Philippe undertook his first visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the former Belgian colony that was founded and brutally exploited by his ancestor Léopold II. While visiting DRC, the king expressed his 'deepest regrets' for the suffering inflicted by Belgian colonialism. 'The colonial regime itself was based on exploitation and domination,' he said. It was 'marked by paternalism, discrimination and racism'. The fact that Philippe's defence of international law and his remarks on the suffering in Gaza felt like news shows how timid Europe's elected leaders have been. He was saying only what they should have said months ago. Of course, his remarks won't end the war. But they should remind Europe – and the world – that silence in the face of injustice amounts to complicity. And that in times of political cowardice, a constitutional monarch can still be a moral leader. David Van Reybrouck is philosopher laureate for the Netherlands and Flanders. His books include Revolusi: Indonesia and the Birth of the Modern World, and Congo: The Epic History of a People
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Council order owner to repaint over Palestinian flag beach hut on iconic seafront because it does not adhere to 'standards'
A Labour-led council have ordered an owner to repaint over their Palestinian flag beach hut on an 'iconic' seafront, claiming that it fails to adhere to 'standards'. Brighton and Hove City Council have declared that Alison Leasley, who has had her beloved beach hut for six years, is in breach of her beach hut licence as strictly vertical stripes or a solid colour are permitted. The retired psychotherapist, who described the decision as 'pathetic', was initially told she had just three days to remove the design, though this was later extended to a week. Were she not to remove the flag, which the council say has received numerous complaints, the public body insisted they would do it themselves and then charge her for the work. In an email addressed to Ms Lesley, a member of the council said that the body have a 'very strict policy on the presentation of beach huts'. Defending their decision, they added that the Palestinian flag 'is likely to interfere with community cohesion', with the likelihood of causing 'distress and upset'. Speaking to The Argus, Ms Leasley described the decision as 'one-sided' and 'unfair', arguing that another beach hut along the popular stretch of seafront has been painted with a French flag for the last two years. She said: 'I told the council for every one person who has made a complaint I can find ten that would approve.' The 77-year-old insisted that the beach hut was painted in a bid to show support for those in Palestine amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Local councillor Birgit Miller, cabinet member for culture, heritage and tourism, told the Argus that the public body had asked Ms Lesley to repaint the beach hut 'as the current design doesn't adhere to the licence agreement and painting standards'. Adding that the beach huts along the seafront are an 'iconic feature' and should therefore be protected as such, Cllr Miller said: 'It's important licence holders comply with their agreements'. Members of the Hove Beach Hut Association, a local forum for residents who own their own residence along the beachfront, shared mixed responses regarding the council's decision. While one declared they could 'only hope' that Ms Lesley removed her license as a result of the controversial painting, another insisted that the 'fun police' should 'get a life', arguing that the decision was unjustified. In October 2023, Brighton and Hove Council announced controversial plans for a 10 per cent effective sales tax for beach hut owners in a bid to plug a £70million black hole in its budget. The fee, based on the sale price from April 2023, was proposed by councillors in lieu of raising the annual £503.60 licence fee and ownership transfer fee of £82 if they sell up. However, owners of the iconic huts insisted that the terms of the licences amounted to 'extortion' and accused the council of 'bullying' and 'coercive behaviour'. With huts selling for up to £35,000, the decision could mean that owners have to pay the council a massive £3,500. 'This is outrageous. It is nothing other than a stealth tax,' said Paula Ford, who has owned a beach hut for 30 years, 'It's a shocking move by the council and they should be ashamed of themselves. 'The huts don't belong to the council. They are privately owned by us, but we just site them on land owned by the council.' There are 459 beach huts on Hove seafront that are privately owned by residents in the seaside resort, with the annual cost of licences generating around £192,000 for the council. According the council, the value of these huts has risen to a range of between £25,000 and £35,000, depending on their location and condition. David and Susie Howells, who have owned their beach hut for 20 years, said: 'The beach huts on the promenade are a much-photographed attraction and beach hut owners all play our part as a community that adds value to the seafront experience for both residents and visitors to Brighton and Hove.' Serena Mitchell, who bought her hut in 2017, also described the proposals as a 'stealth tax'. She said: 'They use the word 'fee' as councils are not legally allowed to charge a tax on property sales. The Government can and do.' Ms Ford (pictured) said: 'This is outrageous. It is nothing other than a stealth tax. 'The huts don't belong to the council. They are privately owned by us, but we just site them on land owned by the council' Councillor Alan Robins, chair of the council's culture, heritage, sport, tourism and economic development committee, said: 'Currently the council is not benefitting in any way from the profit made on the sale of a beach hut when most of the value is due to its prime position on the seafront. 'If the transfer fee is introduced, then the additional revenue can be reinvested back into seafront services such as our lifeguards. 'It's an extremely challenging time for local government finances, and the potential income will go towards providing essential life-saving services while offering council land for hut owners to enjoy the seafront.'
