Dutch to ban far-right Israeli ministers over Gaza
The ban and other measures were announced in a letter Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp sent to lawmakers late Monday evening, declaring 'The war in Gaza must stop.'
The ban targets hard-line National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, key partners in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition.
The pair are champions of the Israeli settlement movement who support continuing the war in Gaza, facilitating what they call the voluntary emigration of its Palestinian population and the building of Jewish settlements there.
Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway imposed financial sanctions on the two men last month.
Later on Tuesday, leaders will meet in Brussels to discuss a European Union response, including evaluating a trade agreement between the bloc and Israel. The Netherlands wants part of that agreement to be suspended.
Ben-Gvir and Smotrich remained defiant. In a statement on social media, Smotrich said European leaders were surrendering to 'the lies of radical Islam' and that Jews may not be able to live safely in Europe in the future.
Ben-Gvir said he will 'continue to act' and said that in Europe 'a Jewish minister from Israel is unwanted, terrorists are free, and Jews are boycotted.'
Pressure has been mounting on the Dutch government, which is gearing up for elections in October, to change course on Israeli policy. Last week, thousands demonstrated at train stations across the country, carrying pots and pans to signify the food shortage in Gaza.
The government will also summon the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands to urge Netanyahu to change course and 'immediately take measures that lead to a substantial and rapid improvement in the humanitarian situation throughout the Gaza Strip,' Veldkamp wrote.
After international pressure, Israel over the weekend announced humanitarian pauses, airdrops and other measures meant to allow more aid to Palestinians in Gaza. But people there say little or nothing has changed on the ground. The U.N. has described it as a one-week scale-up of aid, and Israel has not said how long these latest measures would last.
Israel asserts that Hamas is the reason aid isn't reaching Palestinians in Gaza and accuses its militants of siphoning off aid to support its rule in the territory. The U.N. denies that looting of aid is systematic and says it lessens or ends entirely when enough aid is allowed to enter Gaza.
Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, are currently wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. The men are accused of using 'starvation as a method of warfare' by restricting humanitarian aid, and of intentionally targeting civilians in Israel's campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Member states of the ICC are obliged to arrest the men if they arrive on their territory.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The situation in Gaza is dire – but Starmer should be clear about who is to blame
SIR – The situation in Gaza is awful and has been for some time. However, there are two sides in this war – Israel and the terrorist group Hamas, which, let's not forget, started this conflict with its brutal attack on Israel and the taking of 251 hostages. The Israeli response to Hamas has been devastating and the innocent people of Gaza are suffering. However, if Hamas truly cares about those in Gaza and wants to end this suffering, it should release all the remaining hostages and stop using hospitals, public buildings and aid centres for military purposes, thus risking them being hit as military targets. Rather than unilaterally recognising a Palestinian state (report, July 29), if Western leaders want an end to this conflict, they must make demands of Hamas, along with Israel – or else it won't happen. Alan Carter Newcastle upon Tyne SIR – Why is it that not one country that wants to recognise a Palestinian state has made it a precondition that the Palestinian Authority drop its 'pay to slay' policy? The so-called Martyrs Fund means that, every month, the Palestinian Authority gives money to Palestinian terrorists who are in Israeli prisons, for attacking Israelis. It also gives money to the families of Palestinians killed or injured during the course of attacking Israel – money which for decades was paid on the basis that, the more serious the attack or the longer the prison sentence, the higher the payment would be. Lynton Stock London NW7 SIR – We have two very different ongoing situations in the region. One is in Gaza and one is in the West Bank. While most are concentrating on Gaza, Israeli settlers are illegally taking over land in the West Bank and building settlements there. This crime gets very little coverage, but it matters: where else could a Palestinian state be set up but on the West Bank? Before that is possible, Israel has to stop the settler activities there. This is what our Prime Minister should be concentrating his efforts on. Herbert Chappell Woking, Surrey SIR – Puntland in north-east Somalia has a government, a constitution, established borders and effective state institutions. Despite years of wrangling, it is still not recognised internationally as a state. Yet the British Government is planning to recognise a state called 'Palestine', which has none of these things except a name. For an administration full of international lawyers, this is strange indeed. Jolyon Grey Cheltenham, Gloucestershire SIR – As countries seem to be queuing up to recognise a Palestinian state (report, August 1) it might be timely to remind certain politicians that some 25 countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, and Venezuela, do not actually recognise the state of Israel. Strange, that, since Israel does exist and, as it stands, Palestine's claim to statehood is ephemeral. Dr Gerald Edwards Glasgow
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Jeremy Corbyn's new party needs a name and it's trickier than you might think
The first thing anybody wants to know when a new political party is launched is what it's going to be Jeremy Corbyn has decided to do things differently. The former Labour leader claims more than 600,000 people have registered as supporters for the new left-wing party he is setting up with fellow independent and ex-Labour MP Zarah is, so far, a party without a reports that it was going to be called Your Party - because that's what the sign-up website is called - were quickly shot down by has said she thinks The Left or the Left Party would be a good title for the new the pair have said they want supporters to come up with a name, as part of their debate on what the new party will stand for. They will not be able to put forward candidates for election until they have registered a name with the Electoral Commission, which has strict rules about not copying other parties' names or sounding too much like apart from that, supporters have a blank canvas."The name should sum up in one simple phrase the pure essence of what the party is all about," says Sheffield University's Prof Matthew time is also ripe for a political party named for the modern world, he Flinders argues the mainstream parties' brands were forged in different times and "most young people don't really understand what Labour means, or Conservative". "The especially don't know what Liberal Democrat means."Whereas parties were once sustained by local branch or social meetings that has "eroded in a digital age, making the relationships thinner and putting more pressure on name and brand recognition to resonate with voters", Prof Flinders the commercial world, brand names are everything."There's a lot of power in a name and if you can clearly convey your point of view and use those words effectively it does a lot of work," says Laura Rogers, an executive creative director at advertising agency AMV BBDO, which counts retailer Currys and charity the RSPCA among its sweet spot, she argues, is something that works well for sharing online and sells well as "merch". Get the wrong name and you risk ridicule. Just ask the Post Office, which in 2001 wasted £2m to rebrand as Consignia, only to reverse course after the baffling name became a laughing stock. A new political party must also be alive to the risks of social media that loves to turn everything into punchlines."Make sure the first three letters don't spell a bad word," warns journalist Ash Sarkar of the left-wing media site Novara Media. "Like the word assembly can very easily be changed to 'ass'."While this may seem flippant ,"People experience and understand politics through the content they share online", Sarkar the general public to name a party would have been a disaster, leading to "Party McPartyface" says Sarkar - referencing the time Boaty McBoatface won a public poll to name a £200m polar research Bailey, co-founder of branding and design agency Baxter and Bailey, thinks Corbyn's decision to ask supporters for names is a clever stunt that has created buzz and a sense of ownership for those signing up. "It also really fits with his brand to be social and democratic with the choice of name," Bailey says."But being democratic in naming and design doesn't make a whole lot of sense," he warns. Political history is littered with cautionary tales for new parties trying to make a name for themselves. The Electoral Commission website shows a new party is registered almost every week in the UK, and most fade without making an impact at a national when a party launches with 11 MPs and a national profile they can collapse without ever really defining themselves - like The Independent Group (TIG), which launched at the height of the Brexit deadlock in 2019 as an avowedly centrist, pro–European Union political party only lasted ten months but changed its name twice, first to Change UK and then to The Independent Group for Change after petitions website threatened to sue over the Allen, the ex-Tory MP who was the first leader of Change UK, recalls her party became "lost in admin", sapping the fledgling movement of a name that speaks to your message and is not already taken by another political group of business is "trickier than you think", says Allen. Pamela Fitzpatrick, who runs the Peace and Justice Project with Corbyn, registered a party last month named "Arise" - a name drawn from one of Corbyn's favourite political strategist and pollster Chris Bruni‑Lowe, who has written a book on the history of politic slogans, would advise against using Arise as the new party's name. "Vague or overly poetic names will underperform, especially if the party is meant to be a corrective force," he his book, Bruni-Lowe says he found "voters don't reward wordplay - they reward clarity and conviction".A name must also be "clear" rather than "clever", he the most effective political brands "offer a vision or mission, not just an organisational label" and use "the electorate's own language and frustrations". Corbyn has insisted the final decision will only come after "all the responses" are in. The plan is to settle on a name at the party's founding conference, in the the discussions around the name are just a distraction, says tends to "hyper-fixate on things that don't really matter", she argues."It's not going to live or die based on a name," insists Sarkar. "It will live or die based on its political strategy.""The fact that 600,000 people have signed up to the new Corbyn project with no name is an answer to the question on how much the name matters," she a message to supporters on Friday, the party with no name said: "Make no mistake: whatever the name, it is always going to be your party." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
US nuclear submarines 'closing in' on Russia: Trump warns 'I want to be ready' as he ramps up tension in chilling war of words with former Russian president
US President Donald Trump last night confirmed that two US Navy nuclear submarines are 'getting closer to Russia ', dramatically escalating tensions between the two countries. Mr Trump ordered the submarines, packed with nuclear warheads, towards Russian waters after an online spat with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev – now deputy chairman of Russia's National Security Council – who said: 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war.' The sabre-rattling came after Mr Medvedev wrote on social media platform Telegram that Russia could invoke 'Dead Hand' – a doomsday program with the ability to automatically launch a nuclear counterstrike against major US cities, even if Moscow and President Vladimir Putin are wiped out. Mr Medvedev wrote: 'As for the talk about the 'dead economies' of India and Russia, and 'entering dangerous territory' – maybe he should recall his favourite movies about 'the walking dead,' and also remember how dangerous the so-called 'Dead Hand', that does not exist in nature, could be. 'He should remember two things: 1: Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2: Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe [a reference to former President Joe Biden ] road!' Writing on Truth Social, Mr Trump said: 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions. Words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences. I hope this will not be one of those instances. 'A threat was made… so we have to be very careful. We're going to protect our people. He's entering very dangerous territory!' On Friday, in an interview with cable channel Newsmax, Mr Trump added: 'The subs are getting closer to Russia. We always want to be ready. I want to make sure his words are only words and nothing more than that.' Last night the White House, Pentagon and Downing Street refused to comment on the escalating tensions, which come just days before Mr Trump's August 8 deadline for Putin to declare a ceasefire in the war against Ukraine. The US President has vowed to impose 'devastating' sanctions on Russia and her closest trading partners if his demands are not met. A source close to the President told the MoS: 'Trump is running out of patience with Russia. He promised to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office and clearly that has not happened. 'Now he's threatening to impose sanctions if Putin doesn't declare a ceasefire and come to the negotiating table to discuss peace.' While the location of the subs is unknown, the US Navy has 71 nuclear-powered submarines in its fleet, all of which can travel thousands of miles without resurfacing. By comparison, the Russian Navy fields fewer than 30 nuclear‑powered submarines. Military experts said Mr Trump will most likely have deployed two Ohio -class vessels. Each is armed with up to 20 Trident II D5 missiles that can deliver multiple thermonuclear warheads with a range of up to 7,000 miles. Sources last night told the Washington Post that Russia is 'seeking clarity' from America about Mr Trump's 'actions and intentions', with Russian officials scrambling to assess the significance of the subs' deployment. RIA Novosti, a state-controlled news agency which has been called 'Putin's mouthpiece', confirmed it had sent enquiries to the White House, Pentagon, US Central Command and the National Security Council, but had not received a response. Mr Trump's dramatic doubling down came after the deadliest Russian air strike on Kyiv this year, when 31 people were killed in a single missile strike on an apartment block in the early hours of Thursday morning. Five children, the youngest aged just two, were among the dead. Mr Trump called the air strike 'disgusting' and announced he was sending his special envoy Steve Witkoff to the region to try and negotiate a ceasefire. Russian lawmaker Viktor Vodolatsky said there are enough Russian nuclear submarines in the high seas to tackle the two American subs. 'The number of Russian nuclear submarines in the world's oceans is significantly higher than the American ones, and the subs that US President Donald Trump ordered to be redirected to the appropriate regions have long been under their control,' he said yesterday. 'So no response from the Russian Federation to the American leader's statement about the submarines is required.' Retired US Marine Colonel Mark Cancian called Mr Trump's announcement that he had sent subs steaming towards Russian waters 'highly unusual'. He said: 'This is signalling in its purest form.' Others urged restraint, saying Mr Medvedev does not speak for Putin. Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, now a Putin critic living in London, said: 'When you see his [Mr Medvedev's] latest apocalyptic tweet about turning European capitals to dust, remember: this isn't strategic communication from the Kremlin. It's the rambling of a man drowning his terror in vodka.' The exchange of nuclear threats and references to Cold War-era systems evoked echoes of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the closest the world has come to full-scale nuclear war. The 13-day crisis occurred after Fidel Castro overthrew the US-backed government and aligned his new regime with the Soviet Union. President John F. Kennedy said US spy planes had spotted Soviet nuclear missile installations and threw a blockade around Cuba, even as Russian ships carrying additional warheads steamed towards the island, 230 miles off the tip of Florida. Nuclear bombers on both sides were put on round-the-clock alert, provoking terror in the US with schoolchildren being taught what to do in a nuclear attack. Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev eventually backed down and turned his ships around. He agreed to remove the nuclear missile installations in Cuba, in return for the US not invading the island. Mr Trump has spoken of his admiration for JFK, saying: 'He made the Soviets blink first.' A source said: 'Whether this latest move leads to a breakthrough with Putin remains to be seen.'
