UK sanctions two Israeli ministers as it ramps up pressure over Gaza
Two Israeli government ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, have been sanctioned by the UK because of their comments on Gaza.
Mr Ben-Gvir, the security minister, and Mr Smotrich, the finance minister in Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government will both face a travel ban and see their assets frozen.
The move comes as the UK and other Western nations seek to ramp up pressure on Israel's government amid the ongoing war in Gaza.
Israel's foreign affairs minister Gideon Sa'ar said it was 'outrageous that elected representatives and members of the government are subjected to these kind of measures'.
He added: 'I discussed it earlier today with PM Netanyahu and we will hold a special government meeting early next week to decide on our response to this unacceptable decision.'
Mr Smotrich and Mr Ben-Gvir both belong to right wing parties which help to prop up Mr Netanyahu's fragile coalition government.
Both have been criticised for their hardline stance on the war in Gaza.
Mr Smotrich has campaigned against allowing aid into Gaza, while Mr Ben-Gvir has called for Gaza's people to be resettled from the territory.
The UK and its allies have increased pressure on Israel in recent months amid ongoing aid shortages in Gaza, as well as suggestions it could launch a new large-scale offensive into the territory.
Reports suggest only scarce amounts of aid are making their way into the hands of Gazans, amid a new aid initiative backed by the US and Israel, instead of the previous UN-run programme.
The slow flow of food and medicines has prompted warnings of famine and starvation among the territory's population.
In May, Foreign Secretary David Lammy paused negotiations towards a UK trade deal with Israel as the Government sought to pressure Israel to abandon its planned offensive into Gaza.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, France's president Emmanuel Macron and Canada's prime minister Mark Carney also wrote a joint statement last month warning that Israel's leaders risked 'breaching International Humanitarian Law', and calling for more aid to be allowed into Gaza.
Mr Netanyahu responded by claiming the three leaders were on the 'wrong side' of history.
In September last year, the Government halted 30 out of around 350 arms sales licences to Israel, for fear they may be used for war crimes.
Ministers insist that this means F-35 fighter jets used by Israel no longer receive replacement parts from the UK, and no UK-made bombs or ammunition are used in Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Genocide Convention not considered by Central Bank when approving Israel Bonds
However, Gabriel Makhlouf said the intensity of the conflict in Gaza does put 'a question mark over whether the financial viability' of Israel remains secure. The Central Bank is the designated authority in relation to the sale of Israel Bonds in the EU, and has determined the securities meet the standards of the bloc's prospectus regulations. Israel Bonds have been advertised as supporting the country's economy, and more recently, websites promoting the securities emphasise their role in supporting Israel's military operations in Gaza. Protesters and opposition parties have called for legislation that would give Ireland the power to refuse the sale of Israeli 'war bonds' over human rights concerns. They say the bonds are intended to fund the war in Gaza, while Ireland has an obligation under the Genocide Convention to use all means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide. Demonstrators rallied outside Leinster House on Wednesday as the head of the bank appeared before the Finance Committee, before a Dail vote calling on the Government to take action to prevent the approval of the bonds. Mr Makhlouf said the Central Bank must carry out the statutory tasks and functions it has been assigned. He said it was 'incorrect' to say the bank could refuse to approve the Israeli bond prospectus on the basis of international law rulings and opinions. 'The Central Bank cannot impose sanctions on Israel, for example by refusing to approve the Israeli bond prospectus, in circumstances where the EU has not imposed any such sanctions itself.' Asked by Sinn Fein finance spokesman Pearse Doherty if the Central Bank subscribes to the Genocide Convention, the governor said the authority has to operate within the legal framework allocated to it, but added that the Genocide Convention does not feature in the EU prospectus regulation. Pressed on whether it applied to the bank overall, Mr Makhlouf said 'it applies to the state' and added that, with regard to approving prospectuses: 'In that sense no, it doesn't.' Under similar questioning from Social Democrats' deputy leader Cian O'Callaghan, deputy governor Mary-Elizabeth McMunn said: 'Ireland is the contracting party under the Genocide Convention. It does not explicitly say the Central Bank is a contracting party under the Genocide Convention.' Asked if he believed what was happening in Gaza was genocide, Mr Makhlouf said that was a legal concept determined by the ICJ and no one at the Central Bank could comment authoritatively as experts on that matter. He added: 'But what's clear is that what is happening in Gaza is appalling, horrific.' The governor said everyone at the Central Bank wants to see 'an immediate end to hostilities by all parties'. The Israel Bond prospectus is up for renewal in September. Asked by Labour finance spokesman Ged Nash what factors the bank would be looking for in engagements with Israel at that point, Mr Makhlouf replied: 'I think the intensity of the conflict in in Gaza probably does put a question mark over whether the financial viability of the state still remains secure. 'The fact that the European Union has indicated that it's going to look at its co-operation agreement of Israel, I think that's a factor. The fact that the [Israeli] finance minister has just been sanctioned by a number of countries, that may be a factor.' He said it would be up to Israel to assess whether these factors affect its financial standing when putting together the prospectus, but added that the bank would be required to approve the next prospectus if all matters are completely disclosed. Meanwhile, Mr Makhlouf said national restrictive measures could be imposed by the Oireachtas to stop the approval of the prospectuses, if they were consistent with EU law. However, he said he would find it 'difficult' to say that it is 'possible' to do that in this case, because one member state acting on its own would undermine the whole prospectus regulation. He said he had not taken legal advice on this and added that he was 'not ruling out' the possibility. 'Prospectus regulation doesn't just apply to states, it applies to corporates, it applies to anybody who wants to issue a regulation in certain circumstances. 'So what I'm not ruling out is the possibility that some domestic legislation could prevent an individual corporate being able to issue security in certain circumstances, but this is real hypothetical stuff.' Mr Doherty asked if the Central Bank would deem the ICJ findings a 'risk' for an investor who wishes to purchase Israel Bonds. Mr Makhlouf said the case taken by South Africa against Israel was included in the September prospectus that was approved by the bank. Gerry Cross, the bank's director of capital markets and funds, added that it was the authority's belief that it was articulated and disclosed to the level that is required. Mr Cross later told the committee that the Bank had made approximately 13,300 euro in fees through its work relating to the bonds since October 2023.
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
On Wednesday Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered the Labour Government's first spending review, outlining its spending plans for the next few years. We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reeves ‘failed' to back English councils in spending review, MPs warn
The Treasury will pump an additional £3.4 billion per year into councils by 2028/29, compared with 2024/25, which combined with yearly council tax rises is set to boost their spending power by 3.1% in real terms. But Mr Forster warned that 'in the detail of the statement', the Government 'is only investing an extra 1.1% in local government next year and the year after'. The Liberal Democrat MP told the Commons he was 'very disappointed' with the Chancellor's statement and asked: 'What does the Chancellor say to councils across the country and to my constituents of Woking to justify that lack of investment?' Ms Reeves replied: 'Well, that's real-terms increases in spending every year, that this Labour Government are giving to local authorities. 'And that compares to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration from 2010 to 2015 that cut real spending by 2.9% every year, so I'm much happier to stand on my record as Chancellor than what the Liberal Democrats did when they had a chance of being in government.' Woking issued a section 114 notice two years ago, in June 2023, when it faced having to plug a £1.2 billion deficit. Billpayers in the Surrey borough faced a 9.99% council tax rise the following year. Mr Forster, who is a member of the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, told the PA news agency: 'In today's spending review, the Chancellor has failed to invest in local government – and she is refusing to acknowledge the harm this will cause. 'In my constituency of Woking, our local authority has already gone bankrupt, I fear more will soon follow. Following the former Conservative administration bankrupting Woking, we have seen public toilets close.' He called on the Government to 'support councils more'. The spending review which Ms Reeves fronted on Wednesday pledged 'wider reforms' which 'will ensure funding is effectively targeted, based on an updated assessment of need, and will consolidate funding to give local authorities greater flexibility to innovate'. Local government reorganisation will 'improve the join-up between local services, enabling councils to deliver services more efficiently', according to The Treasury. Conservative MP for Broxbourne Mr Cocking, who is also a member of the Commons committee, described the spending review as 'devastating'. He said: 'Councils that are going through local government reorganisation, where councils that have been run really well, are going to be potentially lumbered into new super-unitary councils, with councils that haven't managed their finances well'. Mr Cocking said that where authorities merge, 'you'll find that residents that have got sound council finances, have had good services, are now going to be subsidising areas that have made bad decisions', and added that the spending review failed to compensate for this. Surrey's district and county councils are set to merge, with new single-tier authorities taking on town hall functions, as part of the Government's push towards 'unitary' councils throughout England set out in last year's English Devolution White Paper.
