UK condemns Israel for depriving Palestinians of ‘human dignity'
David Lammy, the UK foreign secretary, joined ministers from countries including Australia, Canada and France to urge the Israeli government to lift restrictions on the flow of aid, arguing that the suffering of civilians had 'reached new depths'.
They also described proposals from the Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, to move 600,000 Palestinians to a so-called 'humanitarian city' in Rafah, an area that has been heavily damaged by Israeli bombs, as 'completely unacceptable'.
At the Commons liaison committee, the prime minister, Keir Starmer, said the situation in Gaza was 'intolerable' as he repeated the UK's commitment to recognising a Palestinian state 'at a time most conducive to the prospects of peace' in the region.
Israel has launched substantial air raids and a ground operation in Gaza, targeting Deir al-Balah, the main hub for humanitarian efforts in the devastated Palestinian territory, amid warnings of widening starvation.
The latest assault comes a day after the highest death toll in 21 months inflicted by the Israeli military on desperate Palestinians seeking food aid, with at least 85 killed in what has become a grim and almost daily slaughter.
The UN food agency, the World Food Programme, said the majority of those killed on Sunday had gathered near the border fence with Israel in the hope of getting flour from a UN aid convoy when they were fired on by Israeli tanks and snipers.
Starmer said: 'The situation on the ground in Gaza is intolerable on so many levels and we make that absolutely clear in all our exchanges with Israel and with other countries. Whether that's the deaths of those that are queuing for aid, whether it's the plans to force Palestinians to live in certain areas or be excluded from certain areas, they are all intolerable and absolutely wrong in principle.'
Starmer has come under pressure from MPs, including Emily Thornberry, who heads the Commons foreign affairs committee, to recognise a Palestinian state as some western countries are due to press ahead with recognition plans this month.
In a statement on Monday, the foreign ministers called for Israel to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their work. After a two-month blockade on most aid entering Gaza that has pushed the territory's 2.1 million residents to the verge of famine, the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has overseen a chaotic, and often deadly, operation.
'The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths,' the foreign ministers said. 'The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity. We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.'
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
They said it was 'horrifying' that hundreds of Palestinians had been killed while seeking aid, and that the Israeli government's denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population was unacceptable. 'We urge the parties and the international community to unite in a common effort to bring this terrible conflict to an end, through an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. Further bloodshed serves no purpose,' they said.
Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Lammy told MPs he 'utterly condemned' the killing of civilians who were seeking to meet their basic needs. 'The Israeli government must answer, what possible military justification can there be for strikes that have killed desperate, starving children?'
He criticised Katz's plan to move the entire population of Gaza to Rafah, saying it was a 'cruel vision which must never come to pass' and would be a violation of international humanitarian law. He told MPs there should be a 'viable pathway' to a Palestinian state that would have 'no role' for Hamas, which he said would use it as a 'launch pad' for terrorism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Former government minister delivers verdict on Nigel Farage as PM
Michael Gove has asserted that Nigel Farage is not a 'plausible prime minister ' and will not be ready for the role even in four years. The senior Conservative minister praised Farage's communication skills but questioned Reform 's team, policies, and programme for effective governance. Gove suggested Reform 's recent electoral success is due to being a 'repository of anger' against the political classes, rather than offering a compelling vision. He also described Farage as a 'bulwark against greater extremism' and recalled helping him resolve an issue with The Times newspaper.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
What are the pros and cons of introducing digital identity cards?
The prime minister is said to be 'seriously considering' a national system of digital identification, both to make it easier to access online services, including government ones, and to clamp down on illegal working by irregular migrants. Given the push to introduce artificial intelligence in so many areas of our lives, it may be an idea whose time has come. But there are political, as well as practical, complications. What is digital ID? It would in essence be a virtual ID card, and using it in the existing, and enhanced, Government Gateway would make it easier for people to manage everything from tax records and social security entitlements to driving licences, education, citizenship and probate – a vast array of areas in which the individual has dealings with the state. It could also be used, as a passport or driving licence is now, to help with all sorts of other activities, such as banking or getting a job. There is a separate, and obviously sensitive, question about whether digital ID should also encompass someone's medical history, voluntarily or otherwise. Why digital ID now? According to the briefings, the aim is to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of the government machine, so that, for example, people don't have to spend hours on hold when contacting a government agency. Unavoidably, though, it is also a way to detect people who shouldn't be in the country or working in the UK. That, the theory goes, means less of a 'pull factor' for certain sorts of migrant. Would it work? In a sense it is working already, in that almost everyone must have a unique tax reference, a national insurance number, a driving licence number, an NHS number and so on, and can, if they wish, share this information with others. But at the moment the system is compartmentalised and clunky, even if more and more interactions are taking place online and with chatbots. What stage are we at? Reports emanating from a 'senior minister' say that the prime minister has ordered a 'comprehensive and expansive look' at the proposal: 'Keir is leading on it,' they said. 'This is a serious piece of work. After a year in government, it is clear that technology is underpinning everything. Digital ID is foundational. Things are moving forward.' Didn't we have identity cards before? They were introduced as plain cardboard documents during the Second World War as a national security measure. People had to use them to get rationed food and petrol, and had to be ready to produce them on demand, a serious infringement of the traditional British way of doing things. The request for 'Papers, please' has always been regarded as an alien phenomenon. In the words of Boris Johnson in 2004: 'If I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am ... then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.' (He subsequently brought in compulsory photo ID for elections.) Even now, a driver stopped by the police is granted 14 days to produce their driving licence at a police station. The wartime measures were resented, and were abolished in 1952. Mandatory ID would be a minor revolution. What about the ID cards Tony Blair wanted? He still does, by the way. Much of the present momentum for change comes from the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), as if the former PM has never given up the struggle. At any rate, the current prime minister's chief aide, Morgan McSweeney, commissioned the TBI to produce proposals, and is said to be 'forceful' in making the case for them to No 10. Certainly, a more primitive version of this project was very much 'on the cards 20 years ago' when the Blair administration tried to bring in ID cards, but it ran into enormous resistance and administrative problems. The motives, in essence, were no different from today. In 2003, the then home secretary, David Blunkett, argued that cards with biometric data were needed so that 'people don't work if they are not entitled to work, they don't draw on services which are free in this country, including health, unless they are entitled to', and that 'when we find people we can identify quickly that they are not entitled and get them out'. When a limited, entirely voluntary ID card was introduced in 2010, some 15,000 were in circulation, but the incoming Conservative-Liberal Democrat government scrapped the entire scheme, after £5bn had been spent. A voluntary biometric residence permit is available as an option for foreign students or workers. Official photo ID cards for voting have also been introduced in recent years. What does the opposition say? Despite showing little interest in it while in government, earlier this year the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, conceded that digital ID could help tackle 'illegal' immigration. But Nigel Farage remains stubbornly libertarian, and opposes digital ID because he 'doesn't trust this government' and claims that it 'hurts law-abiding citizens'. Labour, and the Tories, could use his reluctance to argue that, given he is not prepared to use every possible measure in the fight against irregular migration, Farage wouldn't succeed in his own ambition to stop the boats. Will it happen? With 40 Labour backbenchers recently calling for change and the Conservatives warming to the idea, alongside the trend towards digitising everything, it feels pretty inevitable, like it or not. Will it work? To some extent, but there are ways to get around any system, and digital is no different from paper in that respect. It could make things worse for some. If a fraudster managed to 'steal' a vulnerable person's digital ID, for example, then it would be 'open sesame' on their entire life, and comprehensive identity theft might become more common. Leaks cannot be ruled out. There's also the grim possibility that a migrant who wanted to come to the UK to work, deprived of any ID, would just melt into the underground economy, and become even more exposed to crime and exploitation. In a worst-case scenario, some criminals or a malign foreign government could execute a mega-hack in which millions of people's data is stolen or frozen and held to ransom. Last, we must reflect on British governments' past lamentable record on grand digital integration schemes – and the fact that the current proposal, which would potentially bring together HMRC, the DWP, the DVLA, the Passport Office, criminal records, local authority records, and the NHS database, would be hugely more ambitious, and hazardous, than anything attempted before.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ofwat chief David Black to step down with regulator set to be abolished
The chief executive of Ofwat is to step down as the embattled water regulator prepares to be abolished. David Black will leave the role at the end of August and an interim chief executive is being appointed in due course. The government last month announced the regulator would be abolished in a regulatory shake-up that comes as part of its response to public outrage over rising bills, sewage pollution and large bonusses for bosses. Ofwat may not be formally axed until at least 2027 because the process to overhaul the current system will likely be complex. Mr Black, who took over as Ofwat's boss in 2021, decided the time is right for him to pursue new opportunities, the regulator said. He said: "I have been privileged to be able to lead Ofwat, over the last four years, during which time we have achieved a huge amount together as a team for customers and the environment. "The 2024 price review backed an investment programme of £104bn, along with a further £50 billion investment in major new water resources, which will improve service, environmental outcomes and resilience in the years to come. "I wish the team every success as they continue their important work." Ofwat chair Iain Coucher said: "David has worked, tirelessly, to bring about transformational change in the water sector. "He has sought new regulatory powers and resources to hold companies to account, taken major enforcement action and provided funding and incentive packages that drive continual improvements for customers. "On behalf of the Board and everyone at Ofwat, I would like to thank David for his leadership and his service over the last 13 years and to wish him every success in the future." Ofwat will be abolished as part of an overhaul of the 'broken' regulatory system, environment secretary Steve Reed confirmed in July. He made the announcement in response to an independent review by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which was published last month. The review was commissioned by the government to answer public fury over pollution in rivers, lakes and seas, soaring bills, shareholder payouts and bosses' bonuses. Mr Reed said the move to create a single 'powerful' regulator, taking in the functions of four existing bodies with overlapping functions, would curb pollution and 'prevent the abuses of the past for customers'. The overhaul, he said, would ensure 'British families are never again hit by the shocking bill hikes we saw last year', and committed to cut water companies' sewage pollution in half within five years.
