Briton injured in Iran strike on Israel as RAF evacuates dozens
A British national was injured in Israel during missile attacks by Iran, and 63 others have been evacuated to Cyprus by the RAF.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that the Middle East was facing a 'perilous moment' due to 10 days of strikes between Israel and Iran.
Further evacuation flights will be provided by the Foreign Office based on demand and the latest security situation, prioritising those with the greatest need.
The British embassy in Tehran is now operating remotely after staff were evacuated, with limited support available for British nationals still in Iran.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
28 minutes ago
- The National
How David Lammy went from human rights lawyer to genocide apologist
You would be forgiven for thinking that I'm quoting a frustrated political commentator – someone who has witnessed the deconstruction of international law by the Labour Government over the last year, and who is exasperated by their inertia. You'd be wrong. These are the words of Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, as he addressed the Bingham Centre for International Law in July 2023. During this speech, he said: 'There should be no power beyond or above the law. The law applies equally to all people.' READ MORE: Palestine Action gets green light for ban challenge He lamented that too many international crimes go unpunished, that too many dictators escape justice, and promised "wholeheartedly" to strengthen protections for humanitarian access and put the UK at the forefront of international legal debates. Well, he's certainly put the UK at the forefront of debates on international law. At best, because of his continued apology for Israel's war crimes. At worst, because of his active role in enabling these crimes. How does a human rights lawyer go from 'standing up for human rights and challenging impunity' to 'I am a steadfast supporter of Israel's security' after the state with which he so steadfastly stands has been accused of genocide, has murdered over 60,000 humans, and has gaslit many into thinking that it is the calling out of these atrocities which is the crime. Is he playing a geopolitical long game? The deep pockets of the Israeli lobby? Genuine callousness? As I write this, we have seen the bloodiest day in Gaza in 20 months. And yet, nothing from the UK Labour Government to suggest that this is a Cabinet which has 'international law fundamentally in its DNA', as Lammy once stated. When lawyers talk broadly about the UK breaching their obligations under international humanitarian law, they are usually referring to Geneva Conventions Common Article 1. This states that all High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances. This means that states must act to prevent breaches of international law in every situation of armed conflict. However, the UK – along with two others – interprets this as meaning that they only have an obligation to uphold international humanitarian law when breaches occur in their own territory. The other states are Israel and the US. As well as Common Article 1, the ICJ confirmed that all states must act to prevent a genocide as soon as they are aware of a serious risk – mirroring the Genocide Convention – and reiterated by credible findings of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. However, during the Al-Haq case, Labour confirmed that the reason that they are not acting to prevent a genocide is because they have found no credible evidence to suggest a genocide is ongoing. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits transferring a population within occupied territory and Article 59 demands that occupying states allow unimpeded humanitarian aid for all civilians, while Additional Protocol I prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Yet, repeatedly Labour MPs and the UK Government have excused Israel's siege and failed to prevent the mass forced displacement of Palestinians. The latest announcement to airdrop aid into Gaza is simply a self-congratulatory distraction. READ MORE: SNP to press ahead with Palestine recognition vote The UK should have immediately and unequivocally suspended all Israeli trade arrangements, as they are prohibited from assisting situations created by breaches of international law, as per the ICJ and the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Instead, Lammy and the Labour Government have sent a trade envoy to Israel, brag about their crucial trade partnerships, and still support Israel militarily. All of these obligations apply to the UK Labour Government. All of them are being breached. In January 2024, Lammy said that '…the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, just as in national law. Labour agrees.' However, in July 2025, when speaking of Israel – a state accused of genocide –Lammy said he 'treasures the many connections between our peoples'. Despite their legal obligations and public and parliamentary outrage, the UK Labour Government could not be further from the vision that Lammy established in 2023. When Lammy gave his speech, there were echoes of Tony Benn's anti-war speech from 1998. Lammy ended his address by quoting the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, as Benn had. Lammy spoke of the responsibility of governments to make the right decisions to protect people, as Benn had. He warned against the mistakes that led to the Second World War, as Benn had. He praised the legacy of Britain in pursuing the international rules-based order in the 1940s, mirroring Benn's calls for continued progression towards peace. Lammy's transition from Benn-to-barely-able-to-muster-up-a-sentence-without 'Israel's right to defend herself' is not just due to the grip of the Israeli lobby, but can be likened to a child who hasn't done their homework and is hoping that the teacher doesn't ask them a question in class. As though if his tone drips with enough condescension people will be distracted from the words coming out of his mouth. Lammy has spent a year trying to convince us that the mass atrocities being committed against Palestinian civilians is normal. He has gone from forging a 'foreign policy underpinned by a fundamental belief in the rule of law' to facing claims that he is perpetuating Israeli war crimes. David Lammy has reduced himself from an eminent human rights lawyer to a genocide apologist. The support for Israel's genocide will be this Labour Government's legacy, just as the illegal Iraq war was the legacy of the 1997 Labour government. David Lammy will always be the Foreign Secretary who forgot about international law because he was too busy trying to sound clever. The Foreign Secretary that condemned the Palestinian people to genocide because he liked the sound of a speech more than he liked the idea of implementing it. Lara Bird-Leakey is a senior policy researcher for foreign affairs in Westminster for the SNP group
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Erin Molan Stellar magazine cover sparks furious backlash over her views about Israel's war in Gaza: 'Never reading this publication again'
A magazine cover featuring Erin Molan has sparked a ferocious backlash over the TV presenter's strong stance supporting Israel in its conflict with Gaza. This weekend's edition of Stellar, which is published in News Corp's Sunday newspapers, is being promoted on Instagram and some readers are furious that Molan appears on the front. The former Sky News Australia host has publicly condemned Hamas since its raids on the Jewish state on October 7, 2023, and in recent months has been reporting from Israel on the Middle East war. While some fans - including model and influencer Bec Judd - were quick to congratulate Molan on taking out the cover position, others could not see past her pro-Israel views. 'No thanks Stella... No one I would support,' wrote one. 'So tone deaf,' said another. A third posted: 'Free Palestine ps never reading this publication again.' Several other users threatened to boycott Stellar. Some of the comments are too inflammatory to publish. The Times of Israel ran a profile piece on Molan in May under the headline 'Erin Molan vs. the world: From Australian news anchor to pro-Israel firebrand.' 'Molan has found herself increasingly recognized in Israel, where people on the street often flock to her, eager to thank her for her support,' it reported. The story quoted Molan, who is Catholic, describing her reaction to the October 7 outrages. 'It was never complex to me or grey or fuzzy,' she said. 'It was black and white as to who evil was in this scenario.' Molan has maintained that stance amid Israel's retaliation and the ongoing human crisis in Gaza. Former Sky News Australia colleague Sharri Markson moved quickly last year to quash a conspiracy theory that Molan had been sacked from the network for her pro-Israel views. In December, Markson wished Molan her well in her future pursuits and wrote on X that it was 'categorically untrue' the 41-year-old had been booted off Sky 'because of her Zionism'. in their reporting of the onetime Footy Show presenter's removal by Sky. Daily newspaper Israel Hayom referred to Molan's response to the October 7 massacre in which more than 1,200 Israelis - mostly citizens - were killed and 254 taken hostage. 'Molan has been a vocal supporter of Israel on her Sky News Australia program,' the newspaper stated. 'Strongly condemning both Hamas' actions against Israeli civilians and the pro-Hamas demonstrations that have erupted worldwide, repeatedly using her platform to address the ongoing war.' Israel National News covered the presenter's axing under the headline: 'Sky News Australia fires pro-Israel host Erin Molan.' 'Australian news anchor Erin Molan, who repeatedly defended Israel in the year since the October 7 massacre, has been fired by Sky News Australia,' its story began. Molan posted an impassioned nine-minute video to X in December, repeatedly mentioning the Middle East conflict and thanking everyone who had supported her. 'So that's done now,' she said of her Sky job. 'But I am not. In fact, I'm just getting started. 'So I'm sorry to those who had hoped otherwise. I'm somewhat surprisingly much harder to kill off than you'd think. 'You see the problem is - and it's always been this way with me - I just care too much. 'About you, about the world, about a peaceful existence for every single child.' Molan has called Hamas terrorists 'blood-thirsty killers' and said she would continue 'fighting for every single hostage still captive in Gaza'. Markson's post on X came shortly after Molan's video went live. 'I have to clear up this notion that her departure from Sky is because of her Zionism - this is categorically untrue,' she said. 'No media outlet globally has shown more leadership or clarity on Israel's fight against terrorism and our own battle against antisemitism than us at Sky News Australia and News Corp.' Although network insiders suggested Molan was caught off-guard by the decision to cancel her show, Sky insisted they had ended their partnership with the host on amicable terms. Molan presented her weekly news program, Erin, for the final time on November 29. The decision to cancel Molan's show comes just months after the breakfast radio program she co-hosted alongside comedians Dave Hughes and Ed Kavalee was scrapped by Southern Cross Austereo's struggling 2DayFM station in August. The cancellation of Molan's two key hosting roles is understood to have come at a significant financial cost to the journalist. Sources said she had been pulling in about $200,000 a year for her 2DayFM radio gig and a further $150,000 a year from her job with Sky. Molan joined Sky News Australia in July 2022 after parting ways with Nine after 11 years at the network.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Where do France, Britain and Canada stand on a Palestinian state?
Canada has now joined France and Britain in saying it intends to recognise the state of Palestine at the United Nations general assembly in September. If a week is a long time in politics, then a month is even longer in the Middle East, and what Israel, the West Bank and Gaza will look like by then is an open question. France has decided to ignore all that, and make its recognition unconditional — at least in theory. President Macron's statement said: 'True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the state of Palestine. 'We must also guarantee the demilitarisation of Hamas, and secure and rebuild Gaza.' In other words, although he is — like most western states — demanding the disarming of Hamas and its removal as the governing force in Gaza, he would recognise Palestine anyway. He would argue that recognising Palestine in practice means recognising Hamas's rival, the Palestinian Authority, as its government, so this would not be 'rewarding Hamas'. Britain tried a different tack, in keeping with Sir Keir Starmer's constant attempts to forge a middle way between his backbenchers and his desire to keep good relations with the pro-Israel Trump administration. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, in a statement to the UN conference on the two-state solution, used similarly grandiose terms to Macron's. He said: 'It is with the hand of history on our shoulders that His Majesty's government therefore intends to recognise the state of Palestine when the UN general assembly gathers in September here in New York.' But unlike Macron, he gave Israel, which is deeply hostile to the idea, a way out. 'We will do it unless the Israeli government acts to end the appalling situation in Gaza, ends its military campaign and commits to a long-term sustainable peace based on a two-state solution,' he said. In his speech, Lammy also made 'absolute and unwavering' demands on Hamas. 'It must immediately release the hostages, agree to an immediate ceasefire, accept it will have no role in governing Gaza and commit to disarmament,' he said. • What will happen to the West Bank if Palestine becomes a state? But there was 'no conditionality' attached and no statement that anything Hamas might do or not do would cause the British government to change its mind. The main criticism raised by pro-Israel critics is that this gives Hamas an incentive to stall any ceasefire deal, since only Israel will be punished if one is not agreed. Lammy said: 'No one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions.' But only Israel would want to veto this development. The critics are now demanding the government explicitly insert balancing conditions on the 'other side'. Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, appears to have hewed more to the British path. His statement said that Canada 'intended' to recognise Palestine but also made the decision conditional. His conditions, though, were aimed at the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas, rather than Israel. He said: 'This intention is predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms, including the commitments by Palestinian Authority President Abbas to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarise the Palestinian state.' Many people have demanded reforms of the Palestinians — the West, the Gulf states, Palestinians themselves. Few have been forthcoming.
