Bowen: Why some Palestinians aren't convinced by Starmer's promise
At the end of May, the defence minister Israel Katz and the finance minister Bezalel Smotrich announced that 22 new settlements would be built in the West Bank.Katz said the massive expansion, the biggest in decades, was making a "strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel and serves as a buffer against our enemies" ."This is a Zionist, security, and national response - and a clear decision on the future of the country," he added.Next to Katz was the ultra-nationalist leader Bezalel Smotrich, who lives in a settlement in the West Bank and believes that the land was given to the Jews by God. He is finance minister but also is effectively the governor of the West Bank with sweeping powers over planning.Smotrich called the settlement expansion a "once-in-a-generation decision" and declared: "Next step sovereignty!"Everyone in Israel, and the Palestinians in the territories, know that when Smotrich and his allies say "sovereignty" they mean annexation.Smotrich wants all the land for Jews and has openly discussed finding ways of removing Palestinians.
'We were very, very scared'
On hilltop after hilltop in the West Bank are settlements at different stages of their development, from well-established small towns with mature gardens and schools, to outposts with handful of caravans and a militant population of young settlers who often mix religion with extreme Jewish nationalism, firearms and sometimes deadly aggression towards their Palestinian neighbours.Statistics collected by the UN and peace campaigners show that violent settlers have increased attacks on their Palestinian neighbours since the 7 October attacks.I went to see how that has affected Taybeh, an entirely Christian village of around 1,500 people.It is a quiet place that seems to have many more houses than residents. After nearly six hard decades of Israeli occupation, more Taybeh people have been forced to emigrate than now live in the village.Two nights before the visit, settlers entered the village when most people were in bed. They burned Kamal Tayea's car and tried unsuccessfully to get into his new house, part of a pleasant development overlooking acres of olive groves. They daubed the walls with graffiti in Hebrew sprayed with red paint.Kamal, a middle-aged man reassessing whether his decision to move his family to the edge of the village was wise, is installing a network of security cameras."We were very, very scared," Kamal said. "I have children and an old mum. Our lives were threatened, and it was terrifying."I asked him whether Britain's plan to recognise Palestine would make his life any easier."I don't think so. It's a big step to have a superpower like Britain support us, but on the ground, it does not change much. Israel is not compliant with any international resolutions or laws."It does not listen to any other country in the whole world."
'Our roots are here. We can't move'
During the next night, Jewish settlers raided neighbouring Palestinian communities, burning cars and spraying graffiti. It is more than just vandalism.The settlers want the Palestinians out and, in some places in the occupied territories, have succeeded, forcing Palestinians in remote villages out of their farms and stealing their livestock.The Greek Orthodox priest, 74-year-old David Khoury was born in Taybeh. In his church he told me that settlers who have threatened him and other residents are often armed."Yes, they have guns… they'll use them if we argue with them. They want us out, they want us to leave."The old priest was defiant."We are here, since Jesus Christ, 2,000 years. Our roots are here. We can't move. We will not move, even if we die here, we will not move from here… Palestine is inside our blood, how we can live without our blood?"
'If you really seek two states, recognise [both]'
It was not many miles to Ramallah, the de facto Palestinian capital of the West Bank, but I wasn't able to get there in person. Israel's checkpoints can make driving back to Jerusalem slow and difficult, so I reached Husam Zomlot via Zoom. He is the head of the Palestinian delegation to the United Kingdom, effectively their ambassador in London. He is back home for the summer and was delighted by Britain's plan to recognise Palestine."It is a sign that the UK and with it, the rest of the international community are really serious about the two-state solution. We are no longer in the business of the lip service that has lost us three decades. Actually, if you really seek two states, recognise the two states.""We see the recognition as the starting gun to a sprint towards implementing and establishing the state of Palestine and fulfilling the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."Zomlot was jubilant. It was, he said, a first step, and Britain's decision would make a real difference.History is one of the powerful drivers of this conflict. Britain, he added, was atoning at last for the wrongs it had done Palestinians when it was the imperial power here between 1917 and 1948.
He was referring to the promises made in a short, typewritten letter, dated 2 November 1917, signed by the foreign secretary Arthur Balfour and addressed to Lord Rothschild, a leader of Britain's Jewish community. It was, the letter said, "a declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations".Britain would "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".It was followed by another promise: "Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."He meant the majority, Palestinian Arabs, though he didn't name them, a point that, 108 years later, still rankles ZomlotAt the UN in New York this week, Britain's foreign secretary David Lammy said the UK could be proud to have helped lay Israel's foundations after 1917. But breaking the promise to Palestinians in the Balfour Declaration had, he said, caused "a historical injustice which continues to unfold".At the Knesset, Israel's parliament, Simcha Rothman, an ultra-nationalist MP from the National Religious party also had Britain's imperial past in the Middle East on his mind. The British and French had tried to fix borders before, he said, when they took the Middle East from the dying Ottoman Empire during the First World War. Britain couldn't play the imperial power anymore.Just like Benjamin Netanyahu and Bezalel Smotrich, his party leader, Rothman said the plan to recognise Palestine rewarded Hamas terrorism. He rejected Starmer's offer to postpone recognition if Israel, among other conditions, agreed to a full ceasefire in Gaza and a revival of the two-state solution."He is threatening the state of Israel with punishment and thinks that's the way to bring peace to the Middle East. He is not in a position to punish us, and it definitely will not bring peace.""And it's against justice, history, religion, culture... he's giving a huge reward for Yahya Sinwar [the Hamas leader who led the 7 October attacks and was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza last year]."Wherever he is in hell today, he sees what Keir Starmer says - and says, 'good partner'."Back in Taybeh, I had asked a group of leading local citizens who were drinking coffee with the mayor in his office what they thought of the UK's recognition plan.One of them, a local businessman, said: "Thank you Britain. But it's too late."
Top image: Getty Images
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What's the best thing world leaders could do now? 'Let go' and 'embrace uncertainty'
If there is one thing that has marked the first year of Keir Starmer's premiership, it is a propensity for control – whether it's managing his own party, cracking down on civil liberties and protest, or instilling fear and anxiety in marginalised groups. For a centre-left party, the authoritarian strain Starmer has shown isn't exactly in line with the 'change' from the Tories that was promised. Governments seek to control populations, politicians seek to control their parties: this is nothing new and has been explicitly promoted since Machiavelli's The Prince was published in 1532. When leaders understand holding power as an end in itself, and see the method as controlling those they have power over, they block themselves from being able to bring about real change, because not 'losing control' becomes more important than any change they seek to create. And attempting to tightly control outcomes is ill suited to an increasingly complex and unstable world. At the same time, a different mode of control exists across the institutions that implement government policy. It is rules-based, promoted by steeply hierarchical structures fostering compliance, with rigid frameworks and inflexible mindsets, alongside a culture of overconfidence. These dynamics might seem benign or indeed necessary for a functioning bureaucracy. However, if out of balance, they can stifle the creative thinking and collaboration required to tackle complex challenges. Whether it is running consultations without the intention of deep engagement or listening, or an inability to incorporate the climate crisis into economic frameworks, by seeking to maintain control, institutions fall short of making meaningful change. Or to put it bluntly, key performance indicators and top-down thinking, combined with overzealous control freakery in government, will not have a chance of tackling climate breakdown, the cost of living crisis, the mental health epidemic or the loss of trust in politics. This situation of overlapping crises is what academics like to call a polycrisis, characterised by radical uncertainty and wicked complexity. Coming out of the pandemic, there has been increased discussion among policymakers recognising the need to acknowledge uncertainty. The value of this is clear: a report commissioned by the European Environment Agency and published in 2002 examined more than 100 years of policymaking, highlighting areas where uncertainty was not sufficiently acknowledged or taken into account when key decisions were made, such as during the BSE crisis. The authors concluded that, on many occasions, what was missing was the need for more humility in public policymaking about what was not known, stating: 'Decision-making is faced with the continual prospect of surprise. This is the condition formerly known as ignorance.' When institutions don't acknowledge what they don't know, they are left exposed and unprepared, and leaders obsessed with control and certainty block themselves from taking seriously differing perspectives. These dynamics are not well suited to a world that is being upended, with fascism and ecological collapse on our doorstep. However, the need for certainty and control isn't confined to the halls of power. Across psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, evolutionary biology and strands of spirituality, it is recognised that our brains are wired for certainty. Neuroscience studies show that the brain responds to uncertainty as a fear-based threat, triggering the threat response centre called the amygdala. There is an evolutionary survival reason for this, to detect and react to danger: 'How will I protect myself if I don't know what's coming at me?' Humans' over-alert threat response is also shaped by culture and society. We have a political-media establishment that is happy to pump out ready opinions that are not only factually baseless and untrue, but also provoke our threat response. And in times of economic decline and uncertainty, there is an opportunity for far-right groups to hijack and trigger emotional and psychological reactions towards marginalised groups. When imaginary fears are adopted and promoted by those in power, this isn't a mistake: it is a way to control. The dominant mode of power that continues to operate in society, and certainly in the Labour party today, is 'power over', which is built on control, domination and coercion. Leadership exerts pressure and stress, which can often make our amygdala threat response fire off. People become paranoid and go into overdrive trying to control everything. To an extent, I understand these responses. As an overconfident 27-year-old when I took on a director role, I certainly had an urge to control everything. I had to work hard against that tendency in order to lead in a collaborative way. The phrase 'holding uncertainty' was useful for me, because it meant I didn't always trust my first reaction in situations, or the narratives my brain was telling me. It reminded me to take on board different opinions, rather than simply dismiss them. Of course I made mistakes, but I was also open to examining my own controlling and perfectionistic tendencies. 'Embracing uncertainty' or 'letting go' has been mostly limited to the pages of self-help books, but letting go on an individual level doesn't make sense if you can't pay your rent, or your family is getting deported. However, if we apply it to our institutions, power centres, systems and structures, it can be a direction of travel against authoritarianism, moving us towards co-creation, pluralist thinking that goes beyond siloed categories, and building coalitions against the far right. We are a quarter of the way through this century, and the IPCC climate change report says that global temperature increase could be up to 5.7C by 2100, making much of the world unliveable. At the same time, fascism is on the rise. Renewing our democracies, shifting to a healthier culture, tackling the climate crisis and reorienting the economy will only happen if we shift our culture and institutions away from control. We need to let go. What have we got to lose? Fran Boait is a leadership coach, freelancer and writer
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Occupying Gaza would be a historic mistake for Israel
The Israeli media reports that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is about to push for Israel to occupy Gaza. This has been long in the offing. Some members of Netanyahu's government have, ever since the horrific terrorist atrocities on October 7 2023, talked about removing the entire population of Gaza and replacing them. An American plan – we don't know how serious – was to involve foreign occupation and the creation of an American-administered Mediterranean Riviera in Gaza. The leaders of the Israeli settler movement, meanwhile, have protested near the border with Gaza and demanded that they be permitted to settle the strip as they have settled in the West Bank. A groundswell of support in Israel – by no means a majority – considers the indefinite takeover of Gaza to be the only permanent solution to the war. I believe this is mistaken. Occupying Gaza is a terrible idea and would be a grave mistake if the Israeli government and Knesset agree to it. Occupation tends to create more problems than it solves; and it becomes an open wound, a staging post for all of a nation's domestic and foreign enemies. An occupation soon proves itself a point of vulnerability, not a demonstration of a nation's strength and resolve. It is no surprise that hundreds of retired Israeli security officials, including former heads of intelligence agencies, have recently issued a letter to Donald Trump and called on him to pressure Netanyahu to end the war rather than continue it indefinitely. Western countries know well the perils of occupation. After the September 11 attacks in 2001 – former president Joe Biden's favourite comparison for October 7 – the United States deposed the rulers of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq and settled in for significant occupations of both countries. Initially at least, these were mounted with British and international help. In the realms of highest theory, these occupations might have borne fruit. The Afghan economy grew at a rate unseen since the 1970s. Infant mortality collapsed. The population doubled. The number of Afghans who were literate after twenty years without the Taliban in Kabul dwarfed the population who could read in 2001. Iraq nowadays is a very flawed democracy. Recent visitors to Baghdad tell me they cannot believe how prosperous and peaceful it seems. But the United States still lost those wars. It was still utterly humiliated and defeated. America, it turned out, simply wanted to rule Afghanistan less than the Taliban did, and to rule Iraq less than Iraq-based proxies with ties to Iran. There is no reason to think Israelis will be keener to rule Gaza in a decade than those who live there. Hamas's leadership has been devastated; the Palestinian Authority is led by 89-year-old Mahmoud Abbas. Some Israeli policymakers might see a vacuum there to be filled with good foreign governance. But this would be false. The truth is that, in the modern world, no matter your reasons and no matter what you think you are doing for the territories under your occupation, the resentment and unhappiness of those living there will win out. We cannot forget that Israel occupied Gaza from 1967 to 2005. When that occupation ended, Hamas came to power on a tide of grievance and threats. The only alternative to the same result would be not just be a forever war but a forever occupation – a permanent Afghanistan, an eternal Vietnam. Every issue with the food supply, with electricity and water, would become Israel's problem. So would every unnatural civilian death. Most countries would not wish the administration of Gaza upon their worst enemies. Israel's leaders would be better not to take it on willingly.
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Israel's security cabinet expected to meet to sign off plans for expanded Gaza operation – Middle East crisis live
Update: Date: 2025-08-07T06:42:45.000Z Title: Israel's security cabinet expected to meet tonight to sign off plans for expanded Gaza operation Content: Israel's security cabinet is expected to meet on Thursday evening and sign off on plans for an expanded operation despite reported serious misgivings from senior military officers. Yesterday, the Israeli military put parts of Gaza City and Khan Younis under new enforced displacement orders. The move comes amid fears that the country's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is preparing to order the full occupation of the Palestinian territory later this week. Israeli online newspaper, the Times of Israel, citing various Hebrew media reports, added that the cabinet is expected to approve 'a phased plan to conquer vast new areas of the Gaza Strip, potentially over five months, newly displacing around a million Palestinians'. Additionally, it would aim to destroy Hamas and pressure the group to release all remaining hostages, the publication reported. Public broadcaster Kan also reported that mediators Egypt and Qatar were pressuring Israel, via the US, not to implement the plan, while also urging Hamas to resume negotiations. In other developments: The humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be very severe, an EU official told Reuters after the EU's foreign policy and humanitarian arms updated member countries late on Wednesday on the status of an agreement reached with Israel last month on boosting humanitarian access to Gaza. Israel's destruction of Gaza has left starving Palestinians with access to only 1.5% of cropland that is accessible and suitable for cultivation, according to new figures from the UN. This is down from 4% in April, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), suggesting Israel has continued to target Palestinian farmland since initiating a complete blockade in early March. On Wednesday, Gaza's health ministry reported that five more people had died from starvation in the coastal strip, which has been plunged into a devastating hunger crisis owing to Israel's complete block on aid entering earlier this year. Jordan reported, on Wednesday, that an aid convoy of 30 trucks that had left for Gaza had been attacked by militant Jewish settlers on entering Israel. After the attack, the second in days, Jordan accused Israel of failing to act to prevent repeated assaults. Naomi Klein and Angela Davis are among dozens of international scholars and writers who have signed a letter to the Guardian calling on the UK government to reverse the ban on Palestine Action. Signatories from major academic institutions around the world also say they are 'especially concerned' about the ban's possible impact on universities across Britain and beyond. The UK prime minister Keir Starmer has been urged by Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, to call Donald Trump to encourage him to use his influence to block Israel's plans for a 'full occupation' of Gaza. In a statement, Davey said: '[Israeli PM Benjamin] Netanyahu's latest proposals for the occupation of all of Gaza are utterly horrifying.'
