How exactly has Britain supported Israel's military assault on Gaza? The public has a right to know
Hussam, 13, and Muhammad, 14, were killed by air-dropped cluster bombs. These bombs were made by the United States and were dropped in a military campaign supported by the British government. Hussam and Muhammad were born in Baghdad and died in 2003. 'The bomblet ripped off their legs and ultimately killed them,' according to Human Rights Watch. They were two of about 200,000 civilians who were killed in the Iraq war.
For years after that conflict, the government tried to resist several attempts to establish an inquiry into the policymaking of British officials. However, it could not prevent the inevitable – and in 2016 we had the publication of the Chilcot inquiry. I was the leader of the Labour party when the report was published, and it found grave failings within the British government. After I had responded to the Chilcot inquiry in parliament that day, I then went over the road to Church House, where we had invited war veterans, Iraqis and the families of British soldiers who had lost their lives. I apologised on behalf of the party for its catastrophic decision to go to war in Iraq. Today, history is repeating itself – and a Labour government is making another grave mistake.
After 20 months of Israeli bombardment, the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 54,000. As for the survivors, the injured and the bereaved – they will face lifelong scars for generations to come.
Israel has not been acting alone. It has relied on military, economic and political support from governments around the world. Britain may have had a change in government since 7 October 2023, but one thing has remained constant: the steady supply of arms to Israel. Last year, between October and December alone, Labour approved more arms exports licences to Israel than the Conservatives approved between 2020 and 2023. This was in spite of the government's announcement of a part suspension in September 2024.
Many of us have continued to express our disgust over the continued supply of components to the F-35 jet fighter programme. I remain astounded that the government openly admits it is making an 'exception' to its part suspension. Is this an exception to its legal obligations to prevent genocide? One thing is beyond doubt: this government is still allowing the supply of arms to a nation whose leader is wanted by the international criminal court for alleged crimes against humanity.
We have also repeatedly asked for the truth regarding the role of British military bases in Cyprus, concerning the transfer of arms to Israel and the supply of military intelligence. When Keir Starmer visited RAF Akrotiri in December 2024, he was filmed telling troops: 'The whole world is relying on you, and everybody back at home is relying on you.' He added: 'Quite a bit of what goes on here can't necessarily be talked about all of the time … We can't necessarily tell the world what you're doing here.' What does the government have to hide?
Our questions have been met with evasion, obstruction and silence, leaving the public in the dark over the ways in which the responsibilities of government have been discharged. Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of democracy. The British public deserves to know the full scale of the UK's complicity in crimes against humanity.
That is why I am tabling a private members' bill tomorrow calling for a full, public, independent inquiry into the UK's role in Israel's military assault in Gaza. This inquiry would seek to establish the truth about Britain's military, economic or political cooperation with Israel since October 2023. Any meaningful inquiry would require the full cooperation of government ministers – Conservative and Labour – who have been involved in the decision-making processes.
This inquiry must find out: what arms have been supplied to Israel? Which of these arms have been used to kill Palestinians? What legal advice has the government received? Is RAF Akrotiri being used as a route for weapons to be deployed in Gaza? What video footage does the government have of the war zone? What intelligence has been passed to Israel?
Over the past 20 months, human beings have endured a level of horror and inhumanity that should haunt us for ever. Entire families wiped out. Limbs strewn across the street. Mothers screaming for their children torn to pieces. Doctors performing amputations without anaesthesia. Home by home, hospital by hospital, generation by generation. We have not been witnessing a war. We have been witnessing a genocide, livestreamed before the entire world.
No one can pretend they did not know what was happening. In October 2023, we warned that we were witnessing the beginning of the total annihilation of Gaza and its people. We said Palestinians were being collectively punished for a terrible crime they did not commit. We pleaded with political leaders to call for peace.
We were ignored. Today, some politicians have finally started to backtrack, perhaps frightened by the consequences of their inhumanity. If they had any integrity, they would weep for the 54,000 Palestinians buried under the rubble by their moral and political cowardice. Today, schoolchildren are taught about history's worst crimes against humanity. In the future, our history books will shame those who had the opportunity to stop this massacre but instead chose to enable one of the greatest crimes of our time.
This issue is not going away – and we are not going anywhere. The government must decide: will it support this inquiry, or will it block our efforts to establish the truth?
Jeremy Corbyn is the MP for Islington North. He was leader of the Labour party from 2015 to 2020
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
I don't want to leave ECHR, said peer reviewing Tory support for convention
Britain should remain in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the peer leading the Tories' review has previously said. Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, told the Lords in 2023 that he supported the UK 'being in the convention' even though he disagreed with some decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Speaking in a debate on Tory plans to enact their Rwanda deportation plans, he also warned that Parliament should not legislate in breach of its international law obligations unless there were 'absolutely compelling reasons' to do so. His past comments have emerged as Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, appointed him to head a review into whether the UK should leave the ECHR and how to prevent lawyers 'subverting' government policy. Mrs Badenoch is setting up a commission to investigate how a Tory government could prevent lawyers using human rights and other legislation to block government policy, not only on immigration but also in environmental and equality legislation. Lord Wolfson, a former justice minister, made his comments in a debate on Rishi Sunak's illegal migration bill which included new powers for ministers to ignore ECtHR injunctions, one of which blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda. His past comments on ECHR membership have raised eyebrows among Tories. One commented: 'He is a brilliant lawyer but you wonder if Kemi should have chosen someone who was a bit more open-minded.' In the Lords debate, Lord Wolfson said: 'I support our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not always agree with the decisions of the court – I do not always agree with the decisions of our domestic courts either – but that is a separate matter. I support us being in the convention.' He also said that the UK ought to abide by international law obligations. 'I would expect Parliament not to legislate contrary to a treaty obligation unless there were absolutely compelling reasons to do so and, in those circumstances, to make that very clear. Otherwise, we should always be legislating consistently with our international law obligations,' he told the Lords. 'The debate has moved on' It is understood Lord Wolfson believes the debate has moved on since 2023. The Telegraph understands that irrespective of his views, his role as head of the review is to provide dispassionate advice on the impact of the ECHR on government policy, the legal consequences of leaving and how it could be done. It will be for the leadership to then decide whether to leave or not. A Tory source said: 'He is conducting a review of the legal impact of membership of the ECHR on government policy and providing to the leader and shadow cabinet a legal analysis of what being a member of the ECHR means and what would be the effect of leaving the ECHR in a legal sense. 'The political question of whether we should stay or leave is not for him or the commission. That's a question for the leader and shadow cabinet. They are the clients in this context, and he is their lawyer. They have asked him a series of questions that he is going to answer with his legal hat on. They can decide what they then do.' Interviewed earlier this week about what the Tories' position was on the ECHR, Lord Wolfson told Joshua Rozenberg's podcast A Lawyer Talks: 'I can only say watch this space. But it's no secret to say that within the Conservative Party, there will be people who take different views on this issue. 'Within the Labour Party, there are people who take very different positions on this issue.' However, he indicated that ministers should not comply with treaty obligations if that would mean ignoring laws made by Parliament. He said ministers would always seek to comply with international law if they were able to do so. But he added: 'A minister has to abide by an act of Parliament and it would be constitutionally improper, I would suggest, for the minister to say, 'I'm going to ignore what an act of Parliament says in order to comply with a treaty obligation'.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told The Telegraph: 'The man leading this review into Britain's membership of the ECHR does not actually want to leave it. 'This tells us everything we need to know about how serious the Conservatives are about deporting illegal migrants and stopping the boats. 'They haven't changed one bit since their time in office.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Illegal immigrant can stay in UK for daughter he does not speak to
An asylum judge allowed an illegal immigrant stay in Britain despite ' contradictory findings ' that his relationship with his daughter was good – but had also broken down. Andrew Kung'u Gichuhi, from Kenya, won his appeal to remain in the country, with a new hearing pending, after an immigration judge said Mr Gichuhi could stay in the UK because he had a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, and it would not be right to expect her to leave Britain. But, later on in her judgment, she appeared to contradict her earlier comments, saying there had been a breakdown in the father-daughter relationship. After the Home Office argued that her findings were 'irrational', an upper tribunal judge has now ruled that Mr Gichuhi's claim should be heard again. The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph in which illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their deportations on human rights grounds. 'Irrational' ruling Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to kerb judges' powers to block deportations with new 'common sense' rules to clarify how they interpret the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) article eight, which provides the right to a family life. The Home Secretary's rules are also intended to strengthen the public interest test, in which courts need to be hold themselves accountable and only grant exceptions to laws with justified reasons. Mr Gichuhi was living in the UK illegally as an unmarried partner of a British national when he applied for citizenship. The Home Office rejected his application, arguing that there were 'no insurmountable obstacles to family life with his partner continuing in Kenya'. The Home Office said he did not have a 'genuine and subsisting' relationship with his daughter, from a previous marriage. Mr Gichuhi appealed the decision to a lower-tier tribunal. The unnamed judge found that there was a 'genuine and subsisting' parental relationship between Gichuhi and his daughter, who 'could not reasonably be expected to leave the United Kingdom'. But later in the judgment, she said the relationship was 'broken down' and that there was 'no contact' between the Mr Gichuhi and his daughter. In the appeal against the 'irrational' finding, the Home Office said 'a relationship could not be both genuine and subsisting and broken down'. It added the judge had also been 'speculating about the possibility of future contact'. Those representing Mr Gichuhi argued that the judge had been 'entitled' to find that the relationship was subsisting, because he sent £100 a month to his daughter's bank account. They said he sent the money on an 'entirely voluntary basis', and his daughter had not returned the money. However, while they argued that a relationship could be 'genuine and subsisting' in 'the absence of contact', they accepted that 'subsisting was the antithesis of broken down'. For this reason, Mr Gichuhi's lawyers accepted that the judge's position was 'at least contradictory' and she had not explained how 'the contradictory positions were reconciled'. Upper Tribunal Judges Adrian Seelhoff and Sean O'Brien concluded: 'Consequently, the judge's finding at that [Mr Gichuhi's] relationship with his daughter had 'broken down' is inconsistent with her finding later in that paragraph that it was 'subsisting'. 'No attempt had been made to reconcile these contradictory findings. It follows that the judge's decision involved the making of an error of law.' They ruled that the case must be reheard afresh by another judge.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Has Scotland fallen for English nationalist Nigel Farage?
As a Londoner with Scottish roots, I too liked to think of the Scots as different from the English. But the facts are against me. The Scots are fond of imagining that they are more compassionate and more left-wing than the English, but the evidence of social surveys is that their attitudes to crime, immigration, public services and taxation are broadly the same. Whenever I am in Scotland I have been told that ' Nigel Farage could never be popular here'; that he is a caricature of an English nationalist; and besides, we voted to stay in the European Union. Except that, even in Scotland, 38 per cent voted to leave. And polling for next year's Scottish parliament election shows Reform going up while Labour is going down. The two most recent polls had Reform and Labour neck and neck on 18-19 per cent. The Scottish parliament by-election in Hamilton today is the big test of the Reform surge in Scotland. The seat was held by the Scottish National Party until the death from cancer of Christina McKelvie at the age of 57. Labour should win here. The SNP has lost support since the last Scottish parliament elections in 2021, and if the result today were to reflect Scotland-wide opinion polls, Labour would win, despite its loss of support since Keir Starmer formed a UK government in London. But this is a by-election, in which protest voting is magnified and 'a plague on all your establishment houses' is often the dominant sentiment among those citizens motivated to turn out at all. Labour is now the London establishment, and the winter fuel payment cut is just as unpopular here as anywhere else. When Jack Davey, an enterprising blogger, interviewed a pensioner in the constituency she said Labour 'took me money' and, asked which party she was going to vote for, said: 'The Scottish one.' But the SNP is the Edinburgh establishment, in power in Scotland for decades and with little to show for it. Hence the expectation that Ross Lambie, the Reform candidate, could come a strong second – and might even win. If he does, it will be as significant a victory as Sarah Pochin's six-vote triumph in the Runcorn by-election last month. The symbolism of a strong Reform performance here will send a message directly to the heart of Downing Street, because this is Morgan McSweeney's backyard. Imogen Walker, the wife of the prime minister's chief of staff, is the MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley, which covers part of the Scottish parliament constituency. But the Reform surge also matters because of its effect on hard electoral arithmetic. In the short term, it means that the SNP is likely to hold on to government in Scotland because the opposition is split. If Reform gains more ground, it could even be the official opposition in the Scottish parliament after next year's elections. This week's defection of Jamie McGuire, a young Labour councillor in Renfrewshire, to Reform could have been a one-off, or it might be a sign that the tectonic plates are shifting. In the longer term, it adds to the threat to Labour at the next general election. A big chunk of Starmer's majority comes from the 37 seats that Labour holds in Scotland. Another comes from the 27 Labour seats in Wales, where Farage has long been expecting to do well in next year's Senedd elections. Whatever happens in today's by-election, Labour's comforting assumption that Scotland and Wales are somehow immune to Farage's appeal will be dented. Reform is eating up the party's working-class base across the whole of Great Britain. The voters of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse will show today that they have more in common with the voters of Runcorn and Helsby than the romantics of Scottish exceptionalism ever thought possible.
