Starmer shows no guts or compassion on Gaza
In 1984-85, I served with Operation Bushel, the RAF detachment in Ethiopia that flew aid into areas of famine. The operation was approved by Margaret Thatcher, despite Ethiopia's government being a brutal regime propped up by the Soviet Union. Delivering aid by air is difficult, risky and expensive; it's appropriate only when there is no other option.
In Gaza, the so-called safe area of al-Mawasi is only 10 miles by road from the Rafah crossing; just north of Gaza is a major Israeli port, with road access into Gaza just a few miles away. This is one of the worst aspects of the famine in Gaza: unlike in Ethiopia, where access was extremely difficult, in Gaza there is a mountain of aid sitting close by, but kept inaccessible by Israel's actions.
That Benjamin Netanyahu is allowing a trickle of aid into Gaza is a sign that international pressure has an effect. Most of the pressure here is coming from the public while our government spouts platitudes. Mrs Thatcher might have had the compassion and guts to take difficult decisions. Sir Keir Starmer clearly hasn't.Doug MaughanDunblane, Perthshire
I agree with Nesrine Malik (Protesting over Gaza's starvation feels like screaming into a void – but we mustn't stop, 28 July), but unfortunately we have allowed pro-Israel pressure groups to redefine criticism of Israel as antisemitism, and the government to redefine expressing support for Palestine as terrorism. The former can be brushed away, but an arrest under anti-terrorism laws, even if no charges are brought, can have serious affects on someone's employment prospects and freedom to travel for the rest of their lives. If the proscription of Palestine Action is ever reversed, we must demand that any related arrests, charges and convictions are expunged from people's records.Mike PerryIckenham, London
Nesrine Malik powerfully expressed the true nature of the catastrophe, the true horror of its outcomes and the true failure of governments to halt Israel's wanton destruction of Palestine and its people.
But her words, and these few, are wasted unless governments come together to halt military and trade relations, and institute sanctions that will force Israel to end military action, withdraw from Gaza, allow meaningful aid to reach its people, restore infrastructure and agree to a two-state solution.
I have been a passive, if horrified, observer. I am now an active protester.Teresa BoohanLondon
My country can't single-handedly stop what's happening, but we could at a stroke cut off every atom of support, every shred of legitimacy to the perpetrators. And by choosing not to, my government is making me and all my fellow citizens accessories to an atrocity. How can I make it clear that I do not consent to this? Being ignored is what drives desperate law-abiding citizens first to be paint-sprayers and eventually to more violent forms of screaming.Katy JennisonWitney, Oxfordshire
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Keir Starmer's Palestine recognition speech full of colonial arrogance
This week, three-quarters of a century later, the British Prime Minister affirmed the enduring truth of Sayegh's words. In the same breath that Keir Starmer declared statehood to be the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, he confirmed that British recognition will hinge on the actions of the Israeli state: Only if Benjamin Netanyahu and his government continue their campaign of ethnic cleansing will Britain join 147 other countries in recognising [[Palestine]] as a sovereign nation. Speaking in front of two large Union Jacks, the Prime Minister acted with the same colonial arrogance that motivated the British colonisation of Palestine in the early 20th century. Justifying that occupation before the Peel Commission in 1937, Winston Churchill said: 'I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time … I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.' READ MORE: Police remove pro-Palestine protesters from John Swinney's Edinburgh Fringe show Keir Starmer would never say such things. However, for as long as Britain uses Palestinian statehood as a bargaining chip and simultaneously supplies material aid to abet Israel's crimes, the Prime Minister channels Churchill's imperial logic: Dehumanise the Palestinians in order to justify the denial of their right to self-determination. In Gassan Kanafani's novella, Returning To Haifa, Said, the protagonist, asks his wife, Safiyya: 'Do you know what homeland is? It is where nothing like this happens.' Since October 2023, the Palestinian homeland has been decimated – 70,000 tonnes of explosives have been dropped on the Gaza Strip; 4000 buildings have been demolished in the Occupied West Bank. The conditions necessary for human habitation of that homeland have been systematically erased too. Gaza, the UN acknowledges, is now 'the hungriest place on earth'. As the direct consequence of intentional decisions by a nuclear power, the mass starvation of Gaza is, as Professor Adam Tooze points out, 'quite unlike that anywhere else in the world'. In Yemen, Sudan and Haiti – among the places where hunger is most acute – the share of the population at risk is between 49% and 57%. In Gaza, the share is 100%. The declared objective of Israel's genocide is to deny the Palestinian people even the hope of a homeland. Last week, the British state served that aim, conferring the right to decide Palestine's future not to the land's people, but to its illegal occupier. Deploying the language of universal human rights to strip the Palestinian people of their agency, Keir Starmer's duplicitous designs offer Benjamin Netanyahu an olive branch. By delaying any decision regarding recognition until the UN General Assembly meets in September, the British government has afforded the Israeli government six more weeks of impunity. Keir Starmer will only recognise Palestine as a last-ditch attempt to salvage what little faith remains in the 'rules-based international order'. To do so would involve committing the cardinal sin of humanising a population whose erasure the British state has licensed, supported and participated in for decades. If the British state is to concede that Palestinians, like the rest of the world, have the right to self-determination, then Keir Starmer and his Cabinet have a series of uncomfortable questions to answer. To this day, imperialism's serial dispossession of the Palestinians has rested on the explicit understanding that they do not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. The question of recognition – and Keir Starmer's attitude to it – forces this contradiction to the surface for all to see. Since last year's General Election, the question of Palestine has posed serious challenges to the Labour leader's premiership. Confronted by a mass movement to end Israel's genocide, the Prime Minister has taken every possible step to evade accountability – including the criminalisation of peaceful protest. Last week's announcement is no different. The foreign policy of the British state – which has conducted more surveillance flights over Gaza than even Israel – is not, as far as our government is concerned, up for debate. Indeed, Britain's subjugation to the United States is such that the interests of imperialism have always sat outside the realms of our democracy. By cynically gesturing toward recognising the Palestinian state, Keir Starmer hopes to ease popular domestic pressure while not straying from the broad position of the Trump administration. The Palestine solidarity movement can have no truck with such colonial parlour games.
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
I am a Palestinian. Keir Starmer's recognition plan is an insult
The Prime Minister announced last week that the UK would recognise the state of Palestine next month, but only if Israel does not meet a set of conditions which include agreeing a ceasefire, allowing in aid to the starving population of Gaza and engaging in a peace process which leads to a two-state solution. But Glasgow-based Wael Shawish, who is originally from Jerusalem and has family in Gaza, has said the conditional plan set out by Starmer is an 'insult' to Palestinians and is meaningless unless it is accompanied by tangible sanctions, such as an end to arms sales to Israel. 'It doesn't seem to be a genuine statement. They need to satisfy Palestinians – not just Starmer but other world leaders in the West – on why they are doing it now,' Shawish, who is part of the Scottish Palestinian Society, told the Sunday National. READ MORE: The National hosts Q&A with Peter Oborne on UK Gaza complicity 'I think there are a number of reasons [it is being done now] – one is that there is so much unhappiness in the West among the populations of these countries that makes the government divorced from the opinion of their people. 'So they want to do something to say 'okay, we are with you, you are angry, we are angry, we are taking steps and the step is to recognise the state of Palestine' not because the Palestinians deserve a state, but because Israel is misbehaving and we are punishing it by recognising Palestine. 'That is not the right way to go about it. We shouldn't be used as a stick to hit Israel with. We should get recognition because we deserve it. To use it as a bargaining chip to hit Israel with is an insult to us. "The only way this announcement could be meaningful is if it is coupled with sanctions or stopping exporting arms to Israel." On Starmer, Shawish (below) added: 'With all due respect to the guy, who was supposed to be a high-flying international lawyer, his knowledge of international law to start with seems to be doubtful." (Image: NQ) Daily images of starving children coming out of Gaza has led to a change in tone from several world leaders in recent weeks, with the UK's hand seemingly being forced by France which also plans to recognise the state of Palestine next month. Canada has since indicated that it will recognise a Palestinian state, but there are again conditions, such as the Palestinian Authority committing to elections and other democratic reforms with no involvement from Hamas. Shawish claimed Starmer and other world leaders may be starting to worry about their complicity in war crimes being carried out in Gaza and so have felt compelled to make an 'empty gesture'. 'Some of them [Western world leaders], having seen the images of the starving children, now can recognise that they cannot argue about the death toll as being part of the battle, as collateral damage,' he said. 'It is now clear that there is a starvation plan in place to starve the Palestinian people and when these leaders actually provide weapons to Israel, to kill whoever they can kill, with British weapons […] these leaders are now worried that if somebody goes to the international courts, they could actually stand before the courts for being complicit, if not partners, in that genocide that is taking place.' A group of legal figures in the House of Lords claimed last week that the UK recognising Palestine would not be compatible with international law, citing a Pan-American treaty from 1933 – to which the UK was not a signatory. There are several signatories of the Montevideo Convention who recognised Palestine as a state. An expert explained to The National that it was a 'cynical ploy' by peers and a 'ludicrous' interpretation of the treaty. The SNP have said they will press ahead with a vote on recognising [[Palestine]], saying that it must be based on 'principle, not preconditions'. But, like Starmer, the party has still been speaking of a 'two-state solution that we all wish to see'. Dr Richard McNeil-Willson, a Middle East expert at Edinburgh University, said he did not believe a two-state solution was viable, adding that if state recognition is to happen, there needs to be 'serious discussions' on what that state looks like. In a piece for The Conversation, law lecturer Malak Benslama-Dabdoub – based at Royal Holloway University of London – also outlined how analysts have warned that recognition of this kind risks formalising a state in name only and Palestine would end up a 'fragmented, non-sovereign entity without control over its borders, resources or defence'. Shawish – who recently said his family member came back from an aid point with a gunshot wound – is in agreement and said he does not believe in the viability of a Palestinian state. He said: 'Even if recognition says the West Bank and Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, subject to the borders of 1967, is that feasible? You've got one million Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Can you get them out? 'If you can't, is there any point in having a state that is a Swiss cheese shape where there are pockets of Israel's settlements in the middle of the state all over the place? 'How viable is that state going to be? How independent or sovereign? I don't believe in the feasibility of a Palestinian state. 'I don't see the two states that Starmer is talking about as a viable option. It is too late. Maybe 25 years ago it was possible, not today.' A UK Government spokesperson said: "We have announced our intention to recognise [[Palestine]] in September to protect the viability of the two-state solution. The first step in that process must be a ceasefire and there is no question about that. 'Our demands on Hamas have not changed. For there to be any chance of peace, the hostages must be released. Hamas must lay down its weapons and commit to having no future role in the governance of Gaza. 'We must also see significant progress on the ground including the supply of humanitarian support and for Israel to rule out annexations in the West Bank, and a commitment to a long-term sustainable peace. We will make an assessment ahead of UNGA [The UN General Assembly] on how far both Israel and Hamas have met the steps we set out. No one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions."
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
The recent poll makes it clear – the EU door is open for Scotland
The news that there is overwhelming support among folks in five key EU members for an independent Scotland joining the bloc comes as no surprise – I've been having conversations with their representatives and diplomats for years. YouGov polled 2000 folks in Germany, and 1000 in Denmark, Spain, Italy and France asking: 'If Scotland voted for independence from the rest of the UK and asked to join the European Union, would you support or oppose allowing it to do so?' In Denmark, 75% support, 6% oppose; Germany, 68%/10%; Spain, 65%/13%; Italy, 64%/11%, and France, 63%/13%. I include the 'oppose' figures because it really is a slam dunk across all five countries: if people aren't actively in favour there are plenty don't know/don't cares, and little actual opposition. READ MORE: Police remove pro-Palestine protesters from John Swinney's Edinburgh Fringe show If anything, I'd love to see the numbers for all EU states and suspect they'd be similar, with potential Irish, Polish and other Scandinavian figures likely to be particularly intriguing. So we should be wary of the breathless 'we're Scots, everyone loves us!' attitude you'll find at the panglossian end of the Yes spectrum. There will be a serious negotiation and they'll argue hard for their interests (as indeed will we), but the upshot is clear – they want us in. The poll (and I really would urge reading it in full) also asked the question about the UK rejoining, and the numbers were less enthusiastic, but still remarkably positive given the last few years of nonsense, ranging from 51% in Italy to 53% in France, 60% in Spain and 63% in Germany. But, opposition was higher as were don't knows/don't cares. A salutary note for the UK's remainiacs, though – the EU deal you left isn't the one you'll get back. The UK had the financial rebate on the EU budget, opt-outs on passport-free travel, joining the euro and some aspects of judicial co-operation, and when asked about the UK joining but keeping them, all states bar Denmark (which has a couple of opt-outs too) were opposed. The UK, if it rejoins, will need to get over itself and join as a full, normal member. That causes no problems for Scotland given there are several dozen reasons why, like Ireland, we wouldn't want the opt-outs anyway (except for Schengen passport-free travel given, like Ireland, we only have one land border and let's assume the UK does not join any time soon). Even more salutary, the poll also asked 2000 or so UK folks whether they were in favour of rejoining, and 57% think they should keep the opt outs. Precisely the exceptionalist attitude that got the UK into this mess. So, for Scotland, game on. The last couple of weeks also showed other reasons why joining is urgent. The EU Commission president Dr Ursula von der Leyen came to Scotland to meet with visiting US president Donald Trump and agreed – or at least agreed in general terms yet to actually be agreed – a trade pact with the US. Where unease over the potential impact of the handshake has been voiced in various member state capitals, it is clear that the EU acting with one voice was taken seriously, to the extent the current US administration takes anything seriously. But more on that as the actual details emerge, closer to home, the first draft of the catchily named Multiannual Financial Framework was unveiled, the EU budget for 2028-2034. At €1.78 trillion (yes, trillion), it is a big old number but only 1.26% of the EU's Gross National Income. This is still a significant increase, and while this is only the EU Commission's first proposal and it will be hotly debated by the member states and EU Parliament, it shows a more assertive EU Commission, and more spending on an EU level. It was only released late last Tuesday so a lot of analysis will be done on the coming weeks, but a few things are clear. There will be a significant increase in EU defence, both in procuring new kit and in defence research and development spending. Scotland's universities and defence companies risk being excluded. The budget for renewables technology, research and the move to the just transition is in for significant increases – and again, our companies and researchers risk being left out – as well as on the infrastructure spending where Scotland has an urgent need for better grid connections to sell our abundant clean green energy. Agriculture and European food production continue to be supported, with €291 billion being ring-fenced for direct payments to farmers as part of a €387bn budget for other supports. NOT many Scots farmers voted for Brexit, but even so, have endured the triple whammy of having lost subsidy and access to the single market as well as being on the chopping block for any future UK trade deals, there's plenty of good news for Scots farmers in joining the EU. Cohesion policy – the EU structural funds Scotland made such good use of in building infrastructure and training – take a hit, with a smaller budget and less prominence. But it's still €392bn and non-members won't get buttons from it. The EU is moving on apace in a fast-changing world, and where the UK Government has made some steps in achieving a better mood music, there's no substitute for actual membership. I would welcome the UK getting serious about rejoining the EU, but in my heart of hearts, I just can't see it because too many UK politicians are running scared of populists. Scotland, however, has it all to play for.
