BCG's role in Gaza probed by UK parliamentary committee
Liam Byrne, chair of the House of Commons business and trade select committee, has written to BCG chief executive Christoph Schweizer, requesting 'clarification and information' surrounding the company's reported involvement in Gaza-related activities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
Calls for military exports transparency, as government denies Israel arms trade
The federal government has upheld dozens of military export permits to Israel, raising fresh questions about Australia's weapons transfers throughout the war in Gaza. Australia continues to deny that it supplies weapons and ammunition to Israel, saying that has been the case "for at least the past five years". Defence Minister Richard Marles has recently doubled down on denials, adding that any claims of weapons exports were "misinformation". But in responding to a parliamentary question on notice, the Defence Department has acknowledged that after a review, it decided to uphold 35 defence export permits granted prior to October 7, 2023. And after previously stating that the permits related to 'dual-use' items, the new information also reveals that most are listed as specifically for military purposes. Any Australian company wishing to export arms — or military-related goods — must get a permit through the Department of Defence. The permits fall under two categories on the Defence and Strategic Goods List — either military-specific or dual-use items. Dual use items can be for commercial or civilian applications. The system has been criticised by international law experts, human rights campaigners and the Greens for lacking transparency. And there has been growing calls for more information about exactly what each permit covers, and to ensure that exports are not being used to wage war in Gaza. In June 2024, the Defence Department launched a review into the 66 "active" permits approved before the outbreak of the conflict in Gaza, following the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas. The review has so far resulted in 16 permits being amended or lapsed, 13 remain under review, while Defence said 35 required "no further action". When the review was announced last year, Mr Marles told the ABC that they had looked at the permits, and would continue to scrutinise the exports, but were "confident that those licences are for what we describe as dual-use technology". The Department of Defence description of the two permit categories: But Defence has recently responded to questions on notice from the Greens, which revealed that 31 of the remaining active permits are on the 'Part 1 — Munitions List'. Part 1 exports are "designed or adapted for use by armed forces" or "inherently lethal", as outlined by the Defence Department. The 13 permits still under review also fall into this category. Only five of 16 of the amended or lapsed permits were classed as "dual-use technology". A question on notice is a written question submitted by a member of parliament to a government minister, often provided after Senate hearings when a more detailed answer is required. Defence Deputy Secretary Hugh Jeffrey told Senate estimates in November that the review was needed to ensure the exports would not be used in contradiction to Australia's "international obligations". He said action was taken on 16 permits — which were not related to weapons or ammunition — because "when there is a conflict, it's more difficult to make those assessments". When quizzed about 'Part 1' permits, Mr Jeffrey said that "they have no other use outside a defence context, but they're not necessarily inherently lethal, in and of themselves". "The fact that a permit might relate to list one doesn't equate to the assertion that we're exporting military equipment to Israel," he said. "It could go to, yes, munitions, but it also could go to body armour." He has also said that they could include items such as night-vision goggles. The ABC asked Defence a series of questions, including the process used to review the permits, and how it could be confident they would not be used in breach of international obligations during conflict. Clarification was also sought on whether active permits related to weapons and ammunition, and the status of the 13 permits still under review. The Defence Department has not provided any comments. David Shoebridge, the Greens' Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has been regularly pressing the government for information on its military exports, calling for an end to the two-way arms trade. He said Mr Marles was given the opportunity to set the record straight, and explain why he initially declared that the majority of permits fell into the dual-use category. "The government has chosen to mislead the public and, even when caught out, refused to correct the record," Senator Shoebridge told the ABC. "This awkward mix of misdirection and secrecy is a way for Labor to avoid admitting to the reality of the two-way arms trade with Israel and then having to seriously tackle it." The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, is among hundreds of civil society organisations urging the government to stop arming Israel "directly and indirectly". It has also launched a landmark legal bid — on behalf of Palestinian human rights organisations operating in Gaza and the West Bank — to determine whether Australian-made weapons and ammunition were being sent to Israeli forces. Lara Khider, the organisation's acting executive director, said requests this year to seek clarification about the review also remained unanswered. "It is unclear what process was undertaken as part of the review and whether this was in accordance with the law," Ms Khider told the ABC. "The lack of transparency in relation to this review and the broader arms exports regime has placed our clients and the broader Australian public completely in the dark about Australian arms exports to Israel." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced on Monday that Australia would formally recognise a Palestinian statehood, saying that "the situation in Gaza had gone beyond the world's worst fears". Over the weekend, Foreign Minister Penny Wong also united with four Western countries to condemn Israel's decision to fully seize Gaza City, saying it would "risk violating international humanitarian law". Germany — which provides about 30 per cent of Israel's arms imports — was quick to take stronger action, suspending defence sales for any weapons that could be used in Gaza "until further notice". But Mr Marles has ruled out following Germany's lead. "The fundamental point is that we are not supplying weapons to Israel, and there is no step that we could take, equivalent to that of Germany, which would have any impact in relation to that," he told the ABC's Insiders program. The ABC reported earlier this year that a remote weapon system designed and built by Australian company Electro Optic Systems was one of dozens of counter-drone technologies tested by the Israel Defense Forces earlier this year. The government has also been questioned about supplying parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used in operations in Gaza. Last month, Senator Wong said Australia contributed F-35 "components and parts that are non-lethal in nature". While Mr Marles described the involvement in the fighter jets' supply chain as being "a very different question" to the issue of being an arms exporter. Senator Shoebridge described the government's comments as "excruciating". "International law is crystal clear, parts of weapons are weapons," he said. "I want to be very clear, when the Albanese government says to the Australian public Australia doesn't export weapons to Israel, this is them actively misleading the public." The UN Arms Trade Treaty, to which Australia is a party, applies to all "conventional arms", including combat aircraft, armoured vehicles, missiles and small to light weapons. It states that control systems must regulate the export of "parts and components" that provides the capability to assemble conventional arms. And that states countries are prohibited from authorising arms transfers where it had knowledge that the arms would be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain war crimes. Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said Australia had actively spoken in recent weeks about Israel's actions in Gaza being in violation of international law. And that plans to occupy the remaining parts of Gaza should have "further heightened those concerns". "Given the extent of the ongoing Israeli military assault on Gaza and Australia's objections, the Albanese government needs to be confident that any goods exported from Australia to Israel are not contributing to that campaign," Professor Rothwell told the ABC. "This is especially the case given that South Africa has commenced proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice arguing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and Israel has done little to respect orders issued by the court to modify its military campaign."
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects ‘genocide' claims, says ‘no starvation' in Gaza
WARNING: Graphic As haunting images continue to emerge from the streets of Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected accusations that Israel is committing genocide in the region. In comments that have sent a shockwave through the world press, the under-fire leader suggested to reporters that Israel could wipe out the entire population before sundown if it tried. 'If we had wanted to commit genocide, it would have taken exactly one afternoon,' he said in response to ongoing claims the IDF are committing war crimes. The remark came during a pair of press conferences with foreign and Israeli journalists, where Netanyahu also denied claims that Israel has used starvation as a weapon of war. Speaking to domestic media, he claimed that Israel has never completely halted humanitarian aid to Gaza, despite his government having implemented the policy earlier this year. 'There is no starvation. There hasn't been starvation. There was a shortage. And certainly, there was no policy of starvation,' Netanyahu said. 'If we had wanted starvation, if that had been our policy, 2 million Gazans wouldn't be living today after 20 months.' But ghastly images of malnourished children that have been published for the past two weeks by media organisation across the globe suggest Netanyahu's comments are not accurate. Most of these images are far too graphic for publication. The Israeli leader's comments were part of a defence of his government's decision to launch a major offensive in Gaza City, which he insists will lead to Hamas's defeat. The operation has sparked intense criticism at home and abroad. Pro-Palestinian activists, left-wing Israeli groups, and several countries continue to rally to end the violence. In response, Israel insists it is taking steps to avoid civilian casualties. Addressing humanitarian aid, Netanyahu said the current aid system is being overhauled, blaming Hamas for stealing aid and accusing the United Nations of failing to distribute it effectively. Facing growing international pressure, Israel has introduced measures aimed at increasing supply flows. When asked whether his earlier decision to stop humanitarian aid had been a failed attempt to weaken Hamas, Netanyahu replied: 'We never said we were stopping all entry of humanitarian aid. What we said was that, alongside halting the trucks that Hamas was seizing — taking the vast majority of their contents for itself, then selling the leftovers at extortionate prices to the Palestinian population… we would stop this.' But on March 2, the Prime Minister's Office stated: 'Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that, as of this morning, all entry of goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will cease.' The move was presented as a way to cut off Hamas's revenue and pressure the group into concessions. The ban was reversed 11 weeks later after sustained pressure from allies, with Israel backing the US-led Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to deliver aid directly to civilians through four distribution points, bypassing Hamas and the UN. The initiative drew criticism over deadly incidents near aid sites and limited access for civilians. On Sunday, Netanyahu admitted the approach had failed. 'We didn't want to create starvation here — on the contrary, we wanted to bypass Hamas's looting and theft. Only it didn't work as we wanted… so we learned our lesson. We stopped it.' He said Israel is now 'acting differently,' with more aid entering the territory, an expanded number of distribution points, secure corridors, and airdrops — which he claimed would avoid Hamas's control.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Peter Greste on Israel's strike on journalists
Sam Hawley: Earlier this week, five Al Jazeera journalists were killed in an Israeli strike in Gaza. Israel confirmed it had targeted one of the men it says was the head of a Hamas terrorist cell. His employer denies that. So who's telling the truth? Today, former Al Jazeera journalist and executive director of the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, Peter Greste, on the problems that arise when foreign reporters are blocked from covering a war. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. News report: This is Al Jazeera breaking news just coming out. Sad breaking news out of Gaza where Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif has just been killed in what appears to be a targeted Israeli strike. Anas was killed after a tent for journalists was hit outside the main gate of the hospital. The 28-year-old was a key source of news from Gaza City and the north for international audiences since Israel's war on the strip began some 22 months ago. Sam Hawley: Peter, in Gaza on Monday, there was a funeral procession for five of them was Anas al-Sharif. Just tell me about him. Who was he? Peter Greste: Anas was one of the most prominent, most recognisable Palestinian journalists and videographers. He was working for Al Jazeera Arabic. He was a 28-year-old journalist, married, he had two kids. He was part of a Reuters team that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography. Clearly someone who had a very high profile, but he was also accused by the Israelis of being associated with Hamas. News report: Israel says it deliberately targeted their tent and have accused one of the correspondents, Anas al-Sharif, of belonging to Hamas. The UN, the Al Jazeera network and the Committee to Protect Journalists have condemned the attack and rejected the accusation, saying there is no credible evidence of this. Sam Hawley: Yeah, the Israeli military says that Anas al-Sharif was a Hamas operative who'd previously actually launched rockets at Israel. That's their claim. Peter Greste: That is their claim. We haven't seen any evidence to substantiate that. The Israelis have shown documents that claim to show some kind of connection between Anas and Hamas. Those documents certainly don't support the claim that he was an active member of Hamas. But there are a couple of points I think I really need to make. The first is that any journalist working in a place like Gaza is going to have a relationship with the power that controls a region like that. You can't avoid it. I mean, you're going to have their numbers in your contacts books, you're going to have a record of phone calls to them, of communications with them, you're going to have meetings with them. And particularly when they are the power that controls movement in a place like Gaza. So you're inevitably going to have to have a close working relationship with them. That doesn't make you an active member. And we haven't seen any evidence from the Israelis that he was actively involved in terrorist operations. It seems highly circumstantial at best. And even if he was in some way involved with Hamas, that is not the justification for a bombing, a targeted killing like this. Sam Hawley: He'd even written Anas his own obituary, his own will, I suppose, if you like, fearing that he would be killed, didn't he? Peter Greste: Yes, he did. And that was after the Israeli authorities had already accused him of being associated with Hamas. He knew that there was a very good chance that he would be targeted. It seems that he was right in that regard. I guess the thing is that whatever the Israelis say about Anas in particular, there is a really disturbing pattern of attacks, of strikes against working journalists. There have been bomb attacks on the homes of journalists. There've been attacks on journalists who've been working with clearly marked body armour and in clearly marked vehicles. The Israelis have always accused them of being involved in terrorism in some form. And we don't have any specific evidence, the Israelis have never produced any clear-cut evidence to substantiate those allegations. The Israelis, of course, always deny that they target journalists, always deny that they target civilians. But what we have is a clear pattern of circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, demands independent investigation and independent inquiry to get to the bottom of the matter, because it is very difficult from the outside to look at that circumstantial evidence and to agree that the Israelis are, in fact, simply operating to attack and kill terrorists. Sam Hawley: Well, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in the 22 months of the war, more than 180 Palestinian journalists have actually been killed. Peter Greste: That's a huge number. And again, to be clear, the CPJ's numbers are very, very conservative. Other press freedom organisations put the number at far higher. But regardless of how you do the maths, again, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Israelis are targeting journalists. Sam Hawley: Mm. Alright, well, Peter, of course, you worked for Al Jazeera leading up to your imprisonment in Egypt. It does so much good journalism, we know that, right around the world, but Israel accuses it of being the mouthpiece of Hamas and it actually banned the network operating in Israel last year. What do we know about the network's perspective, particularly within the Middle East? Peter Greste: Look, I've never seen anything to suggest that Al Jazeera... Certainly, while I was working with them, never saw anything to suggest that the network has a policy of supporting Hamas or Islamist organisations. But having said that, you've got to remember that any news organisation tends to view the world through the lens of the place where its headquarters is. The ABC sees and understands and interprets the world, through an Australian-centric view. The same with the BBC, the same with CNN and The New York Times. They all see the world from the perspective of the country that they're anchored in, and that is the case with Al Jazeera, which understands and interprets the world from Qatar. Now, Al Jazeera also has a really extensive network of correspondents across the Middle East, in particular. They've got very strong relationships with groups all over Gaza. And so, inevitably, it is going to be taking a view from inside Gaza. And remember, too, that if you're sitting... If you're a Palestinian, you're sitting at the sharp end of the Israeli attacks over the past couple of years, you're also going to see and report on the effects of those attacks from a position that's incredibly sympathetic to the people that you're working with. That's just a function of perspective. It does not invalidate the truth of what they're reporting. It does not make them propagandists for Hamas. It simply makes them reporters who are covering the story on the ground as they see and experience it. There are going to be critics, and Israel and a lot of Israeli supporters will accuse them of being involved in promoting Hamas propaganda. But I think that's a pretty long bow to draw, particularly when it seems as though anybody who is creating a narrative that runs counter to the Israeli view of things has been accused of being propagandists or supporters of Hamas in some way. Sam Hawley: Mm. Well, Peter, as we know, the only journalists who are able to cover the war on the ground in Gaza are Palestinian, that is, the people that are actually living there, because Israel has barred foreign journalists from entering Gaza. That helps Israel, does it, control the narrative? Is that why it does it? Peter Greste: Well, yeah. It's certainly hard to come to any other conclusion. The Israelis, as you said, have repeatedly refused to let foreign journalists in. And just to be clear, I'm one of the earliest signatories on a petition by almost 1,000 international journalists demanding access for foreign correspondents into Gaza. That's not because we want to diminish the work of the Palestinians or somehow claim that they are inherently biased. But the only way we're going to get information that people will be able to trust, that we'll be able to see as independent of either the Palestinians or Hamas or the Israelis, is if we are able to get foreign correspondents into Gaza, working independently as witnesses and reporters. Now, the Israelis, as you said, have repeatedly refused that. They say it's because they can't give security guarantees to the foreign correspondents. But it also does seem very much to be about controlling the flow of information and the reporting that comes out of there. Sam Hawley: So, without international journalists on the ground, as you say, it does allow doubts to be raised about the legitimacy of the images and the reporting that emerges from there. Peter, we saw that most recently, I guess, with this case with The New York Times, where it published a photo of an emaciated child with its mother, which Israel then claimed was fake. Just tell me about that. The New York Times did have to clarify that image. Peter Greste: That's right. They said that the image was, in fact, of a child with a pre-existing condition that was exacerbated by hunger, by starvation. And I think that underlines the central point, that it's incredibly difficult for news organisations like Al Jazeera, and The New York Times, the BBC, or even the ABC, to report accurately on what's going on there without having people on the ground who are capable of verifying and following up those sorts of images and those sorts of details. Sam Hawley: Benjamin Netanyahu this week accused the international press of having bought Hamas's propaganda hook, line and sinker. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: Everything that I told you could be verified easily, but it hasn't. And the international press has bought hook, line and sinker. Hamas statistics, Hamas claims, Hamas forgeries and Hamas photographs. Sam Hawley: I mean, he's threatening to sue The New York Times, although the paper does stick by its reporting. It does defend its reporting. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: I'm looking right now into the possibility of a governmental suit against The New York Times, because this is outrageous. It's the kind of malignant lies that were levelled at the Jewish people in the Middle Ages, we won't suffer. We won't allow it to go unchallenged. And this is the purpose of this press conference. Peter Greste: Yeah, and again, the answer would be simply just for the Israelis to allow foreign journalists into Gaza to work alongside the Palestinians to be able to report freely and unhindered. And that's the easiest way of resolving this crisis. Sam Hawley: Just tell me how it works now, though. How do media outlets like The New York Times or the ABC, for that matter, verify the images that are actually coming out from the journalists on the ground in Gaza? How can they be certain of the veracity of the information or the images that are being provided? Peter Greste: There's a whole host of tools that news organisations will use. They'll use the metadata associated with the images to confirm locations and times of particular shots. They'll also use other clues in the photographs that can confirm the time and location of the shots, position of the sun, shadows, and other details in the background of the photographs and so on. And they can generally do a pretty good job. But that kind of verification, as I said, is never going to be a substitute for being there on the ground and being able to take the photographs yourself. Sam Hawley: Well, Peter, as an international correspondent or a former correspondent, yourself, you have covered a number of conflicts. The work is vital, though, as you found, of course, when you were jailed in Egypt and at other times, it can be incredibly dangerous, can't it? Peter Greste: Yes, and I've not only been in prison myself, but I've also lost friends and colleagues in covering these kinds of conflicts. Journalists who go there know and understand the risks that they're taking. The journalists that are covering these places are highly trained, often highly experienced, and they know full well what is at stake. You've got to let the journalists themselves make informed choices about whether or not they're willing to go. And if they are willing to go, then they need to be given the freedom to do it. Sam Hawley: And history shows us how important that is, right? From Vietnam to Iraq and beyond. Peter Greste: Yeah, absolutely. And we've seen reporting change the way that governments respond to conflicts. We saw the way that the public turned against the Vietnam War over time because of the reporting. We've seen the way that the public has turned against the wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That only comes from good reporting. Sometimes the governments don't always like it, but that's a part of the way that democracy works. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Peter, as you mentioned, news organisations and journalists across the world, including the ABC, are calling on Israel to allow journalists to move in and out of Gaza to report from there. How important is that at this particular point now? Peter Greste: Look, I think it's increasingly vital. We've got claims and counterclaims about the levels of starvation and malnutrition that are taking place inside Gaza. As you've mentioned earlier, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has repeatedly accused the foreign press of swallowing Hamas propaganda hook, line and sinker. The only way we can get to the truth of the matter is by having independent eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza reporting what they see is taking place. Palestinian journalists are doing incredible work, but they will always be seen as vulnerable to allegations that they are working as Hamas propagandists and not independent eyewitnesses. It's unfortunate, but foreign correspondents are the only ones capable of doing that. Sam Hawley: Peter Greste is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and a Professor of Journalism at Macquarie University. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
