Two Israeli ministers sanctioned by UK for ‘inciting extremist violence'
Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's security minister and finance minister respectively, will be subject to a travel ban and asset freeze.
The UK is taking the action to ramp up pressure on Israel alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway.
Mr Lammy said the two Israeli ministers had been 'inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months and months, they have been encouraging egregious abuses of human rights'.
In a joint statement with foreign ministers from the four other countries who have announced sanctions, the Foreign Secretary said the two senior Israelis had also incited 'serious abuses of Palestinian human rights'.
The statement added: 'These actions are not acceptable. This is why we have taken action now – to hold those responsible to account.'
Mr Smotrich and Mr Ben-Gvir both belong to right-wing parties which help to prop up Benjamin Netanyahu's fragile coalition government.
Both have been criticised for their hardline stance on the war in Gaza.
Mr Smotrich has campaigned against allowing aid into Gaza, and also supported the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law.
Meanwhile, Mr Ben-Gvir has called for Gaza's people to be resettled from the territory.
Asked if the Israeli government's actions in the Palestinian territories amounted to ethnic cleansing, Mr Lammy told reporters at the Foreign Office: 'I was clear to the House of Commons back in September that we did believe that there was a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law, and that's why we made a decision to suspend arms (sales).
'Today we are making a decision also to stand against those who encourage abuses of human rights, also to stand against those who encourage violence against Palestinian people.'
The Foreign Secretary did not directly answer when asked why similar action had not been taken against Mr Netanyahu, and called on the Israeli government to 'disavow and condemn' the language used by the two ministers.
Asked whether the UK would encourage Mr Netanyahu to sack the ministers, Mr Lammy said: 'The Israeli government will make their own determination.'
But from the UK's perspective, he said: 'We have to be clear that we act when we see these egregious individuals encouraging – encouraging – abuses of human rights in this way.'
The UK and its allies have increased pressure on Israel in recent months amid ongoing aid shortages in Gaza, as well as suggestions it could launch a new large-scale offensive into the territory.
Reports suggest only scarce amounts of aid are making it into the hands of Gazans, amid a new aid initiative backed by the US and Israel, which has replaced the previous UN-run programme.
The slow flow of food and medicines has prompted warnings of famine and starvation among the territory's population.
In May, Mr Lammy paused negotiations towards a UK-Israel trade deal as the Government sought to pressure Israel to abandon its planned offensive into Gaza.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, France's President Emmanuel Macron and Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney also wrote a joint statement last month warning that Israel's leaders risked 'breaching International Humanitarian Law', and calling for more aid to be allowed into Gaza.
Mr Netanyahu responded by claiming the three leaders were on the 'wrong side' of history.
In September last year, the Government halted 30 out of around 350 arms sales licences to Israel, for fear they may be used for war crimes.
Ministers insist that this means F-35 fighter jets used by Israel no longer receive replacement parts from the UK, and no British-made bombs or ammunition are used in Gaza.
Lord David Cameron has previously said he considered sanctioning both Israeli ministers in his final days as foreign secretary in Rishi Sunak's Conservative government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
33 minutes ago
- Sky News
Is chancellor's spending review the start of a 'national renewal' - or too good to be true?
If you sat through the entire spending review speech delivered by Rachel Reeves in the House of Commons, you might have been lulled into a sense that the UK was awash with a wealth of riches as the chancellor sprinkled billions across the land. There were billions for social housing, nuclear power stations, rail lines and research and development to power the economy. There was money for schools, the police, the NHS, and defence spending, as the chancellor sketched out her roadmap for Britain for years to come, with an acknowledgement that the government - and particularly this chancellor - had endured a difficult first year. "We are renewing Britain. But I know that too many people in too many parts of our country are yet to feel it…the purpose of this spending review is to change that," she said. There was £113bn of borrowing to fund capital investment and an extra £190bn over the course of the parliament for public services, fuelled by those contentious tax rises in the budget last autumn. This was a Labour chancellor turning her back on austerity. "In place of decline, I choose investment. In place of retreat, I choose national renewal," she said. The chancellor deserves credit for the capital investment, which she hopes will unlock jobs and power economic growth. But when something sounds too good to be true, it normally is. For me, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell hit the nail on the head on Wednesday night as he remarked rather wryly to me that "the greater the applause on the day, the greater the disappointment by the weekend". 3:43 Could tax hikes be needed? Because, in talking up the prospect of national renewal, the chancellor glossed over what the "hard choices" mean for all of us. There are questions now swirling about where the cuts might fall in day-to-day budgets for those departments which are unprotected, with local government, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Department for Environment all facing real-terms cuts. My colleague Ed Conway, analysing the government figures, found cuts in the schools budget for the last two years of this parliament - the chancellor's top line figure showed an overall rise of 0.6% over the five-year period of this Labour government. There are questions too over whether council tax bills might be increased in order to top up local government and police budgets. Ms Reeves told me in an interview after her speech that they won't, but she has predicated increases in police funding and local government funding coming locally, rather than from central government, so I will be watching how that will play out. 4:28 Even with the increase in health spending - the NHS is getting a 3% boost in its annual budget - there are questions from health experts whether it will be enough for the government to hit a routine operations target of treating 92% of patients within 18 weeks. My point is that this might not be - to again quote Mr McDonnell - "mathematical austerity", but after over a decade where public dissatisfaction in public services has grown, the squeeze of day-to-day spending could make it hard for the chancellor to persuade working people this is a government delivering the change for them. There is pressure to reverse some of the welfare cuts, and pressure to lift the two-child benefit cap, while the pressure to reverse the winter fuel allowance has already resulted in Reeves this week making a £1.25bn unfunded spending commitment (she will set out how she is paying for it at the next budget). 10:03 Will voters feel the 'renewal'? Reeves told me on Wednesday there was no need for tax rises in the autumn because the spending envelope had already been set, and the money now divvied out. It's a very live question as to whether that can hold if the economy weakens. She did not rule out further tax rises when I asked her last week, while Treasury minister Emma Reynolds told my colleague Ali Fortescue on Wednesday night: "I'm not ruling it in, I'm not ruling it out." The gamble is that, by investing in infrastructure and getting spades in the ground, and tilting limited public money into the NHS, the government can arrive at the next election with enough 'proof points' to persuade voters to stick with them for another five years. On Wednesday, the chancellor laid the foundations she hopes will turn the government's fortunes around. The risk is that voters won't feel the same by the time they are asked to choose.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
ICE rejected Mahmoud Khalil's request to be detained closer to newborn son, emails show
After nearly three months in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil made a request to move closer to his family. It was denied by the agency last week, according to emails reviewed Wednesday by NBC News. Khalil's legal team asked in late May that he be transferred to a detention center in New Jersey to be closer to his wife and newborn son. He has been held in a Louisiana ICE facility since March. ICE's policy requires that detained noncitizen parents or legal guardians, who are primary caretakers or have custody of minor children, be held in facilities close to their children The New Orleans ICE Field Office wrote that Khalil did not fall under the criteria of the agency policy and denied the request without explanation, according to the emails. 'I am declining your request that Mr. Khalil be transferred from the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana to a detention center in New Jersey,' an official at the field office wrote. Nora Ahmed, legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana, which is part of Khalil's legal team, called the decision 'cruel.' 'ICE's directive recognizes that the government should have no role in destroying the family unit, and yet that is exactly what is happening here,' Ahmed said. Neither ICE nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to NBC News' request for comment on the emails. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, a Michigan-born dentist, gave birth to the couple's son in April. Citing the ICE policy, his legal team reached out to the New Orleans office in hopes of getting him moved. The directive, issued in 2022, considers detained parents who have custody of their children as 'covered individuals' under the policy. It stipulates that covered individuals must be placed 'as close as practicable' to their minor children. It also requires ICE personnel to accommodate regular visitation between covered individuals and their minor children. 'There is no possible justification to detain Mr. Khalil at such a great distance from his minor child, in violation of ICE's own policy, when ICE maintains numerous detention facilities within driving distance of where Mr. Khalil's wife and infant son reside in New York City,' Khalil's counsel wrote in an email to the New Orleans ICE office. In an email to Khalil's legal counsel, an official at the New Orleans ICE office said that the detainee did not qualify as a covered individual. Khalil, who grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and was granted permanent U.S. resident status last year, became a widely recognized activist amid the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University last year. In March, he was abruptly arrested outside of his student housing on campus and detained before being accused by the Trump administration of leading 'activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.' He has not been charged with any criminal conduct. ICE previously rejected Khalil's request to attend his son's birth, court documents show. 'The most immediate and visceral harms I have experienced directly relate to the birth of my son, Deen. Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' Khalil said in a legal filing last week. Khalil met his son for the first time last month, his attorneys said, just before an immigration hearing.
