logo
Ireland ‘prepared to take further action' over Gaza, says Harris

Ireland ‘prepared to take further action' over Gaza, says Harris

BreakingNews.ie21-07-2025
Ireland is 'prepared to take further action' to bring about a ceasefire in the Middle East, the Tánaiste has said.
Simon Harris is one of 26 signatories to a joint statement on Monday which calls for an end to the war in Gaza.
Advertisement
Mr Harris, who is also Minister for Foreign Affairs, said the 'suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths'.
He said Israel must immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and urgently enable the UN to do 'life-saving work safely and effectively' in the region, adding that Hamas must also release all hostages immediately.
The letter is signed by the foreign ministers of the UK, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
Tents sheltering displaced Palestinians amid war-damaged infrastructure in Gaza City. Photo: Jehad Alshrafi/AP.
It is also signed by the EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management.
Advertisement
It states that Israel must comply with obligations under international humanitarian law.
'The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity.
'We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.
'It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid. The Israeli Government's denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable.'
Advertisement
The ministers added: 'The hostages cruelly held captive by Hamas since October 7 2023 continue to suffer terribly.
'We condemn their continued detention and call for their immediate and unconditional release.
'A negotiated ceasefire offers the best hope of bringing them home and ending the agony of their families.'
It says that proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a 'humanitarian city' are completely unacceptable.
Advertisement
'Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.'
The ministers also oppose steps for 'demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories', including proposals for accelerated settlements in the West Bank.
The authors conclude: 'We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What might a surrender deal for Hamas look like?
What might a surrender deal for Hamas look like?

The Independent

time25 minutes ago

  • The Independent

What might a surrender deal for Hamas look like?

The horrors of Gaza have finally come to haunt the world's policy-makers. Yesterday, the British government grasped at the talisman of recognising a Palestinian state, without explaining how this might stop the violence. Enter Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, three Arab countries that have demanded that Hamas now frees the remaining Israeli hostages, lays down its arms and ceases governing Gaza, for the sake of enabling Palestinian statehood and the chance of achieving a two-state solution. Let's not get our hopes up. The three Arab states have joined 14 other countries at a three-day conference at the United Nations in signing up to a French initiative that also requires Israel to agree to a ceasefire, end its blockade and recognise a Palestinian state in 'all occupied Arab lands' – a point that is certain to be rejected by the current Israeli government since it means withdrawing from the West Bank and East Jerusalem where so many Jewish settlers live. But having the Arab world calling the very future of Hamas into question for the first time is a potential game-changer for the Middle East. It's certainly a nail in the coffin for the terrorist group. President Trump's Abraham Accords, signed at the tail end of his first term in the White House, were supposed to isolate Hamas by drawing Arab states into mutual recognition of Israel, with the promise of a web of trade deals and security guarantees against their mutual enemy, Iran. However, Saudi Arabia had been cautious about opening diplomatic relations with Israel, even before the events of 7th October, 2023 made that an impossibility. The rampage by Hamas terrorists that day was intended to kill any chance of a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement by provoking a brutal Israeli response that would outrage Muslim opinion. Israel's bombing and blockades had that effect, though less so with Arab regimes. Egypt has long been deeply hostile to Hamas. In 2013, when President Sisi toppled its democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, he came to power over the corpses of hundreds of Muslim Brothers, a group affiliated to Hamas. Qatar has been the odd monarchy out. It has housed Hamas's exiled leaders in Doha for decades, and Qatar's energy wealth subsidised Gaza after Hamas established itself In power there after 2006, when other oil-rich Gulf states pulled their aid. In 2017, Saudi Arabia's crown prince led his allies and Egypt in blockading Qatar as a 'sponsor of terrorism' – meaning Hamas in particular. Until now, Qatar's absolute ruler has acted as a go-between for Israel, the United States and Hamas. The Gulf state's shift will put real pressure on Hamas, which is battered but unbowed by Israel's fightback since 7 October. So what might a surrender deal for Hamas look like? The last four decades of Middle Eastern history might have an answer – of sorts. In 1984, the brutal war in Lebanon which had started when Israel invaded to stop raids across its border by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, ended when Israel agreed to let the PLO be exiled in Tunisia. But it's far from a failsafe blueprint for peace. Today's Tunisian government is vocally critical of Israel, but there is no sign that President Kais Saeed is keen to provide a refuge for Hamas fighters, even if they were willing to leave Gaza. Nor would France and Italy be happy to see battle-hardened veterans move west along the Mediterranean coast. Gulf states who remember how PLO leader Yasser Arafat's supporters in Kuwait backed Saddam Hussein's invasion there are not going to warmly welcome refugees from Gaza. Plus, Arab states' vocal condemnation of Benjamin Netayahu's war doesn't extend to housing its victims. Another word of caution. Without US backing, it is hard to see how the Franco-Saudi plan will bring a quick end to the war. Israeli opinion is split on Netanyahu, but there is little sign of a revival of support for a 'land for peace', a settlement whereby Israel withdraws from the occupied territories in exchange for peaceful coexistence with a neighbouring state of Palestine. Europeans and Gulf Arabs may be weary of the Gaza war, but Hamas and Israeli hardliners are not exhausted yet.

Palestine Action High Court challenge can go ahead, judge rules
Palestine Action High Court challenge can go ahead, judge rules

The Independent

time25 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Palestine Action High Court challenge can go ahead, judge rules

Palestine Action's co-founder has won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation. Huda Ammori is challenging Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed responsibility for action in which two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. And in a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said that two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable'. In his ruling, he said it was arguable that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.' The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', could also go to a full hearing. He said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.' He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.' Mr Justice Chamberlain refused to allow Ms Ammori to challenge the Government's decision on several other grounds, including a claim that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with it. He also refused to allow Ms Ammori to argue that Ms Cooper breached her duty under the Equality Act, and took into account 'irrelevant considerations', such as whether Palestine Action's methods were 'morally or politically justifiable'. Following the ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.' She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.' Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Previously, Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer. He said: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.' In his judgment, he said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates' courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. 'That would be a recipe for chaos. 'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.' The judge also said that people protesting in support of Palestine and Gaza, but not expressing support for Palestine Action, had 'attracted various kinds of police attention, from questioning to arrest'. He continued that it was 'important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions'. But he added: 'Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. 'This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'.

The delicate politics behind the UK's move on Palestine
The delicate politics behind the UK's move on Palestine

BBC News

time25 minutes ago

  • BBC News

The delicate politics behind the UK's move on Palestine

Sir Keir Starmer is familiar with Emily Damari's ordeal. Over the 15 months that she was held hostage in Gaza, the prime minister mentioned her several times when talking about the war, including describing phone calls he held with her British mother Mandy when she did not know whether Emily was still alive. So it will no doubt feel unpleasant, to say the least, for the prime minister to find himself on the receiving end of sharp criticism from Emily today. Responding to Sir Keir's announcement that he was willing to recognise a Palestinian state in September, Ms Damari accused him of "moral failure".She said he risked "rewarding terror" and "prolonging the conflict". Her intervention echoed a statement from representatives of 10 hostages who are being held or have been held in Gaza, who are either British or have close ties to said that they took no position on the "wider politics" of the war, but they were concerned that the UK's new position would remove incentives for Hamas to sign up to a ceasefire and release the remaining hostages, because it could now make recognition of a Palestinian state less concern of the hostage families is based on one of the prevailing interpretations of what the prime minister said in Downing Street after Tuesday's emergency cabinet that UK recognition of Palestine would be determined only by whether Israel met various conditions in the intervening weeks: agreeing to a ceasefire, making it clear it will not annex the West Bank, taking "substantive steps" to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and committing to a long-term peace government sources today have been pointing additionally to another element of the prime minister's statement on Tuesday."Our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal," he said. "They must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza."We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps."Parties plural - that's to say, both Israel and Hamas. This, Downing Street sources argue, shows that the question of whether the UK ultimately presses ahead with recognition will be based not solely on Israel's actions but those of Hamas too, and means that their approach will not disincentivise Hamas to release the hostages after all. But that position has not been consistently articulated. For example, speaking to the BBC today, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said that "the ball is in the Israeli government's court". Asked whether recognition would still happen if Hamas is in control of Gaza in September, she replied by speaking only about the need for Israel to meet the government's conditions. The bottom line is this: nobody I have spoken to in Labour expects the government to do anything other than recognise Palestine in all the uncertainty about the precise conditions for getting there, and the mechanics of the assessment process the government will carry out, that is the significance of what Sir Keir said on that is a hugely significant shift in the UK's diplomatic posture, both across governments of different stripes, and compared to what this government was saying just a few days ago. Sir Keir has long said that he wants to recognise a Palestinian state, but only when it would make the biggest contribution to bringing about a two-state solution – which, it had generally been assumed, meant after the end of this delicate politics involved in changing position is one reason why the government has ended up in a slightly convoluted position was also undoubtedly involved in the government's decision to change course. Political gravity Sir Keir's own rhetoric, especially as regards the humanitarian situation in Gaza, has been publicly hardening for a little the mood of the parliamentary Labour party was moving faster. By the start of this week, more than half of Labour's MPs who don't hold government positions had signed a letter urging the government to recognise Palestine. Cabinet ministers were finding ways to let it be known that they agreed some in government, there was concern that when MPs return from their summer break in September, an opposition party would find a way to force a vote on the issue - and Starmer would have to climb down then, if he had not done so gravity was always going to take effect before long. There is a risk, though, that the government could fall between two stools. There are those, including some of those in Labour who have been pushing to recognise Palestine most loudly, who argue that if Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, then it should not be conditional on actions taken by the Israeli is also the position taken by the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and independents such as Jeremy the other side, there are those who argue that this is gesture politics, and statehood should not be entertained until Hamas has released the hostages - even though ultimately the Palestinian state the UK envisages would be governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas. That's the position of a few in Labour, though more prominently of the Conservatives and Reform above all, a change in the government's position became inevitable because the middle of the Labour Party - those who have not necessarily always been vocal on this issue, and have generally backed Sir Keir's judgment - wanted a change. They are happy fragile political peace is based on a universal assumption that this is all merely a staging post to inevitable recognition of Palestine in just a few weeks. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store