Lammy hints at sanctions for Israeli minister over Gaza camp plans
David Lammy has condemned defence minister Israel Katz, who has reportedly put forward plans to move 600,000 Palestinians to a so-called 'humanitarian city' in Rafah, Gaza's now largely destroyed southern-most city.
They would then be prevented from leaving, with the aim being to eventually move the entire population to the city.
He told the Commons International Development Committee on Wednesday that 'no defence minister should be talking about effectively holding people, unable to leave, presumably, in the manner in which he described'.
Asked whether Mr Katz would be sanctioned, as other Israeli ministers had been over comments inciting violence against Palestinians, Mr Lammy told the committee he could not comment on future sanctions.
But he added: 'You will have heard my statement about Minister Katz and you will have heard my statements previously about ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and then the decision that I took.'
The UK sanctioned Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich 'in their personal capacity' in June, citing their 'repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians'.
Prior to those sanctions, Mr Lammy had described comments by Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich on Palestinian 'emigration' from Gaza as 'dangerous, extreme and totally wrong'.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway also sanctioned the two men at the same time, but the decision brought criticism from US secretary of state Marco Rubio, who said it did not 'advance' efforts to secure a ceasefire.
Last week, Mr Lammy told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee that the Government could take further action against Israel if a ceasefire in Gaza was not achieved.
On Wednesday, Mr Lammy also stressed the Government's opposition to the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which has replaced UN aid distribution centres with just four sites in militarised zones run by private security contractors.
Hundreds of Palestinians are reported to have been killed or wounded while seeking aid at GHF sites.
Mr Lammy told the International Development Committee the GHF system 'must not set a precedent' and was 'outwith of global norms and rules that we all signed up to after the Second World War' as he called for more aid trucks to be allowed into Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Liberal and Labor leaders court crossbench after snap Tasmanian election delivers another hung parliament
Tasmania's premier and opposition leader have both reached out to independent MPs in the hope of forming government, after the Labor party lost ground in an early election it brought on. Saturday's snap poll, 16 months after the last election, returned another hung parliament with the Liberals so far securing 14 seats and Labor nine, as counting continued. Both parties will be short of the 18 seats required for majority, with the Liberal premier, Jeremy Rockliff, declaring victory on election night and saying he would try to form a minority government. Rockliff on Sunday told reporters he'd reached out to potential crossbench collaborators. 'My view is that the crossbench, in the cold, hard light of day, will recognise the party – being the Liberal party – with the most number of seats are able to, of course, form a cabinet,' the premier said. 'What Tasmanians clearly voted for yesterday was an end to the political games. They expect a parliament to work together and they expect the parliament to last four years.' Labor under Dean Winter suffered a 3% swing against it to the Liberals. It was Labor's worst vote in Tasmania in more than a century with the party securing 26% of the vote with three-quarters of the ballots counted. However, Winter hasn't ruled out trying to form government if the Liberals are unable to get a left-leaning independent crossbench onside. 'I've spoken to a number of members of the crossbench and offered Labor will try and work differently and collaboratively,' the opposition leader said. 'I won't go into the details of any of the conversations but we'll treat people with respect. I think that's what the crossbench is looking for and it's also what Tasmanians are looking for.' Winter reiterated on Sunday that he would not 'do a deal' with the Greens. Labor would need support from the minor party, which holds five seats, to govern. Winter said he would not compromise on Labor policy, including support for a $945m stadium which is opposed by the Greens and three crossbench independents. One of those independents, a re-elected Kristie Johnston, said she wouldn't enter into a formal deal for confidence and supply with either major party and would provide support on merit. 'They need to negotiate and respect the views of parliament,' she said. Sign up to Morning Mail Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion It could take weeks for the final outcome in four remaining undecided seats, meaning a formal minority agreement might take even longer. Rockliff would need to work with independents to govern, including two, Johnston and the re-elected Craig Garland, who voted for June's no-confidence motion against him. The June vote, which triggered the election, lashed ballooning debt under the Liberals and a bungled Bass Strait ferry delivery. The state Greens leader, Rosalie Woodruff, kept the door ajar for a Labor alliance, calling on Winter to 'have a conversation'. A drawn-out post-election scenario would delay the parliamentary approval process for the new stadium, a condition of Tasmania's AFL licence. The project is supported by the Liberals and Labor but opposed by the Greens, Garland, Johnston and the third elected independent Peter George. The new parliament will be very similar to the previous one that included 14 Liberals, 10 Labor MPS, five Greens, five independents and one Jacqui Lambie Network member.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
What has Scotland gained from having voted in 37 Labour MPs?
It's also the case that, by rejecting out of hand the Octopus Energy proposal of seven or eight "zones" for electricity, the Labour Government is ensuring that Scotland's economy will be more depressed than needs to be the case. Had zonal pricing gone ahead, there would have been a boost in economic activity for Scotland, with energy-hungry business operations looking to relocate, or to expand, their business in Scotland to benefit from the lower price of electricity. Our NHS and public services, hospitality sectors, and every other business would have benefited instantly. Across Dumfries and Galloway we previously sent Tory MPs to London to do their bit for Scotland in government but, instead, we got Brexit. And that despite Scotland voting 62% Remain in the EU. And now we have Labour in Westminster failing to as much as rejoin the European Economic Area with a single market) with the resultant loss of freedom of movement for people both ways; nor the customs union to facilitate the movement of trade and services. The question must surely now be: "What is the benefit to Scotland of being a part of this UK that is so much against what the people of Scotland want and need?" Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway Indy Hub, Dumfries. SNP's wise policy on offshore wind Jill Stephenson (Letters, July 13) claims that the Scottish Government does not own any energy sources for wind generation and that these are actually the property of private companies. Is this the same Jill Stephenson who berated the Scottish Government three years ago for selling wind farm seabed licences at a much lower price as compared to Westminster? How do you auction off something you do not own? As regards the efficacy of that decision, it is perhaps worth noting a January 2022 article in the industry magazine WindEurope which commented as follows: 'The Crown Estate Scotland has announced the results of the 'ScotWind' seabed tender. They auctioned 8,600 km² of sea space which could host almost 25 GW of offshore wind. 17 projects won. With 15 GW most of the capacity that will now be developed to be floating offshore wind, the system the Scots have used for awarding seabed leases ensures the new offshore wind farms will be delivered at the lowest cost for taxpayers. "The option fees are much lower than in the UK's recent Offshore Wind Lease Round 4. Scotland chose a more sensible tender design with a maximum price ceiling of £100,000/km². This has avoided bidding at very high prices – which keeps the costs of offshore wind low for consumers. As seabed leasing costs are usually passed on to the electricity consumer, a price ceiling ensures that new offshore wind volumes are also delivered at the lowest cost for consumers." A business ceases to become commercially viable when its customers can no longer afford to buy its products. So keeping that price as low as possible becomes a pre-requisite for any energy policy. However Westminster has not only ignored that logic but has transferred the high prices it charged for its licences onto Scottish consumers. This has led to a number of businesses in Scotland closing as rising energy costs have made them uneconomic. How could any Scottish Government create a viable business in these circumstances? Robert Menzies, Falkirk. Read more letters We need a vote on Holyrood The cost of running Holyrood is spiralling out of control. With a total budget of over £41 billion it is questionable if Scotland really needs this expensive additional layer of government. The previous system before Holyrood was established was to have a Secretary of State for Scotland with a small team of Scottish civil servants running Scotland very efficiently at a fraction of the cost of Holyrood. There is growing support for having a referendum in Scotland to consider closing Holyrood and reverting to the old system, thereby saving billions. Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen. A disregard for human life Thank you so much for printing Denis Bruce's letter (July 13) regarding the statements of Lily Allen and Miquita Oliver on how much they are relishing their easy access to abortions, and how exciting an experience it is, totally disregarding the fact that for every abortion they have had, they have taken a human life, and all those involved in the process are now conditioned into seeing this as a service and part of the rights of any mother. Is that the road we are going down? Once this disregard for human life seeps out into all other avenues of what is acceptable, living in such a society for future generations looks very bleak indeed. Respect for human life is at the very centre of a civilised society. If this bill to decriminalise abortion, which is not yet passed, and still has to go to the House of Lords, could be stopped in its tracks, a great many people around the country, not just Denis Bruce, would be very relieved indeed. Let us learn from those countries who chose to go down that route some years ago and are now living to regret it. I never thought I would live to see the day when a mother could legally take the life of a baby about to be born. God help us all. Nancy Gilfedder, Glasgow. Am I worthy of preservation? "Every human has immeasurable value" asserted several distinguished academics (Letters, July 6) in response to the question of the merit of human life, otherwise "we descend into a jungle of barbarity". Indeed. In making their case, they cited various debates in society currently querying the sanctity of life but, frankly, they had plenty to choose from. An embarrassment of riches stretched out before them in that respect. We seem surrounded by politicians and commentators, expert on price but conspicuously poorly advised on value. Nowhere more so than upon the issue of welfare reform. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was literally brought to tears during a discussion on the theme (though, we were assured, for wholly unrelated reasons, and that the source of her obvious distress was "a personal matter"). As someone who has relied on benefits for many years, I consider myself a dab hand at budgeting. I have to be. When the sums do not add up, I am not afforded any claim to personal matters. Were I to tender such emotion, the barbarians around me would have a field day at my expense. So what are we worth? And whom amongst us should we prioritise for preservation? The aforementioned academics argued that the calculation is immeasurable. But someone will measure it. They always do. With or without hankies. Archie Beaton, Inverness. Has the Scottish Government got it right on offshore wind? (Image: PA) Crack down on charities This Government is spending, or should that be wasting, money like water and taxes are increasing and increasing. Cuts must be made. What about starting with charities? There are 200,000 charities in the UK. For the tax year to April 2025 the tax relief for these charities and their donors totalled £6.7 billion. Yes, billion not million. That is £6.7bn less to spend on where it is more needed. The Government should be more critical in allowing new charities and challenging existing charities with a view to reducing the numbers to see where savings can be made and whether they are still in the public interest. Just think what could be done with a 10 per cent saving. Top of the hit list should be the 1,717 migrant charities (up from the 2020 level of 1,104) which play a dominant role in preventing the deportations of migrants who had no right to remain in the UK. Clark Cross, Linlithgow. UK is at war with Russia Of course the latest Russian drone attacks on Ukraine should be condemned ("Zelenskyy's plea as Ukraine is bombarded", July 13), but let's not forget that Russia proper is being attacked with UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, meaning the UK is effectively at war with Russia (that Brits aren't firing them is immaterial). Given the increasing importance of cyber warfare, Keir Starmer (who recently told us to prepare for war) is risking attacks on UK infrastructure. If the coming winter is marked by regular power cuts, with hospitals having to run on generators, we'll know who was stupid enough to up the ante. George Morton, Rosyth. Hypocrisy over Trump I see that the usual suspects are lining up to protest at the forthcoming visit of President Trump – left-wingers, the Greens and the SNP. Not that long ago, there was a visit from the Chinese leader, head of an odious government, with very few of the above turning out to protest. Why not? William Ballantine, Bo'ness.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Israel's dangerous expansionism is now the clear and present danger
That much was evident again during a speech in February when Israeli defence minister Israel Katz told how he had asked the country's military commanders what the main lesson was from the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. 'They said we will no longer allow radical organisations to exist near [[Israel]]'s borders, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or near the settlements. And that is now our policy,' Katz's speech went on to recount the military chiefs as saying. But the truth of the matter is that this has always been Israel's policy, and at the heart of such a military doctrine lies the belief that territorial depth offers lasting security. Or, to put this another way, security through expansionism has forever been a core tenet of the Israeli military playbook. That said, rarely has the country and its government been as determinedly expansionist as it is today. Writing recently in the Financial Times (FT), the Saudi author and commentator Ali Shihabi described Israel's current pursuit of more territory as one 'cloaked in the language of security and religious entitlement'. By 'entitlement' Shihabi is, of course, referring to the biblical idea of a 'Greater Israel' that many of the religious zealots and right-wingers that comprise prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu's coalition government envisage in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and beyond. Whether Netanyahu himself is fully aligned with his cabinet over ambitions for a 'Greater Israel' remains open to conjecture, but what's in no doubt is that Israel is now pushing back its borders like never before. In Gaza this past week, reports of an intensification in the demolition of buildings underscores what many observers see as Israel's long-term plan to move the Palestinian population out and fully control Gaza's post-war space. In the occupied West Bank, meanwhile, Israel's illegal settlement expansion and annexing of territory goes on apace. Further afield, the past week also saw Israel doubling down militarily on both Syria and Lebanon. In Syria, Israel continues to take territorial advantage of the country's political fragility in the wake of the overthrow of Bashar al- Assad's regime. (Image: The Washington Post via Getty Images) FAR BEYOND THE LINE FOR months, the Israeli military have been assimilating the Druze residents of the Golan Heights, venturing territorially far beyond the line where their predecessors stopped during the conquest of this mountainous plateau Israel has occupied since 1967. Since the ousting of Assad last December, Israel has struck Syria hundreds of times, and invaded and occupied about 155 square miles of its territory. Last Wednesday, Israel launched air strikes on Syria's capital, Damascus. It also hit Syrian government forces in the south in an operation it says was aimed at protecting the Druze minority group caught up in clashes with Bedouin tribes in Syria's southern province of Sweida close to the Israeli border. But Netanyahu's claim that Israel is simply giving the Druze – one million of whom are are spread across the region including in Israel – a helping hand simply doesn't wash with many Middle East analysts.'It's pure opportunism,' Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York, told Al Jazeera. 'Of course, it's nice to pretend that we're helping our friends the Druze in the same way as we never helped our other friends, the Kurds,' he said, referring to another regional ethnic group. Pinkas is not alone in his assessment that Israel doesn't want to see a unified Syria with a strong central government controlled by Ahmed al-Sharaa's fledgling presidency. Like other observers, Pinkas maintains that Netanyahu would far rather see 'a weak central government dealing with areas controlled by the Kurds (in the north) and the Druze and Bedouin in the south.' 'Basically, if Syria remains un-unified, Israel can do what it wants in its south,' he added, underlining yet again the perceived importance of territorial depth offering lasting security. Few doubt the sectarian violence that has gripped Syria's Sweida province these past days has underscored the country's fragility and presented al-Shaara with his most significant crisis yet. For his part, Netanyahu reiterated that Israel will continue to use military means to enforce its two red lines in Syria – the demilitarisation of the area south of Damascus, near Israel's border, and the protection of the country's Druze minority there. The most extremist members of Netanyahu's government, meanwhile, continue to make clear that Israel's intention is to go much further. Only a few months ago, Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that Israel would not stop fighting until Syria was partitioned and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been expelled from Gaza into third countries. 'With God's help and the valour of your comrades-in-arms who continue to fight even now, we will end this campaign when Syria is dismantled, Hezbollah is severely beaten, Iran is stripped of its nuclear threat, Gaza is cleansed of Hamas and hundreds of thousands of Gazans are on their way out of it to other countries,' Smotrich declared during a pre-Memorial Day speech in the West the country? DIVIDE THE COUNTRY ACCORDING to the Times of [[Israel]], Smotrich's comment about dividing Syria came just days after a US Republican congressman Marlin Stutzman told the newspaper that al-Sharaa had expressed 'openness' to normalising relations with Jerusalem and cautioned against efforts to divide the country. 'The first (concern) – which I felt was most important to him – was that Israel may have a plan to divide up the nation of Syria into… multiple parts. That was something that he was very opposed to,' Stutzman recalled. The plan again, according to the Times of Israel, appeared to be a reference to the lobbying Israel has reportedly been doing in Washington for the US to buck al-Sharaa's fledgling government in favour of establishing a decentralised series of autonomous ethnic regions, with the southern one bordering Israel being by last week's flare-up between Israel and Syria, that issue of partitioning Syria and creating a demilitarised southern area appears to be still on the cards as far as Netanyahu is concerned. This weekend, relations took a slightly more positive turn, however, after hostilities between the two sides were quelled on Friday by the announcement of a ceasefire. Israeli officials confirmed that 'due to the ongoing instability' they had agreed to allow Syrian forces limited access to the Sweida area over the next few days. But even with this ceasefire in place the situation remains incredibly volatile, and al-Sharaa could now in effect be forced to either cede ambitions to reassert state control over southern Syria, undermining his attempts to unify the country, or risk an even greater confrontation with Israel. Israel's laying down of territorial markers in Syria is just the latest example of what some analysts says is a policy of pushing a dangerous expansionism in the region. With the Israeli air force bombing Beirut and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, as well as the Syrian capital Damascus from which its infantry troops are now stationed a mere 40 minutes away, never has Israel engaged in such prolonged conflict on so many battlefronts. All this, too, before taking into consideration its recent onslaught on targets across Iran. With every day that passes Netanyahu, it seems, raises the stakes even further while increasingly disregarding the occasional overtures from Washington to rein in Israel's military actions as was the case in Syria last week. Read more Tears and trauma: David Pratt in Ukraine DAVID PRATT ON THE WORLD: Whatever happens in Brazil's resentful and rancorous election, the result will have major repercussions for us all David Pratt in Ukraine: It's hard to comprehend this level of destruction David Pratt: Kremlin's protestations have a hollow ring as atrocities mount up EXPANSION STRATEGY TO get a fuller picture of the scale and intensity of Israel's expansionist strategy at the moment it's worth considering recent mapping compiled by the independent non-profit think tank the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED). According to a recent analysis of its data, it shows that between October 7, 2023 – the date of the Hamas attack on Israel – and just before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, Israel has carried out nearly 35,000 recorded attacks across five countries: the occupied Palestinian territory, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and attacks include air and drone strikes, shelling and missile attacks, remote explosives, and property destruction. The majority of attacks have been on Palestinian territory with at least 18,235 recorded incidents, followed by Lebanon (15,520), Syria (616), Iran (58) and Yemen (39). Detailing ACLED's research, the broadcaster Al Jazeera noted that while the bulk of Israel's attacks have concentrated on nearby Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon, its military operations have also reached far beyond its immediate the past six months, Israeli forces have launched more than 200 air, drone or artillery attacks across Syria, averaging an assault roughly every three to four days, according to ACLED. In Gaza, meanwhile, reports last week confirmed that Israel has stepped up the demolition of buildings across Gaza with entire towns and suburbs levelled in the past few weeks. Heavy machinery has played a central role in this destruction operated both by soldiers and civilians, reports operating heavy machinery in Gaza can earn as much as $9,000 per month, according to reports in the TheMarker, a Hebrew-language daily business newspaper. According to newspaper, a trained heavy equipment operator can earn approximately 1,200 shekels (£270) per day, drawn from the 5,000 shekels (£1,118) the Israeli ministry of defence pays daily to the equipment's owner.'At first I did it for the money. Then for revenge. The work there is very hard and unpleasant,' one heavy equipment operator told TheMarker. 'The army doesn't operate smartly, it just wants to destroy as much as possible and doesn't care about anything.' Gaza's demolitions, many of them buildings that have already been destroyed or damaged by Israel's military onslaught, is seen by observers as part of a longer post-war plan to control, contain, or disperse what remains of Gaza's civilian Palestinian population and prepare the way for the territory's use for settlement expansion and commercial use. In the occupied West Bank, meanwhile, Israel is applying many of the tactics used in its war on Gaza to seize and control territory there. According to an analysis by the British research group Forensic Architecture, Israel has used building demolitions, armoured bulldozers, and air strikes to establish a permanent military presence in areas such as Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarem refugee camps. Satellite imagery shows widespread destruction, with entire neighbourhoods flattened and roads reconfigured to facilitate troop movements and surveillance. The United Nations estimates that these operations have displaced at least 40,000 Palestinians. As Israel's expansionist strategy intensifies, many regional observers say it is simply fuelling chaos and stoking up a future widening regional conflict. Martin Gak is an Argentinian Jewish journalist based in Germany who is of the view that Israel's territorial ambitions are 'much bigger than the theological design of greater Israel'. In a recent interview, Gak drew parallels with the way Israel is now operating in the Middle East using tactics similar to those of Russia. He said: 'If you look at Gaza, if you look at what happened in southern Lebanon, the images should be very reminiscent of Grozny in the second Chechen war… so I think that what we're seeing is a Russian playbook of complete destruction,' Gak told Turkish media. ISRAEL'S GAIN? OTHER regional observers like the Saudi commentator Shihabi recently posed the question in the FT as to what does Israel truly gain from this relentless push to expand its borders? 'The cost is staggering: deepening international isolation, increasing threats to the global Jewish community, psychological trauma within a constantly targeted Israeli society, and the further destabilisation of an already volatile region,' Shihabi concluded. Like other Middle East watchers, Shihabi is firmly of the view that more territory is not the answer to Israel's security problems and that 'the future is being held hostage by zealots who value conquest over co-existence'. While it might have been initially framed as an 'incursion' to eradicate Hamas and rescue the nearly 250 hostages seized on October 7, Israel's Gaza 'operation' has since moved into an entirely new and much wider military realm. It's one, too, for which it has been given virtual carte blanche by the US and Western countries to prosecute. Until that stops, Israel's dangerous expansionist ambitions will almost certainly continue to fuel an escalation in conflict across the Middle East. The days of framing such a military strategy as being driven by 'existential need' have gone. Israel, as many rightfully argue, is the real regional threat now.
