Latest news with #PritiPatel
Middle East Eye
3 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Why I support the UK taking a more nuanced position on Hamas
The reputation of Hamas sank to its lowest point after its attack on 7 October 2023, in which 1,200 Israelis and foreigners were killed and 251 taken hostage. In Israel, this attack provoked a tsunami of anger, strident calls for revenge, demands for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and a national consensus in support of the total eradication of Hamas. The result has been the longest, deadliest and most ruinous war in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas is a social movement and political organisation with a military wing, al-Qassam Brigades. The military wing was proscribed by the British government as a terrorist organisation in March 2001, and in November 2021, former Home Secretary Priti Patel added the political organisation to the list of proscribed groups. This decision marked an abrupt reversal of the government's previous policy, which made a clear distinction between Hamas's political and military wings. Patel, a staunch supporter of Israel, argued, unconvincingly in my opinion, that the distinction between the two wings was no longer tenable. For its part, Israel has always denied that there is any difference between the two wings. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters In August 2017, as secretary of state for international development, Patel went on a trip to Israel accompanied by Lord Polak, honorary president of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and a major fund-raiser for the Tory party. She had previously served as an officer for CFI's parliamentary group between 2011 and 2014. While pretending to be on a private holiday, Patel held 12 secret meetings with high-ranking Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Upon her return, she asked her officials to explore the possibility of diverting some of the foreign aid budget to enable the Israeli army to carry out humanitarian work in the occupied Golan Heights. She was subsequently forced to resign for concealing the nature and purpose of her trip to Israel. Baseless argument In 2019, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson rehabilitated Patel by appointing her as home secretary. Johnson shared her Manichean view of the Middle East struggle, in which Israel represents the forces of light and Palestinians the forces of darkness. The change of policy towards Hamas was announced not by the foreign secretary, but by the home secretary. Patel said that designating the whole of Hamas as a terrorist organisation should be seen through a domestic prism: it would help to protect Jews in this country. This argument is baseless. Hamas does not carry out operations outside Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, it has no presence in Britain, and it poses no threat to British Jews in this country. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war Hamas's 2017 'Document of General Principles and Policies' (unlike the 1988 Hamas Charter) explicitly distinguishes between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political project. It affirms that Hamas's conflict with Israel is due to occupation, not religion, and states that it would accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without recognising Israel. Hamas has now instructed Riverway, a London law firm, to make an application to the home secretary to remove the government's designation of the movement as a proscribed terror group and recognise its legitimate role as a Palestinian resistance movement engaged in a struggle for self-determination and liberation. The application is made by Mousa Abu Marzouk, the former head of Hamas's political bureau. I am among 19 experts supporting this legal filing through reports on the history and context of Palestinian dispossession. My report describes the central role played by Britain in facilitating this dispossession, from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 up until the present. Why I wrote an expert report against the UK's classing Hamas as a terror group Read More » Western media outlets have relied heavily on the Israeli narrative of 7 October, including its countless false allegations and outright fabrications, such as the story of 40 decapitated babies, while under-reporting the Palestinian side of the story. One of Abu Marzouk's most significant correctives to the dominant narrative concerns the background to the Hamas-led 7 October attack. According to him, Hamas sought to achieve specific military objectives during the operation, with clear instructions not to target women, children and the elderly. Since deviations from these instructions admittedly occurred, Hamas is prepared to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and any other neutral third party in an independent and transparent investigation into the events of that day. This position stands in sharp contrast to Israel's denial of journalists' entry into Gaza, and its refusal to allow any independent investigation of the atrocities and war crimes committed by its forces. To explain Hamas's behaviour is not to justify it. Killing civilians is wrong, period. But here, as always, the context is all-important. The attack of 7 October did not occur in a vacuum. It occurred against the backdrop of decades of brutal and suffocating military occupation. Moreover, as a people living under unlawful military occupation, Palestinians have a right to resist, including the right to armed resistance. In effect, labelling Hamas's political leaders as terrorists pure and simple gives Israel a free pass to inflict death and destruction on Gaza without being held to account. The terrorist framing also stands in the way of a more balanced and nuanced understanding of the history, motives, policies and principles of Hamas. Crucial context The Hamas side of the story is hardly ever heard in the West, yet it makes a compelling reason for removing its political wing from the list of proscribed organisations. Here are some of the most relevant facts: in January 2006, Hamas won a clear victory in fair and free all-Palestine elections, and proceeded to form a government. Israel refused to recognise this government and resorted to a series of draconian measures to undermine it, supported by the United States and European Union. In March 2007, Hamas formed a unity government with its rival party Fatah, but Israel refused to negotiate with them. Instead, Israel and the US encouraged Fatah to stage a coup to drive Hamas out of power. Hamas pre-empted the Fatah coup by seizing power in Gaza, which led to Israel imposing a blockade on the enclave - a form of collective punishment proscribed by international law - which remained in force for 16 years before the Hamas attack on 7 October. The home secretary would do well to read the 700 pages of evidence that underpin this application for deproscription before making up her mind The distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas has always been crucial. Patel's decision to proscribe Hamas in its entirety was a politically motivated move that disregarded Hamas's democratic road to power and its growing political moderation once in power. Casting the whole of Hamas as a terrorist organisation also served to bolster Israel's hardline position, its refusal to negotiate, and its reliance on brute military force. Proscription by Britain and other western powers in effect endorsed Israel's refusal to put Hamas's willingness to compromise to the test. Israel's recurrent military offensives in Gaza since 2008 are chillingly described by its generals as 'mowing the lawn'. Under this grim rubric, the next war is always just around the corner. In the post-7-October military offensive, Israel has gone much, much further than ever before, committing the crime of crimes: genocide. As Abu Marzouk points out in his witness statement, Britain is not an innocent bystander in the genocide that is unfolding before our eyes in Gaza. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was made in Britain. Britain was the colonial power that enabled the Zionist settler-colonial movement to embark on the systematic takeover of Palestine. The war in Gaza is the latest and cruellest phase in this long-term colonial effort to displace, dispossess and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people. Hamas is a vital segment of Palestinian society and the vanguard of its resistance to Israel's illegal occupation. Deproscribing the political wing of Hamas would constitute a small step towards rectifying a monumental historical wrong. The home secretary would do well to read the 700 pages of evidence that underpin this application for deproscription before making up her mind. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. The purpose of this article is to set out the author's reasons for supporting Abu Marzouk's application. Nothing in this article should be understood as inviting or otherwise encouraging readers to support, or express support for, Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas).
Telegraph
3 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Starmer told he should be ‘stabbed and shot' in threatening emails
Sir Keir Starmer was told he should be 'stabbed and shot to death' in a series of threatening emails, a court heard. Mark Tew, 63, is charged with sending the offensive material to the Prime Minister, a criminal barrister and former Conservative ministers, including Dame Priti Patel. The emails, which were sent between January and November 2021, were not read by the MPs themselves but were intercepted by their staff who subsequently notified the police, Southwark Crown Court heard. In one email allegedly sent to the then leader of the Opposition, Mr Tew wrote: 'You should be beaten up Starmer, stabbed to death, shot to dead. You gutless yellow b----- Starmer. Tell the truth you miserable uneducated tosser', the court heard. In another sent on March 11, Mr Tew was said to have written: 'Starmer, I've heard a lot of journalists are out to get you. 'To beat you up. To kick your f---ing head in. You gutless dirty bastard. You pathetic wimp. You f---ing coward Starmer. I hope they get you and bash the living daylights out of you.' Paul Jarvis, KC, prosecuting, said: 'The prosecution's case is that Mr Tew was a prolific emailer who would often send emails to politicians and, later, barristers to raise issues and complaints he had with them and others. 'The tone of those emails was frequently rude and discourteous but politicians in particular are expected to be thick-skinned and so while those emails were unpleasant, they were not we would suggest criminal. 'The eight emails that this case is concerned with were different. Their content was more than just rude and discourteous, but contained either a grossly offensive message or indeed threats or both.' The first of Mr Tew's messages was sent in January 2021 to Ms Patel, who was then the home secretary. He sent an email with an image of a man attached in which he wrote: 'Patel, you thick Ugandan b----, was this man in the IRA? He says he was in the IRA. Was he?', the court heard. Ms Patel's staff reported the email to the police, and Mr Tew was arrested for sending a malicious communication. He told the police he was autistic and suffered from several medical conditions for which he was receiving medication, the court heard. When the police seized his phone, they found the emails that had been sent to Sir Keir, as well as Rishi Sunak, the then chancellor, and Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary. Mr Tew, of Camden, north London denies six counts of sending an electronic communication with intent to cause stress or anxiety, and two counts of sending an indecent or grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause stress or anxiety.
The Independent
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Why is Britain handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius?
After some last-minute legal delays, the Chagos Islands treaty between the UK and Mauritius has been signed, and will almost certainly be implemented in the coming weeks. The great controversies about the UK-US military base in this remote stretch of the Indian Ocean have passed most of Britain's population by, but for some the issue remains a matter of passionate concern, and the charge of 'treason' has been lobbed at the prime minister. The arguments won't go away... What happens next? In the UK, there will have to be a parliamentary debate and approval within 21 (sitting) days of the signature, and given that the Commons is in recess again for a week, things won't be finalised for a while. In the past, international agreements would be signed under the royal prerogative, thus averting the need for formal legislative approval. However, this is now required under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, and the provisions of the treaty ought to be enshrined in domestic law (including the Mauritius Independence Act 1968). Given Labour's overwhelming majority, the treaty is bound to be ratified, but Priti Patel for the Conservatives, along with Reform UK, will put up a fight. What difference will it make? It will settle for at least a century the status of the Chagos Islands, including the base on Diego Garcia, and thus make the area safe from any further action under international law. Why are we giving the Chagos Islands away anyway? Arguably, the UK is not giving the Chagos Islands 'away', but 'back' to their rightful owner, Mauritius. They were carved out of the old Mauritius crown colony in 1965 as a condition for granting the rest of the territories independence, which came three years later. A new colony, now a British Overseas Territory, of the British Indian Ocean Territory was created to administer the area. It will soon disappear, and the islands will be Mauritian sovereign territory, the base area leased back for 99 years with an option to renew. Why can't we just carry on as we are? We could, but it's getting more hazardous. First, because the ownership of the islands is under dispute, and multiple UN and International Court rulings have said they belong to Mauritius. More adverse decisions are on the way, too. Although these have been safely ignored by the British and Americans for decades, it's hardly ideal. One risk is that Mauritius could lawfully grant, say, China or India permission to establish a military base on another of the islands, and that would spark a serious crisis to say the least. Another practical threat is highlighted by the defence secretary, John Healey: 'The most proximate, the most potentially serious, is the tribunal of the international Convention [on the Law] of the Sea.' If the government lost a case there, the government says, other countries and UN agencies would be obliged – by international law – to take decisions that would hamper the operations of the base. In addition, Diego Garcia's satellite communications would be in jeopardy, because the UK relies on a UN agency in Geneva to maintain access to a particular electromagnetic spectrum. Company contractors nervous about international law might refuse to come to the base, while international regulations on air travel might also make passage to the islands more difficult. What will it cost? Some £101m a year, plus additional development aid for Mauritius. Some of this will be index linked, but it's spurious to try to translate it into prospective cash terms at 2124 price levels. The UK will pay the lease, with no US contribution. Keir Starmer argues, in effect, that UK national security also benefits from the base, and the money is worth spending to help preserve the ' special relationship ' with America. What about the Chagossians? There are none left on the islands to consult or to take part in a referendum. In a shameful episode during decolonisation, they were deported, with most settling in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK. Many oppose the deal, but their legal actions have failed. Is the base useful? Certainly to the US, as a centre for space communications and communications surveillance, and for bombing raids in the Middle East. It is also useful as a base for aircraft carriers, among other things. Does it matter politically? The opposition parties are weaponising the deal as proof that Labour is weak and basically unpatriotic, hence the Tory slogan 'when Labour negotiates'. Irrelevant to domestic political issues, for some it will become totemic, as was the case when Gordon Brown as chancellor sold off some of the UK's gold reserves for equally rational reasons. The Chagos Islands deal, then, provides a handy source of dishonest jibes for the Tories and Reform, but won't seal the fate of the Starmer administration at the next election.
Arab News
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Council for Arab-British Understanding welcomes Lammy's comments on Israeli bombardment
LONDON: The Council for Arab-British Understanding has welcomed UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy's description of Israel's continued assault on Gaza as 'unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive.' It also praised the UK's decision to suspend trade talks with Israel and impose sanctions on illegal settlers and entities. However, it said the measures 'almost certainly go nowhere near far enough to stop Israeli actions,' and called for further action to be taken. Israel's two-month aid blockade on Gaza has sparked global outcry. The UN warned this week that it could lead to 14,000 babies dying of starvation. The council said the UK should introduce a complete arms embargo against Israel. 'The government's legal duty is to act to prevent genocide, as Tom Fletcher, the UN aid chief, pointed out at the UN Security Council. To do so, it needs to place a full arms embargo on Israel, including F35 components, put a ban on all trade with illegal settlements and place economic sanctions on Israel for its continued breaches of international humanitarian law.' The council also condemned statements made by Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel who said the UK should support Israel's aid distribution plan for Gaza and refrained from condemning what it called 'the Israeli blockade and the genocidal comments from Israeli ministers.' It said Israel's plan 'violates global humanitarian principles including providing aid on the basis of need. In her time as shadow foreign secretary, she has yet once in the House of Commons to criticize Israel nor to offer any sympathy to Palestinian civilians being bombed and starved.'
Daily Mail
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
High Court grants injunction, halting Keir signing Chagos Islands deal
By JAMES TAPSFIELD, POLITICAL EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE Published: Updated: Keir Starmer was dramatically blocked from signing a deal to give away the Chagos Islands today. The Prime Minister had hoped to announce the highly controversial handover of the Indian Ocean archipelago to Mauritius - a move branded a 'surrender' by critics. Sir Keir was due to attend a virtual ceremony alongside representatives from the Mauritian government this morning to sign off on the deal. It is expected to see Mauritius handed billions of pounds in rent for Diego Garcia, an island in the territory that is home to a major UK/US airbase. But in the early hours of this morning it emerged a High Court has granted an injunction stopping the negotiations being concluded. Mr Justice Goose granted 'interim relief' to Bertrice Pompe, a Chagossian woman who had previously launched legal action over the deal, at 2.25am. She was born on Diego Garcia and is fighting for the islands to remain under British control and the right to return there to live. The Chagossians were forced to leave the central Indian Ocean territory by 1973 to make way for the base. A new hearing will take place at the High Court this morning as ministers seek to go ahead with the deal. Shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said: 'Today's legal intervention is a humiliation for Keir Starmer and David Lammy.' Under the terms of the agreement, Britain is expected to give up sovereignty of the island territory to Mauritius, and lease back a crucial military base on the archipelago for 99 years. That was expected to cost £90million a year. The Government has argued that it has to give up sovereignty over the islands due to international legal rulings in favour of Mauritius. Following the signing ceremony, MPs were due to be updated on the terms of the deal in the House of Commons, which could include a 40-year extension to the lease of the military base. A High Court hearing is now expected to take place at 10.30am. The judge said in his order: 'The defendant shall take no conclusive or legally binding step to conclude its negotiations concerning the possible transfer of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago, to a foreign government or bind itself as to the particular terms of any such transfer.' Mr Justice Goose's order continued: 'The defendant shall in particular not dispose of the territory in whole or in part. 'The defendant is to maintain the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom over the British Indian Ocean Territory until further order.' According to the order, the judge granted the injunction 'upon consideration of the claimant's application for interim relief made out of court hours' and 'upon reading the defendants' response'. A Government spokeswoman said: 'We do not comment on ongoing legal cases. This deal is the right thing to protect the British people and our national security.' Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands, is home to a joint UK-US military base, used to project Western influence in the Indian Ocean. Critics of proposals to hand over the islands to Mauritius fear the move will benefit China, which has a growing reach in the region. News reports recently suggested the deal had been delayed, with the Times newspaper claiming it had become 'toxic' amid criticism from Labour's political opponents. The Conservatives are among those which have criticised Labour's handling of the negotiations, though they began discussing the handover with Mauritius when they were in power. Speaking in the the House of Commons just this week, Defence Secretary John Healey (Pictured) insisted the base on Diego Garcia was 'essential to our security', and the UK's security relationship with the US. 'We've had to act, as the previous government started to do, to deal with that jeopardy, we're completing those arrangements and we'll report to the House when we can,' he added.
