Latest from New Statesman
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Israel's calculus on Syria
Photo by AliIn the southwestern Syrian town of Sweida recent bloody clashes between Bedouin Arabs and the Druze have left at least 200 dead. Syria's military was dispatched to stop the fighting, but it struggled to quell the violence. Many Syrian Druze believe that the central government, led by former rebel-turned-president Ahmed al-Sharaa, is tied to the very groups attacking them. Israel agrees: it has accused the Syrian government of attacking the Druze and using Arab militias as cover. The Israeli Air Force has spent the last two days striking Syrian military positions in Syria's southwest, with the Jerusalem Post reporting that 160 'aerial attacks' had been conducted as of midday on 16 July. Israel also bombed the Syrian Defense Ministry headquarters and areas near the presidential palace in Damascus. If this sounds familiar, that's because Israel conducted a similar operation in May following another round of violence between Druze and Arabs in Jaramana and Sahnaya (both Damascus suburbs) as well as in Sweida, which left 100 dead. On that occasion, Israel conducted 20 airstrikes across Syria and hit multiple targets, including sites close to the presidential palace. The Trump administration will welcome reports of a ceasefire ending the latest round of fighting. The US president remains fixated on expanding the 2020 Abraham Accords — aimed at advancing the normalisation of relations between Israel and Arab states — by making Syria a signatory. After Sharaa helped to bring down the Assad regime in December, this has become a distinct possibility. In May, during a trip to Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump met with Sharaa and praised him as a 'young, attractive guy'. The following month, Trump issued an executive order that rescinded some US sanctions against Syria and waived others. His administration even served as a go-between for backchannel talks between Syria and Israel, decades-long enemies. Seen alongside Trump's 2019 decision to partially withdraw American troops from Kurdish-majority northeastern Syria, where they were shielding the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces from Turkey, these steps represent a big shift in US policy toward Syria, a country convulsed by nearly a decade and a half of civil war. Israel has a different strategy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu portrays Syria's post-Assad government as dominated by jihadists. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz described Sharaa as no better than the masked men of Isis who beheaded prisoners in the middle of the desert. Another Israeli minister was even more harsh: 'Anyone who thinks Ahmad al-Sharaa is a legitimate leader is gravely mistaken – he is a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay.' Israel may justify the latest incursion into Syria as a humanitarian operation. Israel itself is home to around150,000 Druze, concentrated in the country's north: the Galilee, Carmel, and the Golan Heights. Druze make up roughly 1.6 per cent of the total population and are considered loyal citizens, whose young men are subject to the military draft. But Israel's larger strategic objective is evident: exploit the weakness of Syria's new government to create a demilitarised security zone across southern Syria from which the Syrian armed forces are excluded so that Israel has a free hand. The clashes in Sweida enable Netanyahu to advance that agenda, even as he presents himself as the protector of the Druze. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Israel's hardnosed strategy can be traced back to the Assad regime's collapse. With the Syrians in disarray, Israel was quick to strike hundreds of Syrian military targets, including airfields, missile bases, munitions depots, and air defense sites across the country. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soon crossed the 1974 UN-demarcated border line with Syria, entered the buffer zone and pushed it deeper into Syrian territory. Israeli troops also occupied the Syrian side of Mount Hermon. Israeli officials asked the Trump administration to keep Syria weak by maintaining sanctions and even proposed allowing Russia to retain its bases to keep Turkey in check. Israel believes that the regional context favours its strategy. Iran is on the backfoot. Hezbollah, Tehran's ally in Lebanon, has been decapitated. Iran-aligned Assad is gone. And Syria's new rulers face myriad problems as they struggle to extend governance to the entire country, a task made even harder because the military and security forces remain weak. Syria's economy is in a dismal state: GDP has fallen by more than 50 per cent since the civil war started in 2011. Sectarian violence including violence against the Alawites — who dominated Assad's government — and the Druze continues. Seen against this backdrop, Israel's latest intervention isn't driven solely by humanitarianism; it's part of a realpolitik-driven strategy aimed at dominating its northern neighbours. But this is not the only feasible strategy available to Israel. Sharaa, for all his faults, has made it clear that he has no interest in confrontation with Israel (he couldn't possibly come out ahead, militarily or politically). He is committed to coexistence and will abide by the terms of the 1974 agreement. He knows that conflict with Israel would alienate the US and Europe and deprive Syria of the foreign investment it desperately needs to help the long process of economic reconstruction. Israel could therefore chart a different course by engaging in talks with Sharaa's government toward a comprehensive security agreement that includes pulling back their military forces and creating a weapons and troop-free zone on either side of the border. (As part of this accord, Israel would recommit to the 1974 agreement.) They could create political forums to foster cooperation on shared problems. Israel could help forge an agreement between the Druze and the central government based on local autonomy. Alternatively, Israel, trusting in its military superiority, could let Syrians sort out their own affairs. A debilitated, conflict-ridden Syria may well give Israel a stronger hand. But it could also enable hostile forces to sink roots and pose a long-term security threat from a neighbouring country. After the latest strikes, it's hard to see Israel doing anything other than sticking to its current strategy — one in which diplomacy plays no role. [See more: Syria may be broken but it's energised by hope] Related
New Statesman
5 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Gaza will radicalise a generation
Photo by AFP via Getty Images The little girl was sliced like salami. Someone was rolling the pieces along the floor, reassembling her body in a wet pile. The screams were presumably piercing but I wouldn't know because I was watching without sound – I scrolled on. Since the horror of 7 October, and Israel's retaliatory massacre in Gaza, videos of this kind have surged across Western social media platforms along the peak and trough of virality, variously censored according to content moderation policies and the free speech sensibilities of their owners. Meanwhile, in tandem, national politics and media coverage has been characterised by a sanitised euphemism. Six children evaporated by a missile: 'technical error'. The murder of three British aid workers: 'an appalling incident'. What started as a bleak state of disassociation has quickly alienated a generation from the Labour party, the political movement with which they would typically find common cause. The scope of the electoral fallout will be as significant as the Iraq or Vietnam wars. Among my peers, broadly defined as anyone politically conscious under 35, opposition to the war is close to universal. I know two Israel fans. One is part Israeli, the other is a Brit converting to orthodox Judaism. It doesn't matter that before the war most of these people thought that Rafah was a cycling brand. They're now telling you that 500 aid trucks once entered the Gaza strip every single day, and how the current blockade is a violation of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. These conversations take place over a coffee, pint, or, in the most unexpected instance, a children's birthday party. From the Instagram story to Thursday drinks with the office, Palestine is the governing moral question of conversation. The sheer unrelenting savagery of Israel's offensive is an affront to our allegedly shared humanity. War crimes are televised. Slideshows circulating Westminster and Washington imply ethnic cleansing. If your knowledge of what during my education was called the Arab-Israeli Conflict started on 7 October it looks pretty asymmetric. It even looks simple. In the United Kingdom we have not needed to seriously consider invasion and the subjugation of our people for 80 years, not since the Nazi peril. But in that time the material destruction of the Israeli state has twice been a plausible outcome: after the Nakba in 1948 when Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq simultaneously invaded in response to Israel's declaration of independence, and briefly during the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Forgive the GCSE history lesson, but the Foreign Secretary recently felt the need to address the Commons and remind some of his fresh-faced 2024 intake MPs that the Iranian regime repeatedly and publicly asserts its desire to destroy 'the cancerous tumour' of Israel; that its leaders chant the mantra 'Death to America' like jihadist yogis. You can't take anything for granted these days. And Israel's unique and complex history means I wincingly accept its uncompromising military doctrine. Reality dictates: nie wieder flows from the barrel of a gun, otherwise it's just a prayer. Moral certainty is a dangerous thing. So is ignorance. But I am fretting about the context not provided in a 900-word column, so what does a vertical video? Too much phone is weird. A few weeks ago, a scroll of my X newsfeed started with confident racism, next I was served a kamikaze drone's camera feed as it taunted a resigned and despairing Russian soldier, his final moments sharp in 1080p, engagement and cannon fodder. Then some pornography. A WhatsApp message took my attention elsewhere. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The extremity and density of information consumption in our time is without precedent, accelerated by the social media barons, and the tangible vibe shift of Trump's presidency. The six hours of screen time the average member of Gen Z spends online is, indeed, too much. This is part of the explanation for Gaza's saliency. Other wars dramatically impacted culture and politics but none took place in this information environment, the attention economy. Some politicians understand this, like the upstart New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Others do not, including the prime minister of the United Kingdom, whose opponents lap him around the digital circuit whether they are hard-right criminals like Tommy Robinson or leftist TikTokers. British politics is shuddering beneath Starmer at constitutional and street level. Vigilante mobs mass outside hotels housing asylum seekers, sometimes race rioting breaks out. MPs are intimidated, harassed and assassinated. Five political parties are polling between 10 and 25 per cent in a first past the post electoral system. This includes, according to one poll, the Jeremy Corbyn breakaway party, which would campaign on an explicitly pro-Gaza platform. Labour seats previously considered safe and occupied by big figures like Jonathan Ashworth have already fallen, others will too. Wes Streeting and Yvette Cooper are probably the most high-profile. Jess Phillips and Stella Creasy have found new politics, but the thing about chipping away your base is it affects the entire electoral map. Downstream of electoral politics is a possibly permanent shift in attitudes towards Western foreign policy, as structural and formative as Vietnam was for our parents and grandparents. Whenever a ceasefire is agreed, whenever this war ends, and however it is judged by history, its impact on the politics of the young is already clear. [Further reading: A question of intent] Related
New Statesman
5 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
In defence of Lord Hermer
Photo byIn a competitive field the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is the biggest ministerial villain for the right-wing newspapers. Rarely a day passes without the Telegraph, Mail and others screaming about what they see as Hermer's hyper-active interventions within government. Hermer dares to warn ministers that they must act within domestic and international law and his critics fume. 'The least patriotic man EVER to hold high office?' asked former professor turned Reform mouthpiece Matt Goodwin in the Mail over the weekend. None of the media noise would matter that much but for two additional factors. Some anonymous government insiders are quoted regularly echoing the views of the newspapers in their political pages. How can we be insurgent incumbents, they ask with apparently defiant machismo, when Hermer is forever warning us that we cannot do what we need to do to beat Nigel Farage? Inevitably the rise of Reform is the other factor triggering insider briefings. Farage has never been a great upholder of international law if it gets in the way of 'Britain's interests'. A big part of his pitch is his conviction that Britain must leave the ECHR. Like Keir Starmer, Hermer is a world expert on international law, including the ECHR. Apparently No 10's self-described 'insurgent incumbents' are deeply frustrated. Whenever there is speculation about a cabinet reshuffle Hermer's name is cited as one who could or should be sacked. Such an outcome would be calamitous for Starmer and his government, not least because Hermer is an 'insurgent incumbent' as far as that latest, fashionably imprecise term has any meaning at all. He has the confidence and authority to challenge current orthodoxies that have dominated the British media and political culture since Brexit, including an assumption that breaking international law is to be celebrated because it is in Britain's self interest to do so. This is now a mainstream view in parts of the Conservative Party, Reform, as well as the newspapers. The new orthodoxies shaped Boris Johnson's Rwanda policy, a scheme that the courts found violated both international and domestic law. A recent message from Hermer to the government's law officers triggered another outrage in some newspapers partly because he declared: 'You have a key role in helping ministers meet their overarching [legal] obligation while delivering their policy objectives.' What did they expect the Attorney General to state, that they should urge ministers to ignore the legal obligations? It remains staggering that to assert the centrality of the law stirs raging controversy: 'An Attorney General warns ministers of legal obligations… He should be sacked!' Revealingly, those forces touched in some form or other by Hermer's interventions do not share the angry disdain. Senior Tory and Reform figures predicted that all hell would break loose in the Trump administration over the Chagos Islands deal that partly arose from Hermer's reading of Britain's legal obligations. The opposite happened. Trump praised the arrangements. Back in the UK, the Home Office has nothing but praise for Hermer. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, actively seeks his advice and willingly involves him in sensitive decisions. They do not complain that he is actively or naively obstructing policies they wish to pursue. On some highly charged issues, he shows flexibility. He supports the Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, in her current efforts to reform the ECHR. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Some Labour MPs complain that Hermer is hopeless at politics – a failing that becomes more apparent when the Prime Minister struggles with the political demands of high office and the Chancellor realises she is not as skilled as she believed at the near-impossible art of blending politics and economics. But even that common observation doesn't tell the whole story. I am told that Hermer spends more time in the Westminster tea rooms engaging with backbenchers than most Cabinet ministers. Although he is rarely allowed out to do broadcast interviews he did give one recently to the BBC's Henry Zeffman in which he navigated tricky themes with skill, countering the populist onslaughts with the accessible case for his faith in the law. 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, 'We may comply with it, we may not'… We do. We succeed… Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.' That answer from Hermer forms the substantial case for keeping him in position. The willingness to break laws displayed by previous Tory administrations did not lead to boats being stopped or flights to Rwanda taking off. There was no evidence anywhere that lawbreaking helped the UK. Starmer is ruthless enough to sack an old friend like Hermer. But doing so would raise significant questions about his own public identity and sense of self, far more than with other high-profile dismissals under his leadership. As power edged closer before last summer's election, Starmer showed only limited interest in ministerial appointments. He was preoccupied with campaigning, well before Rishi Sunak announced the election date. Sue Gray played a larger role in many junior appointments, consulting with shadow cabinet members and their advisers on who should form the ministerial teams. But Hermer's appointment was Starmer's alone. He wanted him in that role. Those within government who brief against Hermer are, in effect, challenging Starmer's judgment and worldview. The Prime Minister's public voice is often unclear. Is he the leader who warned that Britain risks becoming an 'island of strangers,' or the one who later regretted saying so? Removing Hermer would suggest that Starmer had once again ceded power and key decisions to advisers who want him to be someone he is not. The symbolism would be stark. But more than that, his government needs the incumbent insurgents to flourish. Ironically, some of the most distinctive change-makers – Hermer, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson – are being briefed against by those who see themselves as the real insurgents. Yet their version of insurgency amounts to continuity with the recent past: support for Michael Gove's secondary school reforms, alignment with Rishi Sunak's caution on net zero, and a desire to emulate Johnson or Farage on international law. Labour's manifesto was titled 'Change'. It is time to move on from that past. Hermer is among those doing just that. Whatever happens in the reshuffle, the genuine incumbent insurgents should remain in place. [See also: Are Unite and Labour heading for divorce?] Related
New Statesman
16 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Why Keir Starmer has purged Labour rebels again
Photo by Isabel Infantes - WPA Pool / Getty Images. Keir Starmer's premiership began with discord, not harmony. Just three weeks after Labour's landslide victory, seven MPs had the whip suspended for voting in favour of a SNP amendment backing the abolition of the two-child benefit cap (something Starmer has since described in private as his personal priority). Almost exactly a year on, and in the aftermath of the mass welfare revolt, Starmer has enacted new reprisals. Four Labour MPs – Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchcliff, Brian Leishman and Rachael Maskell – have had the whip removed for 'repeated breaches of party discipline' while an additional three – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin – have lost their trade envoy posts (all seven were among the 47 Labour MPs who voted against the welfare bill in its amended form). The latter move is unsurprising: trade envoys are appointed to support the government and, as such, are expected to follow collective responsibility. More contentious among MPs is the renewed targeting of backbenchers. But one Starmer ally was unrepentant: 'These people were openly and publicly organising against the government whose programme they were elected to deliver,' they said (three of the four whipless MPs were elected for the first time in 2024). 'Government doesn't work unless they feel the weight of rebelling against it in the flagrant way these guys did'. In language that enraged some inside Labour, Maskell wrote in the New Statesman: 'What happened last Tuesday, on 1 July, was more significant than a policy climb-down. Power shifted. Keir Starmer's government was forced to recognise that autocracy is no way to rule: power is given by consent and can equally be taken away.' By acting now, No 10 has sent a warning to would-be ringleaders of anticipated rebellions over special educational needs reform, the two-child limit and the forthcoming immigration bill. But the timing – a week before the summer recess – has stunned MPs who believed Starmer had entered a more conciliatory phase of his premiership – more carrot and less stick (Downing Street has spoken of 'the need to bring people with us'). And there are at least two unflattering historical comparisons that are being made among MPs. The first is with Tony Blair who endured numerous revolts but allowed rebels such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to retain the whip even as they broke it hundreds of times. 'Both Blair and [Gordon] Brown were relaxed because they were always confident that they could win the argument and didn't need threats,' John McDonnell, who lost the Labour whip last July, told me. The second is with Dominic Cummings. It was Boris Johnson's strategist who in recent history pioneered the tactic of removing the whip from rebels – 21 Conservative MPs suffered this fate in September 2019 after seeking to thwart a no-deal Brexit. This was ruthlessness but for a clear purpose: removing all obstacles to the UK leaving the EU. The challenge for Starmer – after multiple U-turns – is that even sympathisers remain uncertain what his is. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
New Statesman
17 hours ago
- Politics
- New Statesman
Keir Starmer's credit arrears
Photo byKeir Starmer will need to do more than play a wine-pouring genial host to charm ministers at a Chequers cabinet away day. Many have been feeling distinctly unappreciated, as he increasingly resembles a distant and disapproving Victorian father. Failing to notice Rachel Reeves' teary misery, never mind comfort the visibly distressed Chancellor, wasn't the first – and proved not to be the last – occasion this Prime Minister has failed to spread the love. Cabinet colleagues noticed President Emmanuel Macron name-checked Home Secretary Yvette Cooper as well as his interior minister, Bruno Retailleau, during the recent state visit, for negotiating the small boats deal. Starmer, standing alongside visiting Manu, didn't. Dishing out credit goes a long way in politics, whereas hogging the glory breeds disenchantment. Jury service is a civic duty that meant Matthew Pennycook, the Housing Minister, missed a slew of affordable-home announcements while dispensing justice. He's one of three government frontbenchers plus a group of other MPs summoned to decide the guilt or innocence of the criminally accused. One of their number who was called up joked it's part of a plot by Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood to convince colleagues that the courts system is broken and requires radical reform after the retired judge Brian Leveson proposed curtailing jury trials. Serving is believing. Strike-threatening doctors are giving Wes Streeting a headache and we hear the Health Secretary is increasingly unpopular with peers. Twice, a noisy Wesleyite army has invaded the Lords end of the terrace, including the Friday the assisted dying bill cleared the Commons. MPs and peers jealously guard their turf. A snout growled that on both occasions merry members of Wes's crew adopted don't-you-know-who-we-are attitudes when challenged. Reform shape-shifter Lee Anderson doesn't know whether he's coming or going. The Tory defector walked into the wrong lobby during a welfare bill vote. A north-west England Labour MP clocked the hard-right party's deputy leader, Richard Tice, hoiking '30p Lee' out of the voting line. Anderson is supposed to be chief whip of Reform's four MPs. Awks. There are mutinous whispers among senior ranks of James Cleverly's Territorial Army (TA) regiment over the former Tory foreign secretary's promotion to colonel. The TA veteran delivered a speech to a regimental dinner of the 100 (Yeomanry) Regiment Royal Artillery to celebrate his elevation from the lesser rank of lieutenant colonel. Not satisfied with being knighted, he clearly wants more people to have to call him 'sir'. According to one senior officer present, eyebrows rocketed and jaws plummeted when it sounded during the speech as though 'not very' Cleverly believed the post would come with a salary. It doesn't; it's honorary. 'We weren't sure whether he was joking or seriously naive,' groaned a snout. No money tree there. Sir! 'Farage Assistance Group' was wealth-tax champion Neil Kinnock's barbed-if-polite suggestion for the name of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new left collaboration. It wasn't his first thought, though. On hearing of the party plan, Labour's former leader growled: 'Are they going to call it the Fruit and Nut Party?' Raisin' the bar for puns there, Neil. With Starmer now expected to shuffle the pack for the first time in September, Westminster is awash with speculation over likely winners and losers. While the Prime Minister has personally reassured the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, that her job is safe, Tech Sec Peter Kyle has been spoken of as a replacement. But Labour insiders warn those fancying a bump up not to make it too obvious. Back in 2023, one recalls, it was Lucy Powell and Darren Jones who battled for the shadow tech brief. The winner? A Labour leader who loathes off-the-record briefings gave the job to the aforementioned Kyle. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Boris Johnson's erstwhile Substack-ing svengali Dominic Cummings once said Lisa Nandy would be a far better Labour leader than poor old Keir Starmer. The guru's blog is often peppered with references to 'brilliant women' he used to work with in the civil service. He often contrasts these with useless male duffers who didn't – remember 2020? – know what epidemiology was. Cummings is now in the process of setting up his own party. Names suggested for the project include the 'Third Force' and the 'Start-Up Party'. Only one problem so far. All of the first members are men, observes a snout. No women want to join, however 'brilliant' they are. Polls keep telling us that Reform is on course to be the largest party after the next general election. While that election is (probably) four years away, that means the party is scrambling to find suitable candidates. Who's on the list for 2029 then? One snout whispers that the ex-Mumford & Sons banjo maestro turned culture wars 'independent YouTuber' Winston Marshall could be interested in a seat. Marshall, whose dad, Paul, just happens to be a major shareholder in GB News – home to Reform leader Nigel Farage's prime time show – surely wouldn't need to sing for a plum constituency. Snout line: Got a story? Write to tips@ [See also: The Tories are responsible for the Afghan resettlement fiasco] Related
