This is proof Keir Starmer has only incentivised Hamas to inflict more agony, says ALAN MENDOZA
In sickening video footage released by Hamas, David was shown close to death from starvation and torture, apparently being forced to dig his own grave.
However appalled we are at the images – also controlled and released by Hamas – of starving Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip, it ought to be unthinkable that a British government rewards a terrorist organisation for the brutal mistreatment and exploitation of innocent hostages.
Yet that is what Sir Keir Starmer has done, by offering to recognise a Palestinian state next month if an immediate ceasefire is not agreed – by Israel alone.
In doing so, he has incentivised Hamas to inflict agonies on the hostages, while allowing its own civilian population to starve.
And he has placed himself in a seemingly impossible political situation. Both courses of action – either following through on his threat, or performing another U-turn – are likely to destroy his premiership.
Make no mistake, it is Hamas only that benefits from the hideous photographs of starvation in Gaza – the scale of which, it is important to note, remains unverified by international reporters who are not allowed into the territory. Hamas is one of the main reasons the flow of aid and distribution of food in Gaza has broken down.
The United Nations has been so infiltrated and compromised by Palestinian extremists that their aid workers refuse to co-operate with the Israeli army. The result is an impasse that leaves children dying from hunger while food rots at the Gaza border and while the terrorist leaders gloat that they're winning the propaganda war.
Proof of this came in the footage of Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas politician, crowing to Arab news station Al Jazeera about support from Britain, France and Canada.
With his jacket open over a well-fed stomach, Hamad sneered: 'The initiative by several countries to recognise a Palestinian state is one of the fruits of October 7.'
What an appalling indictment of British foreign policy: a terrorist militia, proscribed under our own laws, boasting of the successes brought about by their slaughter in cold blood of unarmed civilians, many of them women and even children.
How is it possible for our Prime Minister to be so naive and badly advised? What did he imagine would be the result of his statement last week? He has rewarded Hamas for everything they have done, and promised a bigger reward if they keep doing it.
His obscenely stupid decision is, of course, the result of panic in the Labour ranks. His MPs, including many in his Cabinet, are desperate to fend off the threat to their seats that comes from pro-Palestine Muslim voters in their own constituencies, as well as from the creation of a new, ultra-Left party by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana.
Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has a majority of just 528, in an area where a third of the population are Muslim. The Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, represents a seat with a 53 per cent Muslim population, and a majority of 3,421. Even a small number among them would tip the balance.
In A craven attempt to placate anti-Israeli voters who could wipe out his government at the next General Election, Starmer has sacrificed British strategic interests as well as our moral standing. Our main ally, the US, is disgusted with us, and rightly so. He has removed all pretence that Britain can play a future role in the Middle East as any kind of honest broker.
This is a foreign policy designed for Bradford and Birmingham, not the international stage. And it won't work because only a fool would believe that extremists will do anything other than pocket this appeasement before demanding more.
To press ahead now with recognising a Palestinian state will do the UK irreparable harm. But to back out will be deeply unpopular with his backbenchers and with his Cabinet. If this proves Keir Starmer's downfall, it will be entirely self-inflicted
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Victoria police criticised for Gaza protest tactics while thousands marched ‘freely' in Sydney
An organiser of a pro-Palestine protest in Melbourne's CBD says demonstrators were left 'traumatised and confused' after police blocked their path at King Street Bridge – while thousands in New South Wales were able to march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Tasnim Sammak from Free Palestine Coalition Naarm told Guardian Australia police did not inform protest organisers they were going to block the bridge before they arrived on Sunday afternoon. Police had previously urged protesters to change their plans, claiming that blocking King Street Bridge – a major thoroughfare into Melbourne's CBD – could delay emergency services and put lives at risk. Sammak estimated about 25,000 people protesting against the ongoing starvation in Gaza and demanding a ceasefire marched from the State Library of Victoria through the city to the bridge and were 'shocked' to be met by a 'heavy police presence'. 'It was a huge display of force by Victoria police against civilians and against members of the public who have been protesting for over 90 weeks in Melbourne,' Sammak said. Images showed police in riot gear behind barricades on King Street Bridge, backed by a row of mounted officers and riot squad vans. Sammak said protesters initially sat down at the bridge crossing, with footage showing fellow organiser Mohammad Sharab urging the crowd to remain calm. 'We are sitting here for Palestine … peacefully,' Sharab said. 'We have women, children, vulnerable people.' Jordan van den Lamb, a Victorian Socialists candidate known online as PurplePingers, attended the protest. He said he was 'shocked' to turn on to King Street and see the bridge closed and police 'kitted out in riot gear, shields, horses, armoured vehicles, the lot'. 'I think they assumed that if they shut down the bridge, the protest would be less visible but really it's drawn more attention to the protest,' van den Lamb said. 'It would have just been done in half an hour if they hadn't closed the bridge. It's a bit stupid of them, really.' Sign up: AU Breaking News email He said police mostly stood silently behind their shields, with the main protest dispersing around 3pm as most attenders turned back towards the State Library. A 'small group' wearing masks and goggles stayed, van den Lamb said. Footage shows the group stopped traffic, burnt an Australian flag and spray-painted 'Abolish Australia' on to Spencer Street. In a statement, police said about 3,000 protesters gathered at the State Library on Sunday and 'despite repeated requests from police, they marched to King Street'. 'As a result of this, Victoria police closed the King Street Bridge and diversions were put in place,' the statement said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion They confirmed there were no arrests but they were following up a report that an egg was thrown at a person during the protest. Police did not answer specific questions about how many officers were deployed or the decision-making behind blocking the bridge, citing operational reasons. They said there had been no reports made to them of disruption to emergency services. Sammak said protesters were left 'feeling very traumatised and confused' by the police response, suggesting it was made at the 'the encouragement' of the premier, Jacinta Allan. 'The Sydney Harbour Bridge was facilitated quite freely and easily, and there was a positive atmosphere. So why in Melbourne did we have to face riot cops?' Sammak said. On Saturday, Allan had warned any protesters disrupting emergency services 'will be dealt with swiftly'. She defended her comments on Monday, telling ABC Radio Melbourne she had been focused on 'ensuring that safety wasn't compromised'. Allan said the protest was peaceful and backed the police response. She also said there was 'a small group of extremists behaving in an extreme way'. David Mejia-Canales, senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said there had also been a heavy-handed response to Sydney's protest. On Saturday, NSW police had sought an order to prohibit the protest going ahead but it was rejected by the supreme court. 'In NSW and Victoria we are seeing how anti-protest laws from the Minns and Allan governments are emboldening heavy handed policing and the repressive treatment of protesters and attempts to shut down protests,' Mejia-Canales said. 'Governments and police have a legal obligation to protect protesters, not punish or hinder people who are peacefully demonstrating and exercising their human right to demand justice.'
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Footballer, journalist, fashionista: whatever French Muslims do, we're treated as the enemy within
Being a Muslim in a country with a long colonial history, which has also had to deal with terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam, is an everyday challenge. In January 2015, for example, I was as profoundly shocked as everyone else in France by the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo journalists in Paris. As the country mourned, I was invited by a major radio station to comment, but was first asked, live on air, to 'dissociate' myself from the attackers. I had been critical of Charlie Hebdo's publications in the past, but my comments always fell within the scope of legitimate political debate. Nevertheless, as a Muslim, I was now treated as if I was under suspicion. In order to be tolerated on the airwaves, I had to profess my innocence: state publicly that I had nothing to do with the violence. I couldn't hold back my tears – because, even with a media profile, I was reduced to the most racist perception of my identity. I was strongly defended that night by others who took part in the show, and received much support online, but I couldn't help thinking of the millions of French Muslims who, unlike me, would have no microphone to defend themselves against vile accusations. Some years later I was invited to take part in a TV debate on the thesis: is the white man always guilty. I was expecting a conversation about gender and race. But my opponent, the philosopher Pascal Bruckner, immediately took me to task, claiming that I had used my status 'as a Black, Muslim woman' to incite hatred against Charlie Hebdo. He claimed that I had, in effect, blood on my hands, that my words had 'led to the murder of 12 people at Charlie Hebdo'. I immediately protested, stating as firmly as I could, that I had 'absolutely no responsibility for any terrorist attack'. But Bruckner wouldn't let go. He attacked me for having signed a joint statement in 2011, following a night-time petrol-bomb attack at the Charlie Hebdo premises that caused, fortunately, only material damage. Nothing in the statement – which I did not draft and was co-signed by 20 other academics and activists– had called for hatred or violence. It had been critical of the disproportionate media treatment of the fire at Charlie Hebdo when vandalism of Muslim places of worship featured rarely in the news. Signatories had expressed dismay at the selective nature of French national outrage, highlighting the indifference shown after an arson attack on a Paris building inhabited by Roma people, in which a man died. But Bruckner repeated his accusations in an interview the next day, claiming without any evidence that he had simply 'reminded Rokhaya Diallo of her involvement in political Islam' adding – as if it were a crime – that I had 'criticised Charlie Hebdo by calling them Islamophobic and racist'. I felt I had no option but to file a defamation lawsuit against Bruckner, believing the accusation to be not just outrageous and insulting, but influenced by my origins and my faith. But defending myself was viewed as another provocation. Le Figaro, the leading conservative daily, published a highly offensive article on the eve of the trial, which, without even bothering to interview me, stated: 'Inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood, 'anti-racist' activists like Rokhaya Diallo are multiplying lawsuits to silence critics of Islamism.' Taking legal action as a Muslim woman was framed as a 'jihadist' political plot. This kind of smear tactic is used again and again to discredit any Muslim who calls out Islamophobia. When the footballer Karim Benzema spoke in support of the people of Gaza in October 2023, the then interior minister Gerard Darmanin declared – without a shred of evidence – that the player had 'well-known ties to the Muslim Brotherhood'. In May, a report commissioned by the interior ministry into the Muslim Brotherhood fuelled suspicion of all French Muslims by recycling conspiracy theories around supposed 'infiltration'. The report was as the the socio-anthropologist Hamza Esmili put it, 'intellectually impoverished'. Yet Bruno Retailleau, the current interior minister, used alarmist conspiracy tropes to describe its conclusions, claiming it had identified 'a very clear threat to the republic and to national cohesion' and 'a quiet form of Islamist infiltration whose ultimate goal is to bring all of French society under sharia law'. But even the report stated unequivocally: 'No recent document demonstrates any intent by Muslims of France to establish an Islamic state in France or to enforce sharia law there.' It added that the Brotherhood's members in France today are estimated to number 'between 400 and 1,000 people'. As Esmili argues, French Muslims present a paradox: we are part of every social sphere, yet many of us have not given up our cultural specificities. And that is precisely what we are blamed for – integration without assimilation. This is why the same government can claim it uses the law to fight against Muslim 'separatism' while denouncing the threat of Muslim 'infiltration'. Muslims can't win: we are blamed for being part of the national community and for being outside of it. Thus, no matter what level we reach in the social pecking order, being Muslim always carries the suspicion of association with a radical and dangerous ideology: of being the enemy within. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion So when Léna Situations, a major fashion influencer in France, appeared on the Cannes film festival red carpet wearing a long dress with a headscarf, a senior official in Emmanuel Macron's party suggested on social media that she was practising a form of religious 'infiltration'. As if an outfit was in itself proof of extremism. The influencer never mentioned her religion but it made no difference – her Algerian heritage alone was enough to disqualify her. Even non-Muslims who take a stand against this hostile climate are subjected to similar accusations. Emile Ackermann – a rabbi vocal on Islamophobia – was accused by a self-proclaimed academic 'expert' of being inspired by a 'Brotherist' discourse. Such absurd accusations would be laughable if the situation weren't so volatile, with Islamophobic crime on the increase. Take the case of the hairdresser Hichem Miraoui, killed in June in the south of France, in what investigators are treating as a racially motivated act of domestic terrorism. Miraoui had been the target of racist rhetoric posted on social media by a neighbour who also denounced the French state as 'incapable of protecting us from Muslims'. Yet, the very same state constantly fuels a narrative portraying Muslims as a problem. During the defamation lawsuit I launched against Bruckner, and its appeal, my accuser and his lawyer leaned into these cliches. While the philosopher repeated his accusations and suggested that I was funded by 'foreign powers', his lawyer told the court that, given that Charlie Hebdo's case files amounted to several tonnes of documents, no one could say for sure whether my name was not mentioned in them. Elyamine Settoul, a political scientist and expert on jihadism, testified, however, that terrorists are radicalised through direct contacts and in no way rely on intellectual debates or interventions. And the expert and former Islamic State hostage Nicolas Hénin testified that my name appeared 'neither in the legal proceedings concerning the January 2015 attack, nor in the research conducted on the subject'. He told the court that 'the jihadist sphere holds nothing but contempt' for people like me because of my 'multicultural progressivism, which aligns with none of their religious doctrines'. Bruckner was acquitted in the first instance on the grounds that he had attributed to me only 'purely moral responsibility' and invited me to 'take ownership of the weight of my words and commitments'. The appeal court overturned the initial judgment, recognising the defamatory nature of Bruckner's remarks, yet still acquitted him on the grounds that he had made his statement 'in good faith'. Just like the 'yellow peril' once attributed to east Asians, or the supposed 'cosmopolitanist' trope used about Jews, the image of an allegedly foreign group secretly infiltrating France's circles of influence is once again thriving, in a sadly familiar strain of dangerous racist rhetoric. Rokhaya Diallo is a Guardian Europe columnist
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Could Scotland just declare it is an independent state?
Doubtless, most people had never heard of the Montevideo Convention before last week. It had previously crossed my path but I had not given it much thought in the context of the cause of Scottish independence. However, now that it has appeared on the scene, it seems appropriate to do so. That, from my perspective, is because everything to do with economics is about power relationships. If Scotland is not a state in its own right, then the obvious question to ask is, can it have a power relationship? With the caveat that the Montevideo Convention was only signed by states from the Americas, it suggests there are four criteria for being recognised as a state – that the proposed state should have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. READ MORE: I am a Palestinian. Keir Starmer's recognition plan is an insult The convention also says the political existence of a state is independent of any recognition of that status by other states. In other words, a state can declare itself to exist as a country, even if other countries do not recognise that fact. The question to be asked in this case is, then, whether or not Scotland meets these criteria? Firstly, Scotland very obviously has a population. What is more, official data confirming the size of that population is published on a regular basis. There would appear to be no doubt that it meets this criterion. Similarly, it would be very hard to argue that Scotland does not have a defined territory. I am aware some minor changes have taken place with regard to what part of the seabed might be Scottish, or not, in the last few decades, and this might still be up for negotiation. But the Montevideo Convention does make clear that it is not, in any case, essential that these borders be precisely defined if there is broad consensus about where they exist, and in the case of Scotland, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the case. That said, it has to be recognised that those two are the easy criteria to be settled under this convention, and that the next two might be a little more contentious. So, let's deal with them. Has Scotland got a government? It would seem to me that the answer to that is indisputable. Of course it has. What else is it that sits at Holyrood? And what else is the administration currently headed by John Swinney MSP? And why is it that he is called the First Minister of Scotland? And why else, for example, when meeting Donald Trump a week ago, was he treated as the leader of the Scottish Government? How could it be argued that Scotland hasn't got a government when, quite clearly, such a government was created through the devolution process, and the administration based in Edinburgh has the power to control significant areas of expenditure in Scotland, with such power being denied as a result to the government in Westminster? I have no doubt that lawyers could write lengthy books trying to argue this point either way but a simple observation of facts suggests that in practice, everyone in the UK, including the Westminster Government, recognises that there is an administration in Scotland which is properly called a government. What is more, it alone has decision-making powers over much in Scotland, to which it is responsible for the supply of services, and by which it is held accountable. It follows, as a matter of fact, that in a plain, straightforward political sense, Scotland must be recognised as having a government. It is important to note that when coming to that conclusion, the Montevideo Convention uses this logic when appraising such matters. It is based on political realities, and not on precise points of law. READ MORE: SNP members set for second meeting to challenge Scottish independence plan It is for that reason that the Montevideo Convention can say precise agreement on borders is not, for example, necessary, precisely so that legal objection for this reason can be circumvented. It does also, for this reason, say that a country might consider itself to be a state when others do not recognise it as such, again seeking to overcome legal objection on those grounds. It does, then, require decisions on the political substance of what is going on rather than worry about the precise legal arguments that could be used when deciding on an issue. And, there can be no doubt, given the substance of this matter, that Scotland has a government. The last question is, then, whether Scotland has the power to enter into relationships with other states in a way that only a state can? I would argue this is also the case. There will, no doubt, be Unionists who argue Scotland as it stands is no more than a glorified council, with no power to enter into relationships with other countries. But that would be nonsense. There are numerous signs Scotland is recognised as having such relationships. For example, it is internationally recognised for sporting purposes, and its national sports organisations are recognised as being capable of entering into international relationships. And, before anyone argues that this is peripheral, that cannot be said precisely because the Montevideo Convention does not refer to governmental relations as such, but does refer to international relationships. Even if, however, international government relationships have to be the focus, then Scotland very obviously has the power to enter into such relationships on its own behalf. It has a minister with responsibility for foreign affairs, and the Westminster government recognises their right to represent Scotland in the international arena. READ MORE: St Andrews rector demands formal apology and damages from uni So, for example, Scotland has for some time negotiated its own relationships with the EU and it is widely recognised internationally that Scotland's view on this matter differs from that of the [[Westminster]] government. In addition, it is clear that John Sweeney and Donald Trump did discuss international relationships last week, with the First Minister representing the Scottish Government and expressing an independent opinion. Once again, whatever the legal niceties, the simple fact is the world recognises that Scotland does have the capacity to enter into such relationships. In other words, all four of the Montevideo Convention requirements for Scotland to be recognised as a state are very clearly met. I think this is incredibly important. Saying so, I would refer readers back to the article that I wrote last week on the power of telling stories about Scotland, and the role that they have in creating a narrative about Scotland as an independent country. What the convention is saying is that Scotland, and the people of the country, have the right to say they are a state and that they should be recognised as such, whether or not the rest of the UK, and most particularly England, likes that fact. The Montevideo Convention does not give England the right to object. What it grants Scotland is the right to make that claim, irrespective of objections. If there is a story to tell about Scottish independence, this is it. The time has come for Scotland to declare itself a state, because it has the right to be recognised as such, and then it must make clear that this is the basis for its claim to have the right to be free from foreign control. How could anyone refuse?
