Freed hostage Emily Damari accuses Starmer of being on wrong side of history
Sir Keir announced on Tuesday that the UK could take the step of recognising statehood in September, ahead of a major UN gathering.
The UK will refrain from doing so only if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months.
The move has been criticised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed it 'rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism'.
Ms Damari, who was released from Hamas captivity in January, said in a post on Instagram on Wednesday: 'Prime Minister Starmer is not standing on the right side of history. Had he been in power during World War II, would he have advocated recognition for Nazi control of occupied countries like Holland, France or Poland?
'This is not diplomacy — it is a moral failure. Shame on you, Prime Minister.
'As a dual British-Israeli citizen who survived 471 days in Hamas captivity, I am deeply saddened by Prime Minister Starmer's decision to recognise Palestinian statehood. This move does not advance peace — it risks rewarding terror. It sends a dangerous message: that violence earns legitimacy.
'By legitimising a state entity while Hamas still controls Gaza and continues its campaign of terror, the Prime Minister is not promoting a solution; he is prolonging the conflict. Recognition under these conditions emboldens extremists and undermines any hope for genuine peace. Shame on you!!!'
In a statement from Downing Street on Tuesday after an urgent Cabinet meeting on Gaza, Sir Keir said the UK's 'message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged but unequivocal: they must immediately release all of the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm, and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
43 minutes ago
- Times
Keir Starmer's not the issue. But nor were Johnson, May, Brown…
'The end is Nige.' That was how The Sun's front page reported my discovery, in 2017, that 'Nigel' had fallen off the official list of baby names. At the time, it seemed not just striking but symbolic: with Ukip at 2 per cent in the polls, and its former leader out of frontline politics, Nigel's best days really did seem to lie in the past. Last week, the list came out again. In the register office as in public life, Nigel was firmly back, with five boys both this year and last — one of whom even joined the Reform leader on the campaign trail in Clacton. Rishi was there, and Kemi too. But poor old Keir had disappeared. Again, the symbolism was irresistible. This time last year, Starmer was at his height as prime minister, delivering a muscular response to the riots that captured the national mood. But he has steadily become more and more disliked. Today, only 19 per cent of voters tell YouGov he is doing a good job, against 69 per cent who disagree. As of the latest polls, he is in the negatives even among Labour voters. • Top baby names in England and Wales revealed — but no new Keirs There are all sorts of reasons why this has happened — which you could fairly summarise as a bad hand, badly played. But what fascinates me is the familiarity of the Labour response. Back in the Boris Johnson days, and the Theresa May days, and the Gordon Brown days, any given setback would usually be accompanied by briefings about the flaws in the No 10 team. The prime minister, journalists would report, was deeply frustrated by the failures they saw, and would be reshuffling their team to get a personal grip. That, or the problem was that they had become overly dependent on — almost hypnotised by — a particular adviser or advisers. Now, with lessons learnt, we would see the real Boris. The real Theresa. The real Gordon. There are two intellectual traditions at work here — one old and one new. The new one is that a generation of politicians have grown up watching The West Wing, and in particular the scene where the struggling administration decides that it needs to cast off caution and pragmatism and allow Martin Sheen's president to be the campaigning, crusading figure who first inspired them: 'Let Bartlet be Bartlet!' goes the cry. But the second tradition is far older. Indeed, it's one of the oldest patterns in political history. In Britain, as in many other countries and cultures, it was not just treason but verging on heresy to criticise a divinely appointed king. So the discontented would always stress that their complaints were not about the wise and goodly monarch, but the evil counsellors around them. As late as the Civil War, the Roundheads blamed the outbreak of hostilities not on Charles I himself, but 'an abounding malignity in those parties and Factions; who doe still labour to foment Jealosies betwixt the King and this Parliament' — godless bishops, sinister Jesuits and treacherous nobles. It took six full years of war for them to adopt the literally revolutionary position that the blame truly lay with 'Charles Stuart, that man of blood'. Studying recent reporting, you can see exactly the same themes. We have had the briefing for and against the prime minister's favourite — aka his chief of staff. The reports of new blood being brought in to freshen things up. Accounts of how the prime minister will take a personal grip on the policy-making process, since decisions were reaching him too late in the day. (By miraculous coincidence, the main mistake cited, making cuts to welfare, was also hugely unpopular with Labour backbenchers.) We have had a cabinet awayday with excited talk of a 'progressive pivot', and rebuilding the government around the prime minister's personal obsession with 'life chances'. 'It was all very 'Let Keir be Keir',' claimed an anonymous minister. • Keir Starmer needs his authority back. Can a Blairite veteran help? But the problem for the government is that it's never the advisers. It's always the king. Just like it was for King John or Charles I or any of the others. Indeed, one of the peculiarities of the British state is that there are surprisingly few formal, institutional structures around the prime minister. Instead, Downing Street functions almost like a royal court, moulding itself around the personality of each new incumbent. And once set, that mould is surprisingly hard to break. Certainly, it is a lot easier to list the excitable articles about prime ministerial relaunches, revamps and resets than examples of such resets actually working. Ironically, for all her intractable reputation, one of the few to manage it is arguably Margaret Thatcher, who retooled her administration in 1981-2 after receiving perhaps the most wounding memo ever sent to a PM by their underlings. ('Your own management competence, like that of most of your colleagues, is almost non-existent … You break every rule of good man-management. You bully your weaker colleagues. You criticise colleagues in front of each other and in front of their officials…').As for 'let Keir be Keir', who will Keir actually be? We've been told, over the years, that the Starmer mission is all about service, or change, or radicalism, or necessary decisions. But it feels like a series of attempts to project a personality, and a narrative, on to a blank screen. Recently, on the train back from Kyiv, my colleague Josh Glancy asked Starmer about standing in the spotlight of history. The PM, he wrote, bristled impatiently: 'I don't do all this self-analysis bit. I thought you'd picked that up a year ago. You're still desperately trying to get in there. Come on.' Starmer's position is that his job is not to construct fancy theories. It is to sit down and do the work — to make decision after decision until there are no more problems left to solve. But all truly successful politicians tell a story about themselves. Whitehall, too, works best when everyone can buy into a single shared narrative, imposed from the centre. Starmer not only hasn't done that, but actively resists it. The result, to steal a put-down from Bismarck, is that he ends up seeming like a Sphinx without a riddle. And the government ends up with a majority but no mission. It may be that the PM can turn things around — that by the time he leaves office, maternity wards will be packed with little Keirs, Morgans and Angelas. But I can't help feeling that progressive Keir will soon be discarded alongside change Keir, growth Keir, and tough decisions Keir with kung-fu grip. Because if there's one lesson from history for our leaders, it's that the fault lies not in their advisers, but in themselves.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Growing number of Jewish American groups speak out over Gaza famine
As global outrage intensifies over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, a growing number of prominent Jewish American organizations, including some traditional defenders of Israel, are speaking out and imploring the country to ensure that humanitarian aid is allowed into Gaza. This week, a UN-backed food security group warned that a 'worst-case scenario of famine' is unfolding in Gaza and health authorities there report dozens of deaths from starvation. On Sunday, the American Jewish Committee, a prominent Jewish advocacy organization, released a statement affirming that it stands with Israel in what it described as 'its justified war to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas and secure the release of the remaining hostages'. At the same time, the group called for Israel to take steps to alleviate civilian suffering. 'We feel immense sorrow for the grave toll this war has taken on Palestinian civilians, and we are deeply concerned about worsening food insecurity in Gaza,' the statement read. 'We urge Israel, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the UN, and all responsible parties involved in aid distribution to increase cooperation and coordination in order to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches Palestinian civilians in Gaza.' The GHF is an Israel- and US-backed aid group that has attracted condemnation for the killings of hundreds of civilians seeking food at the hands of Israeli forces and private contractors. The AJC statement reflected a cautious critique of Israel's aid blockade echoed by other groups noteworthy for their typically staunch support of the country, even as their statements condemned Hamas for refusing to release the Israeli hostages it continues to hold. The Reform movement in North America, which represents the largest Jewish denomination in the US, also issued a lengthy statement: 'Neither escalating military pressure nor restricting humanitarian aid has brought Israel closer to securing a hostage deal or ending the war,' it read. 'Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to sacrifice the Palestinian people in its pursuit of Israel's destruction, but Israel must not sacrifice its own moral standing in return. Starving Gazan civilians neither will bring Israel the 'total victory' over Hamas it seeks, nor can it be justified by Jewish values or humanitarian law.' The Rabbinical Assembly, a New York-based association of conservative rabbis, said last week that they were 'increasingly concerned about the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza' and called for 'urgent action to alleviate civilian suffering and ensure aid delivery'. 'Even as we believe Hamas could end this suffering immediately through the release of the hostages and care for its civilian population, the Israeli government must do everything in its power to ensure humanitarian aid reaches those in need,' it added. 'The Jewish tradition calls upon us to ensure the provision of food, water, and medical supplies as a top priority.' Jewish groups associated with the left have been prominent fixtures at protests against Israel's offensive since it began. On Tuesday, 27 rabbis and Jewish clergy affiliated with the group Jews for Food Aid for People in Gaza were arrested at a protest in the Washington office of the Senate majority leader, John Thune. But it appears clear that discomfort has significantly broadened outside the Jewish left. On Monday, eight rabbis were arrested outside the Israeli consulate in New York while protesting against the humanitarian crisis in Gaza – including clergy who had not been so outspoken before. 'The protests we've typically seen at the Israeli consulate in places like that are from the further left of the community,' Phylisa Wisdom, executive director of New York Jewish Agenda, told Gothamist. 'This represents an escalation from rabbis in this political lane.' More than 1,200 rabbis have signed a public letter calling on Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza. 'The Jewish people face a grave moral crisis, threatening the very basis of Judaism as the ethical voice that it has been since the age of Israel's prophets,' reads the letter. 'We cannot remain silent in confronting it.' The developments reflect shifting public support for Israel and the Israeli government within the US, which has accelerated as the war has gone on. A recent Gallup poll reported that support for Israel's military action in Gaza has precipitously declined among US adults, and is now at 32% – the lowest reading since Gallup first asked the question in November 2023. Support for Israel drops further among younger Americans – including US Jews. 'It's a tense time in the Jewish family group chats,' Ezra Klein wrote in a recent New York Times column. 'The consensus that held American Jewry together for generations is breaking down.' While emotional attachment to Israel is widespread among Jewish Americans, polling has consistently found that support for the state's current policies drops with age, a phenomenon perhaps best reflected in the community's support for the New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, whom opponents have sought to tar with accusations of antisemitism over his vocal support for Palestinian rights. Despite those accusations, however, a recent poll found him leading with 67% of the votes of American Jewish voters in New York under the age of 44. That figure dropped to 25% of voters over 45. 'Zohran Mamdani's triumph in New York City's Democratic primary for mayor has forced, among many Jews, a reckoning with how far they have drifted from one another,' Klein wrote. Organizers of an action planned for Monday in New York City hope that groups that have not turned out before will do so to protest under the banner 'Jews Say: No More'. 'Our tradition teaches us that if we can protest [against] our people's actions and we don't, we are responsible,' said IfNotNow's executive director, Morriah Kaplan, in a statement to the Guardian. The group is helping organize Monday's action. 'As Jews and as Americans, whose government is funding this atrocity, we all must choose whether we want to bear responsibility for a policy of forced mass starvation.' The shift is also playing out within institutions whose members want their leaders to take a tougher stance on a country many had long reflexively supported. More than 200 alumni from Young Judaea, a Zionist youth group, this week called on the organization in an open letter to depart from its pro-Israel line to speak out against starvation in Gaza and call for a permanent ceasefire, including a release of the hostages. 'We see our families and friends, colleagues and teachers, rabbis and Jewish institutions – in Israel and abroad – join a growing movement to stand courageously in opposition to these policies,' the letter reads. 'Young Judaea cannot remain silent in this moment and maintain any moral credibility.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
The offence would also outlaw the promise of illegal working being promoted online and could carry a large fine. (PA Graphics) It comes as the Government grapples with a record number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel. On Wednesday, arrivals passed more than 25,000 for the year so far, a record for this point in the year. Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the changes will give more powers to police and other agencies to disrupt criminal gangs. According to analysis by the Home Office, around 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat told officials they used social media during their journey, including to contact agents linked to people smuggling gangs. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described anyone who sells the 'promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral' (Jacob King/PA) The National Crime Agency already works with social media companies to remove posts promoting crossings, with more than 8,000 taken offline in 2024. NCA director general of operations Rob Jones said the proposed new offence will give them more options of how to target gangs and their business models. Previous cases that could have been targeted under the proposed offence include a Preston-based smuggler jailed for 17 years for posting videos of migrants thanking him for his help. Albanian smugglers who used social media to promote £12,000 'package deals' for accommodation and a job in the UK on arrival would also be in scope. The Conservatives said it was 'too little, too late' and that only their proposal to automatically deport people who enter Britain via unauthorised routes can tackle small boat crossings. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Tinkering at the edges won't fix the problem. 'Labour still has no clear plan to deter illegal entry, no effective enforcement and no strategy to speed up removals. This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing. 'The only clear and enforceable plan is the Conservative Deportation Bill, a no-nonsense strategy that allows us to detain illegal arrivals immediately and remove them without delay. The British public deserve focused action, not more of Labour's dithering.'
