Trump, Starmer, Macron: A theatre of inhumanity
Aid agencies are now echoing what Palestinians have been shouting for months: this is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a man-made famine. It is genocide, and it is being broadcast in real time.
According to Doctors Without Borders, cases of severe malnutrition among children under five in Gaza have tripled in just two weeks. A quarter of the children and pregnant women examined were malnourished.
Since May, famine deaths have surged - over 50 in the past week alone. The World Food Programme confirms Gaza receives just 12 percent of the food it needs. A third of the population is going days without eating. Babies are starving, mothers faint and aid convoys are shot at or turned away.
Now, the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has issued an urgent alert: the "worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip".
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Famine thresholds for food consumption and acute malnutrition have already been breached. Starvation and disease are accelerating. Without immediate intervention, the outcome is clear: mass death.
So how did the self-proclaimed leaders of the free world respond?
With cruelty in three dialects.
Social engineering at gunpoint
US President Donald Trump delivered the blunt-force version: snarling, smirking and fundamentally uninterested in anything that cannot be monetised or golfed on.
As skeletal children flickered across screens, Trump lied without blinking and denied there was a famine in Gaza. His team sabotaged ceasefire talks in Doha, blamed Hamas for selfishness and walked away - back to the clubhouse.
Trump's indifference is total, playing golf while Gaza withers, he reveals the full rot of his worldview: entitlement, cruelty and a billionaire's disdain for those beneath him
Hamas had proposed exactly what the international community demanded: UN-led food distribution, withdrawal of Israeli troops from civilian areas and a permanent ceasefire in exchange for hostages.
But that was far too humane for Washington and Tel Aviv. They preferred their aid weaponised, their food politicised and their victims punished for surviving their tons of bombs.
The so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a failed Israeli-American "humanitarian" scheme, was put in charge of feeding Gaza. Instead, it helped map out killing zones.
Leaked documents detail $2bn "transit camps" to "re-educate" Palestinians - colonisation rebranded in PowerPoint - not relief, rather social engineering at gunpoint.
Even Israel's military admits there was no evidence Hamas stole aid. Still, Gaza starves - not by accident, but by design.
This is policy, and if anyone was still unsure, Netanyahu clarified: "In any path we choose, we will be forced to allow the entry of minimal humanitarian aid."
Not enough. Not urgent. Minimal.
Starvation, then, is not collateral; it is a strategy. Relief, drip-fed, outrage managed. This is rationed agony. Suffering, meted out with precision.
Trump indifference
Meanwhile, in Scotland, teeing off as Gaza collapsed, Trump was not only dodging genocide; he was running from Jeffrey Epstein's shadow. Palestinians - like the trailer park teens in Epstein's Rolodex - do not exist in Trump's gated universe. He sees only property values and dinner reservations. Everything else is expendable.
Gaza famine: We hold British institutions accountable for enabling this horror Read More »
Trump's indifference is total. Playing golf while Gaza withers, he reveals the full rot of his worldview: entitlement, cruelty and a billionaire's disdain for those beneath him.
But he was not finished. Between rounds, Trump moaned: "We sent $60m… nobody acknowledged it… makes you feel a little bad."
Apparently, Palestinians should send thank-you cards for the starvation, for the tents torched in the night and the children torn apart by US-made bombs.
This is Trump's empathy: crumbs followed by tantrums - the logic of a mob boss. You clap or you get nothing.
Trump does not just deny famine, he mocks it and downgrades it to "probably malnutrition". He lies again about Hamas stealing aid, even as Israeli officials admit otherwise. He wants praise for food that never arrived and impunity for the policies that blocked it.
Then there is British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the master of the soft veto. Where Trump bellows, Starmer tiptoes. While tens of thousands chanted for a ceasefire, he released a polished video offering to treat a few injured Palestinian children in Britain. A gesture? Or a stage prop?
Behind the sober tone lies staggering complicity. Starmer has done nothing to stop arms exports to Israel, including F-35 jet components. He talks about airdrops as if tossing food from 3,000m is more than a photo op. These drops kill as often as they feed.
Starmer plays the reasonable man - all poise, no pressure - as if a well-worded statement could hush the cries from Rafah
When asked why Britain will not act, officials shrug: we must follow America. And yet, when Trump abandoned Ukraine, Britain led alone.
The difference is not capability; it is will, or rather, its absence.
What could Starmer do? Plenty: suspend arms exports, freeze Israeli assets, sanction GHF-linked firms, join South Africa's genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and even recall the ambassador.
He could say the word: genocide.
But instead, he plays the reasonable man - all poise, no pressure - as if a well-worded statement could hush the cries from Rafah. He performs concern while the bodies accumulate just behind the curtain.
Macron's illusion
Then comes French President Emmanuel Macron, cloaked in silk and the language of peace while selling his illusion. He announced France would recognise a Palestinian state. Dramatic? Until you read the fine print: no borders, no capital, no end to occupation, no teeth.
It is the same vision floated by Canada's prime minister: a "Zionist Palestinian state" - defanged, demilitarised and designed to grease normalisation deals with Arab states. It is not a state, but a hologram, a soundbite, a mirage.
Gaza genocide: The West finds new language - but does nothing to stop Israel Read More »
While the Israeli army storms the occupied West Bank, while the Israeli parliament pushes annexation, Macron offers paper recognition.
His "support" is sleight of hand, a magician's flourish to distract while the real work of ethnic cleansing proceeds unimpeded.
If Macron were serious, he would sanction Israel, freeze reserves in French banks, support the ICJ case and stop arresting French citizens protesting genocide. But seriousness was never the point; performance was.
And now, Starmer is following suit, offering to recognise a Palestinian state - not as an unconditional right to the whole of occupied Palestinian land, but as a bargaining chip, dangled only if there is no ceasefire, to politely urge Israel to reconsider its course.
Where Macron offered a mirage, Starmer offered a shadow of one - not solidarity, not strategy, just PR in slow motion. Trump sneers, Starmer stage-manages and Macron suavely deceives.
As Gaza starves and aid workers plead for a ceasefire, these men deliver rehearsed lines, not rescue. They offer theatre in place of leadership, gestures in place of justice, and euphemisms in place of courage.
While Israeli ministers call openly for Gaza's erasure, these men retreat behind velvet curtains, pose for cameras and nod gravely.
They are not statesmen.
They are performers.
Their suits are tailored.
Their cowardice, too.
Trump is only different in style, not in substance.
Where Macron and Starmer lacquer their complicity in diplomacy and euphemism, Trump bellows his out like a wrecking ball - no disguise, just arrogance live-streamed.
But the core is the same: a shared, deliberate disregard for Palestinian life, a common indifference to suffering and a unity of inhumanity.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Canada intends to recognise Palestinian state at UN General Assembly: Carney
Canada plans to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, a dramatic policy shift that was immediately rejected by Israel. Carney said the move was necessary to preserve hopes of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a long-standing Canadian goal that was "being eroded before our eyes." "Canada intends to recognize the State of Palestine at the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025," the prime minister said. It makes Canada the third country, following recent announcements by France and the United Kingdom, that could recognise a Palestinian state in September. Israel blasted Canada's announcement as part of a "distorted campaign of international pressure." Asked by reporters if there was a scenario where Canada could change its position before the UN meeting, Carney said: "there's a scenario (but) possibly one that I can't imagine." Canada's intention "is predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms," Carney said, referring to the government body led by President Mahmud Abbas, which has civil authority in parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Carney also said it was also predicated on Abbas's pledge to "hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarise the Palestinian state." With Wednesday's announcement, Carney positioned Canada alongside France, after President Emmanuel Macron said his country would formally recognise a Palestinian state during the UN meeting, the most powerful European nation to announce such a move. PA's Abbas welcomed the announcement as a "historic" decision, while France said the countries would work together "to revive the prospect of peace in the region." Canada's plan goes a step further than this week's announcement by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer said the UK will formally recognize the State of Palestine in September unless Israel takes various "substantive steps," including agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza. Two-state solution Carney stressed that Canada has been an unwavering member of the group of nations that hoped a two-state solution "would be achieved as part of a peace process built around a negotiated settlement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority." "Regrettably, this approach is no longer tenable," he said, citing "Hamas terrorism" and the group's "longstanding violent rejection of Israel's right to exist." The peace process has also been eroded by the expansion of Israeli settlements across the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, Carney said. The prime minister said a two-state solution was growing increasingly remote, with a vote in Israel's parliament "calling for the annexation of the West Bank," as well as Israel's "ongoing failure" to prevent humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Agence France-Presse
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Play wisely
This refers to the Congress leaders claim that our Prime Minister is unable to deny that the US President Donald Trump claimed 30 times that it is only due to his intervention the India-Pakistan war was called off. This is nothing put a ploy of Trump trumpeting for getting the Noble Prize for Peace. Even his attempt to stall the Israel-Iran-Russia war had failed miserably. As regards our ceasefire with Pakistan, though our prime minister, home, defence, and the external affairs ministers have time and again explained that there was no third party intervention to stop the war and was stopped purely at the request of Pakistan, our opposition leaders are not ready to believe our prime minister and his ministers, which is really unfortunate. With their counting the number of trumpeting of Trump, they are only degrading themselves in our country. It would be better if they act like a constructive opposition, instead of destructive and try to do something good for our nation and the Common man. Capt. N. Viswanathan, Coimbatore, India
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Why Sudanese people are losing faith in the 'government of hope'
When former UN official Kamil Idris was sworn in as Sudan's new prime minister this spring, he became the first person to hold the position in a permanent capacity since Abdalla Hamdok resigned in January 2022 amid ongoing political turmoil. His appointment by Sudanese army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan elicited a polarised response. Proponents viewed it as a potential turning point in Sudan's democratic transition, citing Idris's political independence, technocratic expertise, and established ties with international organisations. They argued that his non-partisan background would help in navigating Sudan's complex transitional landscape. Sceptics, meanwhile, questioned the legitimacy of an unelected leader, arguing that his appointment - as opposed to a popular mandate - could constrain his autonomy. Critics have also pointed to the persistence of military influence, suggesting that Idris might function as a civilian proxy, with his authority circumscribed. This perspective underscores broader apprehensions about the deep involvement of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) in politics - a role that contradicts the principle of a military remaining neutral in governance. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters While not all observers may recognise this dynamic, analysts, and those closely following Sudanese politics, note SAF's entrenched influence in political life. Furthermore, during the ongoing conflict in Sudan this politicisation of the army has led to suggestions about the close connections with the Islamist-led regime which had been overthrown by the revolution of 2018/2019. There is heightened skepticism about whether Sudan's current transition will produce a genuinely inclusive civilian government, or if military-backed structures will continue to shape power behind the scenes, and therefore the risks of a facade of civilian rule without substantive democratisation. Idris faces multiple challenges, chief among them the ongoing war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has raged since April 2023, severely destabilising Sudan's economy and social cohesion. Forming a new government was his first hurdle. Last month, Idris unveiled plans for a non-partisan, technocratic "government of hope" - a move that swiftly drew criticism from key political factions, who accused him of sidelining major civilian coalitions that had been instrumental in resisting military rule. Escalating tensions Although Idris has vowed to convene an inclusive dialogue with Sudan's political and social stakeholders, this initiative faces significant challenges, as some parties contest the legitimacy of his appointment and decry his government as unrepresentative of their interests. Notably, the Sudanese Congress Party, the Socialist Arab Ba'ath Party, and Somood, the Civil Democratic Alliance (CDA) led by the former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. The latter was a product of the fragmentation of Taqadum, a civilian coalition formed in early 2024 of specific political actors from the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC). Eventually, Tadadum split with two movements emerging; some FFC members joined Somood under Hamdok's leadership while others joined the Sudan Founding Alliance (Ta'sis), championed by RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti). By forming an alliance with the latter, these civilian political actors rejected the authority of the Idris-led government. For its part, Somood has opted instead to engage directly with warring factions, circumventing the government based in Port Sudan. Tensions had been escalating since Idris dissolved the previous caretaker government in early June. Signatories of the Juba Peace Agreement protested the move, viewing it as an erosion of their negotiated gains. The dispute revolves around an article in the Juba agreement that had guaranteed signatories a 25-percent share of executive authority throughout the transitional period established by the Constitutional agreement of August 2019. Critics argue that the Juba deal has failed to address broader societal demands or to resolve persistent on-the-ground grievances, intensifying calls for its revision or scrapping. But ignoring its safeguards would erode trust in political settlements, destabilise the transition, and undermine national unity. Idris's technocratic experiment thus raises existential questions: is this a genuine democratic step, or another military facade? Mohamed Sid Ahmed al-Jakumi, head of the Northern Track, a signatory to the Juba deal, has demanded adherence to the 'quarter of power' principle, under threat of legal action. He has called for key ministries to be led by independent experts, rejecting the 'monopolisation' of power by any party. Amid this dispute, Idris advanced his cabinet formation late last month, issuing decisions to appoint Lieutenant General Hassan Daoud Kabron Kayan as defence minister and Lieutenant General Babiker Samra Mustafa Ali as interior minister. In early July, three technocratic appointments followed, with several Sudanese professors placed in charge of the agriculture, higher education and health ministries. Among the figures were Muiz Omer Bakhit, minister of health, Ismat Gurashi Abdullah Mohamed, minister of Agriculture and Irrigation, Ahmed Mudawi Musa Mohamed, minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research. These three ministries were said to be pro-revolution. Idris emphasised merit-based selection, but the nominations have ignited a backlash, with critics scrutinising the appointees' allegiances and warning of militarised governance. Significant setback Since then, Idris has appointed another 10 ministers to his 'government of hope', filling the rural development, justice, finance, trade, and religious affairs ministries on 7 July; and the fisheries, culture, minerals, social welfare, and transport portfolios a week later. Idris described the appointments as the result of a thorough review of national competencies and expertise. The remaining seven ministerial appointments remain pending. But already, the ministerial appointments represent a significant setback for the transitional process. Many of the appointees were involved in the previous government. For example, just to cite a few names, Mahassen Ali Yacoub who was the acting minister of trade and industry in the previous government that took over after the coup of 2021, is holding the same post in Idris-led government. Also, Abdall Mohamed Daraf, who is appointed as minister of Justice, is publicly known for his political support for the previous government, raising questions about the extent of his neutrality in this sensitive position. Sudan crisis: How a parallel RSF government could destroy the nation Read More » This could undermine trust in the state's commitment to meaningful reforms, while sending a deeply concerning signal to both the international community and the US-hosted process aimed at resolving the Sudanese crisis. Rather than advancing progress, these appointments reflect is only a repetition of past mistakes and failed modalities of governance despite different forms of organisation. Finally, Tasis finalised its charter and managed to establish a parallel 'peace and unity government' on 26 July with Hemeti as the leader of the presidential council. It has espoused a compromise pertaining to the commitment of its ally Al Hilu, the leader of one of the fragments of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A-North) and a stanuch advocate of a secular Sudanese state. Overall, Idris's efforts have unveiled deepening fractures between civilian and military actors, among Juba signatories, and within the realm of public opinion. Sudan's political landscape remains paralysed by entrenched polarisation, with the war economy and societal fragmentation aggravating divisions. This deadlock, compounded by grievances and institutional distrust, risks precipitating state fragmentation unless a consensus-driven dialogue emerges among military, political and civilian forces. The enduring contest for dominance has left Sudan trapped in a cycle of instability for nearly seven decades, as political and military elites have consistently failed to resolve their protracted power struggles. Idris's technocratic experiment thus raises existential questions: is this a genuine democratic step, or another military facade? As fragmentation looms, Sudanese people demand action, not just hope. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
