Macron forgets that Hamas does not want peace
Amidst the welter of controversy surrounding the Gaza crisis, one central fact seems to have been completely overlooked in the rush to blame the miserable plight of Palestinian civilians on Israel.
It was Hamas, not Israel, that was ultimately responsible for the collapse of the Trump administration's latest efforts to arrange a lasting ceasefire in the enclave.
It is hopefully a point US President Donald Trump makes abundantly clear to Sir Keir Starmer when the two leaders meet in Scotland.
Downing Street says Starmer will use the meeting to press Trump to do more to end the war in Gaza, a move that is no doubt prompted by the mounting pressure the Prime Minister is under from naive and ill-informed Labour backbenchers to recognise a Palestinian state.
Hopefully, the American president will provide Starmer with a reality check on the challenges facing anyone seeking to bring peace to Gaza, the most prominent being the absolute insistence of Hamas's terrorist leadership that it must remain in control of the enclave for any lasting cessation of hostilities to occur.
Allowing Hamas to retain any vestige of influence in Gaza is, understandably, anathema to Israel after the horrors it suffered during the October 7 attacks in 2023, which resulted in the cold-blooded massacre of 1,200 people – including women and children – at the hands of deranged Islamist fanatics.
No sane government in the world would allow such an organisation to remain intact after the trauma its citizens have suffered. It is for this reason that, since the start of the conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to waver from his insistence that, for there to be lasting peace in Gaza, Hamas's terrorist infrastructure – including the political leaders who helped to mastermind the October 7 attacks – must be completely eradicated from the enclave before any serious consideration can be given to peace.
Netanyahu has stuck to this bottom line through numerous iterations of US-sponsored ceasefire talks, starting with the Biden administration and continuing through to the current attempts by Trump to end hostilities and free the remaining Israeli hostages still held captive by Hamas terrorists.
At the same time Hamas has been equally insistent in demanding the right to remain in Gaza, claiming that it represents the enclave's legitimate government, even though it clings to power by torturing and murdering any Palestinians who are brave or foolhardy enough to voice their opposition to the terrorist organisation's brutal regime.
The Trump administration's deepening frustration with the negotiating tactics of Hamas, together with its backers in Qatar and Iran, was clearly evident in comments made by Steve Witkoff, Trump's Special Envoy to the Middle East, after he withdrew from last week's ceasefire talks in Qatar claiming that they had collapsed because Hamas was behaving in a 'selfish way.'
'While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,' Witkoff said in a statement issued when he abandoned the talks.
For the fundamental truth of the Gaza tragedy, one that the legions of anti-Israel protesters across the globe wilfully ignore, is that Hamas does not want peace.
The architects of this Islamist death cult seek martyrdom, and now that it has run out of fighters to sacrifice in its increasingly futile war against Israel's superior military might, Hamas is using Palestinian civilians effectively as human shields in its quest to survive the conflict.
It has done this by trying to seize control of vital aid supplies and establishing a black market whereby only known Hamas sympathisers are provided with the basic necessities for life. As for the rest, they are left to starve, thereby providing the UN's sprawling network of aid agencies, which have an undistinguished history of collaborating with Hamas, with the ammunition they need to accuse Israel of genocide.
In such circumstances it is almost obscene that prominent Western leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron should seek to salve their conscience by making grandstanding declarations about their intention to recognise a Palestinian state, even though a significant proportion of this supposed entity happens to be run by Islamist fanatics.
Trump, by contrast, has a far more realistic take on Hamas's mindset, one it is hoped the president will share forcefully with Starmer if our prime minister is to be prevented from following Macron's morally bankrupt gesture.
As Trump commented after the collapse of the latest Doha ceasefire talks, 'Hamas didn't really want to make a deal. I think they want to die, and it's very, very bad.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer needs to listen to us, says Labour MP who quit government over welfare cuts
Sir Keir Starmer needs to listen to his own MPs, an ex-Labour frontbencher who quit her role over plans to slash benefits has said. Vicky Foxcroft, who dramatically quit as a government whip in June, said ministers need to 'properly engage' with Labour backbenchers after a massive rebellion forced the government to abandon key aspects of its benefits reforms. Ms Foxcroft said she was 'really concerned' about the negative impact the proposals – which were later abandoned – would have on disabled people. 'There was some quite bad cuts to disabled people's benefits suggested, particularly around Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and having to have four points before you would be able to access the benefit. 'And I was just really concerned about that. And, you know, at that point, I didn't feel that I could support it and didn't feel that I could go out and whip for it and get other MPs to do the same', Ms Foxcroft told GB News ' Gloria De Piero. She said she had 'sleepless nights' in the lead-up to her decision to resign, saying it was 'really difficult and I really would rather not have had to do that'. 'I was actually having a hard personal time at that time as well, with my dad passing away quite suddenly. And so, you know, I had the stress of all of that, but also I was really worried about these proposals, and I really spoke to lots of people about what my concerns were around it. 'I had some sleepless nights, it plays on your mind the whole time', the MP for Lewisham North added. Asked what the government could do differently next time, she said: 'I think it's really important to listen to MPs. MPs are out in their constituencies. They're meeting with people. You know, when they're raising concerns it is coming from what people are worried about. 'It's really important that that engagement takes place in the future. And properly takes place.' But Ms Foxcroft also insisted that the government can turn around its fortunes, despite a poor performance in the polls, with Reform UK surging ahead. 'We've got quite a few years until a general election, and we are doing a lot of good things in Parliament, the Renters' Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, the Football Governance Bill, but at the moment, some of this stuff is just bills in parliament. 'What we need is people to really feel the difference actually, genuinely in their lives.' It comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir's government from voters on both the left and the right, with the prime minister's approval rating hitting an all time low earlier this month. His support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to polling published last month. The survey, first reported by The Sunday Times, also found that just a year after coming to power, seven in 10 voters think Sir Keir's government is at least as chaotic as the Tories' previous term.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
New Statesman
22 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The cost of apathy in England's mining towns
Riot police hold back protesters near a burning police vehicle after disorder broke out on 30 July 2024 in Southport. Photo byOne year ago, as the riots that started in Southport spread across the country, people in the old coalfields started to join in the action. In Wath upon Dearne, a former pit area in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham, rioters clashed with police outside a Holiday Inn Express, leading to some of the most appalling violence of that summer. The hotel's residents, housed there by the Home Office while it processed their asylum claims, said they felt a deep terror when they saw the mob set bins alight and storm the building. It was the event that produced some of the most memorable images of the riots. For all the distinct 2020s character of the livestreamed disturbances, the clashes invoked the past too. Not only was the hotel built on former colliery land, but to some former miners, the violence was reminiscent of the battle between police and picketers at nearby Orgreave 40 years earlier. Back then, protesters also claimed to be defending their way of life, though from deindustrialisation rather than immigration. Britain's former coalfields have become deeply disenchanted with politics. When I conducted ethnographic research in mining areas in Nottinghamshire back in 2021 and 2022, long before the events at Southport and beyond, people predicted social unrest. Millie, a care worker and mother of four, told me then that she was done with mainstream politics. 'Don't like Labour much, don't like the Tories at all. They come in, 'You will do as we say.' Don't have much of a chance of standing up to them.' In her view, the media was complicit and ordinary people were kept in the dark. She told me: 'I've been predicting there will be riots soon.' On recent returns to Mansfield and its surrounding villages, the prospect of further rioting has become more urgent. Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner have also spoken of the risk of renewed unrest. Only last month protesters from north Nottinghamshire mining communities marched against asylum hotels, spurred on by the comments of local Reform MP Lee Anderson about an ongoing rape trial. Some locals are animated principally by anger at immigration. In their apocalyptic visions, they are defending not just women and girls but their whiteness, too. For others, however, these concerns are secondary to a wider sense of political voicelessness and apathy in national decline. Millie was among this latter group, which feels that politicians had done nothing and that all they did was tell lies. I asked her why that was. 'Money,' Millie said. 'It's always money. Money and greed. You're not telling me they're not having their pockets lined.' Millie's anger was driven by the loss of sports facilities, the disappearance of the Sure Start centres, and the loss of the shared spaces she held dear. Everything had been 'taken away'. Even simple activities such as a family cinema trip or roller-skating at one of the few remaining leisure centres set her back more than she could afford. She would love to be able to drop her kids off to play with the pit band, as her father, a miner, had done with her. But the facilities had shut. 'When the pits started closing, they lost funding and stuff. I mean, it's still about, don't get me wrong. But it's not as rife as it used to be… My kids don't understand it because they never had it. But it hurts me, because what am I to do?' [See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain's asylum-seeker hotels] To understand the anger of the mining towns, we need to understand the history of miners' welfare. This takes us back to Southport, long before Southport became a shorthand in the national press for the disaffected working class. The Victorian seaside resort was the preferred location for conferences of the northern working class. Its train station was easily reached from Liverpool and Manchester and grand hotels sprang up to host them. (One of these was the ornate red-brick structure of the Scarisbrick Hotel, which would much later be used as an asylum hotel for several months.) Late-19th-century accounts in regional newspapers describe a remarkable sight at one of the conferences: in the early hours of the morning, the sky above the town came alive as the miners – many of whom flew pigeons for a hobby – released their birds to fly back home, while the miners themselves remained in Southport to vote on proposals for the eight-hour working day. After the First World War, the miners met at Southport again to discuss their demands, having paused strike activity for the duration of the fighting. They wanted to be put in charge of the industry – nationalisation under worker control, as well as wage increases and a reduction in the working day. They threatened to go on strike. The government baulked at their demands, but the ensuing Sankey commission did recommend that colliery owners be charged one penny per tonne of coal, to be put towards social, cultural and medical amenities. This was promptly made law in the Welfare Fund clause of the 1920 Mining Industry Act – the clause from which welfares derive their name. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Sports pitches, pithead baths and social clubs sprang up around Britain's collieries, all funded by the levy, and, after nationalisation, by the state. The welfares and other amenities were not just useful for community well-being, but also helped to forge a social tie between representatives and the represented. Bolstered by social investment, MPs could prove they cared about the communities that had elected them. In reality, the Welfare Fund investment reflected the structural power of miners over the energy source upon which industry and households depended. Nonetheless, people use the provision as an example of care and recognition. When these were lost in the ravages of deindustrialisation and austerity, it was felt like a moral injury. Politicians still claim to care, but what have their constituents got to show for it? Quantitative research by the economic geography professors Maria Abreu and Calvin Jones has shown that former coal-mining areas have lower levels of political participation, a lack of political trust and a low sense of political efficacy even compared with economically and demographically similar places. Other recent research tells us that closures of GP practices, pubs and shops are all associated with elevated support for the far right. These losses of social infrastructure are all the more impactful in former mining areas because there was more to lose. The decay of amenities won by the labour movement have become a potent symbol of decline. Today, ex-miners who were once connected to hundreds of others through a dense web of social provision tell me they live increasingly private lives in their private homes. Some end up on dubious Facebook pages and YouTube channels. They come to imagine their homes as embattled fortresses, under siege from disorder and diversity outside. The Wath Main Colliery memorial in South Yorkshire is a ten-minute walk from the Holiday Inn where everything kicked off in August 2024. Fifteen minutes' walk the other way there's a large distribution centre, which regeneration officials had hoped would provide an employment alternative. It is often said that places like Mansfield or Wath were forgotten or left behind, and many of us are guilty of talking about ex-industrial areas as though time stopped shortly after the miners' strike. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Wath, like in Mansfield, there have been frantic policy interventions to lure footloose businesses and make the land productive again. As a result, many former pit areas have similar landscapes: a big Tesco, expensive newbuild housing and a waste incineration plant – if planners can get it past the local residents. Like Nottinghamshire, Wath ended up with distribution centres. Here, it is the clothing retailer Next; in Nottinghamshire it's Amazon and Sports Direct. In Wath, as in the South Wales valleys, they received call centres too. And of course, where land, rent and rates are cheap, the government will soon see an opportunity to make savings. There is never any money to keep Sure Start going or to keep the welfare alive, but people who depend on the state can be dealt with on the cheap. It is, perhaps, easier for Serco and other government contractors to house asylums seekers in one place, rather than disperse smaller groups more widely. To the surprise of no one, this is not a recipe for social cohesion. Racism and xenophobia exist everywhere, but combined with structural decline they make for a particularly toxic politics, and it is not hard to see how far-right visions of civil disorder and societal breakdown could meld with more mundane concerns and a widely shared anti-politics. In a new report for IPPR, I make the case for the return of a miners' welfare fund to combat declinism and alienation. Where it was once levied on colliery owners, it should now raise its budget from the large online businesses, such as Amazon, that have filled post-industrial Britain with gargantuan distribution centres. Private-sector-led approaches to regeneration have left mining communities with exploitative jobs and crumbling social infrastructures. Things seem only ever to get worse. Instead, the state could use a 21st-century welfare fund to revive community centres, facilitate affordable family activities and help community groups take neglected spaces into common ownership, reclaiming the mundane utopia of the sports pitch and the pit band. Memories of the affordances of the previous generation of welfare facilities speak to its understated pleasures. 'Pit bands – you really got a feel for the pit community,' Millie told me. 'Stuck together, had a laugh.' [See more: British decline is as much intellectual as it is political] Related
