Labour's Gaza mess is only worsening
Supporters of Palestine Action, which was proscribed after its attack on RAF Brize Norton, are calling for mass civil disobedience next Saturday in order to 'overwhelm' the police and courts.
One of their leaders is Moazzam Begg, who spent three years as a detainee in Guantanamo Bay. Speaking in Birmingham at the weekend, Mr Begg told what he called 'the resistance' that 'we have a massive presence in this city' and must 'engage our leaders, our imams, our habits, those in positions of power, to join, there is strength in numbers'.
In 2010 Mr Begg was paid an undisclosed sum in compensation for his time in Guantanamo, reported at the time to be £1m or more. In 2014 he was arrested for Syria-related terrorism offences, although charges were subsequently dropped. Will he now once more face the law? Supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation such as Palestine Action is a criminal offence.
Meanwhile, those who warned against rewarding Hamas for rape, massacre and hostage-taking have been vindicated. Last week, Basem Naim, one of the terrorist organisation's leaders, exulted in the UK's support for the Palestinian cause: 'Victory and liberation are closer than we expected.' Hamas is still running Gaza; British recognition of Palestine would hand them a huge propaganda victory.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister's spokesman refused to say whether such a state would be recognised if Hamas remains in control of Gaza. Downing Street repeats the mantra that ' Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza '. But it insists that it cannot make recognition conditional on the actions of Hamas, a terrorist group, as the UK does not negotiate with terrorists and such demands would be tantamount to negotiation. Conditions seemingly only apply to democratic states.
The legal knots in which this Government has tied itself would be comical if the consequences were not so tragic. Starmer and Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, are both lawyers to their fingertips. Yet they have conjured up a policy that is legally incoherent, morally indefensible and pleases nobody.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump threatens India with 'substantial' tariff hike for buying Russian oil
Donald Trump has threatened to "substantially" raise tariffs against India over its purchase of oil from Russia."They [India] don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine," the US president wrote on his online platform, Truth Social, on is currently among the largest buyers of Russian oil. It has become an important export market for Moscow after several European countries cut trade when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in did not specify what the new tariff would be, but it comes just days after he unveiled a hefty 25% levy on India. Delhi called Trump's warning "unjustified and unreasonable". In a statement, a spokesman for India's foreign ministry, Randhir Jaiswal, said the US had encouraged India to import Russian gas at the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, "for strengthening global energy markets stability".He said India "began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict".India also criticised the US - its largest trading partner - for introducing the tariffs, when the US itself is still doing trade with Russia. Last year, the US traded goods worth an estimated $3.5bn (£2.6bn) with Russia, despite tough sanctions and tariffs. "Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security," the foreign ministry statement week, Trump had described India as a "friend" whose tariffs on US products "are far too high". His latest Truth Social post again struck a critical tone."India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits," he Minister Narendra Modi has not ordered India's oil refineries to stop buying Russian oil, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the Srivastava, a former Indian trade official and head of the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a Delhi-based think tank, said Trump's claims about India's oil trade with Russia are misleading for several reasons. He told the BBC that the trade has been transparent and broadly understood by the US. Mr Srivastava said India ramped up purchases of oil to help stabilise global markets after Western sanctions disrupted supplies - helping to stop a global oil price shock. He also said that India's oil refineries - both public and private - decide where to buy crude oil based on factors like price, supply security, and export rules. They operate independently of the government and do not need its approval to buy from Russia or other countries. I'm 'disappointed but not done' with Putin, Trump tells BBCThough relations between the US and Russia warmed after Trump returned to the White house in January, the US president has more recently toughened his rhetoric against the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir has questioned whether Putin is truly committed to peace with Ukraine. In Monday's Truth Social post he used stern language, describing the Russian military as the "Russian War Machine". Russia's leader has repeatedly said he is ready for peace but only if Kyiv meets certain conditions, such as recognising Ukrainian territories that Russia has occupied. Trump has threatened Moscow with severe tariffs targeting its oil and other exports if a ceasefire with Ukraine is not agreed by 8 envoy Steve Witkoff is due to visit Russia later this week, where he is expected to meet Putin.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Forbes was the voice of moderate SNP politics...but they treated her like an embarrassment
The decision by to stand down at next year's Holyrood elections is a personal one and reflects her wishes for her family life. But it also marks the final nail in the coffin of SNP centrism. The Deputy First Minister was the last woman standing for anyone who hoped the Nationalists could cut a more moderate path on the economy, social issues and the constitution. Forbes entered the Scottish Parliament just nine years ago, young and idealistic about independence. Yet she brought a maturity that many political old-timers in the SNP could not match. When she spoke, she understood that her audience was not the flag-waving faithful but the electorate at large, with its doubters and undecideds and people far too busy to have given much consideration to the great issues of the day. Nothing demonstrated that maturity like her handling of the 2020 Budget. With just hours to go before the annual costs were placed before Holyrood, finance secretary Derek Mackay abruptly resigned over text messages to a 16 year old. Forbes, his deputy, stepped up instantly and won plaudits for the aplomb with which she delivered a speech she had barely had a chance to read. Taking over for Mackay, she proved herself to be disciplined, rigorous and determined to strike a balance between growing the economy and redistributing resources to alleviate poverty. For this sensible, middle-ground approach to politics, she was branded a right-winger, an indication of just how out of touch the Scottish parliament is with the nation it theoretically represents. But what truly put Forbes beyond the pale were her devoutly held Christian beliefs. In an age in which tolerance is on everyone's lips, there was little shown for Forbes's Free Presbyterian faith. When she contested the leadership in 2023, following the abrupt resignation of Nicola Sturgeon, there was a concerted effort to make the entire contest about her suitability for office given her Christian principles. It was an outrageous exercise in bias and prejudice that, had it been applied to any other religion, would have been readily acknowledged as such. Christians, however, are fair game, especially if they believe in such heresies as biological sex. The Deputy First Minister signalled early on that she disbelieved in the gender identity ideology, and even though she was on maternity leave when Holyrood was voting through the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, she made clear during her joust with Humza Yousaf for the Nationalist crown that she rejected the notion that a man could 'self-identify' himself as a woman and that the law should change to reflect this. She was right, as a series of legal cases, culminating in the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland, would go on to verify. Had Sturgeon and Yousaf listened to her, a great deal of division could have been avoided, not to mention costly legal fees. As well as canny discernment, she earned a reputation for cutting putdowns that lingered on opponents. She branded Yousaf the 'continuity candidate' and told him during one TV debate: 'You were a transport minister and the trains were never on time, when you were justice secretary the police were stretched to breaking point, and now as health minister we've got record high waiting times.' Yousaf may have defeated her for the leadership, but he wasn't able to emerge from the shadow of those barbs. That John Swinney chose her as his deputy first minister speaks volumes about her significance as a voice of moderate SNP politics. She stressed that wealth redistribution was only possible if first there was wealth generation. She urged fellow Nationalists to stop hectoring the public on independence and try to persuade them instead. Neither counsel was taken on board and the SNP remains distant from the aspirational, sceptical voters it would need to secure and make a success of independence. For advocating for Scotland in Europe and for Scotland to be in Europe, Winnie Ewing, an earlier figure on the mainstream wing of the SNP, was dubbed 'Madame Ecosse'. Forbes, who advocated for the Nationalists among the Don't Knows, the Unionists and even the Tories, is the SNP's Ms Middle Scotland. An opportunity to bring in voters who would never before have considered a vote for the Nationalists. Voters who might even be willing to listen on independence. And they treated her as an embarrassment, that is when some weren't trying to push her out of the party altogether. Sometimes — oftentimes — politicians are the most clueless practitioners of politics. Forbes's exit clears the way for Stephen Flynn, the SNP's Westminster leader, to become John Swinney's heir apparent. A blokey, lefty, loudmouth who would drag Scotland back to rancorous divisions over independence. With Forbes going, he will be the future now. She would have made the better first minister for Scotland, he would push all the right buttons to get the party faithful cheering. Was there ever any doubt which would prosper in the SNP? Forbes says she is standing down because she wants to see her children grow up. We should also think about that. If our politics makes it impossible to be a parent and a parliamentarian, then our politics are broken. Do we want a Holyrood stuffed with MSPs who have no first-hand knowledge of raising children? Because that's the way we're heading unless things change. Kate Forbes's choice should be a wake-up call for the SNP, but not only the SNP.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The VAT raid on private schools continues to unravel
Punishing parents for paying for their children's education was never going to end well for Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary. Few policies have been so speedily exposed as vindictive and counterproductive as Labour's imposition of VAT on school fees. At least 10,000 pupils have been forced to move out of independent schools and have thus become a burden on the Exchequer. Some 50 schools have already closed and more will surely follow. The state sector has yet to see the much-vaunted 6,000 extra teachers. One of the perverse effects of this experiment in class warfare has been to penalise poorer families. The genuinely affluent are able to pay their fees years in advance. As The Telegraph today reveals, many thousands have done just that, potentially avoiding the VAT that was imposed from this January onwards. The top 50 independent schools held £515m in advance fees last year, up from £121m in 2023. This may have cost the Treasury over £100m in VAT it would otherwise have received. But parents with more modest means cannot afford to do this. Many have been forced to take their children out of private education, thereby turning schools that had catered for a broad range of backgrounds into a closer approximation of what the Left stigmatise them for being: the preserve of the wealthy. As if this mean-spirited fiscal assault on education had not done enough damage, Lord Kinnock has now proposed to extend the principle to health as well. The former Labour leader – now enjoying a comfortable retirement thanks to years on the Brussels gravy train – is all for charging VAT on private health care too. Those who remember the days when Margaret Thatcher used to bat such daft Labour proposals back across the Despatch Box will doubtless recall that fees for private health were then tax-deductible. Now, there is an idea that the Conservatives should seriously consider reviving.
