Monthly Archives: May 2025

Aid, Foreign Policy, Gaza, Israel, Middle East, Palestine

Decisive action is needed in Gaza if it is to be saved

ISRAEL-GAZA WAR

Intro: Palestinians need deeds, not words

THE UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher has signalled his fears that thousands of babies are at imminent risk of death in Gaza unless aid reaches them. Inconceivable, is that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, is concerned that foreign politicians could now see too many graphic pictures of Palestinian children in dire need of aid and is doing everything in his power to censor and suppress such images.

Two months after all supplies were cut off, the Israeli government denies the obvious truth: that Gaza is on the brink of famine. A few days ago, Netanyahu announced that “minimal” aid deliveries would restart, adding that his country’s “greatest friends in the world” had told him that they could not “accept images of… mass hunger”. His entirely cynical response saw a handful of aid trucks permitted to cross into Gaza. Reportedly, 100 aid deliveries a day will now be permitted, but even if that happens that is still grotesquely inadequate given the vast scale of need. Reaching the most vulnerable will be perilous and extremely dangerous anyway amid Israel’s intensified offensive. Netanyahu vowed that Israel would “take control” of all of Gaza.

His words show both that Western allies can shift Israel’s behaviour, and that they are insufficiently willing to do so. The trickle of supplies is meant to ensure the continuation of a war that enables his political survival, but has killed almost 54,000 Palestinians. That death toll may be a grave underestimate, say many researchers.

Foreign leaders are finally stirring as Palestinians starve and the enormity of Israel’s plan sinks in. Britain, France, and Canada have described conditions in Gaza as intolerable and have threatened further “concrete” actions if Israel’s “egregious” campaign continues and aid restrictions are not lifted. An unrepentant Netanyahu accused the trio of “offering a huge prize” for the murderous Hamas attack of 7 October 2023, which triggered Israel’s assault. In a separate statement, 23 other countries including Australia and New Zealand, condemned the aid blockade and ongoing military offensive. And, the European Commission has launched a review of trade ties with Israel. Relatives of Israeli hostages continue to press for a ceasefire and release deal. Outrage has also broken through in mainstream domestic politics in Israel, with Yair Golan, opposition leader of the Democrats, saying that his country was “on the path to becoming a pariah state”.

The growing condemnation is spurred not only by the grotesque suffering in Gaza and ministers’ explicit calls for ethnic cleansing but also by a growing new gap between Netanyahu and the Trump administration. On his recent Middle East tour, Donald Trump didn’t bother stopping in Israel and repeatedly overrode its interests – on Syria, on the Houthis, and on Iran. He has emboldened the Israeli government’s annihilationist approach and would be happy to see a Gaza without Palestinians, but seems now to be tiring of the conflict. Nonetheless, any perceived shift in approach should not be overstated. Support for Israel endures in Washington even as other governments think again.

Others must match rhetoric with action. The UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, condemned the “repellent” words of the extremist minister Bezalel Smotrich. But suspending trade talks is barely a start. The same goes for the sanctioning of settler activists: imposing sanctions on Mr Smotrich and his colleague Itamar Ben-Gvir should have happened some time ago. The UK should follow the example of France, which has said it is “determined” to recognise a Palestinian state. Most of all, it should ensure that no arms, including parts for F-35 fighter jets, continue to reach Israel. Until it does so, it will be complicit in these war crimes.

The US has the ability to stop the slaughter and achieve a desperately needed ceasefire. But pressure from other allies can make a difference. If they care about saving lives – and not just their own optics – it really is time for decisive action.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Commission, European Union, Government, Politics

UK-EU trade deal: a logical step forward

BRITAIN

Intro: The agreement made with the European Union will have limited tangible gains, but at least the tone set by the prime minister is a positive one

MUCH is being made of Sir Keir Starmer’s deal with the EU, but many things still remain to be worked out. The agreement which was announced in London should be regarded as a staging post rather than a final destination. It was, in effect, a commitment to have more meetings at which negotiators will try to make more deals.

On the issue of visa for young people and the UK’s mooted return to the Erasmus university-exchange scheme, there is little clarity beyond the rebranding of “youth mobility” as “experience”. A decision on the level of fees that European students must pay has also been kicked into the long grass. So have some details of how the UK will work with the bloc on policing and security, including the use of controversial facial-recognition technology in tackling drug and people smuggling across borders.

Increased cooperation on defence is significant and timely, given the ramping up of geopolitical instability under Donald Trump – although British arms manufacturers will have to go on pushing for access to the EU’s £150bn fund. On food and fishing, terms have been decided. Fewer checks on exports, including meat, will benefit UK food producers, particularly the smaller ones that were worst affected by Brexit. For Europeans, mainly the French, the big win is a 12-year agreement on fishing in British waters.

The 41% of UK goods exported to the EU, worth £385bn, are more than is sent to the US and India combined – making this by far the most important trade deal so far. Though the UK remains outside the customs union, and regulations governing other goods including medicines have not been relaxed, the new measures mark a significant easing of trade.

By contrast, the new dispensation for UK travellers to join European passport queues, and looser rules about pets, are more about style than substance. But while conveniences like these will not bring the economic benefits that the PM seeks, they do send a signal. For ministers, any hint of an interest in rejoining the EU remains taboo. Instead, this modest scaling back of Tory-erected barriers is designed to show voters that Sir Keir is operating a rational and responsible government that puts the interests of British businesses and consumers first.

It should not have taken nine years since the referendum to reach this point. A group of around 60 Labour MPs is rightly pushing for the government to be more ambitious, emboldened by polling showing that most voters now think Brexit was a mistake. Free movement, however, remains a red line, and one inked in all the more vividly after the strong showing of Reform UK in recent local elections and national polls. This was also Starmer’s real chance to counter anti-immigration sentiment, not capitulating to it. He may yet come to rue his decision on this.

Among disappointing omissions is the lack of a mechanism to make touring by our creative artists, like musicians, easier. Nonetheless, the agreement is a much-needed step forward, even though the actual gains for the UK have been overstated.

Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, was more accurate when she spoke of the deal as “framing” an improved future relationship. If Sir Keir wants to reverse the damage done to the country since Brexit, he will require to paint a picture of why an outward-looking, interconnected UK is more likely to succeed. Not one that has become an insular nation under Brexit.

Standard
Europe, Russia, Ukraine, United States

Russia-Ukraine talks: a “charade”

UKRAINE CONFLICT

IT has taken three years for direct talks to be held between Russia and Ukraine, and it should have been a momentous occasion. Since 2022, Russian war crimes have only deepened the chasm between them. It was Donald Trump who demanded this meeting, but who nonetheless underlined that it was largely a charade telling reporters, “Nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together.” It made plain that Russia felt no pressure to cooperate.

While difficult negotiations often begin on easier ground, the agreement of a mass prisoner swap seemed like a discrete achievement. The real significance of the Istanbul talks, however, lay more in the messages sent by their existence and attendance list.

The hasty proposal was Vladimir Putin’s escape route after European leaders demanded Russia agree to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire or face increased sanctions and weapons transfers. Ukraine and its backers said there should be no meetings without a ceasefire, but Kyiv was forced to concede when Mr Trump insisted it participate. Painful experience has clearly taught that it does not pay to defy the US president.

Volodymyr Zelensky challenged the Russian president to attend the talks personally, and vowed to wait for him in Turkey. This was, said a Ukrainian official, “a theatre performance for just one audience member”, reinforcing the message that Putin is the obstacle to peace. It is difficult to disagree.

Putin snubbed the meeting. Russia was represented by nationalist ideologues Vladimir Medinsky and Alexander Vasilyevich Fomin, the latter a veteran military officer and diplomat who recently told Ukrainians that if they refused to capitulate in the war, “We will keep killing and slaughtering you.” Moscow’s approach did not appear much more diplomatic this time, either. Ukraine said that Russia voiced “unacceptable” things.

Mr Zelensky was adept in portraying the Russian leader’s non-attendance as “disrespect for Trump”. There is evidence of some frustration with Moscow in Washington. JD Vance, the US vice-president, insists that Russia was “asking for too much” and Mr Trump has expressed his displeasure towards Russian belligerence in angry sentiments and undertones. Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally, says he has sufficient senatorial support to pass “devastating” new sanctions. But while he described his bill as part of the president’s arsenal, it is unlikely that Mr Trump will unleash it. That said, Putin will need to ensure he does not overplay his hand, given Mr Trump’s unpredictability. Putin may think spinning out the conflict is currently in Russia’s interests, but the war is far from cost-free for his country.

The recent narrative twists have revealed much greater coordination and resolve on Europe’s part. That is encouraging. Germany, for instance, has announced that it would hit Mr Trump’s demand for defence spending to reach 5% of GDP by 2032, albeit by including related infrastructure. However, US arms will run out long before Europe is fully ready to step into the breach. The key question surely remains not whether the US president can be coaxed and flattered into being more helpful, but whether he can be dissuaded from becoming actively obstructive – cutting off intelligence or Starlink, or preventing Europe from requisitioning arms for Ukraine. Seen that way, Mr Trump’s observation that “nothing’s going to happen” until he meets Putin sounds even more chilling. Meanwhile, away from the diplomatic front, the Russian attacks have continued in ferocity and intensity: further evidence of the urgent need for a ceasefire.

Standard