Labour’s successes at the local elections are to be celebrated, but Professor John Curtice also reported that ‘Keir Starmer’s stance on Gaza has cost his party support’. He noted that Labour particularly lost support in many wards with large Muslim populations, costing the party control of Oldham. Nearly 70,000 people in the West Midlands voted for an independent candidate who campaigned on Gaza – this nearly cost Labour its much-trumpeted mayoral victory.
In 58 council wards where more than one in five residents identify as Muslim, Labour’s vote share was 21% down on 2021, whereas nationally its vote share was down one point on last year.[1]
Wider lessons
Foreign policy can really matter to Labour voters, even in local elections. This has been seen over Iraq, over opposition to Trident in Scotland, and now with Gaza. Some of those upset over Gaza remember two decades ago voting for a Labour party promising an ethical foreign policy – and how Iraq was invaded and opposition ignored. Starmer is ignoring about 70% of Labour voters who want the UK to sign the Nuclear Weapons Ban and scrap Trident.[2] Labour leaders are taking a serious electoral risk by pursuing unethical foreign policies and ignoring their own voters – especially since there are alternatives like SNP, independents and the Greens to vote for.
Meeting voter concerns
The Labour leadership has admitted that votes have been lost over Gaza, with Starmer saying, ‘Where we have not been able to persuade people who might otherwise have voted Labour it is important for me to acknowledge that: to say I have heard, I’ve listened and I am determined to meet the concerns they have.’ But will he do this?
The leadership is suggesting that it can be fixed by better communication. Ellie Reeves MP said Labour needs to do ‘a lot of listening’ and make sure voters ‘understand our position’.[3] However, Labour’s position to call for an immediate ceasefire was adopted very late and is not strong enough, given the warning of plausible genocide from the International Court of Justice.
Voters who’ve lost trust in Starmer need him to take bold action.[4] As a start he must support the legal opinion written by over 1,000 UK lawyers including four former Supreme Court Judges, who have advised the Government that under international law it is obliged to take certain measures.[5]
Starmer must tell the Prime Minister to take these measures, which include:
stop arming Israel – as have Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. The US has paused a shipment of arms in opposition to Israel’s new attack on Rafah.[6]
consider ending trade with Israel, as has Turkey.
This is how to start meeting the concerns of voters. Labour cannot afford its current foreign policy. Nor can Gaza.
The local election results indicate Labour’s poor stance on Gaza had an impact on voting. Labour CND committee member Rae Street offers some comments on results in the North West, where the influence of Gaza was particularly noticeable.
It is worth noting that in both the mayoral elections and more so in the council elections, the question of Gaza has played a significant part. It has also been interesting to see how George Galloway’s Workers Party has fared with their strong emphasis on Gaza.
In Rochdale, where Galloway had said they were going to ‘wipe’ away the Labour Party, in fact they only took two wards in inner Rochdale. Overall Labour has a firm grip on the Council with 44 seats out of 60.
In Manchester city one seat (Longsight), that of one of the Deputy Council leaders, was gained by the Workers Party, but a local party member said that was an area where George Galloway ‘had been out at full blast’ and reported shouting matches with canvassers. The Manchester Council leader reported it was a good night for Labour, which holds 86 out of 96 seats on the Council, being therefore the largest Labour group in the country.
In Oldham, Labour lost overall control and lost several seats to Independents where a local commentator thought Gaza had been ‘a potentially decisive factor’.
In Bolton, a local commentator, Paul Salveson, wrote about the council elections there, in his newsletter Salvo:
‘In Bolton, Labour could have done better and Gaza was clearly a factor in shifting votes way from Labour towards other parties. Where those votes went was interesting. The most surprising result was in Hallfold ward which has a large Asian [background] community and traditionally has been a solid Labour seat. Yet it was won by Harif Alli, the Green Party candidate.
‘This is the first time the Greens have won a Bolton Council seat, despite the perseverance of Alan Johnson in Dunhill which was won by an Asian Independent. The Greens also did well in Little Lever which has a large Asian population. However, Gaza was not the only factor in people shying away from voting Labour. The “hyper-local” parties all did very well.
‘The places Labour performed best were in quite middle class wards which have traditionally voted Tory. Reform UK with Bolton for Change made no gains and performed quite poorly but undoubtedly took some votes from the Tories and, possibly, Labour. The Workers Party of George Galloway stood a few candidates, but made little headway, despite the Gaza factor.
‘You can’t draw too many overall conclusions from what happened in Bolton and Oldham, but what strikes me is that: a} Gaza is a big issue among Asian voters and Labour can no longer rely on their loyalty andb) that the white working class vote is vulnerable to hyper-local parties and also Reform around the margins. In more middle class wards, Labour is popular helped by many Tory voters not bothering to vote. ‘
Another timely piece from Sam Mason explains why you should join the Labour CND webinar on 13 May on how to fight the dangerous push to nuclear power.
Not only was 2023 confirmed as the hottest on record, it was also a record year for energy-related CO2 emissions. What UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres has called “a mere preview of the catastrophic future that awaits if we don’t act now” is the reality for those in East Africa or South Asia in the grip of devastating floods and heatwaves.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) data clearly shows we are not acting fast enough, and we are now close to breaching the 1.5 degrees of warming threshold enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement.
Despite knowing that we have to end the production and use of fossil fuels, our governments are retreating on commitments. There perhaps can be no more cynical undermining of the need to transition to renewable energy than the news that Rishi Sunak is intending to issue oil and gas exploration licences at sites intended for offshore wind.
But the other alternative to fossil fuels enjoying a renaissance as a ‘renewable’ fuel is nuclear power, renamed in the so-call taxonomy of green energy as environmentally sustainable. This is to support an ambitious programme of nuclear power expansion outlined in the Government’s Civil Nuclear Road map to 2050 which aims to reach 25% of our energy needs through nuclear power production – the biggest programme in 70 years. This is also part of an initiative announced at the COP28 in Dubai to triple nuclear energy globally by 2050.
So, what is driving this new dash for nuclear? That’s a good question, given how long it takes to build nuclear power plants and their environmental impacts – not least those linked to uranium extraction, storage, and decommissioning issues, to name a few. Is it really just to “fill-in” for the days when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?
It’s over seventy years since the Attlee government passed the Atomic Energy Act, setting in train Britain’s nuclear programme following the end of wartime collaboration with the US, in the form of the Manhattan Project. The UK nuclear weapons programme was the forerunner to Britain’s development of nuclear power, which began in 1953, with the first commercial reactor later coming online at Calder Hall in 1956. A Magnox reactor, it combined power generation with plutonium production for military purposes.
Since the heyday of nuclear power in the UK in the 1970s and 80s, the UK’s nuclear power industry has been in decline. Indeed, during Labour’s last period of office, the Party moved away from supporting new nuclear on the basis of the cost and environmental impacts. The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) established in 2000 by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott did not support a new programme. Their 2006 position paper, entitled ‘The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy’, voiced all the concerns we continue to have today, such as technology lock-in; distraction from investment in renewables and energy efficiency measures; costs; intergenerational legacy; waste; safety; increased risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Unlike the IEA, we do not agree there can there be a “vision of a nuclear for peace and prosperity” that supports the action we need on climate change.
In October last year, we set out our arguments against nuclear power in a new pamphlet: ‘Labour, Climate Change, and Nuclear power – Not Cheap, Not Safe, Not Peaceful’. It covers the history of Labour’s support for nuclear power and why the labour movement needs to oppose this technology – whether old or new nuclear.
On Monday 13th May, we will be hosting a webinar to look at the points made in the pamphlet and explore the renewed drive to more nuclear power. It will lead off with an overview of Labour CND’s pamphlet and follow with contributions from Linda Clarke who will look at the construction side of the industry, and Dr Phil Johnstone who will discuss the links between civilian and defence nuclear projects.
Given the shrinking window for action on climate, Labour CND believes the debate over nuclear and its role in tackling climate change and energy security is no longer a debate Labour – or Britain – can afford to keep having.
Please join us at the webinar to help build confidence in our arguments fighting this dangerous push to a nuclear future. Register now
* This article first appeared in Labour Outlook, 6 May 2024
At the COP28 climate talks in Dubai in December, 22 countries including the UK, signed a declaration to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. In March, the first ever nuclear power summit was held in Brussels where Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency said “Today I can assure you that nuclear is coming back, and coming back strongly.”
But can there be a “vision of a nuclear for peace and prosperity” that supports the action we need on climate change?
Labour CND does not believe this is the case. In October last year, we set out our arguments against nuclear power in a new pamphlet: Labour, Climate Change, and Nuclear power – Not Cheap, Not Safe, Not Peaceful. It covers the history of Labour’s support for nuclear power and why the labour movement needs to oppose this technology – whether old or new nuclear.
This webinar will look at the points made in the pamphlet and explore the renaissance in nuclear power. It will lead off with an overview of Labour CND’s pamphlet by Sam Mason, the principle author. Contributions from Linda Clarke will look at the construction side of the industry and Dr Phil Johnstone will emphasis the links between civilian and defence nuclear projects.
As opinions among environmentalists, the labour movement and even some anti-nuclear weapons campaigners remains divided, this is a pivotal moment to ensure a well informed debate. In particular, not just about the technology of nuclear power but the political and social justice dynamics of it.
Keir Starmer 2015: ‘I am opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. I am opposed to the holding of nuclear weapons. I want to see a nuclear-free world. I believe it is possible.’
Labour CND has issued the following statement in response to Keir Starmer’s visit to Barrow, Friday 12 April
Keir Starmer used a visit to Barrow-in-Furness on 12 April to announce Labour’s ‘unshakeable absolute total’ commitment to Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system, and Labour’s plan to raise military spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product under a Labour government which means billions of pounds more public funds allocated to the military budget.1
Starmer should be under no illusions. He does not speak for the majority of Labour Party members, however, or even the public on these issues. Nor does this allay Tory voter fears that Labour is a safe pair of hands when it comes to defence.2
Trident is the ‘bedrock of Labour’s plan to keep Britain safe’, he said. The UK’s ‘nuclear deterrent’ was ‘maintained on behalf of NATO’. This was ‘a generational, multi-decade commitment’ from a Starmer government.
International tensions are growing, and with them the risk of nuclear confrontation. Politicians may believe Trident guarantees us a place at the top table. But the assurance of Labour and Tories alike that it brings safety for people in Britain is a cruel illusion. Meanwhile UK domestic politics continues to ignore the true international situation which is that Britain has not signed the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which came into force in 2021.
Politicians may believe Trident guarantees us a place at the top table. But the assurance of Labour and Tories alike that it brings safety for people in Britain is a cruel illusion.
The possession of a nuclear weapons system makes the UK a target. The decision to site United States nuclear weapons on British soil – taken without public or even parliamentary debate – puts us on the front line of any nuclear attack.
Britain’s nuclear weapons system is not independent as Starmer claims. Trident is dependent on US technology and know-how.
Even sections of the military recognise that the money spent on Trident would be better deployed elsewhere, arguing for increases in areas of conventional defence.
Disregarding these and many other arguments against nuclear weapons, in a statement shot through with jingoism, Starmer has made three commitments which he argues will defend the UK economy and prioritise British jobs and skills:
to build all four new Dreadnought nuclear submarines in the UK, at Barrow-in-Furness;
to maintain Britain’s continuous at sea nuclear deterrent; and
to deliver all future upgrades needed to properly equip Trident.
A commitment to increase the military budget means cuts elsewhere in government investment and public spending. Figures released by the Treasury as part of the Spring Budget showed that Core Military Spending was £54.2 billion pounds for the year ending March 2024, around 2.3% of GDP.3 How else will a Labour government, committed to fiscal responsibility as well as lowering taxes, find the extra resources to fund Starmer’s commitment to increase the military budget? It will come at the expense of the NHS, education, and the ability to address child poverty or to abolish the two-child cap on child benefits. It will also come at the expense of dealing with the human security threat of climate change.Labour CND says the next Labour government should not allow its priorities to be dictated by the Conservative Party and their establishment friends. We need is a radical rethink about spending priorities and about British foreign policy.The incoming Labour government will face a range of challenges. None of them will be solved by nuclear weapons or spending ever more money on the military.
Keir Starmer, My commitment to the UK’s nuclear deterrent is Unshakeable Absolute Total, Daily Mail exclusive, 11 April 2024 athttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13298999/Keir-Starmer-vows-Britains-nuclear-deterrent-safe-hands-promises-unshakeable-commitment- Trident-new-generation-nuclear-submarines-built-UK.htm ↩︎
See for example the hundreds of reader comments in response to the above, which have appeared within hours of the article being posted online. ↩︎
Dr Stuart Parkinson, Co-Chair GCOMS-UK (UK branch of the Global Campaign on Military Spending) and Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility, Spring Budget 24: Military Spending Continues to Grow at the Expense of Climate Funds and Overseas Aid, at https://demilitarize.org.uk/spring-budget-24-military-spending-continues-to-grow-at-the-expense-of-climate-funds-and-overseas-aid/ ↩︎
Frank Hester, chief executive of The Phoenix Partnership, which donated £10m to Tory Party funds last year, became infamous overnight for his racist attack on Diane Abbott MP in March. Even some senior Tories have said his apology for being ‘rude’ simply doesn’t cut it.
We reproduce below some of the support that has flooded in for Britain’s first black woman MP, reproduced from Labour Black Socialist social media. Yet again LBS has been in the forefront of defending Diane.
First, Diane herself, followed by a Channel 4 video of the Hackney Rally and comments from Martin Forde KC
Diane Abbott, "No one from the Conservative party has apologised. Not at all"
"They keep saying Frank Hester has apologised. He hasn't apologised. He's apologised for being rude, where in fact he was being racist"
Labour CND is extremely concerned to read the letter recently sent to Unite officers, organisers, and staff by General Secretary Sharon Graham and Chair Andy Green, which is now circulating in the public domain.
The GS and Chair alert recipients to ‘a number of extremely troubling actions being undertaken by a tiny minority of individuals, inside and outside of our union… a small number [of whom] are linked to groups who want us to make decisions detrimental to our membership and their jobs.’
We reproduce below that section of the letter which relates to Palestine – described by Graham and Geen as one of their ‘key areas’ of concern – together with Labour CND’s statement.
LABOUR CND STATEMENT
Labour CND is aware that, since 2020, the Labour Party leadership has sought to prevent CLPs and individual members discussing important areas of policy on pain of suspension or expulsion. These include what Keir Starmer has described as Labour’s ‘unshakeable commitment’ to NATO, Labour’s support for the Tory government’s position on the war in Ukraine, and (more recently but less successfully) Israel’s war on Gaza.
We are alarmed that Unite, a Labour affiliated union, shows signs of moving in the same direction. This raises serious questions about the conduct of legitimate, democratic debate about UK defence policy.
Graham and Green say there is ‘no contradiction for a trade union to hold a position of solidarity with Palestinian workers, while at the same time refusing to support campaigns that target our members workplaces without their support’. Labour CND says solidarity is not just a sentiment, but something that is demonstrated in action. Whether in Palestine or elsewhere, it cannot be acceptable to protect the interests of workers in UK arms industries while thousands are being slaughter by the products of their labour.
Labour CND believes that in a democracy campaigners have the right to target workplaces that are employed in making weapons of mass destruction which render the world less safe. This does not and should not include attacks on individual workers. It does include weapons that will be used to further genocide in Gaza; and those used by NATO, which is a nuclear first-strike military alliance, as well as projects such as AUKUS. Labour Party conference 2021 voted to oppose AUKUS with the support of Unite the Union.
The threat of nuclear war has never been greater. Labour CND believes the international labour movement, including trade unions in Britain, should be working to uphold the principles of international solidarity, justice and peace, including support for a world free of weapons of mass destruction.
That is why we have consistently argued the need for a real defence diversification strategy so workers are protected and able to transition to alternative work. We support the role of trade unions to play a leading part in that process.
Protecting members interests does not stop at pay or terms and conditions. It is about putting forward alternatives, to ensure workers can apply their skills for socially and ecologically useful work as in the tradition of the former Lucas Aerospace workers in the 1970s.
Defence policy, the UK’s support for NATO, and the AUKUS project cannot be decided on the basis of how they impact trade union members in the arms industry alone. They have wider social, economic, and political implications. They should be part of a healthy debate within the labour movement, just like education, welfare, the health service, climate change, and so forth.
This last point gets to the crux of Labour CND’s concern. We work actively within the labour movement to advocate for a nuclear free world, and opposition to NATO and the AUKUS project.
Trade union members have a right to be informed, engage in debate, and take up these issues through the democratic structures of their union. That includes policies to address the most challenging issues of our times such as climate change, inequality and the cost-of-living crisis.
Any suggestion that groups such as ours, which include many trade union members, should be prevented from building support for our position is undemocratic, and carries undertones of bans such as those we are witnessing in the Labour Party.
The predecessors of Unite the Union have a long and strong tradition of supporting peace and nuclear disarmament, and putting forward defence diversification alternatives like the report of May 2015. Defence Diversification Revisited argued for a Defence Diversification Agency ‘with teeth’.
That argument remains valid today. Labour CND is open to discussing with Unite how we can work in unity within our movement and the Labour Party to achieve this.
Extract on Palestine from Unite letter
Of all the issues that have been used in these attacks, probably the most abhorrent is the attempted weaponisation of the conflict and the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and the collective punishment of the people of Gaza.
Unite, through the General Secretary and the Chair of the Union and the Executive Council, was the first major union to publicly and unambiguously call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. We were very clear. We have watched on with horror the bombardment and destruction of Gaza, and the unbearable terror, suffering and death of its innocent civilians. We have been unequivocal that the deliberate killing of civilians, hostage-taking and collective punishment are war crimes and should be identified as such.
Unite has also donated £50,000 to Médecins Sans Frontières/ Doctors Without Borders specifically to help the many victims of this horrific conflict. Most recently the General Secretary has written to the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) offering our solidarity after the horrific bombing of their Gaza headquarters which, alongside providing services to workers, was also functioning as a kindergarten and bakery.
However, we cannot and will not endorse any organisation which decides unilaterally and without any discussion (let alone agreement) with the workers themselves, to support the targeting of our members’ workplaces or their jobs. To be clear, this will not happen. No outside body, no matter what their political position, will be allowed to dictate terms to our Union and our members.
It is important to highlight here that it is a core principle of Unite that as a trade union the ‘first claim’ on our priorities is always the protection and advancement of our members’ interests at work. It is very simple. Unite cannot and never will advocate or support any course of action which is counter to that principle. We are a trade union, not a political party or single-issue campaign group.
Therefore, there is no contradiction for a trade union to hold a position of solidarity with Palestinian workers, while at the same time refusing to support campaigns that target our members’ workplaces without their support. Similarly, we cannot be expected to affiliate to organisations that actively work against our members and their jobs.
Examples include groups that look to build networks inside trade unions to undermine the defence industry or demand the disbandment of NATO and AUKUS. Whatever anyone may think personally about those objectives is irrelevant. We are a trade union with thousands of members employed in the defence industry. It is the views of affected members that take precedence in a trade union. That will not change and nor should it. Unite members have recently been attacked directly, been spat at and called “child killers”.* We cannot and will not endorse this…..
* Labour CND has no evidence that Unite members have been attacked in this way. We include the sentence for the sake of completeness.
Top marks to Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana who was quick off the mark in responding to Israel’s refusal to implement the UN Security Resolution calling for a ceasefire. She has successfully coordinated a cross party letter signed by a 134 MPs and Lords calling on the government to ‘immediately suspend export licenses for arms transfers to Israel’. In this context, the 134 say, busines as usual for arms exports to Israel is totally unacceptable.
Earlier this month, Richard Burgon MP wrote to the Foreign Secretary demanding an investigation into whether UK-supplied military equipment was used in the bombing of British doctors volunteering in Gaza.
Carol Turner traces the shift in US-Israel relations which led to the first ceasefire resolution from the UN in six months, and asks what it might mean for Gaza
On 25 March the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2728 (2024) by 14 votes for, including the UK, and 1 abstention by the United States. The UNSC resolution demands ‘an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan’ and ‘the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law’.
Israel immediately announced it would not comply with the resolution, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a scheduled trip to the US by his senior advisers. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Israel Katz, tweeted: ‘We will destroy Hamas and continue to fight until the last of the hostages returns home.’
The current strain in relations between Israel and the US, which have led to the first successful ceasefire resolution in six months, emerged into the open in December when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans for his military operation in Rafah. The US insists this is ‘a major mistake’. But diplomatic efforts to change Netanyahu’s direction have so far failed to achieve results.
Rafah: a shift in US-Israel relations
Rafah not only marks a new and brutal phase in Israel’s war on Gaza, it also represents a significant shift in US relations with the Netanyahu government. It does not, however, signal a fundamental break in the United States relations with Israel. Nor is it the first sign of tensions between Israel and the US over Gaza.
An intelligence report, the Annual Threat Assessment 2024 of the US Intelligence Community – released on 5 February this year but prepared over months before recent tensions emerged – predicts that Israel will struggle to achieve its goal of destroying Hamas. The report expresses concern that Netanyahu’s right wing coalition ‘may be in jeopardy’, and poses the possibility of ‘a different, more moderate government’ in Israel.
The following exchanges (mostly taken from New York Times reports) trace the path to the United States abstention on UNSC resolution 2728:
US pressure on Netanyahu
9 March: President Joe Biden said Netanyahu was ‘hurting Israel more than helping Israel’.
10 March: in an interview with Politico US, Netanyahu dismissed Biden’s comment saying the ‘overwhelming majority’ of Israelis agree with his, Netanyahu’s policies.
14 March: Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, majority Senate leader and described as the most senior Jewish elected official in the US called for elections to replace Netanyahu. He said Netanyahu’s ‘political survival [was] taking precedence over the best interests of Israel’.
15 March: Biden confirmed the White House had been given notice of Schumer’s speech: ‘He made a good speech, and I think he expressed serious concern shared not only by him, but by many Americans.’
15 March: Israeli politicians were divided. Yair Lapid, leader of Israel’s opposition since January 2023 and founder of Yesh Atid, described as a centrist, liberal Zionist party, welcomed Schumer’s comments. He said ‘Netanyahu is causing heavy damage to the national effort to win the war and preserve Israel’s security. War cabinet member Benny Ganz tweeted that Schumer ‘erred in his remark’ saying ‘external intervention is not correct and not welcome’.
Should Biden be unable to persuade Netanyahu to change course, the intelligence report together with the political comments and exchanges cited above suggest that the US is willing to publicly encourage a change of government in Israel. This is further confirmed elsewhere.
Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, President of the Middle East Policy Council and a former US Ambassador to Malta told BBC Newsnight, Schumer was known as a staunch ally of Israel and the point of his speech was ‘for it to be noticed by the Israeli people’. Ehud Olmert, speaking on the same programme said ‘every minute that [Netanyahu] is prime minister he is a danger to Israel’ and pointed out ‘a majority of Israelis don’t trust the prime minister’. Olmert is a former Israeli prime minister 2006-09 and Mayor of Jerusalem 1993-2003.
No change of direction for the US
Sadly, this does not reflect a change of heart in relation to Gaza so much as concern that the impact of Netanyahu’s military action in Gaza is significantly undermining international support for Israel and, therefore, acting as a hinderance to US influence in the Middle East.
In an interview with MSNBC, Biden elaborated on his comments that Netanyahu was hurting more than helping Israel. He had, he said, spoken to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and they are ‘all fully willing to recognise Israel and begin to rebuild the region’.
It is not yet clear that the events of the past week will lead either to a change of policy on humanitarian aid to Gaza and the collective punishment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, or to a change of government in Israel.
Despite Netanyahu’s personal unpopularity in Israel and the differences that exist in the Knesset, all the political parties share an over-arching goal – that of protecting the existence of the state of Israel. So far this has meant the Knesset is unwilling to distance itself from Netanyahu’s military strategy, even though some politicians are critical of the details.
This is the fundamental roadblock Biden is facing.
Carol Turner is Coordinator of CND ‘s International Advisory Group. This article first appeared as an IAG Information Paper for CND’s National Council
There’s dark days are ahead for Gaza in 2024, with little sign of a let-up in Israel’s bombardment notwithstanding the International Court of Justice’s ruling.
Over 25,000 are dead after three months of Israeli bombing. Three times that number are injured, and a lack of basic medical supplies means they face sepsis, gangrene, and amputations without anaesthetic.
The UN has estimated that 25% of population is starving, and everyone in is going hungry. This makes Gazans more susceptible to the spread of water- and air-borne diseases.
Despite the humanitarian horrors, Israel’s offer of a two month humanitarian ceasefire in return for the release of all hostages is unlikely to fly, and IDF spokespeople continue to suggest hostilities will go on throughout 2024.
The United States could, of course, end all this in a moment. How? By cutting off military aid.
Israel is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid. On US government figures, it received more than $3.3 billion in 2022, of which 99.7% of which went to the Israeli military. That’s right – not a slip of the pen, not a typo –99.7% of US aid to Israel was military aid. The arms industry is making a packet from the war on Gaza.
Meanwhile protests are growing across the world. Given the scale of daily slaughter played out in real-time across the world’s TV and social media, that’s hardly surprising. With no sign yet of a shift towards ‘less intense’ warfare that Israel claimed it would adopt in the new year, most people are convinced that Israel’s actions have little to do with ‘self-defence’ and much to do with genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
The brutal bombardment of Gaza, has also brought Israelis onto the streets. Thousands marched in Tel Aviv to demand a ceasefire recently, despite police attempts to ban the protest. The organisers said public pressure was responsible for the event finally being approved: ‘After 100 days of war, the hostages have not returned, innocent Palestinians are being killed, and we still don’t have security.’
The Palestine solidarity movement here in Britain remains on high alert, and the turn-out for national marches is huge. UK trade unionists are beginning to organise pickets of companies supplying Israel; and we’ve even see a few school students protests.
Palestine Action, a direct-action group opposing Britain’s arms sales to Israel, recently covered Twickenham stadium in red paint – a reminder of the blood shed by Palestinians – just hours before an International Armoured Vehicles expo was due to begin there. The event is host to the biggest representative of Israel’s arms trade, Haifa-based Elbit Systems Ltd, as well as their British subsidiary Elbit Systems UK and the Israeli state-owned arms manufacturer, Rafael.
A Palestine Action spokesperson said inviting Israeli arms dealers as guests of honour shamed everyone who took part. ‘After developing their weaponry in the laboratory of Palestine, Elbit and Rafael then sell these technologies on to other regimes, while our government turns a blind eye to this brutality.’
With the conflict set to spread beyond Israel and the Occupied Territories into the Middle East, it’s as well to remember that Israel is not simply a heavily armed state; it’s a nuclear armed state, one of only 9 in the world.
When Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested in a radio interview back in Novemer that ‘the nuclear option was one way’ of dealing with Gaza, most people laughed. As unrealistic as it sounds to consider dropping a nuclear bomb on your own doorstep, Israel does have tactical nuclear weapons. Given IDF belligerence and the possibility that Iran could be pushed into the conflict, who’s to say a section of the Israeli leadership wouldn’t consider threatening their use?
What seemed like a hollow threat from a few Israeli government outliers last autumn, could be a step closer as the consequences spread across the Middle East and North Africa. CND continues to call for a nuclear weapons free Middle East – an important component in a stable, long-term solution for the war-torn region.
Now’s the time to add Stop Arming Israel! to the demand for Ceasefire Now!
