SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
keir starmer
UK Foreign Secretary’s Empty Words: Weapons and Spy Flights Expose Hollow Promises
Lammy called Israel’s escalation of the genocide “morally unjustifiable.” But what is beyond unjustifiable is for Lammy to say this while directly arming and providing surveillance information for the genocide.
May 23, 2025
On Tuesday, after releasing a joint statement with France and Canada threatening “concrete actions” if Israel did not allow aid into Gaza, the U.K. government suspended talks on its upgraded free trade deal, summoned the Israeli ambassador, and imposed new sanctions on settlers in the occupied West Bank. While this might appear substantial for the goal of isolating the Zionist state, it amounts to little more than face-saving measures.
In his speech announcing these measures, U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy couldn’t even bear to say these words without condemning the October 7 operation and maintaining Israel’s right to commit genocide. We can’t fall for these empty measures, even if they appear to be a positive push toward some justice. In reality, they are a distraction and feign action from a government supporting Israel as it accelerates its genocidal attacks. Each day, as Israel commits new massacres with American weapons, it is using the Royal Air Force Akrotiri, a British military base on Cyprus, to conduct surveillance flights and facilitate weapons transfers.
The government’s suspension of negotiations on its free-trade agreement is misleading. This is not the existing free-trade agreement in place between Britain and Israel, but a future plan to deepen relations. Known as the 2030 Roadmap, this was initiated under the previous Conservative government in 2022, and the Labour government continued negotiations immediately after entering government in July 2024. Stopping these negotiations is a good first step, but they must end their current free-trade agreement if Lammy’s words are worth their salt.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the world “won’t stop us.” Our leaders bought by Zionism will certainly not, but the people will.
The sanctions on a handful of people and companies in the occupied West Bank might be a generally positive step. But at a closer look, these measures are only on three people, two outposts, and two organisations. All of the 700,000 settlers occupying the West Bank in their 150 settlements and 128 outposts are illegal under international law. These very narrow sanctions then give wider justification for the illegal occupation of the West Bank, scapegoating a handful of “extreme” characters but not contending with the occupation itself. Last year, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal. Once again, Britain is ignoring international law, just as it does in refusing to hand over surveillance data on Gaza to the International Criminal Court.
Britain’s recent moves should rightly be compared with the United States, which has formed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private company of U.S. military veteran mercenaries to run an aid distribution operation, better described as a trojan horse to occupy Gaza. As Israel accelerates its genocide in Gaza, the U.S. and Britain are attempting to conceal their role in the violence. We might see these as necessary measures for Israel to be committing what many are referring to as the final stage in the genocide.
Over the past few days, the Starmer government’s statements have given us the illusion of a change in course toward Israel. Yet in five of the six days leading up to May 20, Britain has flown a surveillance flight over Gaza for Israel.
Britain has made no material change in its policy of arming Israel, providing surveillance information, and using its military base on Cyprus for weapons shipments. Therefore, not only are these statements hollow and vacuous, but they are a pernicious and sly attempt to divert attention from Britain’s role as it directly participates in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people.
On Sunday (May 18th), Britain sent an A400M Atlas plane to Israel from RAF Akrotiri. This aircraft can carry up to 37 metric tons of cargo, including weapons and soldiers. Two hours later, it sent a surveillance flight over Gaza. These operations have been purposefully concealed from public knowledge, but this is clearly shifting. The only reason we know about these flights is because of the work of Matt Kennard, Declassified U.K., and Genocide-Free Cyprus, among other groups. There clearly is mounting pressure as a result of the revelations of Britain’s direct role in Israel’s genocide, and perhaps we must recognize it has a role in Lammy’s face-saving attempts.
Last week, the U.K. government defended its continued provision of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel, pointing to the need for “national security.” In court, they claimed “no genocide has occurred or is occurring,” that Israel is not “deliberately targeting civilian women or children.” Britain is defending Israel legally, diplomatically, and militarily. No statement can change that fact.
Israel stopped all aid trucks from entering Gaza on March 2. It has taken more than 11 weeks for the government to take any action at all. Every day, the Israeli occupation commits heinous massacres. They are even bragging that the world “won’t stop us.” And so far, they’re right.
In the face of this, we cannot despair. Palestinians in Gaza remain steadfast each day, for the 18 months of this escalation in the genocide that has been ongoing for more than 77 years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the world “won’t stop us.” Our leaders bought by Zionism will certainly not, but the people will. We must continue our demands for a full arms embargo, an end to British surveillance flights, and the total liberation of Palestine.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Trade 'Deal' With UK Ripped as Another 'Con on American Workers'
"At this point the goal of policy seems to be to goose the market for the next few days, with no long-term plan."
May 08, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday unveiled the framework of a trade deal with the United Kingdom that was extremely light on details despite being billed as a "full and comprehensive agreement," leading critics to describe the fanfare surrounding the announcement as a cynical photo op for both sides.
In a statement, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer touted the deal as "historic" while acknowledging that it is incomplete. Trump insisted the deal is "maxed out," though he told reporters in the Oval Office that "the final details are being written up in the coming weeks."
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, meanwhile, described the agreement as one "in concept," drawing comparisons to Trump's widely derided statement on the campaign trail that he had a "concept of a plan" on healthcare.
Melinda St. Louis, Global Trade Watch director at Public Citizen, said Thursday that "Trump may have enjoyed having his ego stroked by Starmer and [U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard] Lutnick fawning over him for 'closing' a deal—one that is obviously not actually done—but his con on American workers continues."
"The American and British people need to see whatever text there is or is developed in ongoing talks—and no deal should be approved or go into effect without going through proper on-the-record public comment processes and congressional oversight," said St. Louis. "We need to know, for instance, when they claim to address 'non-tariff barriers,' just what giveaways for Big Tech may be inserted on behalf of Elon Musk and Trump's other tech-bro billionaire buddies, given that he waved around Big Tech's wish list when he announced the tariffs."
"With claims of dozens more 'deals' in progress," St. Louis added, "Congress must act swiftly to demand transparency and accountability in any trade deal before Trump and his team sell off our country for parts behind closed doors."
According to summaries released by the Trump White House and U.K. government, the bilateral trade framework would leave in place the 10% tariff rate that Trump has applied to all imports to the U.S. while providing targeted tariff relief for the British auto, steel, and aluminum industries.
The White House also said, without providing specific details, that the deal would "significantly expand U.S. market access in the U.K., creating a $5 billion opportunity for new exports for U.S. farmers, ranchers, and producers."
The U.K. is the first country to announce an agreement in principle with Trump since he unilaterally imposed tariffs on imports to the U.S. last month, invoking emergency authority. The U.S. ran a trade surplus with the U.K. last year, and experts questioned the extent to which the terms of the agreement broadly outlined Thursday would change the trade dynamic between the two countries.
"At this point the goal of policy seems to be to goose the market for the next few days, with no long-term plan," suggested economist Paul Krugman.
Around the world, stocks rose in response to the U.S.-U.K. announcement.
Nick Dearden, director of the U.K.-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, said that Thursday's events were primarily "about appeasing Trump"—but cautioned that worse could be coming in the near future.
"While there are limited tariff reductions, we remain in a much worse position than we were six months ago," Dearden argued. "What's more, Trump could impose new tariffs at any time because Starmer has proven to him that his threats work: caving in to a bully is not something to be celebrated. Today's press conference also fires the starting gun on a genuinely scary, fuller trade deal, and there are strong indications our rights, standards, and protections will be up for grabs in that larger agreement."
"Unless we stand up to this deal, the British public will pay a very high price for Starmer's friendship with Donald Trump," Dearden added.
In a blog post published ahead of Thursday's announcement, Dearden warned that the new framework could set the stage for a deal that locks the U.K. "into policies that favor the unchecked growth of tech monopolies: deregulated AI, increased corporate access to NHS data, and restrictions on our ability to rein in Silicon Valley giants."
"Worse may be coming unless we stop treating trade negotiations as a matter of royal prerogative," wrote Dearden. "We need a modern, democratic process for international agreements—transparent, accountable, and inclusive. But Starmer has shown that such reform won't be gifted by those in power. It must be demanded."
Keep ReadingShow Less
If We Want Peace in Ukraine: What Now?
Sometimes it is okay to say what's obvious: a stable peace settlement must be one that meets enough of Russia’s, and Ukraine’s, essential conditions. If they cannot be made minimally compatible, there will be no settlement.
Mar 03, 2025
Full details are yet to emerge of the “peace plan” that the UK, EU and Ukrainian leaders worked out in London on Sunday, and are to present to the Trump administration. But from what they have said so far, while one part is necessary and even essential, another is obstructive and potentially disastrous.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said after the summit that the following four points were agreed: To keep providing military aid to Ukraine; that Ukraine must participate in all peace talks; that European states will aim to deter any future Russian invasion of Ukraine; and that they will form a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace there in future.
This, Starmer said, would mean a European “peacekeeping” force including British troops. However, he has previously said that it would be essential for the U.S. to provide a security “backstop” for such a force. In other words, after all the talk of Europe “stepping up” and the need for European security “independence” from the Washington, this would in fact make Europe even more dependent on Washington, because it would put European troops in an extremely dangerous situation from which (not for the first time) they would expect the U.S. to save them in case of trouble.
While negotiations continue, so should existing levels of Western military aid, for otherwise the Russian government may be emboldened to reject any reasonable compromise. The Russian government has however repeatedly rejected any peacekeeping force including troops from NATO countries, which for Moscow is simply the equivalent of NATO membership. Trying to insert this into a proposed peace settlement is therefore either pointless or a deliberate attempt to derail the negotiations.
There is also a risk that the Ukrainian leadership (which, as Friday’s clash with Trump demonstrated, is prey to some very serious illusions about its position) may be emboldened to reject a compromise peace, and thereby end up with a very much worse one.
The idea that a powerful Western military force is also necessary to “guarantee” a peace settlement against future Russian aggression is moreover based on the fundamental misconception that there can be in international affairs any such thing as an absolute and permanent “guarantee.”
My colleagues George Beebe, Mark Episkopos and I discuss the actual terms of a settlement in a new brief, “Peace Through Strength: Sources of US Leverage in Negotiations.”
Those terms that Russia could accept and that would provide reasonable hope of enduring peace are the following: Firstly, that Ukraine should continue to receive from the West and help to produce the defensive weapons with which they have so far fought the Russian army almost to a standstill and inflicted very heavy casualties: drones, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, landmines, 155 mm howitzers and the ammunition for them. Long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory should be excluded as part of the peace settlement, but with the proviso that the West would of course provide them if Russia resumed the war.
Secondly, there should be a United Nations peacekeeping force with soldiers drawn from genuinely neutral states from the “Global South.” Russia calls these countries “the Global Majority” and has made reaching out to them a central part of its international strategy. Several are also fellow members of the BRICS group. Indian, Brazilian and South African peacekeepers would not be able to defeat a new Russian invasion (or a Ukrainian resumption of the war) — but Moscow would be deeply unwilling to risk killing them.
Finally, and obviously, a stable peace settlement must be one that meets enough of Russia’s, and Ukraine’s, essential conditions. If they cannot be made minimally compatible, there will be no settlement. It is however utterly pointless for European leaders to go on imagining that a peace can somehow be imposed on the Russian government, and not negotiated with it. They should pay heed when Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that peace can only come to Ukraine if Putin is involved in the negotiations, and that Trump "is the only person on Earth who has any chance whatsoever of bringing him to a table to see what it is he would be willing to end the war on."
The behavior of the European governments is shaped by a belief in limitless Russian territorial ambition, hostility to the West, and reckless aggression that if genuinely held, would seem to make any pursuit of peace utterly pointless. The only sensible Western strategy would be to cripple or destroy Russia as a state — the only problem being, as Trump has stated, that this would probably lead to World War III and the end of civilization.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular