RSS
Worrying Signals on the Middle East from Britain’s New Labour Government
Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer reacts as he meets with Britain’s Defense Secretary John Healey (unseen) and Member of the House of Lords George Robertson (unseen) at 10 Downing Street, in London, on July 16, 2024. Photo: Benjamin Cremel/Pool via REUTERS
JNS.org – It’s been only three weeks since Sir Keir Starmer was elected as Britain’s new prime minister in the Labour Party’s first general election triumph since 2005, but so much has happened in the aftermath—the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and the decision by U.S. President Joe Biden to bow out of the presidential contest in November, the speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Congress this week, among other episodes—that it feels like ancient history. As the world’s attention has breathlessly switched to these and other matters, Starmer has been busy assembling his cabinet and figuring out his new government’s first priorities.
Aware of their poor electoral showings over the past two decades, the Labour Party and its organizers have wisely refrained from portraying the July 4 vote’s outcome as a foregone conclusion, even if the real shock would have been a Conservative victory given the deep unpopularity of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government. It was an election, moreover, largely fought on domestic issues, and particularly, the crisis gripping the country’s National Health Service, which remains a bedrock of the social order carved out in Britain following World War II. Dealing with those challenges will be the true test of whether or not Starmer succeeds.
Even so, foreign policy wasn’t entirely absent from the campaign. The war in Gaza has been a lightning rod for the United Kingdom’s increasingly vocal Muslim community—about 500,000 of whom didn’t vote Labour, partly out of disgust with Starmer’s refusal to label the Israeli military’s operations as a “genocide.” One of the tasks he faces now is how to win back those voters.
It’s a task complicated by the Labour Party’s recent history and Starmer’s own role in the torrid conflict over the antisemitism in its ranks. From 2015 to 2020, the party was led by an antisemite from the far left, Jeremy Corbyn, whose term in the post was marred by successive scandals that resulted in the mass exodus of Jewish party members and a widespread refusal by British Jews to vote for the party—historically seen as their “natural home”—when Corbyn contested the 2019 election and lost decisively. After assuming the Labour leadership, Starmer, a centrist, set about purging the far-left. That included Corbyn himself, who was suspended by Starmer in 2020 after he claimed that the scale of antisemitism in the party had been “dramatically overstated” and who was then banned from running as a Labour candidate in 2023 on the grounds that he was, in the estimation of the party’s executive, an electoral liability.
In the event, Corbyn ran as an independent candidate in this latest election, clinging on to the Islington North seat in London that he has represented since the early 1980s. In several other constituencies, independents also edged out the Labour candidates, stressing their support for the Palestinians in those districts where Muslims constitute a significant proportion of the voter pool. It wasn’t all gloomy on this front; perhaps the most satisfying result of the night was the ejection from parliament of George Galloway, a former Labour parliamentarian who has evolved into what can only be described as a “national socialist” from a seat he had won only a few months previously, bellowing “This is for Gaza!” after that earlier victory for good measure.
Galloway’s ouster on July 4 was a welcome sign that despite the chants of “We are all Palestinians” on pro-Hamas demonstrations, most British voters understand that Gaza is Gaza, and Britain is Britain. Equally, though, the pro-Hamas chorus that has grown louder and more discordant since the Oct. 7 pogrom isn’t going away. While many of the individuals who contributed to antisemitism during Corbyn’s tenure have been dealt with, their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still enjoy widespread backing in the party, bolstered by the knowledge that the previous Conservative government was a reliable supporter of Israel.
When it comes to Starmer, there is no doubting his personal detestation of antisemitism and his determination to root it out of the Labour Party. “Antisemitism is an evil and no political party that cultivates it deserves to hold power,” he remarked in 2020, before pledging that “the Labour Party is unrecognizable from 2019, and it will never go back.”
“Never” is, however, a dangerous word for a politician to utter. As it settles into office, Labour has already made three Middle East-related policy announcements that should be greeted with alarm. This doesn’t mean that the party is returning to the dark days of Corbyn’s leadership, but it does suggest that the goal of stamping out antisemitism while being more sympathetic to Palestinian aspirations isn’t easily attainable.
One of the new government’s first acts was to reverse the Conservative decision to cease funding for UNRWA—the U.N. agency dedicated to the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees—after evidence emerged of UNRWA employees participating in the Oct. 7 atrocities in southern Israel. That generated a response from Britain’s Jewish leadership, with the Board of Deputies gently chiding the Labour government by arguing that the evidence of UNRWA collaboration with Hamas terrorism “suggests to us that the Government would be wise to insist on much stricter oversight before resuming its annual funding of more than £30 million.”
Labour also backed down on a promise while in opposition to designate the Iranian regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization—something the Conservatives had consistently refused to do. No doubt seduced by the dangerous nonsense that Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezekshian, is a reformer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy dithered over the designation, saying: “We recognize there are real challenges from state-sponsored terrorist activity, and I want to look closely at those issues, and how the predecessor system works for states, as well as for specific terrorist organizations.”
Then, last week, the Labour government confirmed that it was dropping its predecessor’s objection to the pursuit of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, despite the Biden administration’s condemnation of this move at the time as “outrageous.” The New York Times reported that these shifts in Middle East policy “show a government that is willing to pile more pressure on Mr. Netanyahu for Israel’s harsh military response in Gaza. It also shows that Mr. Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, is paying more heed to international legal institutions than the United States.”
A Labour government that backs continued funding for UNRWA, arrest warrants for Israeli leaders and dialogue with the Iranian regime would amount to a major disappointment. The added danger is that Britain will veer along the path chosen by its European neighbors Spain and Ireland, both of whom have undermined the prospects of a peace process by recognizing a sovereign Palestinian state outside the framework of negotiations. Starmer will no doubt face a demand from elements of his own party to do the same. If he decides to recognize a Palestinian state instead of classifying such a decision as a red line he won’t cross outside of a comprehensive peace settlement, we will be entitled to wonder just how much the Labour Party really has changed.
The post Worrying Signals on the Middle East from Britain’s New Labour Government first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.