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
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.