分类： politics

It has been 365 days since a landmark legal petition documenting alleged British war crimes during its colonial occupation of Palestine between 1917 and 1948 was submitted to the UK’s top government officials – and the administration has yet to issue any formal response, leaving activists and backers of the document increasingly frustrated. The Britain Owes Palestine campaign delivered the 400-page, meticulously researched petition to the prime minister, foreign secretary, defence secretary, and attorney general on 7 September 2023, a date that has now marked its one-year anniversary. The timing of this anniversary falls just two weeks before another key milestone: one year since the UK government formally granted diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, a move that campaigners say creates even greater urgency for the government to address the petition’s demands.

The petition was not a casual grassroots filing: it was drafted by a team of highly respected legal and historical experts, including leading human rights barristers Ben Emmerson and Danny Friedman, British-Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, international law scholar Professor John Quigley, and University of Nottingham public international law assistant professor Victor Kattan, one of the project’s lead organizers. From its launch, the document has earned widespread cross-party and public support, backed initially by 75 members of the UK Parliament, members of the House of Lords, and prominent cultural figures. Notable early backers included former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell, British-Palestinian MP Layla Moran, award-winning writer Robert Macfarlane, and acclaimed actress Juliet Stevenson. In the year since submission, that support has only grown, with an additional 45 cross-party MPs and peers adding their names to an open letter endorsing the petition, alongside public figures like author and comedian Alexei Sayle and Grammy-nominated singer Paloma Faith.

At the core of the petition is a clear demand: that the UK government formally acknowledge and apologize for its unlawful conduct during its decades-long mandate over Palestine. The legal case laid out in the document traces its origins back to 1917, when the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, a policy that pledged British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The campaign argues this declaration set in motion a chain of events that ultimately led to the 1948 Nakba – the “catastrophe” that displaced an estimated 750,000 Palestinians from their ancestral homes and cleared the way for the establishment of the State of Israel.

The petition’s legal analysis concludes that British actions between 1917 and 1948 violated the international law that was in effect at the time. In a public statement shared with independent news outlet Middle East Eye, the campaign emphasized that the British Empire deliberately denied Arab Palestinian people the right to self-determination, and held that the Balfour Declaration itself and the subsequent British mandate over the region had no basis in international legal authority. Beyond policy violations, the document documents serious atrocities committed by British forces during the mandate period, including war crimes and crimes against humanity: systematic murder, torture, arbitrary detention, and the mass demolition of Palestinian civilian homes.

A key framing of the campaign’s argument connects historical British colonial policy to ongoing conflict in the region today. Campaign organizers reject the narrative that current Israeli practices – including expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, mass home demolitions, arbitrary detention, and forced displacement of Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza – represent a departure from the colonial era. Instead, they argue these contemporary injustices are a direct continuation of the legal and political structures Britain put in place during its rule.

For the petitioners, the core end goals remain modest but non-negotiable. “An official apology from the highest levels of the British government and a conversation about appropriate reparations is our main ask,” Kattan explained in an interview ahead of the one-year anniversary. “The petition sets out findings that engage the government’s legal and moral obligations, and it asks for nothing more than the thoughtful consideration that any claim of this scale should receive. The petitioners are fully entitled to a proper and reasoned response.”

In recent months, the UK government has adopted increasingly public stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with media reports indicating the administration is planning to announce more robust measures against illegal Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank later this month. Against this backdrop, and ahead of the one-year mark of UK recognition of Palestine, the Britain Owes Palestine campaign is ramping up pressure for action. The group notes that a formal apology would be the foundational baseline for the UK to credibly contribute to future peace efforts and post-conflict reconstruction in the region: it is “the bare minimum if Britain is to play a proper role in peace efforts and reconstruction,” the campaign said.

Over recent weeks, no British foreign secretary in modern memory has faced a more intense wave of criticism than Ed Miliband, after he unveiled plans for punitive measures targeting Israeli settlements to halt escalating settler violence and preserve the fading possibility of an independent Palestinian state. The controversial policy, set to be officially announced Tuesday, will introduce a full ban on trade with Israeli settlements built illegally in occupied Palestinian territory, bringing UK policy into alignment with the International Court of Justice’s landmark July 2024 advisory opinion that deemed the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands illegal, according to senior Whitehall sources.

The backlash against Miliband has come from two overlapping fronts. On one side, pro-Palestinian campaigners have argued the long-awaited measure is far too incremental, dismissing it as largely symbolic. They have expressed particular frustration that the Labour government has refused to label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, end all UK arms sales to Israel, or impose personal sanctions on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On the other, the response from Washington, Jerusalem and domestic political opponents has been exceptionally harsh, marked by unprecedented personal attacks and explicit threats.

In an extraordinary break from standard diplomatic protocol, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee took to social media platform X over the weekend to accuse the British government of rampant antisemitism, writing: “The Brits have lost it. The Jew hate of their government knows no boundaries and knows no facts.” The attack carries extra weight: Huckabee is not Jewish, while Miliband comes from an ethnic Jewish background. Netanyahu himself drew widespread condemnation last month when he labeled the UK the “Islamic Republic of Britain,” and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar issued a direct threat last week: “If Britain acts against Israel, Israel will act against Britain.” Yair Netanyahu, the prime minister’s son, escalated tensions further by claiming the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory, rightfully belongs to Argentina – a claim that was echoed by U.S. President Donald Trump, who suggested he would not side with the UK if Argentina invaded the islands.

Domestically, the centre-right Conservative opposition, amplified by right-aligned British media, has joined the chorus of criticism. The *Sunday Telegraph* gave prominent front-page coverage to an interview with Conservative shadow foreign secretary Tom Tugendhat, who openly sided with Israel against his own country’s sitting government, repeating Israeli warnings that the new sanctions could put British national security at risk. Conservative Friends of Israel, a prominent pro-Israel advocacy group, went further, accusing Miliband of orchestrating “a morally indefensible move that further singles out and demonises the world’s only Jewish state and a close ally.”

Yet just two months into his tenure as foreign secretary, Miliband has shown uncharacteristic resolve in the face of this multi-pronged assault. No British foreign secretary in the 21st century has successfully defied simultaneous pressure from both the White House and the Israeli government, and Miliband’s rejection of long-standing British foreign policy orthodoxy – even amid fierce pushback from major domestic media outlets – represents a sharp break from decades of precedent. During his first address to parliament as foreign secretary last Tuesday, he pledged a “comprehensive reset” of UK policy toward Israel, insisting that Britain “will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution.” He reassured pro-Palestinian MPs from Labour, the Greens and the Scottish National Party who had pressed for action against settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank that they would not have to wait long for concrete action.

Well-informed sources speaking to Middle East Eye confirm that within the new Burnham government, Miliband has been the primary internal driving force behind the policy he will announce this week. He has also adopted unflinchingly blunt language when describing the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza: “I just came out of this meeting talking about Gaza to people who’ve been there and are there on the ground, and frankly it was horrific what is unfolding.” Last week, he emphasized that “we as a UK government, as the prime minister has said, have got to act and act more decisively than we have.” Observers note that this forceful public anguish sets Miliband apart from his two immediate predecessors as Labour foreign secretary, David Lammy and Yvette Cooper, who both received identical high-level briefings on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis but chose not to speak out with the same urgency. This moral clarity has also tied Miliband’s political credibility to the policy: backing down in the face of future U.S. or Israeli pressure would open him to immediate charges of hypocrisy.

The push for a settlement trade ban comes at a pivotal moment for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel’s new E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem is on track to split the occupied West Bank into two disconnected segments, a development that would permanently eliminate any possibility of a contiguous, viable Palestinian state. For that reason, the planned British ban carries profound geopolitical significance. As Ben Jamal, former director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, noted recently: “Such a ban has been a core demand of the Palestine solidarity movement for many years, as a key basic step towards ending UK complicity with Israel’s violations of international law.” Early indicators already suggest the policy could have immediate impact: unconfirmed reports have emerged that Netanyahu has already ordered the removal of unauthorized settler outposts in response to Britain’s proposed move.

If implemented fully, the ban will fulfill the UK’s legal obligation under the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion, which required all UN member states to take active measures to end the illegal occupation. For the ban to deliver on its stated goals, it will need to cover both goods and services, prohibit all new investment in settlement-based businesses, and include robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. While a handful of other European nations – including Ireland, Spain and Belgium – have already introduced similar restrictions, Whitehall sources confirm the UK’s upcoming sanctions will be significantly stronger than existing European measures.

Though the ban has already triggered anger from the Netanyahu government and the Trump administration, it could also serve as a defining diplomatic moment for Andy Burnham’s new government, establishing the UK as a major power willing to act independently of U.S. policy in the Middle East. And if the early reports of Netanyahu ordering outpost removals are confirmed, it would prove that tough, principled diplomacy can deliver tangible results nearly immediately.

Critics of Miliband have repeatedly claimed he is acting to appease British Muslim voters, but public polling directly undermines this narrative. In fact, Miliband’s policy aligns closely with broad-based British public opinion: only 16% of UK adults oppose a ban on goods from illegal Israeli settlements. This broad public support explains why more than 140 backbench Labour MPs have publicly called for a full trade ban, and earlier polling of Labour Party members found that 87% back the measure. This widespread backing means Miliband is politically secure, and crucially, he retains the full backing of Downing Street. Even so, Labour insiders stress that Miliband’s support for the policy stems from deep-held personal conviction, not just political calculation.

Miliband’s record on Palestine stretches back more than a decade. When he served as Labour leader in opposition during the 2014 Israeli bombing of Gaza that killed 1,600 Palestinian civilians – including 550 children – Miliband sharply criticized the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government’s refusal to condemn the action, at a time when only six Israeli civilians were killed. He accused then-Prime Minister David Cameron of taking the wrong position and condemned his “inexplicable silence” on “the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians caused by Israel’s military action.” That same year, he became one of the first major British party leaders to back unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood, a position the Conservatives rejected. More recently, sources confirm Miliband was a leading voice in cabinet pushing former Prime Minister Keir Starmer to formally recognize Palestinian statehood, a step Starmer finally took last September. Earlier this year, Miliband and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood privately lobbied Starmer to refuse backing for the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran in February.

The current policy shift marks a dramatic break from the recent trajectory of British foreign policy. The previous Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak openly rejected international law on the issue in late 2023 and early 2024, publicly mocking the ICJ’s ruling on the genocide case brought against Israel by South Africa, while then-Foreign Secretary David Cameron privately lobbied the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor to abandon plans for arrest warrants for senior Israeli ministers. Under Starmer, the two previous Labour foreign secretaries only introduced half-measures: a partial, not full, arms embargo, while intelligence sharing from surveillance flights over Gaza continued throughout Israel’s military campaign. When Lammy publicly stated that Israel had broken international law, Downing Street quickly walked back the comment, and the government only issued non-binding advice against investment in settlements, rather than a formal ban.

Moving forward, Burnham and Miliband face a clear choice. Weakening the planned sanctions to appease the Trump administration would signal that no substantive change has occurred, and the UK will continue the largely pro-Israel approach of the Starmer government. But if they move forward with a full, enforced ban as planned, they will have demonstrated that Britain is finally ready to pursue an independent foreign policy that prioritizes international law and human rights over great power pressure.

Diplomatic tensions are escalating across the Middle East and South Atlantic ahead of a highly anticipated announcement from British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who is expected Tuesday to roll out a formal ban on trade and investment with illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, multiple sources with knowledge of the planning confirmed to Middle East Eye.

Whitehall insiders report the policy is crafted to bring the United Kingdom into full alignment with the landmark advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July 2024. That landmark ruling formally deemed Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory illegal under international law, and imposed a binding obligation on all UN member states – including the UK – to take concrete action to end complicity in the occupation. The upcoming ban will specifically prohibit all new British investment in businesses operating within Israeli settlements built illegally on occupied Palestinian land, sources confirmed.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese emphasized the binding nature of the ICJ ruling in comments Monday, noting that “all states carry an obligation – not a preference of an obligation – not to recognise the situation as legal, and not render aid and assistance in maintaining it.” She added that a full ban on trade with settlements must form a core component of “a true paradigm shift to Israel-Palestine that ultimately seeks to implement the International Court of Justice advisory opinion in 2024.”

The policy announcement follows a public legal briefing published last week by two advocacy groups: the Labour Muslim Network (LMN) and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP). The document called on the UK government to implement a complete ban on all economic and financial activity by British citizens and corporations in illegal settlements, including any activity that supports the broader illegal settlement enterprise. The briefing noted that the legal framework governing settlements is clearly defined under international humanitarian law, including treaties that the UK has ratified as a state party. “The UK is required not only to respect international humanitarian law but also, under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, to ensure respect for it in all circumstances,” the briefing added.

The UK’s planned move comes as Israel advances a new expansion of its E1 settlement bloc east of Jerusalem, a development that observers warn will effectively bisect the occupied West Bank, making the creation of a contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state impossible.

Israeli officials have already launched a series of retaliatory threats against the UK over the planned ban. Last week, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar issued a direct warning, stating that “If Britain acts against Israel, Israel will act against Britain.” The rhetorical escalation extended beyond formal government channels: Yair Netanyahu, son of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, publicly reignited a decades-old territorial dispute by claiming the Falkland Islands, a British Overseas Territory, rightfully belongs to Argentina rather than the UK.

Remarkably, the comment drew support from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who indicated the United States could reverse its longstanding commitment to British sovereignty over the islands. In an interview with GB News last Thursday, Trump stated he would not back the UK if Argentina attempted to invade the Falklands, citing what he claimed was British lack of support for a joint U.S.-Israeli military strike on Iran in February. “Your country was not there to help me,” Trump told the outlet.

Argentine President Javier Milei has seized on the shifted rhetoric, declaring last week that Argentina’s national sovereignty over the islands had been “violated,” and pledging his country would defend its territorial claim “tooth and nail, no matter who it bothers.” In a national address Friday morning, Milei threatened to impose economic sanctions on any oil and gas companies that pursue drilling operations in waters surrounding the Falklands, adding that the “winds of change” now favor Argentina’s longstanding territorial claim. A previously leaked Pentagon memo from April already indicated the U.S. has considered using the Falkland Islands dispute as leverage in diplomatic negotiations with the UK, adding context to Trump’s recent comments.

Despite the cascade of threats and diplomatic pressure from Israel, the U.S., and Argentina, British foreign office officials confirmed the government remains committed to moving forward with the announcement on schedule. Miliband, who is Jewish and lost extended family members in the Holocaust, doubled down on the need for decisive action in a video released late last week. Speaking after a meeting with humanitarian workers with first-hand experience in Gaza, Miliband said, “frankly it was horrific what is unfolding.” He added, “we as a UK government, as the prime minister has said, have got to act and act more decisively than we have.”

Israeli officials have responded with sharp personal criticism of the British foreign secretary. The official X account of Israel’s foreign ministry attacked Miliband’s comments, claiming “facts matter less (when making a video for a political audience).” U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee amplified the attack, sharing the post and writing, “The Brits have lost it. The Jew hate of their government knows no boundaries and knows no facts.”

In a regulatory action that has drawn widespread attention across China, two entertainment companies have been issued fines by cultural authorities, who have concluded that one of the nation’s most famous comedians created serious “negative social impact” when he modified the lyrics of a revered patriotic song during a live public performance. The case unfolded after an audience member filed an official report over the unauthorized lyric change, triggering a months-long investigation.

The Wuhan Municipal Culture and Tourism Bureau announced the outcomes of its probe on Monday, confirming that prominent xiangsheng performer Guo Degang intentionally distorted the lyrics of the iconic patriotic track. Xiangsheng, the traditional Chinese comedic dialogue form that relies on wordplay, rhythmic banter and cultural word games, counts Guo as its most high-profile modern practitioner. The regulatory body issued financial penalties to both the production company organizing Guo’s tour stop and the local venue that hosted the performance, citing violations of national regulations governing commercial entertainment events. Authorities also added that further serious action would be taken against relevant individuals involved, though no details on additional potential punishments have been released to date.

The song in question is *Playing My Beloved Pipa*, a famous track pulled from the soundtrack of *Railway Guerrilla*, a well-known 1950s Chinese film centered on Communist-led resistance fighters battling Japanese occupying forces during the Second Sino-Japanese War, which began in 1937. In its official statement announcing the penalties, the bureau emphasized the profound cultural significance of such revolutionary-era music. “Revolutionary songs carry the collective memory of the Chinese nation’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, and hold deep emotional resonance for the Chinese people,” the statement read. “No organization or individual shall be permitted to distort or misrepresent these works.”

According to prior reporting from Chinese state media, Guo Degang’s overall tour performance had received advance official approval from Wuhan regulators before the show, but the last-minute lyric change was not submitted for pre-approval. State-owned outlets also confirmed that Guo added mocking language after performing the altered version of the song, a choice that violated commercial performance regulatory requirements. Local Chinese media first confirmed that Wuhan authorities launched a formal investigation into Guo over the incident back in August.

In the wake of the report and investigation, multiple scheduled stops on Guo Degang’s national tour were canceled abruptly. The comedian has not appeared in any public performance since the incident, and official social media accounts managed by his performance troupe have halted all regular updates. As of the announcement of the fines, Guo Degang has not issued any public response to the regulatory action and has not replied to requests for comment from media outlets.