Latest / The Fourcast / Is UK government complicit in the destruction of Gaza?

Transcript

Is UK government complicit in the destruction of Gaza? · The Fourcast

0:00
It's one of the great crimes of the 21st century and being
0:04
supported by Britain. This is the idea that there is a
0:07
an established pattern of deliberate massacre of
0:10
civilians. I simply.
0:11
Reject. We cannot become part of a
0:13
lawless international system which uses mass murder as a
0:18
weapon of war. If you're looking at British
0:20
foreign policy interests and who are the powers in the world that
0:25
explicitly mean US harm, yeah, Britain.
0:28
Britain has every right to supply arms to Israel.
0:30
You're denying Amnesty International, Human Rights
0:33
Watch, the United Nations. You have explained very well the
0:36
British policy of staying alongside our ally, but it's
0:40
taken us into a moral cessprit. Hello and welcome to the
0:47
forecast. Is the UK government complicit
0:50
in the destruction of Gaza? That's the assertion in the new
0:53
book by journalist and polemicist Peter Oborn, with
0:57
both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak and many of their
1:00
ministers under fire for backing what he calls Israel's criminal
1:03
assault following the Hamas attack of October the 7th.
1:07
What's more, he says the British media played its part too,
1:10
colluding with the government as well as misrepresenting or under
1:13
reporting those voices opposed. Well, Peter Oborn is with us
1:17
today as well as someone who doesn't necessarily agree with
1:21
many of these arguments. Edmund Fitton Brown, a former UK
1:23
ambassador to Yemen, previously AUN Monitor and now a senior
1:27
fellow at the foreign affairs think tank Rusey, Peter the The
1:31
book is called complicit and it's I mean you, you don't hold
1:34
back and you believe that there are legal and moral wrongs that
1:41
the British government has committed.
1:43
There certainly are. Well, we start off with the
1:45
atrocities committed by Hamas, terrible atrocities committed on
1:50
the 7th of October. And then you look at the British
1:53
government response. I thought maybe we're doing that
1:56
game there where he was right. It's a bit like after 911, you
2:00
know, Tony Blair going to Washington.
2:02
What he didn't do was issue warnings because by by the time
2:08
Sunak, it was only about 10 days after the 7th of October he got
2:12
there, but by then Israel had started to pummel Gaza.
2:16
You know, 5000 to be being killed by the Palestinians,
2:20
being killed by the end of October 20,000 by the beginning
2:25
of the beginning of January by the and whole families were
2:30
being wiped out. They were sort of it was it was
2:32
indiscriminate slaughter and destruction was and I'm sure
2:40
that Sinak as Prime Minister would have been briefed about
2:43
that. And what he never did was issue
2:45
a proper warning that we can't back you all the way.
2:48
And the same was the case with with the the current Prime
2:53
Minister Osama, who made this remarkable support for
2:58
collective punishment issue on the Nick Ferrari show.
3:01
When ask do he was given a quote from one of the Israeli lead,
3:07
one of the Israeli leaders saying, you know, no fuel, no
3:09
water, that sort of thing. And he was.
3:12
The defence minister wasn't it who said gallant Gaza?
3:16
And he's and Stammer said, yes, they have that right to do that,
3:19
although he sort of said also they must obey international
3:22
law. But it was a shambles of
3:24
announcement. He did qualify us afterwards,
3:26
didn't he? I mean they, you.
3:27
Know he went on supporting it and his fellow ministers met up,
3:31
fellow shadow ministers supported him for about a week.
3:35
And then Osama realized that it had not been a clever thing to
3:38
say. I mean, I mean, it was an
3:39
outrageous thing to say. It was he was supporting war
3:41
crimes. But your your basic intention is
3:44
that is is that Britain supported its ally.
3:48
Yes, absolutely. But that is the one part of the
3:51
contention now that raises the question, profound moral
3:55
question. You support an ally when they
3:59
commit war crimes, when they commit what most experts now
4:03
regard as a genocide. And it is, you have to remember,
4:08
in the context of this conversation we're going to be
4:10
having for the next half an hour, the enormity of the horror
4:15
which Israel inflicted on Gaza, 20,000 children at least dead,
4:22
killed by the Israelis, torture. Look at the condition of Israeli
4:28
prisoners, prisons, the, the destruction of 90 percent, 90%
4:34
of the housing in Gaza, the shooting, the shooting of
4:39
children, the targeting of children, the, the destruction
4:49
of the health facilities, of hospitals, of schools.
4:55
It's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's one of the great crimes
4:59
of the 21st century and being supported by Britain.
5:03
Now throughout this period, of course, Israel said it did not
5:05
target civilians, it did not target children, it was
5:08
targeting Hamas that that that any civilian death was
5:11
collateral damage, that their enemy was not the Palestinian
5:14
people. And the British government said
5:16
the British government, both the Conservative and the that Labour
5:20
government, has had stuck to this line that Israel has the
5:24
right to defend itself. Yeah, well, by the way, Israelis
5:27
didn't didn't say what you've just claimed.
5:29
They said, for instance, the president of Israel said words
5:33
to the effect there are no innocence, everybody's guilty.
5:35
There were there were contradicts to the the position
5:39
of the government. I'll give you yeah of.
5:40
Course I will. Contradict from from different
5:42
ministers if you look. At the statements made as as as
5:44
assembled by South Africa in it's very powerful case that the
5:48
International Court of Justice, there was genocidal talk from
5:53
the top of the Israeli administration right from the
5:56
start. So, Edmund, I mean just take
6:00
take on Peter's basic first contention that the the British
6:03
government should have done more than just offer IT support to an
6:07
ally, that it should have warned much more vociferously about the
6:11
need to adhere to international laws and to not commit war
6:14
crimes. Yeah.
6:15
So I, I think I would take issue with that because Britain to, in
6:19
doing that would have been taking, staking out a unique
6:22
position in the Western bloc. It would not, it would not have
6:24
been consistent with what any of our allies were doing.
6:27
Why isn't that wrong? I'm not.
6:28
So give me a minute. I mean, you know, I appreciate
6:31
that there may be times when it is necessary to stake out a
6:34
unique position if you're absolutely certain that
6:37
everybody else has got it wrong. But the British government was
6:39
not certain that, that, that we that everybody else had got it
6:42
wrong. And the alliance with Israel
6:44
does matter. The fact that Israel was
6:47
responding to an extremely serious, you know, arguably the
6:50
worst terrorist attack of modern times, that also does matter.
6:55
And I, I must take issue with one thing which Peter said very
6:57
specifically about the allegation of genocide.
7:00
I simply don't accept it. And I don't believe that it is
7:03
remotely established that there is even a credible indication of
7:07
genocide in the case of the UK government.
7:10
They also do not accept. That, well, the ICJ says there
7:12
was a plausible case. They spoke of a plausible case.
7:16
Also the, as you know, the United Nations Commission made a
7:21
rather more aggressive case against Israel, which they laid
7:24
out, I think in September, although all all three of those
7:28
commissioners had actually resigned their position back in
7:31
July. And if you look at that it, it
7:34
gives you the best possible indication of what Israel is up
7:38
against in terms of its public relations.
7:41
And that is that these are three people who had a long standing
7:45
conviction against Israel. And they were when they finally
7:49
let this this allegation of genocide drop, it was a sort of
7:53
a parting shot of a very, very long and completely one sided
7:57
campaign. And if you read the report that
7:59
they wrote, it eliminates all context.
8:02
Anyone would think that there had never been an attack on
8:04
Israel and that they had not been having to deal with an
8:07
extreme. Sorry, you're saying the UN
8:08
Commission were three people who had a long standing animosity
8:11
towards Israel? Yes, Navi Pillay, he's one of
8:13
the most respected. I am all crimes investigators
8:16
and judges. In the world, I'm saying exactly
8:19
that. Who investigated Rwanda and
8:21
everything and you think she had some sort of?
8:22
Bone to pick. I'm not.
8:23
I'm not saying that she was. It's quite an allegation to make
8:25
against. I'm not saying.
8:27
Very well respected people I'm. Not saying that she was without
8:29
qualifications, I'm saying that she had a long standing bias and
8:33
animus. Well, for example, when when it
8:35
when the Mr. Kafari, one of the one of the other commissioners
8:42
spoke about social media being controlled by largely controlled
8:45
by the Jews, she defended him. So there was a long standing
8:49
Western concern about Navi Pillai and her and her bias or
8:53
her lack of objectivity in this matter.
8:56
I mean, obviously I spoke to Navi Pillai about the, the, the
8:58
report and she, she makes the case that they came to it
9:03
sincerely. She's an extremely experienced
9:05
person and that she has no bias and no animosity towards Israel
9:10
at all. And she she's, she's very
9:14
distressed, I think by allegations such as the one
9:16
you're. By the way, can I make it?
9:18
Can I just butt in there in a little bit?
9:21
So you, you're maintaining that, you know that Bet Salem, which
9:24
is the Israeli human rights organization which has said it's
9:29
a genocide, Amnesty International, Human Rights
9:34
Watch, all these organisations and many more and most of the
9:38
world's leading genocide experts such as Mabatov and they schlame
9:44
in Oxford and so on. They're wrong and and you're
9:47
right. Well, I'm not, I'm not on my own
9:50
in this. So I yes, I think they're wrong
9:53
and I think in many cases. Mind you, you have got David
9:56
Lammy agrees with you, Keir Starmer agrees with you, David
9:59
Cameron agreed with you and Rishi Sunak agreed with you.
10:02
So luckily you've got some very distinguished people on your
10:04
side. I mean, it's, it's kind of you
10:06
to say so, Peter. And actually, I would take all
10:08
of those people as excellent. I mean, let let's take it as
10:11
read that you disagree on the question of genocide.
10:12
Peter thinks that there was a genocide, you think there
10:15
wasn't. Yes, but, but in terms of your
10:16
argument of complicity, Peter, there you derive from the ICJ
10:22
case that there could even be legal implications for the
10:26
British government and for British ministers.
10:28
I'm quite certain that there will be and this will happen in
10:32
due course. In fact, under I'm not saying by
10:35
the way, that there is a generous that I'm saying is that
10:37
the vast majority of knowledgeable opinion trends
10:40
trends that way. If you look at David Cameron's
10:43
contacts when he became back as Foreign Secretary and the acts
10:47
which he carried out, one of the most shocking was to when Israel
10:55
produced some basically incredible evidence that Umbra
11:00
was heavily involved in the in the events of October the 7th.
11:06
They produced this which has been shown today's report from
11:10
the ICJ shows that's nonsense. The and it was been long been
11:15
accepted as nonsense. Cameron accepted it and stopped
11:17
funding. He paused.
11:18
The British funding. Just remind people, is the is
11:21
the humanitarian organization for refugees?
11:24
Which is the main supplier or had been the main supplier?
11:27
The main militarian aid desperately needed education.
11:31
We should say specifically for Palestinian refugee.
11:32
For Palestinian refugee. No.
11:34
Then he carried on supplying arms and that in, in the face of
11:39
growing evidence that Israel, in my view, completely undeniable
11:43
evidence, even the experts who don't think there's a genocide,
11:47
except that Israel has committed atrocities in, in face of
11:50
growing evidence of that, Cameron dismissed alarm within
11:54
the Foreign Office and he carried on supplying arms.
11:57
There's many other. Or allow allowing the purchase
12:00
of. Arms.
12:01
The British government supplying, of course.
12:03
And then we have the matter of the using our base in in Cyprus
12:08
to supply Israel, which is quite murky what's actually going on
12:12
there. The overflights, the diplomatic
12:15
support are blocking ceasefire motions in the, in the Security
12:19
Council, stuff like that, which Britain has done.
12:22
So we have done in the early months.
12:24
We can talk about how things changed a little bit with
12:27
Labour. Britain was a sort of 100%
12:30
behind and Benjamin Netanyahu and Ben Gavir and Smotrich and
12:37
Co as they as they carried out. Just take on that point, Edmund.
12:41
I mean, you know, as Peter says, Britain allowed the supply of
12:44
weapons. It used RAF flights to overfly
12:47
Gaza. It's said to look for the
12:50
hostages. But it's never been clear what
12:52
the data was or how how you distinguished between where the
12:56
hostages are and where Hamas fighters might be.
13:01
Peter's contention is that that that was aiding and abetting the
13:03
Israeli military action, whatever you think it amounted
13:07
to. I mean, the Israelis are
13:09
partners, allies, as you referred to them earlier,
13:11
they're they're intelligence partners and to some degree
13:14
they're military partners. It is worth just widening the
13:17
lens a little here and remembering that the Israelis
13:20
are not just fighting on one front.
13:22
They were also, you know, of course, the the Gaza campaign
13:25
was running for these two years and there was a great deal of
13:30
rocket fire coming from Gaza as well in the early stages.
13:34
But you also then had sustained attacks on northern Israel from
13:38
Hezbollah, Lebanese Hezbollah. And you had effectively the, it
13:42
was the latest iteration of the Iranian proxy war against
13:47
Israel, which I don't think anyone would deny is a reality.
13:50
And now the Israelis have more or less neutralized the threat
13:56
from Lebanese Hezbollah for now. They've also, as a indirect
14:01
result of that, we've seen a change of government in Syria.
14:04
And we've also seen the war between Israel and Iran, in
14:09
which the Americans were also partners of the Israelis.
14:13
And if you're looking at British foreign policy interests and who
14:17
are the powers in the world that explicitly mean US harm.
14:22
And of course, I would include the the Yemeni Houthis in this
14:25
as well. Yeah, Britain.
14:27
Britain has every right to supply arms to Israel, just as
14:30
our main ally, the United States, continues to do.
14:33
And so the the aim of RAF flights as well would have been
14:37
right to help Israeli intelligence.
14:40
I have no problem with the British helping Israel, Israeli
14:43
intelligence and military operations.
14:46
So just explain then what you think the relationship is.
14:48
You know what? Why is that relationship so
14:51
important and beneficial to Britain?
14:53
I think to a large degree it's related to common enemies.
14:57
So, you know, the Israelis obviously suffer those threats
15:00
that I've just mentioned. If you look at those from a
15:03
British point of view, you could perhaps make a case that
15:05
Lebanese Hezblar is marginal. But of course, Lebanese Hezblar
15:09
took a lot of British hostages and they have a lot of allied
15:12
blood on their hands, American and French blood on their hands
15:14
as well. The Houthis are obstructing
15:19
commerce in the Red Sea. Iran has been a consistent enemy
15:23
of the United Kingdom, has been conspiring to murder a British
15:26
author over decades, and has been trying to kill people on
15:31
the streets of the United Kingdom.
15:33
The Israelis provide preventive intelligence that has enabled us
15:36
to stop some of those plots from going ahead.
15:39
I would simply say here the Israelis also carried out a
15:42
number of illegal assassinations.
15:44
The attack on Iran which they brought the United States in was
15:47
illegal. There haven't been proper
15:49
propagation from Iraq. Go back to your earlier
15:52
question. Under the genocide laws, if you
15:59
are Aidan abet a genocide, you were then opening yourself up
16:05
under British, British law to prosecution.
16:10
And I think this is something which I, I, I, I'm certain that
16:15
Sunak Starmer, etcetera will have taken advice on it.
16:19
They have one comfort, which is although it's perfectly clear
16:23
that if the ICJ, and it's pretty obvious they eventually will
16:27
deem this has been a genocide, there will be a prima facia case
16:31
to prosecute certain British ministers.
16:34
Can I, can I, can I just go in there?
16:36
Because first of all, I, I will not accept genocide as a given.
16:41
I don't, I don't know. If he's sorry.
16:43
Based on if there's a court ruling, yeah.
16:45
If there is, but I But you know, he's keeps saying, you know,
16:47
this is bound to happen. So, you know, I want to say that
16:50
there is no genocide in Gaza, and I don't believe that it will
16:54
be there's. No legal legally agreed
16:55
downocide. I don't believe it ever will be
16:57
legally agreed and therefore there will be no legal jeopardy
17:00
for British ministers or British opposition figures for that.
17:03
But the the other point that I want to make is that the United
17:06
Kingdom in my view, has calibrated its approach to this
17:09
conflict reasonably, reasonably judiciously.
17:14
I don't always agree with them by the way, You know you, you
17:17
will probably find me more pro Israeli than than either David
17:20
Lammy or Keir Starmer. But the fact of the matter is
17:24
that the Labour government has continually monitored this
17:28
conflict in a critical way and has sought to influence it,
17:32
including trying to influence the Israelis to an early
17:36
ceasefire. And that includes what I
17:38
consider to have been the misguided policy of recognizing
17:41
the state of Palestine. Peter I mean, you know, the,
17:45
the, the, the, there's almost the most important point that
17:48
Edmund is making is because they are our allies, because they are
17:54
strategically in the same place as we are in the Middle East.
17:57
Helping Israel was the right thing to do.
18:00
Yes, I I'm Mr. Fitton Brown. What?
18:04
You were ambassador to the Yemen.
18:08
I, I went to Yemen in 2016. And so when you were ambassador,
18:14
I dare say you were in Riyadh. No, I was in Jeddah.
18:16
Jeddah, I saw a humanitarian catastrophe visited on Yemen by
18:23
again British backed bombing. I saw the bombing of hospitals,
18:28
I saw the slaughter of civilians.
18:31
There you are in Jeddah and I and I also because I'm in a part
18:36
of an investigative journalist, I learnt of the deep concern
18:39
inside the Foreign Office then as now that the Britain was
18:45
party to war crimes. What is your you have a record
18:50
here of supporting the mass slaughter of Arabs and you did
18:55
this in Yemen as British? I'm sorry.
18:57
It's a very serious matter. It isn't something you should
19:00
laugh about, no. It's a laugh of accusation.
19:02
It is the slaughter of of Arabs in the Yemen and now the
19:06
slaughter of Arabs in Gaza. These are these are two.
19:11
You have defended British government policies in each
19:14
case. Do you and I, I find it very
19:18
troubling and morally wrong and morally atrocious and deeply
19:22
shaming for our country that we should support that, that that
19:27
kind of hand, that kind of contact and brings us deeply
19:31
into disrepute across the world. Well, we're going a long way out
19:35
from your book in Gaza, but but yeah, let's go there.
19:38
Why not My horror about the abuse of the population of Yemen
19:45
and the systematic and deliberate cruelty, including
19:50
slaughter, of the population of Yemen by the Houthis is I?
19:55
Was there and you weren't you were in Jeddah, where the from
19:58
where from Riyadh, the Saudis were were bombing the Yemen.
20:02
I I spoke to a lot of ordinary Yemeni people I was hardly with.
20:06
They were supporting the Houthis because they saw the atrocities
20:10
being carried out against them by the Saudis, supported by
20:13
Britain. The Houthis and.
20:15
So you cut, you have no, you have no knowledge of what the
20:17
ordinary people who are Yemen were saying that because even
20:19
though you were the ambassador, you weren't actually there.
20:22
But I am in contact with many ordinary Yemenis and still AM.
20:26
And you know the important, I mean, I love the way that you
20:29
you imply that the Houthis were some sort of, they somehow
20:32
morphed rapidly into just being the honest.
20:34
Representative, I didn't say that you're misrepresenting what
20:37
I said. I said that they suppose the
20:39
Houthis have done terrible things and continue to do them,
20:42
but there's the ordinary people of Yemen were so horrified
20:45
because they were being slaughtered by.
20:48
There's no doubt is there that there was a blockade that was
20:50
imposed by the Saudi LED coalition.
20:53
I also reported from the Houthi run part of Yemen in 2016 and I
20:58
saw babies starving to death because there was no food in
21:01
there. And, and we were very much
21:03
engaged, you know. Humanitarian like, like Gaza,
21:06
you know, some people will say, well, there was all the Houthis
21:07
fault. As people say, well, it's all
21:09
Hamas fault. And other people will say, well,
21:11
there's a conflict here and the people who are imposing the
21:13
blockade, as in Gaza, are also responsible for the impacts.
21:17
Let's. Let's let's try to narrow this
21:20
because I mean, if we get really deep into Yemen, we are going an
21:23
awfully long way off the point. But let's try to go into the
21:25
point about British complicity because I think that seems to be
21:28
the nub of what Peter is saying. The British government and the
21:32
American government at that time were deeply involved in trying
21:36
to make the Saudis as discriminating, as careful, as
21:43
professional as possible in conducting a war that let's not
21:48
forget, was endorsed by the United Nations in the face of
21:53
the illegal Houthi occupation of Sanaa.
21:56
That's. Just.
21:57
I mean, there there is a similarity in the argument, but
21:59
I think we should get back together because that's really
22:01
what we're we're we're we're trying to sort of values holding
22:04
on. I mean, how, how do you think,
22:07
Peter, the you, you've mentioned a couple of instances of things
22:11
politicians said, you know, Keir Starmer on the radio, David
22:15
Cameron. But what are you actually saying
22:18
about our responsibility as a nation for the killing and the
22:24
starvation in Gaza? First of all.
22:27
You know, that we haven't noticed because this is a
22:28
conversation, you know, this conversation doesn't, maybe
22:31
doesn't play out on the media very much, but it's conversation
22:32
that happens I think a lot in Britain.
22:34
You know, to what extent are we to blame as well?
22:38
And your, you know, your book is all about that.
22:40
So what? Why do you think it's systematic
22:42
rather than amounting to a few supportive comments?
22:45
Well, hang on, it's not supportive comments.
22:47
I've mentioned the Cameron's defunding of Unruh, I've
22:50
mentioned the British arms going there, etcetera, etcetera.
22:54
Look if if, if this if the massacres of which took place in
23:01
Gaza and are still taking place even despite the ceasefire have
23:05
been carried out by Russia, Russia in Ukraine on this scale
23:11
or must even think we would have done the following things.
23:14
We would have sanctioned when we do in Russia.
23:18
We would we as we'd have had done in Russia, we'd have
23:20
sanctioned as well. I would have I there was a very
23:24
strong case for a no fly zone over Gaza when those F30 fives
23:28
are just bombing the place to smithereens and slaughtering
23:32
people, that we would have set up a war crimes strike bean.
23:36
All these are all things. Now you say it's because we're
23:39
that Israel is our ally that we we shouldn't do them.
23:42
I say one of the reasons we should do them is because
23:45
because Israel is our ally, we cannot become part of a lawless
23:51
international system which uses mass murder as a weapon of war,
23:56
starvation as a weapon of war. We can't do that.
23:59
That isn't what we as a nation stand for.
24:01
And I'm surprised. I'm very, I'm quite shocked
24:04
actually to hear a former British diplomat defend that
24:08
kind of contact. So once again, I don't accept
24:10
your premise in many of this, You know, the, the, the the.
24:13
So the idea that there is a an established pattern of
24:16
deliberate massacre of civilians I simply reject.
24:18
It's spelled documented by all of the human rights
24:21
organisations by the UN, it's and this is a matter of that
24:25
we'll just. Have to make his point.
24:27
That would be nice, yes. Let's at least look at the
24:31
company that we are in. You know, we are not talking
24:34
about just being in, you know, some level of coordination with
24:38
the United States, which is part of this.
24:40
You know, it's part the part partly British foreign policy
24:44
over many years, of course, has been, you know, partly about a
24:48
close relationship with the United States.
24:50
Now that's just that's just a fact of the matter.
24:52
It may. I'm sure you can make objections
24:54
to it. And, and, and, and I wouldn't
24:55
necessarily disagree with those objections, but that is a
24:59
guiding principle that both of our political parties have
25:01
accepted over decades. But it isn't just the United
25:04
States. We're also very much in step
25:07
with Germany on this. We're very much in step with
25:09
Japan on this. We're very much in step with
25:11
France on this. There is, you know, there is no
25:16
international unanimity, certainly not in the West,
25:20
against British policy on Gaza. And yet all of these countries,
25:25
their their positions evolved over time and particularly.
25:28
Britain's position and. Started saying this is
25:31
unacceptable. The level of killing is, is, is
25:34
horrific. There's got to be a ceasefire.
25:36
Eventually they got to the, you know, calling for a ceasefire,
25:39
even though they rejected the idea of calling for a ceasefire
25:42
at the at the beginning. And yet, for all the, you know,
25:46
the ally ship that you talk of, they were unable to effect any
25:50
change in Israel's behaviour at all.
25:52
Well, so you know, you're exactly as you say, the, the
25:56
evolution of policy is what you would expect to see.
25:59
You would expect any Western country sensitive to its own
26:02
electorate, sensitive to international dynamics to look
26:06
at this and to say this has to stop.
26:09
And people have been saying that, you know, that we need to
26:11
get to a an off ramp as soon as possible.
26:14
It isn't only the Israelis who had to stop.
26:17
You know, Hamas were also part of this equation.
26:20
They have been all the way through.
26:21
And of course, they are still avowedly committed to the
26:24
destruction of Israel. They haven't changed their
26:26
fundamental position and they have said on the record multiple
26:29
times that what they're looking for is not a peace agreement
26:32
with Israel. It's a ceasefire that will
26:34
enable, that will enable them to regroup and to carry out another
26:37
October the 7th when the chance arises again.
26:40
So the evil. Representation of the of the
26:43
Hamas position. You think they're looking for a
26:46
peace agreement with Israel? Yes, they are.
26:47
They've been quite that and they that what has been tragic is
26:51
again and again in one of the things which has been tragic in
26:55
the course of this carnage has been there, there have been
26:59
peace movements towards peace which have been blocked by
27:02
Netanyahu, particularly when he he breached the ceasefire in
27:06
March this year. And actually going back before
27:10
October the 7th. It was quite the political
27:12
leadership has been sending out messages.
27:14
It's ready to talk and ready to actually to recognise the state
27:17
of Isabel. So you mustn't over, you're
27:19
overstating the position and you mustn't misrepresent it because
27:23
you're presenting it as as there can be no.
27:26
Solution. I'm directly quoting what a
27:28
number of Hamas leaders have said.
27:30
But we know, we know and you know, actually because you're a
27:33
British diplomat that Hamas has been saying other things and
27:36
frequently has said other things, things and we must
27:38
pursue peace and not and not the the carrying on this, I mean.
27:43
We are pursuing peace and, and Donald Trump has actually
27:46
produced a peace plan which has actually done something
27:49
meaningful. He's produced, Britain has
27:51
supported it. He's produced, he's.
27:53
Produced a peace plan. It's not a peace plan and if
27:56
you've studied those 20 points you wouldn't you understand that
27:58
perfectly well. He's produced a ceasefire and of
28:01
course, hopefully this will move towards a peace.
28:05
But I, I, I, I think that this is the, the, the genocide or
28:10
the, the carnage. As such, The Economist estimates
28:14
that 4 to 4 to 5% of the population of Gaza has been, has
28:19
been killed. That's probably about 100,000
28:22
people. Others think it's more if that
28:25
was in Britain, that'd be about $3,000,000, so I don't.
28:28
Accept that figure either. You don't accept this figure.
28:30
I know there's a lot of facts which you find difficult to
28:34
accept. You're in a state of denial.
28:36
But. Many people talk about between.
28:38
60 or you're denying, you're denying, you're denying.
28:41
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United
28:44
Nations. You're in a small place along
28:46
with you, Mr. Netanyahu, perhaps Ben Gavir.
28:50
It's, it's and I and I and I, One of the things, one of the
28:53
problems of the British government has been we have, we
28:57
haven't. You have explained very well,
28:59
very articulately, the British policy of not trying to offend
29:03
the United States, of staying alongside our ally, but it's
29:07
taken us in to a moral cesspit. Let me, let me just move us on
29:14
to another part of your argument, Peter, which is, which
29:17
is why complicity in your framing has been acceptable in
29:22
Britain. And the, the conversation that
29:25
we've had around it, the way it's been framed, the way it's
29:27
been reported in the media and the, and the way that we
29:30
describe people and deaths on both sides.
29:34
Why? Why do you think it's been
29:36
distorted and wrong? I look at the contacts of the
29:41
mainstream British media in the way that it's reported the event
29:49
since October the 7th, and it's been shocking.
29:53
I mean the greater value attached to Israeli people
29:58
who've been killed by Hamas, the Israelis, than the Palestinian.
30:02
Why? Just explain why you think how?
30:04
How has that happened? You know what?
30:05
What are the examples? If you like the most desperate
30:08
day of the war, 22 Israelis killed.
30:10
Terrible. But, you know, the same day
30:13
something like 200 Palestinians were killed, there's a basic
30:15
racist about Western reporting, an Israeli person who's been
30:23
killed. It's a terrible tragedy.
30:25
I'm all for it. Give them a name, give them a
30:27
job, explain what they were doing.
30:29
Palestinian person who gets killed doesn't matter.
30:32
Let's look at the treatment of Palestinian journalists.
30:35
More than 200, I think, according to the latest numbers,
30:38
have been killed, many of them targeted.
30:40
What attention has been given to that in the Western media?
30:43
Very, very little the the targeting of of aid workers, you
30:47
know, well over 300 hundred workers killed.
30:51
Hardly nobody notices. All of these things have been
30:54
reported though, haven't they? I mean, they are part of the
30:57
conversation. It's part of the the protest
30:59
movement, it's part of all the activist.
31:01
The protest movement has been largely ignored and it's been
31:04
systematically smeared by the British media.
31:06
I have a chapter on this, about how the the the fabricated
31:11
stories published all over the mainstream media making out
31:15
about terrorist supporters or Hamas supporters or anti Semites
31:20
or violent thugs. These protesters who'd be
31:23
walking through Britain, British streets week after week
31:29
protesting simply in favour of international law.
31:33
They've been invited. They they they on the same side
31:35
as the United Nations, the International Court, Criminal
31:38
Court, the International Court of Justice Against War crash.
31:41
How do you think, how do you think that?
31:43
Where do you think the bias is in the framing of that?
31:45
Because obviously people on Edmund's side of the argument
31:48
tend to call those hate marches. Well, exactly.
31:50
And describe you know. Gross, gross misrepresentations,
31:53
but. That's not how the media.
31:54
Tends to no the media bought. I've done one of my chapters.
31:59
I look into this. I show how the media presented
32:02
the marches as as violence and I show that in fact they were
32:05
incredibly peaceful and and indeed the far right marchers
32:09
who disrupted the let's say at the cenotaph, they were they
32:13
were a bit embarrassing for the media.
32:15
The media doesn't like to pay attention to the fact that the
32:18
extraordinary far right support which Israel's generated Tommy
32:21
Robinson, Nigel Farage, the the fact that there's this this
32:26
coalition between the British government.
32:29
Not a fraud dispute. He's far.
32:30
Right. Well, I won't.
32:31
I'm. I'm happy to say he's far right,
32:32
I can assure you. Can I can I please at least make
32:34
the point? I do not associate with people
32:36
like Tommy Robinson. Yeah, but he's, he's there,
32:39
There he is in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli
32:41
government. And that is a that is a problem
32:47
that you have a very ugly forces in Western society supporting
32:52
Israel as it slaughters Arabs in Gaza.
32:57
What would you make of the way it's been framed?
32:59
I mean, do you think it's? Been fair.
33:01
So, I mean, I, I, I was surprised when we were preparing
33:06
for this that, that this was a significant part of Peter's
33:09
argumentation, because I would have thought that on this
33:12
particular point about alleged media bias for Israel, I, I
33:18
hadn't really heard that before. It's a.
33:20
It's an unusual point of view now, for example.
33:25
Because Israel's forces feel the media is against them.
33:27
So, so I, you know, I don't, so I don't want to get into, I
33:30
don't want, you know, all of us, whatever our point of view, we
33:33
will always say that we feel that the media is not
33:36
representative properly. And I've talked a good deal to
33:39
people in the BBC and people in the BBC have said, you know,
33:44
we're attacked all the time for being pro Israeli and we're
33:47
attacked all the time for being anti Israeli.
33:49
And we can only, we can only sort of surmise that we may be
33:53
roughly in the right place. Now, I realize that's rather
33:56
approximate and it's maybe not a very scientific basis on which
33:59
to make an argument. But the the I would say that in
34:03
general, whether you feel that the media has been has lent
34:08
slightly one way or the other, I think the argument that the
34:11
media has been systematically pro Israeli is eccentric.
34:15
It's just. Striking, I mean haven't just
34:16
come back from Israel, I know you've been there as well
34:18
recently. I mean, I found with, with my TV
34:20
cameras, people with people in Israel much more hostile towards
34:25
British journalists. And, and particularly they would
34:27
say, are you the BBC? And when you say no way Channel
34:30
4, they say, OK, at least you're not, you're not, you're not on
34:32
the BBC. They think the BBC is against
34:33
them. And by the way.
34:35
Well, actually they were. In favor, look, structurally
34:37
they are, and I, and I look forward to somebody rebutting.
34:40
I put these points to BBC executives, the relevant BBC
34:43
executives. They can't answer them.
34:45
Let's go beyond the BBC because it's, you know, they're not here
34:48
to defend themselves. And they say that we're, we're a
34:50
public service broadcaster trying to get it right.
34:54
Because your, your criticism really goes beyond that.
34:56
Isn't it's, it's, it's, it's the whole conversation in most of
35:00
the media that most of Britain reads and watches that you feel
35:05
has been slanted and racist. Yeah, and you just said you can
35:08
see that very graphic case in point over last weekend over the
35:13
Maccabi fans and Aston Villa where the Prime Minister
35:16
intervened against police advice and has got a bloody nose for it
35:22
politically because he's been proved to have been wrong.
35:24
I mean, it's the and and the media coverage of that was
35:29
phonetically we must let the this is a free speech issue.
35:32
This is a fairness issue. You've got to let the Maccabee
35:34
fans into Britain, even though they you know, they, they're
35:38
known for their genocidal chants and their and their violence and
35:42
death to Arabs and all the rest of it.
35:44
It's and the media cast that as went after an MP called Ayub
35:51
Khan who'd been calling for Maccabee fans to be banned.
35:54
They it was a racist campaign of Ayub Khan.
35:58
I saw one remark by a a shock jock saying he should go back to
36:01
Pakistan. This is on a respectable
36:03
channel. He's been suspended.
36:05
Thank God for that, but I mean it.
36:07
Yeah. And that was a very clear
36:09
example. I think one of the point
36:11
arguments I do make in this book is the is the the far right
36:17
fascist Islamophobic arguments being made for Israel and allies
36:22
that the pro Israel side has got and and Starmer in my view, and
36:26
it's shaming in a British Prime Minister was that's part of
36:31
Labour's strategy to win over the red wall voters, win back
36:36
the voters who've gone to reform from Labour actually are
36:40
basically doing what they wanted appealing to them by siding
36:44
against Ayub Khan and and with Maccabee fans.
36:48
Evan what? What's your?
36:50
I mean, I don't want to get deep into the Aston Villa thing.
36:53
It's again, it's it feels to me as if it's a little bit off the
36:56
off the subject, but but. Generally you feel bemused that
36:59
you think that that that the media is being described as.
37:03
Precisely, yes. I, I I just don't see it.
37:05
I, I, I mean I see, I see in some areas I see balance.
37:09
I, I think I, I, I, I see some areas where I definitely see a
37:14
very anti Israeli bent. I'm not sure where I see the Pro
37:18
is it really bent? But I can believe that it might
37:20
exist in some newspapers. But I would have thought on
37:23
balance. Try reading the Times.
37:25
What about the It's extraordinary you read the
37:26
Telegraph, you don't think it's pro Israeli?
37:30
I mean, it's very odd actually the, the mental outlook.
37:33
You're betrayed. So as a matter of fact, I don't
37:35
particularly read the Telegraph and if you say it's pro.
37:38
Really. The Spectator, old boy.
37:40
But these? Are outlets that are open about
37:42
that position. There's nothing wrong with that.
37:44
And they're private outlets as well.
37:45
I mean, let's go back to the BBC.
37:46
The BBC is under pressure over justifying the license fee and
37:51
what that implies in terms of its obligations to the to the
37:54
British people. And they're walking a tightrope
37:57
and I don't think they always get it right, but I don't think
37:59
they get it systematically wrong.
38:02
I think I'm afraid they they do and they've systematically kept
38:06
from their audiences vital information for the
38:08
understanding of of how this war has progressed.
38:13
Finally, Peter, I mean, you have you, you, you, you built a case
38:16
in your book which is basically arguing our our politicians,
38:21
our, our political decisions, our media, our national
38:25
conversation makes us complicit as a nation in what has happened
38:29
in Gaza. What are you?
38:32
What are you hoping people will do as a result of reading that?
38:38
Well, one of the things which is very hard to remember is that
38:43
the vast majority of the British people are decent people.
38:46
Right from the outset of this conflict, the majority of the
38:50
British people have been for a ceasefire.
38:54
They have been for the, the, the rule of law.
38:58
I think now I, I, I have made the case in this conversation,
39:01
but much more thoroughly in the book, that British ministers
39:04
have been complicit in what is likely to be judged to be a
39:08
genocide. I hope that these ministers will
39:11
be brought to justice. There must be accountability.
39:14
I I don't believe that Britain should support barbaric
39:18
policies, whether our friends decide is in the Yemen or the,
39:22
or the Israelis in Gaza. I think we should be a force for
39:25
good in the world. We should respect international
39:28
institutions like the International Criminal Court,
39:31
the United Nations and and have a foreign policy which is a
39:38
force for good in the world, not for one which is a force for
39:40
violence, mayhem, court chaos and law breaking.
39:44
You'd agree with that when you. I I would agree that that is
39:48
what we should do. I would also claim that that is
39:51
exactly what we already do. Do.
39:54
I mean, I think we're into concluding points, aren't we?
39:56
And let me make, let me just make a couple of points. 1 Is
39:59
that because I haven't said it explicitly?
40:01
Let me say explicitly that I am no apologist for Benjamin
40:05
Netanyahu. I'm not here to defend him and
40:08
there are many problems that I have with the way that he has
40:11
approached Israeli national security over over recent years.
40:15
The second thing I should say, just because it's an honest, an
40:19
honest disclosure, is that although I've in a way sort of
40:22
been cast here as someone who will defend the actions of the
40:26
British government, the British government itself would not be
40:29
terribly happy with that because I no longer work for the British
40:32
government. I'm no longer British ambassador
40:34
and I'm not under any obligation to defend them if I didn't agree
40:38
with what they were doing. So, you know, I'm not giving
40:42
British propaganda here. I don't have to and I don't even
40:45
want to. But I would argue that the
40:47
British government over the past, well, let's say for as
40:51
long as I have been involved in foreign policy, and that would
40:54
be going back to the 1980s, I would say that the British
40:58
government, of the five permanent members of the United
41:02
Nations Security Council, which is to say obviously France,
41:06
China, Soviet Union and Russia and the United States, I would
41:10
say the British government has most consistently factored in
41:14
values into its understanding of its interests and the policies
41:18
that it has pursued. And it doesn't always get it
41:20
right. But I I am generally proud of
41:23
the way the British government has approached most
41:25
international issues. I've been fit and brown.
41:27
Peter O'bourne. We must leave it there.
41:28
Thank you both very much. And that's it for this episode
41:31
of The Forecast. Until next time, bye.
41:33
Bye.