Palestine Solidarity Campaign have made the claim that ‘public anger over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and Britain’s response was increasingly being expressed‘. The claim was made by Aimee Shalan who will become director in November.
She said Palestine becoming an electoral issue both domestically and nationally. She pointed to Ed Miliband’s recent statement and the change in policy towards the West Bank in particular. The West Bank appeared in the news in recent days because of the latest incident of severe violence involving over 100 militant settlers who overwhelmed security forces in an attack on the village of Jalud.
Several senior politicians, including the president Isaac Herzog, have condemned the violence but there is an element of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Settler violence has been overtly and covertly supported by politicians and the security forces have up to now, stood by while Palestinians were attacked and their properties destroyed. It is a bit late to complain now when the scale of violence and ethnic cleansing has become so extreme.
The 147th vigil was held on Saturday with nearly 40 in attendance. There was a good response to the invitation to ‘honk for peace’. The Salisbury MP, Mr John Glen. has not appeared and there was no mention of the vigil again in his weekly column courtesy of the Salisbury Journal. He is a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel group.
Film update – Because …
Our film Because ... is progressing well and will be finished ready for the 150th vigil. Most interviews have been completed.
Some members of the group meet for a photo op October 2026 Throughout August the Salisbury group took part in the national campaign to highlight the plight of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang province in China. We reported on the extreme measures used by the Chinese to repress the culture, language and religion of this…
Members of the Salisbury group take part in national demonstration about this firm October 2026 The public are slowly becoming aware of the firm Palantir and how it is increasingly being used by British institutions. Profound worries are expressed on a number of counts about the use of this firm. They include the security of…
Terrifying failure to execute Christa Pike in Tennessee October 2026 It seems as far as Tennessee is concerned, actually executing someone is more difficult than might be supposed. Christa Pike was on the gurney and the supposedly lethal drugs were injected twice. Forty minutes later, she was heard snoring from behind a screen and was…
We include a text today largely written by Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, concerning the execution of Curtis Beasley on 29th of September. Florida is on something of an execution spree partly because the Governor, Ron DeSantis, believes in its effectiveness as a deterrent. There is no evidence for this.
Tonight, the People of the State of Florida executed Curtis Wilkie Beasley, Sr. for the 1995 murder of Carolyn Monfort. In this gubernatorial administration alone, that makes him the 44th execution, the 13th veteran, the 14th senior citizen, and the 27th person condemned to die despite a non-unanimous jury vote for death.
Carolyn Monfort was murdered in her own home by someone she knew and had welcomed there. She had a family, a life, and people who expected to see her again. Her life deserves our recognition in its own right, even as we oppose the way Florida chose to bring her story to its conclusion.
Some executions command the attention of our state and even the whole US. Others happen quietly, while most people go about their Tuesday evening. Florida’s unprecedented and remarkable pace of executions over the past two years makes that possible. Before we have finished saying one person’s name, another death warrant is signed. The names blur and the numbers rise, and those who aren’t closely following along are none the wiser. This is part of the administration’s plan to overwhelm and desensitize. To let everyday Floridians forget that all of this killing is happening in their names.
The Case
Curtis’ case drew comparatively little of the attention that others have drawn. But the facts deserve to be heard nonetheless. Curtis‘ case is a prime example of the arbitrariness of Florida’s death penalty. Over the past month, his lawyers have fought to bring this disparity to light. The courts continue to turn a blind eye.
Curtis was sentenced by a non-unanimous jury, a practice found almost exclusively in Florida. Florida requires a jury vote of 8 to 4 to sentence someone to death, while Alabama requires a supermajority of 10 of 12 votes. Every other death penalty state has rejected this practice.
The right to a jury trial is firmly rooted in the nation’s fabric. So is the history of denying some jurors a meaningful voice. Non-unanimous jury rules took hold in the Jim Crow era as a way to let Black people sit on juries while allowing other jurors to disregard their votes. In a 2020 landmark case called Ramos v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court confronted that history and held that a jury must be unanimous to convict someone of a serious crime.
This term, the Supreme Court will consider another part of that promise: whether the right to a jury trial requires twelve jurors, rather than the six Florida uses in most criminal cases. Florida asks a full jury of twelve to decide a capital case, but permits a death sentence even when one, two, three, or four of them believe life without parole is the appropriate sentence. The questions before the Court are different, yet they reach the same concern: whether the state can call people to serve on a jury and then diminish the force of their voices. That is exactly what happened to the two jurors who believed that Curtis Beasley should live.
Before drugs and alcohol carved a destructive path through his life and led to the violence that landed him on death row, Curtis lived a life that many of us would recognize. He played Little League baseball and went to Bible camp. He won the Perfect Attendance award in 4th grade. He had an after-school job at a T.V. repair shop, started a garage band with his friends, and listened to country music. He was president of his senior class. He volunteered to serve our country in the Army, and did so honorably, during a time of intense anti-military sentiment. He was a father, a son, and a brother. He was more than the 44th, 13th, 14th, or 27th – more than a statistic in this steady stream of violence.
We will keep telling these stories, including the ones that receive less attention as Florida continues to carry out executions at a pace unrivaled by any time period in the State’s recorded history. Tonight we remember Carolyn Monfort and the life taken from her. We remember Curtis Beasley as a whole person, too. Neither should disappear into the count.
Pip: If you’ve ever wondered why British arms keep flowing to conflict zones despite mountains of evidence of civilian harm, welland2 has spent considerable effort mapping the answer — and it turns out “political cowardice, greed, and some perverse thinking” covers a lot of ground.
Mara: This episode follows that investigation closely — the machinery behind UK arms exports, the seven structural reasons those exports continue, and what it means for Gaza, Yemen, and British credibility on the world stage. Let’s start with how those exports get justified, and why they keep surviving scrutiny.
From Gaza to Yemen: Why UK Arms Sales Keep Flowing
Pip: The central question here is not whether harm is happening — the evidence on civilian deaths, destroyed hospitals, and ethnic cleansing is described as copious — but why successive governments, across both main parties, have worked so hard to keep the arms flowing anyway.
Mara: The post lays out the official reasoning and then dismantles it. On the pattern of civilian harm, it quotes directly: “a few incidents do not a pattern make, and the motives of those doing the killing cannot be known.”
Pip: That framing — we can’t know why they’re bombing the hospital — is doing a lot of work for a lot of arms licenses. The post calls the overall picture, plainly, lying.
Mara: Seven structural reasons are offered. Economics comes first: around 300,000 people are employed in the sector, many in marginal constituencies. But York University studies are cited showing the net economic value is nowhere near the headline figures once corporate welfare is factored in.
Pip: So the jobs argument is itself propped up by subsidies. The revolving door compounds it — 604 individuals moved from ministry or military roles into arms firms between January 2017 and June 2022, with CAAT describing it as “open office” corruption.
Mara: The post also identifies the F-35 issue as a sovereignty problem in plain sight. British-made components go into weapons used over Gaza and Lebanon, but the claim is they can’t be tracked — which the post calls an insult, given that goods are routinely tracked electronically. The real reason, it argues, is unwillingness to confront Washington.
Pip: Sovereignty reclaimed from Brussels, surrendered quietly to the Pentagon.
Mara: Fear of the antisemitism label is named as another factor — described as having percolated into media coverage, with the BBC reporting cited for double standards on language around hostages and prisoners. And roughly 150 MPs hold membership in Friends of Israel groups, raising direct questions about impartiality on arms votes.
Mara: The conclusion is direct: “It is a cover for political cowardice, greed and some perverse thinking around supporting Israel and the arms industry generally.” Yemen is named alongside Gaza — years of bombing, a massive death toll, and nothing resolved.
Pip: And the same pattern — unqualified support for Saudi strikes on civilian targets — repeated without apparent reflection.
Mara: The post ends by arguing that arming a regime conducting ethnic cleansing only postpones a reckoning, and that Britain’s role should be supporting dialogue and a viable Palestinian state — a commitment the UK has now formally made. The gap between that commitment and current arms policy is the political failure the piece is naming.
Pip: The stakes don’t get much higher than “destroys any hope born of the post-war Universal Declaration.” That’s where we land.
Mara: The through-line across all of this is the distance between stated values and actual policy — and the structural forces that keep that distance in place.
Pip: Next time, presumably, we find out whether any of those structures have shifted. The evidence so far suggests they are slow movers.
In the previous post we discussed the recent report Dead Letter published by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, the webinar held by them, and the Channel 4 Despatches programme, which all described in some detail the contortions carried out by successive governments to justify the selling of arms to murderous regimes. Also discussed was the involvement in the legal system in some of the bizarre reasoning employed to fight off claims by human rights groups such as Al Haq and others that what they were doing was contrary to international human rights law.
The shear extent of what can only be described as lying is staggering. Despite copious evidence of death of civilians and the destruction basic infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and mosques, the bombing of water treatment plants and a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing, successive governments have clung on to arguments such as a lack of evidence, a few incidents do not a pattern make, and the motives of those doing the killing cannot be known. Anything in fact to justify the continuation of arms sales.
Why?
Which prompts the question why? Why are politicians of both main parties so desperately keen to maintain these fictions? Why have they watered down regulations of what can or cannot be sold? Why do they persist in the argument that we have one of the more robust export regimes in the world when patently it is not?
In this essay we want to suggest some reasons. Necessarily, it cannot always be evidenced as efforts are made to conceal anything which might compromise the government or ministers. It is largely speculative therefore. We suggest there are seven major reasons why we have the system we have.
Economic and the need for jobs
The arms industry employs large numbers of people many of whom are in marginal constituencies [it was always argued thus but in view of recent political upheavals, what is or is not a marginal is now somewhat questionable]. There are around 300,000 people employed. Further, it is one of the few sectors in the economy which has seen significant growth. Adopting some kind of moral policy and concerning itself with the rights of those at the receiving end of weaponry, would have a serious effect on these numbers.
Post war effects
After the war, Japan and Germany were unable to develop their arms firms which provided an opportunity for the UK to shine. Whereas those two countries modernised and produced a range of products which steadily ended many UK firms’ ability to compete (cars and electronic goods for example), arms were not among them. Considerable support was provided by the UK government to the industry. However, claims of job creation and economic value are considerably weakened when the degree and scale of ‘corporate welfare’ is taken into account. York University has produced a number of studies showing the net value is nowhere near the headline claims by politicians.
Nevertheless, it is an area where British firms do have a presence on the world stage, despite its questionable economic value.
Close links to the US
It is interesting to reflect on the enormous fuss made at the time of Brexit where ‘take back control’ and ‘regain our sovereignty’ were two of the key messages. Yet we have lost these to the Americans. Witness the F-35 arguments where it is claimed the 15% made in the UK cannot be tracked. They are a key weapon in the destruction of Gaza, bombing of Lebanon and the attack on Iran. The tracking claim is to insult the British people who know full well that goods nowadays are tracked electronically. The reason is not being able to stand up to the Americans and the likely threat to future partnership deals. If our sovereignty was ever lost it has been to the US not Brussels. It is even claimed that the moment the items are manufactured, ownership passes immediately to the US so we cannot embargo their sale to Israel.
Anti-Semitic and anti-Israel claims
Any or all criticism of Israel and its actions are deemed anti-Semitic. These claims seem to have struck fear into the heart of the British political establishment. They were a powerful force in the removal of Jeremy Corbyn. Sir Keir Starmer worked hard to ‘rip out anti-Semitism by its roots’ as he put it. The nature of the anti-Semitism under Corbyn is difficult to bottom out. A lengthy BBC report delves into it in some detail and some of the evidence seem tenuous to say the least. It does appear that the party was slow to take disciplinary action where there were incidents but Corbyn’s stance against anti-Semitism seemed clear. Inevitably, as in any organisation, there are going to be individuals who are anti-Semitic.
What is important is the perception but it does seem clear that the policy of claiming that any or all criticisms of Israel has taken root. It has been effective and has percolated into the BBC and other parts of the media. We reported on the Centre for Media Monitoring’s report into BBC reporting in an earlier post. They describe the double standards, muffling of Palestinian voices and language issues amounting to severe bias. For example, they frequently reported that Hamas seized ‘hostages’ whereas Israelis took ‘prisoners’. Both were hostages and both were kept incommunicado and badly treated. The word ‘prisoner’ suggested some kind of judicial process had taken place. Evidence of an Apartheid state has almost never been mentioned by BBC commentators despite the copious evidence produced by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Israeli human rights groups.
Slowly, things seem to be changing however and the recent statement and actions by Ed Miliband the Foreign Secretary are a welcome if belated sign. Israel is losing the moral high ground and is fast becoming an international pariah. Witness the huge walkout of delegates at the UN when Benjamin Netanyahu rose to speak.
MPs easily manipulated
That around 150 members of parliament are members of their party’s Friends of Israel groups is shocking. In a previous post we discuss how easy Israel seems to find engaging impressionable and naïve newbie MPs to their point of view with cleverly crafted visits to Israel and other financial support.
Any question of curbing sales of arms has to overcome this quiet army of closet supporters of the regime. The question has to be asked: how can an MP properly act dispassionately in deciding what is in Britain’s and Palestinian’s or even Israel’s best interested if they are members of what is believed to be the best funded parliamentary lobby group? Both Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy were staunch members and so is Andy Burnham the new prime minister.
Further, when one or other of these MPs are interviewed, their membership is only rarely mentioned by interviewers.
The Revolving Door
This is the deeply corrupting matter of senior military staff, senior civil servants and ex-ministers, heading off to take up lucrative directorships or consultancies with arms companies. Both Transparency International and CAAT have criticised this. CAAT terms it ‘open office’ corruption.
The numbers are quite staggering. No less than 604 individuals moved from ministry or military roles into arms firms between January 2017 to June 2022. Quite apart from the undue influence taking place, it has led to poor scrutiny, delivery failure and massive budget overruns. The suspicion is that with a promise of a lucrative post retirement appointment, awkward or challenging questions are not asked. Proper scrutiny is not carried out. Neither are questions asked about moral or humanitarian issues arising from the use of the weapons. The now abolished ACOBA controls were widely condemned as toothless.
Racism
Underpinning much of the attitudes and biased media reporting is racism. Arabs and Palestinians are regarded as untrustworthy and uncivilised (algebra?). This appears in claims of Britain being overrun by Moslems and London becoming ‘Londonistan’ subject to Sharia Law: Islamophobia in other words.
Whereas anti-Semitism receives a great deal of coverage (rightly) and necessary police action, anti-Palestinian attitudes do not get the same attention. British politicians like the local MP, Danny Kruger, can quite casually claim that ‘all the deaths in Gaza are the fault of Hamas‘. It is difficult to believe this blanket statement of blame would be applied to an attack on another racial group. There, cries of ‘indiscriminate’ would be heard. The different treatment of Palestinian deaths in comparison with Israeli has been a feature of criticisms of media coverage.
Security
A frequent reason which crops up is security. This argument seems to hinge around the role Israel plays as a source of information about the Middle East. Israel has a fearsome reputation in the field of intelligence and western powers including the UK are keen to avail themselves of it.
Conclusions
To many, the continuing and obdurate policy of successive British governments has been baffling. In the face of mounting evidence, the continued support for arms sales seems insupportable and unconscionable. In this essay, we attempted an explanation based on a variety of factors we have discussed. Essentially they are about money, jobs dependant on the sales, corruption and a willingness of the political elite to follow the Israeli line. Fear of the anti-Semitism tag is also a factor.
It hasn’t just been Israel: a similar pathology has been witnessed in the Yemen conflict. There, unqualified support for the Saudi bombing of multiple civilian targets was seen. Arms are still being supplied to UAE despite strong evidence that they are passed on to the RSF in Sudan.
The public approaches this from having witnessed terrible scenes on the news despite the banning of independent news media into Gaza and the steady murder or assassination of journalists by the IDF. (More have been killed than in any other comparable conflict). Many feel deeply that this isn’t right and the UK should have no part of it.
These views find few favours in Westminster for the reasons we have suggested. Their answer is to erect ever more contorted arguments in support of an indefensible position. This is more than speculative as the Despatches programme revealed. They showed that great efforts were made by the Foreign Office to conceal details and not to leave a paper record. It is a cover for political cowardice, greed and some perverse thinking around supporting Israel and the arms industry generally.
The ultimate tragedy is that it won’t. Supporting a thuggish regime to carry on a programme of violence and ethnic cleansing creating along the way an entire new generation of young people bent on revenge, merely postpones the ultimate reckoning. Israel is a superpower in the region and giving them more and more weapons is merely to pour petrol on a fire. Years of bombing Yemen and a massive death toll has solved nothing.
British involvement in this activity destroys any hope born of the post war Universal Declaration with its claims of ‘never again’. Our role should be to support moderation, dialogue and actively to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state (which the UK is now committed to). Our political class is profoundly letting the nation down. It represents a massive political failure for a range of unworthy reasons.
CAAT report describes how governments have continued supplying arms despite evidence of war crimes
September 2026
The Campaign Against the Arms Trade have just published a report called Dead Letter in which it details successive government’s determination to continue to supply arms despite mounting evidence of mass killing and war crimes. Reading the report it is difficult to believe we have governments with any semblance of integrity or humanity.
CAAT and other human rights agencies including Amnesty, have made various attempts to challenge the government but the legal process has been sadly and woefully insufficient to force them to change their ways. We have documented over several years the UK’s involvement in Yemen and more recently, Gaza and described the horrific death tolls which have taken place in both theatres.
Yemen
Up to the end of 2021, around 377,000 died in Yemen. The Saudis attacked population areas including hospitals, mosques, public gatherings, and food, water, energy and transport infra-structure. Few of these had a military objective. Despite copious evidence from a range of human rights organisations, the UN and observers on the ground the government claimed ‘it had not found evidence of International Human Rights non compliance‘. It relied solely on the evidence produced by the Saudis’ own Joint Incident Assessment Team which unsurprisingly, found nothing wrong. All other evidence was ignored.
Further, they argued that a small number of incidents did not represent a pattern despite the huge number of raids and the resulting death toll. British companies and the RAF were directly involved in the destruction.
Gaza
A similar pattern of behaviour was evident in Gaza. Here, despite the massive destruction of property in the territory, the policy of NAZA which involves bombing an entire apartment block in order to kill one suspected Hamas operative, the government steadfastly continued to supply arms to Israel. Their arguments here were specious beyond belief. Despite knowing of the destruction and killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, they claimed they did not have sufficient information as to why the IDF and therefore could not conclude that it was a breach of IHL. This despite copious statements by senior Israeli politicians making it plain they were seeking the destruction of Palestinians.
Webinar
CAAT organised a webinar on 24th September which speakers from Mwatana and Shadow World Investigations discussed the report and its implications. An additional aspect is the ‘revolving door’ where senior military personnel, civil servants from the MoD and some politicians, take up lucrative directorships or consultancies when they retire. This thoroughly unsatisfactory and corrupt system goes a long way to explaining the almost desperate desire of governments to do almost anything to continue selling arms despite the terrible consequences of doing so.
It has had an effect on our politics in the UK. So desperate are the government that our democracy is being subverted. Protestors are arrested and the freedom of association is being curbed. Just reflect that our government is busy selling arms which cause terrible destruction and do not seem to achieve any tangible benefits for anyone at all (belligerents included) yet it is protestors who are arrested and accused of terrorism. Even the judicial process is corrupted by altering charges after sentence had been passed.
Special contempt was reserved for Sir Keir Starmer and his dreadful statement on the cutting off of food, water and power to Gaza. The Channel 4 Despatches programme aired on 24th, discusses the same issues focusing mostly on Gaza. It has obtained a mass of internal Foreign Office documentation showing that the government well knew what was happening but chose to look the other way. David Cameron comes off particularly badly.
Political process
The report is a must read and sets out in detail the extent to which our politics have been corrupted by the arms trade. The problem is that both main parties are involved so that there is no proper scrutiny. Recent events and statements by Ed Miliband are encouraging as far as they go but such are the tentacles of corruption whether real change will take place remains to be seen.
However, one is left with the question: why do our politicians twist themselves into such contortions to defend the indefensible?
Remarkable video discusses the extent of influence over political parties by Friends of Israel groups
September 2026
In many of our posts about vigils and the events taking place in the Middle East, Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, we have mentioned the role and influence of the various Friends of Israel groups in Parliament and Westminster generally. There is no inherent crime in lobbying: it is quite possible that UK citizens reading this will have lobbied their MP over a matter of concern to them. This is part of the political process and can be a way of informing an MP about an issue and the depth of feeling there is among their constituents.
We are currently in the middle of a major row concerning two massive donations of £36 million each to the Reform party which have the potential to be a game changer. What is concerning is the degree of organisation, funding and influence that some lobbyists are able to deploy. Arms firms, fossil fuel companies and as we shall see, the Israeli lobbying operation are sufficiently funded to exert considerable influence over policy. The real risk is that they can distort the democratic process to suit their agendas.
This remarkable video takes the viewer through the history and organisation behind the various Friends of Israel groups. It points out the differences of approach towards each party noting that the only one which seems untainted by this activity is the Greens. It shows how the lobbying is able to stay hidden and undeclared because of how the groups are structured.
A lot of the activity is not direct funding but it enables MPs to link up with other funders useful to them at election time. It is thought to be the best funded lobby group in Westminster.
They explain how new MPs arrive often having few opinions on the Middle East, are quickly invited to a trip to Israel. On return they are to be seen in debates echoing the Israeli line. It shows how although leaders come and go, the apparatus behind them remains stable. Nearly all of the Cabinet are members.
It is hard not to come away from viewing it without feeling troubled at how our governments and democracy are compromised by this well-funded and highly organised activity. There is no harm in Israel – or any state or organisation – putting their arguments to MPs and to government. But this activity goes well beyond that and clearly distorts our democracy.
The effects
It is not just of academic interest. The result is a Labour prime minister shamefully saying Israel had every right to cut off water and power to Gaza. It’s successive governments allowing arms sales to proceed despite the disproportionate destruction of Gaza. It’s the covert support by the RAF for example overflying Gaza in hundreds of missions allegedly to help in the search for hostages (completely unsuccessfully so what were they doing?). The staggering death toll of over 73,000 including around 20,000 children is a stain historians will find hard to explain. The hemming in of 2 million Palestinians into a smaller and smaller area by the yellow line. It has been a gross violation of the rights of Palestinians.
Many senior Israeli parliamentarians are open about their desire to expel all Palestinians and to destroy any idea of a separate Palestinian state. It is not some kind of hidden side effect of conflict – it is its purpose.
Despite the killing, massive destruction, wilful starvation and ethnic cleansing, only in past week has the UK government finally seen fit to take some action.
We have noted that the local MP for Salisbury, Mr John Glen, is a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel. He has never attended the 145 vigils held by some of his constituents. He has never mentioned them in his weekly column in the Salisbury Journal. He has never spoken in parliament on this issue.
As we have asked before – who are they representing? The British public or a bloodthirsty regime? It is not as though the activity is in the long term interests of Israel. A policy of violence, destruction, ignoring international humanitarian law and mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners has only one end. Members of parliament would do well to remember whom they represent.
We were back to a strong turn out at last Saturday’s vigil (12th) which coincided with events happening in the Middle East. When we last posted, we questioned whether the British government was going to take action. It did so with a statement by the Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband to parliament which was a significant departure from the previous weak actions by the Starmer led government.
He said that the prospects for a Palestinian state were being destroyed on the ground in particular with the plans for a massive settlement E1. He specifically called Israeli government actions as ‘ethnic cleansing’ a major departure for the government. He has arranged for settler goods to be barred from coming into the UK. Most importantly however is actions against banking system which will make it difficult for Israeli banks to fund settlements and keep their licence in London. Settler goods will be easy to circumvent – who knows where a mango or avocado comes from? – but banking restrictions are crucial.
International support
The government has also found support from a range of other countries including France and Canada. Altogether a significant shift in policy. He also disagreed with the chief Rabbi’s assertion that these additional controls will increase anti-Semitism in the UK. Sir Ephraim Mirvis often speaks as though the Jewish community in the UK are of one voice and that he speaks for them. It has been interesting to see that a number of other Rabbis and Jewish people have been interviewed or written letters saying they do not agree with his view and that there is need of concerted action against settler violence.
One Jewish person writing in the Guardian said:
“A substantial minority of British Jews like myself agree with the British government’s new use of the term ethnic cleansing to describe how armed settlers in the occupied territories evict Palestinians from their land with passive and sometimes active support from Israeli institutions. […] Tolerating settler violence is longstanding Israeli policy which I’ve seen with my own eyes [..]’.
“I saw with dismay the indulgent favour of state forces towards these most renegade settlers how regional police (settlers themselves) laugh contemptuously at villager’s complaints and when then called upon for protection, the Israeli army arrived slowly or not at all and did nothing.” (12 September)
Film
The film NAZA was screened at the Venice Film Festival last week and is a documentary about the mass slaughter which has taken place in Gaza. NAZA is the acronym for the number of civilians expected to die when an apartment block is bombed. The IDF prefers to kill suspected Hamas terrorists in their homes and that often results in a large number of civilians deaths. The producers hope to win an award.
The UK government’s actions seem to have had an effect in Israel. Reactions from the US have yet to emerge and may relate to changing public opinion and declining support for Israel.
UPDATE: Proposal to withdraw Israeli citizenship from the two film makers.
We shall be holding the next vigil on Saturday 19th at 5pm as usual and all are welcome.
We are pleased to attach our minutes and newsletter for September thanks to group members Lesley for compiling them and Fiona and Andrew for their contributions.
Somewhat longer than previously reflecting two months and also because a lot has been happening on the death penalty front. The piece on refugees is interesting because it reflects the fact that the numbers of boat crossings is down. The item on UK rights discusses some dubious legal decisions around Palestine Action cases where protestors have been locked up and some imprisoned for terrorism offences whereas masked protestors in Dover and Portsmouth haven’t.
There are some details of the Uyghur campaign last month which was extremely successful for us.
Latest in our reports on the human rights situation in the UK
September 2026
For some months we have been reporting on the progress of rights in the UK particularly as successive governments have passed more and more legislation to try and reduce their effect. Only in the past few days have we seen groups of people, dressed in black with balaclavas or face coverings, massing by the docks in Portsmouth and Dover yet no arrests were made. This contrasts with the hundreds of arrests made of people – without face masks or behaving in a threatening manner – who have been arrested on terrorist charges. They were promoting the cause of Palestinians which was embarrassing for the government in view, until this week, of its support for the Israeli government.
Family life
This right, protected by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, helps safeguard our relationships and family connections. However the Immigration and Asylum Bill, passed in the Commons and now in the committee stage, seeks to narrow how people’s family life is recognised in immigration and asylum cases, wanting to limit it to a “core cohabiting family”. Other family relationships would have to demonstrate dependency beyond normal emotional ties. Factors such as financial dependence, emotional support, or concern for a relative living in a country affected by war would not individually be enough to establish dependency.
These changes could have serious consequences for people seeking asylum, migrants and their families including those already resident in the UK. They also raise a wider concern for all of us, since human rights protections are universal safeguards. They do not become conditional when issues are complex or politically contested.
Privacy
The government is reportedly again seeking access to highly encrypted personal data belonging to British users of Apple, having backed down last year in the face of political pressure from the US. Liberty and Privacy International are challenging the government’s power to use secretive ‘technical capability notices’ (TCNs) to unlock encrypted data of individuals.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) has confirmed it will hear Liberty, Privacy International and two individuals’ challenge to the legality of the Home Secretary’s decision to use her powers to secretly force Apple to allegedly give the UK Government access to users’ secured data stored on iCloud. The challenge will also cover the legality of the Government issuing these types of notices at all.
Palantir
On the subject of privacy and the security of our information, there is growing concern at the inroads another American company. Palantir, is making into our political and social life. They have contracts with the NHS, the military and the police and the concerns are about how safe is the data they are collecting.
There will be an International Day of Action on October 1st and locally, will take place between 12:00 and 14:00 in Southampton at Frobisher House which is right by the station. Participants will include NHS workers and patients, in protest against the wide ranging contracts Palantir has succeeded in obtaining in the health services as well as the military. The resistance is planned across the Americas, Europe and Britain. The software company is connected to Trumps’s discredited ICE and to Israeli surveillance and aggression in Gaza and is considered an unsafe repository for UK citizens data and government information. (See June report.)
It is part of a general increase in concern about more and more American companies controlling nearly all aspects of our social life with almost no controls over their activities.
Privacy and racial bias
The tragic case of the Cambridge professor Jason Arday, whose suicide followed prolonged harassment by the press and fellow academics about his academic credentials, is being cited as evidence that black public figures are subject to greater scrutiny than their white peers. An enquiry is being called for.
As we have mentioned above, a convergence last weekend (3rd, 4th) of 400 far right anti-immigration protesters in balaclavas in Dover followed the next day by 200 in Portsmouth, who gridlocked roads, used violence against police officers and threats against volunteers of the RNLI who had just escorted a boat full of immigrants arriving in uncontrolled crossings. It has raised questions about police unpreparedness for organised protest, about the level of anti-immigrant violence but also about the wearing of face masks.
The controversial Crime and Policing Bill of 2026 criminalises the act of wearing or otherwise using an item (for instance a face covering) that conceals a person’s identity when in an area that the police have designated. “A ‘designation’ can only be made in relation to an area when the police reasonably believe that a protest may or is taking place in that area, the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences.”
Charities such as Amnesty and Liberty have previously argued that the measure in the Crime and Policing Bill would prejudice those who need to mask for justifiable health, religious or political safety reasons while engaging in peaceful protest. Masking in order to conceal criminal identity is clearly a different motive but it is possible that these deliberately intimidating demonstrations may make it harder for police to apply discrimination in cases of peaceful and legitimate masked protesters.
Responding to the road block and disruption at the Port of Dover by the group ‘Patriot Platform‘, Kerry Moscogiuri, CEO at Amnesty International UK said:
“The images from the port of Dover today are truly shocking. We are seeing a sickening increase in racist violence, threats and intimidation targeting communities and stopping families going about their day to day lives. The overwhelming majority of us detest violence and racism, and we need to see political leaders show clear moral leadership, challenge racist narratives and stand firmly alongside those who are being targeted.”
Today (10th) a group of men assembled outside a hotel in Southampton (Cosham) having seen a coach arrive thinking (it is thought) they were asylum seekers. They were in fact members of the Pakistan cricket team. The tone of the reporting was that there was no problem and the police made no arrests. But it demonstrated that rumours spread by social media led to an assembly of mostly men at least one of whom entered the hotel. What if they had been asylum seekers … ? [Source: BBC]
Authoritarianism
Whether the recent and very welcome reset of the Labour government’s attitude to Israel’s illegal settlements will have any mitigating effect on the thousands of protesters awaiting trial on terrorism charges remains to be seen.
The determination of a terrorist connection has been made recently and solely in Palestine Action cases where for instance Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protesters were simply charged with criminal damage. The Counter-Terrorism Act, extended in 2021, allows a judge alone to decide the nature of the sentence with no consideration by the jury during the trial. Even Rajiv Menon KC, the defence barrister of one of the Filton Four, was charged with contempt of court for reminding the jury that they had the right to acquit on conscience, making him the first defence attorney in Britain to be prosecuted over statements in a closing speech.
Amnesty’s Human Rights in the Collective (August Snapshot) looks at the inconsistency of charges of a ‘terrorism connection’ in several instances of protest where damage to property has occurred. It concludes that it is not hard to relate the UK government’s prosecution of Palestine Action (July 2025) to personal pressure from Trump on Starmer following the damage done by protesters spraying ‘Gaza is not for sale’ across his Scottish golf course (March 2025). The group is now designated as global terrorists by the US Government.
Refugees and asylum seekers still consuming political capital
September 2026
With the return of Parliament this month, the Immigration and Asylum Bill is back in action. The Bill has passed its second reading and is now in committee stage. The most contentious parts are the refusal of family reunions, the extended time frame for residence, and the modern slavery definitions. An August meeting of the Regulatory Policy Committee of the House considered the Home Office’s impact assessment to be “not fit for purpose”, and Article 8 on modern slavery to be “inadequate”.
Boat crossings
On the small boats front, numbers remain down (102 vessels between June and August, the lowest since 2019, but they are now much bigger boats, taking up to 230 people. Whereas in 2018, 7 was the average load, it is now 65). In 2026, 17,000 migrants have crossed the Channel so far. The backlog of pending cases continues to fall, down to 40,000, the lowest since June 2019, but the grant rate is falling as well, down to 38% acceptances (it had been up to 77%).
With the resultant increase in appeals, the 24-week target for hearing appeals may be hard to achieve. Concern has been widely expressed that the new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will be free to use non-qualified legal staff to adjudicate the appeals.
40,000 migrants were returned in the year to June, three quarters of them were “voluntary”, mainly to Albania, Brazil, India and Poland. The fine weather over the summer did not materially affect the numbers of crossings, which remain lower than recent years. Other factors include more collaborative action with the French authorities, and seizure of 1100 boats, according to the National Crime Agency.
Migrants and asylum seekers who are already here continue to be the focus of interest. By the end of June only 16,021 claimants were in hotels, but the 69,000 were in other temporary accommodation.
Beyond the statistics, public attitudes in the UK may not be reflected in the mainstream media. A recent YouGov poll indicated that 75% of the public would distinguish between migrants and refugees and 59% thought that too much attention was paid to how migrants came rather than why. Nevertheless, another poll revealed that 40% believed that more small boats were arriving this year than last, and only 22% (correctly) believing there were fewer.
Immigrants and crime
The OECD has observed that there has been little evidence of change in crime figures despite the amount of immigration. In the UK, convictions among non-UK citizens come out at about 12%, the same level as for the adult UK population. Higher levels of lawbreaking were observed among Afghans (sexual offences) and Albanians (drugs) but not substantially. The Government’s advisory guide for asylum seekers on British culture has not had any significant effect thus far. A feature of recent unrest at Portsmouth and Dover has been claims of high crime rates by immigrants.
Across Europe a similar trend is noticeable. Despite the furore in Ceuta, numbers in the first quarter were down by 46% on 2025, but there were more deaths than previously. Member countries of the EU nevertheless continue to be much engaged on the issue. The European Parliament in June approved an overhaul of migration policy, expressly to speed up deportations. EU interior ministers from 22 countries agreed to take “any necessary measures to safeguard public order and address risks arising from secondary movements” (by which they mean migrants moving on from their first country of arrival). The Schengen Agreement has already been suspended in certain places (notably in the spat between liberal Spain and hard-line Italy).
The other big issue for the EU is the search for “hubs” outside the Union for removal of rejected migrants. Five EU countries have agreed to sign deals. Rwanda and Uganda are said to be compliant, but the question remains as to who has the responsibility for such deportees. The European Court of Human Rights is expected to adjudicate against the governments; the Council of Europe has already observed that the changes in policy pose “considerable human rights risks.”
Climate
Finally, with ongoing climate change and a possible exceptional El Niño, there has been much discussion of “climate mobility”. The UN Refugee Convention has nothing on the topic, and there is no legal category of “climate refugee”, but the International Court of Justice has given advisory opinion recognising the issue.
