I have been proud to witness, as an Englishman overseas, the marches and protests of many thousands of people in the UK calling for the war on the Palestinians to stop. Individual protest is a basic right, and when people come together in numbers it has power.
Whether or not that power extends to influencing other countries remains doubtful, especially as Israel continues to do what it wants. The peaceful mechanism to alter their behavior, if one exists, is via the United Nations, but Israel wonât be swayed and they wonât be bound by what the UN says.
As for the UK government, it shamefully abstained on a humanitarian pause, proposed by Malta. At that point it seemed weak to me. In a grown up democracy the leaders should be quite capable of legitimately criticizing the current Israeli government, without getting anywhere near to being anti-Semitic. But good sense seems in short supply.
Not a lot else for me to say on this small part of the overall issue, other than what Iâve already said - Labour is the opposition party of just one of the many, many countries who come together at the UN. If Israel wonât listen to the UN, the Labour debate seems a little parochial.
Israel has been condemned so many times by the UN, and often so hypocritically, that I donât think it is a relevant forum for influencing Israeli decisions. I believe the UK is far better off working directly with Israel, and indirectly through allies - the US in particular. Another General Assembly vote doesnât matter a great deal, expressions of real concern to the Biden Administration might.
I think the billions in annual aid from America is the only thing that will influence them. And if that is ring fenced and untouchable, and if usual norms donât apply as conditions of aid e.g. donât use the dough to commit genocide, then it is difficult to see anything stopping Israel.
Iâd like to think we live in a world where America can be reasoned with, and the likes of the UK could have a word in Bidenâs ear and encourage him to expect better behavior from Israel, but that sounds a bit like a bygone age, and the UK doesnât have the clout now.
Itâs maddening how these stories are framed. I used to work in disability for years and overwhelmingly people with disabilities want to work. They donât want to be on benefits. Nobody does.
The problem is huge swathes of work - especially meaningful work that people want to do - is inaccessible. Work needs to change for disabled people to participate, and that is often where the barrier exists.
But the tone of these Government statements always implies that people are going to be dragged off benefits kicking and screaming, and they have to step up and do their bit, like youâd say to a child who doesnât want to do their chores.
Maybe this is because the work Government has in mind is the kind of crushing, menial, work that nobody else whatâs to do? Or maybe the culture of handouts and taking something for nothing is so ingrained in the Tory party, they canât understand any other way?
The standard line is that if you give people benefits they will only spend it on âbig TVs and boozeâ. This is part of the thinking behind food banks. Itâs an incredibly inefficient was of providing support to the poor. There is already a much more efficient, privately run network for distributing food: supermarkets.
I was reading an article a while ago by Rory Stewart (former Conservative MP) who has a lot of experience working with overseas aid and development. The one thing he constantly says is that the best aid they can give people is cash, because they will spend it wisely, efficiently and actually get what they need rather than what western politicians think the want.
Why doesnât that advice work domestically. Why do MPs think the feckless poor will spend all their money on TVs, drinks and drugs. Well, itâs because thatâs what MPs would do. Many have bought TVs on expenses, all have access to a subsidised bar and, by all accounts, the toilets in Westminster resemble a sherbet factory.
Just learned something I didnât know.
When someone on benefits dies and the relatives start making funeral arrangements, ÂŁ2005 is paid to funeral directors from the benefits agency if the claim is made.
