IDF Opens Criminal Investigation Into Murder Of Hind Rajab

Welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, the IDF has opened the criminal investigation into the murder of 5-year-old Hindraab, her family, and 15 other Palestinians in Gaza in 2025. Ed Milliband is talking tough on Westbank settlements, and an ITV investigation has uncovered a UAE mercenary operating in the UK. I'm Helena, aka Justice MTG, and tonight I'm delighted to be joined by Barry Malone. How you doing today, Barry? >> Hi. How are you? Um, hello from County La Ireland where I'm having a bit of a relaxing couple of weeks. >> For more than 2 and 1/2 years, Israel has denied that its troops were anywhere near the Talhawa neighborhood of Gaza City when perhaps the most well-known and heartbreaking killing of the genocide took place. The horrific murder of 5-year-old Hindraab and six of her relatives. Now, Israel has admitted what the entire world already knew. It did, in fact, fire on a car h was traveling in with her family. The Israeli military also said in a statement that it had opened a criminal investigation. It's worth pausing to remind ourselves just how awful this atrocity was. In January 2024, Hind and members of her family packed into her uncle's Kia car after the Israeli army ordered Palestinians out of their neighborhood. As the car navigated the streets, it was hit by a barrage of 300 bullets. Hint was then trapped in the car, surrounded by the dead bodies of her family members, and was able to speak to Palestine Red Crescent Society workers on a mobile phone as they desperately tried to get help to her. Here's a reminder of some of that conversation from Middle East Eye. A warning, it's very distressing. It's telephone. Sara dear. Theychech. for Yes. >> Hint later died of her injuries after a Red Cross ambulance on its way to rescue her was also bombed by Israel. Now, as we know, Israel's investigations into itself tend to go nowhere. And Hinn's grandmother, Hin Hammad Rajab, told Alazer this. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. forch. Barry, the murder of Hindra Rajab is probably the most wellknown of the Israel genocide in Gaza. Why do you think Israel is admitting this now? Uh, and is there any chance there'll be any justice in this case? >> I feel like I'll ne never, no matter how many times I listen to it, be able to cope with it. And I know that millions of people around the world who heard it also feel that way. And I just want to say that Hindraab is the child who many of us know the intimate details of her murder. We've seen photographs of her and we've heard her voice pleading for help, which breaks everybody's hearts. But, you know, she's representative, I think, of 20,000 children who have been killed by Israel during the genocide. I mean, think about that for a second. Look at that girl. Look at that precious girl. Listen to that precious girl. and then try to even imagine that 20,000 children were also killed. I agree with uh her grandmother. I think her grandmother is absolutely spot on. Um Israel investigating itself is a joke. It's always been a joke. And we know that because we've seen time and time and time again over the years that when Israel investigates itself, guess what? It exonerates itself. Um, I think there's a there's an interesting clue today into how seriously it intends to take this investigation, which is we've seen that they agreed today to also investigate the uh the Rafa par paramedic massacre, which I'm sure people will remember because it was horrific in its kind of blatant deliberation and and and blatant premeditation. That was when um 15 medical workers, I think there was UN there, there was Red Cresant there. Um there was some other organizations represented, they uh attacked the clearly marked ambulances that they were traveling in. They killed the entire team of 15 paramedics and some of those people were shot dead, were shot in the head deliberately. I remember there was there was one man because I know mobile phone footage was part of the way that um it was proven that this was a deliberate massacre. And I remember that there was one of the paramedics was on his phone and he was uh uh praying. He was doing the shahada and he was sending a message to his mother and I remember he was sort of saying forgive me mother forgive me for for being a paramedic essentially and he was saying I only chose this path to help others and but asking his mother for forgiveness that he had become a paramedic and that was how his life uh had ended and then he was later found in the mass grave with a bullet in his head. That's what happened. It was a deliberate massacre. Now, they said that they're going to investigate that one, too. But, interestingly, they've rejected calls to investigate some uh other incidents, including I think by the way, they call these incidents operationally complex or, you know, something like that. There's some really like like cleansing word for it, some really um sort of jargony word that they use for these massacres that they agree to investigate. But the the attack on the world central kitchen aid workers which I think a lot of people will remember. I think there were seven aid workers who were killed again. They were hit in a strike in clearly marked vehicles you know marked as aid vehicles marked with world central kitchen logos. And on top of that the world central kitchen was constantly sharing its coordinates with the IDF. constantly uh in in contact with the IDF to let the IDF know where it was and where it intended to go. Now, they've said that they're not going to investigate that and they've blamed effectively that coordination. They've said it this was a problem with the coordination with the world uh central kitchen as if to say, well, yeah, we messed up because they messed up the coordination. They weren't coordinating with us. And then the World Central Kitchen has come out today and said, that's utter nonsense. We gave them uh coordinates All along we were in contact with them all through the day. Now if you look at the specifics of the statement in which they say that they're going to investigate the Hindra Jab killing and the killing of her six um uh family members. They say that the issue was again the coordination. So they're pinpointing the coordination with the Palestinian Red Cresant who as you said in the intro the ambulance went to rescue Hindab and was bombed on the way. They've admitted that yes, their soldiers were responsible for the more than 300 bullets that hit that car, but they've also said that this typical thing that the Israeli army says that the soldiers thought that the car posed a threat, right? They always come up with this one. Um, so it sounds to me like what they're actually going to investigate, especially because Hindraab died of her injuries after the attack on the car. I think what they intend to investigate is probably the coordination with the ambulance and the fact that the ambulance was bombed. But, you know, in a way also it's academic because because they probably won't find any wrongdoing. And just before you come back on the why, I think that for Israel, there's a feeling that this is moving into a different phase. Not quite coming to an end, but moving into a slightly different phase. And I do think they may be although you know I think they've proven that they are in a way completely immune to international law but I do think they may be trying to see off potential ICC prosecutions because there's a concept called um uh complimentarity um which means that because the ICC is a court of last resort the concept of complimentarity means that if a government is seen to have investigated a potential war crime in good faith itself, then the ICC will not get involved. So, I think that might be the play here because I'll tell you this and you know this and our viewers know this, Israel doesn't care at all about killing Palestinian children. >> Yeah, I really don't believe when they claim that it was a problem of the coordinates of the emergency vehicles or the uh the charitable vehicles in these cases. We know full well that Israel can do pinpoint strikes on individual apartments in Beirut. We know what happens when Israel cares about what they're targeting to target the right place. I don't buy given all the technology that Israel prides themselves on. They can't notice world central kitchen vehicles when they see them. On a kind of a more broader question here, you said that we're kind of moving into a different phase. I think that's right. Of course, there's still the kind of the sham of the ceasefire when we're still seeing air strikes happening, people, civilians being killed in Gaza. There was a couple that have happened in the last few days, in the last few weeks as well. And that's on top of National Security Minister Itar Beng essentially coming out and saying that Israel should be just killing Palestinians essentially without rhyme or reason, just as a show of force. So that alongside a potential investigation into something that again has a lot of international attention, there seems to be a discordancy there. >> Yeah. I mean, and you know, as usual, Benavir was uh dismissed by several uh Israeli supporters or Israel supporters as um an extremist, a crank despite the fact that he's a he's a government minister. But yeah, I I think that I mean, look, the ceasefire is a nonsense. It's a quote unquote ceasefire. There has never been a ceasefire. They've been violating that ceasefire since day one and they continue to violate that ceasefire. And they are doing so with complete impunity. And it's crazy to me because actually I wrote about this recently for Middle East. So I have the quote one of the quotes from the ceasefire agreement in my head which is that it said that all military operations including aerial bombardment or including aerial and artillery bombardments and targeting operations will be suspended. That's what it said in the deal. Israel has continued to attack Gaza on an almost daily basis claiming that it's targeting Hamas operatives. Who did Israel sign the peace deal with? it signed it with Hamas. I mean, this is completely absurd. And yet, the Western media and Western governments are acting like it's fine for them to target Hamas even though they've signed a ceasefire with Hamas. And if you look at the amount of people who've been killed in October, I think the latest figure is it's about 1,275. Um the vast majority of those people according to estimates are civilians, a lot of them women and again a lot of them children. I mean there was an incident in Gaza I think two weeks ago where they attacked a family home. The father I remember was called Philas Feras al-Masterie. His wife was called Salabil. and they had four children, three daughters and a son. There was a direct targeted strike on their home which killed all of them. That's four children, a mother and a father. Israel claimed as usual without providing evidence that it was targeting a Hamas operative. So, you know, we can conclude that Israel is saying that Faras Mastery was was in Hamas. Um, if for sort of illustrative purposes, let's assume for Assad Mastery was in Hamas. Again, the ceasefire was signed with Hamas. And I think a key thing here is that shows that Israel was willing to kill four children and their mother in order to target this man for Assam Mastery. Again, coming back to my point that Israel does not care a jot about killing Palestinian children. And that's how we know that the investigation into Hind Rajab's death is not an investigation because of morality, not an investigation because they want the Israeli army to be held to higher standards. It's, as you say, it's an investigation because this is, you know, the most famous atrocity of the genocide. And I think because they're they're trying to ensure that they've that they've done this this this investigation because of the the uh complimentarity um um concept. But um you know on on on where this is going, they're continuing to kill people every day. They're continuing to violate the the uh uh nonsense ceasefire that doesn't um exist. And also they've recently rejected phase two of the ceasefire which was put forward by Trump a couple of weeks ago and then Netanyahu came out and said that they were going to reject it until Hamas disarms. Now Hamas has already agreed to disarm. But according to phase two of the ceasefire, Hamas was supposed to disarm at the same time that Israel was going to withdraw from Gaza from the 70% of Gaza that it now occupies. But the Israelis seem to have attached a new condition which is that Hamas has to disarm before they will withdraw. So the Israelis are moving the goalposts here. And then on top of all that, we had Jared Kushner visit Israel uh I guess it was earlier this week or last week and say we will not start rebuilding Gaza until Hamas uh disarms. And then there was this extraordinary thing where I think Jared Kushner had some a meeting with um Hamas officials. Um I I imagine it was I don't I don't know how that how that happened. Sorry. But he had a meeting with Hamas officials and he came out of it. He said, "Look, they said all the right things, but it's just so hard to trust a gang of terrorists who carried out um the October 7th attack." You know what? That is pure and utter nonsense. How is it harder to trust Hamas than it is to trust the Israeli government? How is it harder to trust Hamas, which has killed, I think, four soldiers since October, than the Israeli government, which has killed 1,275 people, mostly civilians, including a large number of children. How is it harder to trust Hamas than an Israeli government that has been found to lie and lie and lie and lie again? Hamas is actually a much more a much more trustworthy actor than Israel. And so all of this, all of this rhetoric, the rejection of phase 2, the the moving of the goalpost that Hamas disarm before the withdrawal happens, it shows me that they're not serious about the ceasefire. And it shows me that they're intending to continue the genocide, to continue the ethnic cleansing, and to continue to push Palestinians further and further and further into a small strip of coastline in Gaza. >> Now, Israel's E1 settlement plan has been decades in the making. a sprawling land area designated to build over 3,000 illegal homes between the long-standing legal settlement of Maliadum and occupied East Jerusalem. The settlement, if completed, would not only hem in the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem, giving even more freedom for further actions against the Palestinian population there, such as the evictions of families in Sheek Jara. It would also prevent the formation of a contiguous Palestinian state, both in extricating the capital of Alkuds from the rest of the West Bank and dividing the south of the West Bank from the north. Now, these plans have been in limbo for the last 30 years, with every government pledging to see them through to completion and suggesting preparations for initiating construction. But up until now, they've fallen short of putting the plans in motion under international pressure from the United States and the EU and other countries. But since Israel started the genocide in Gaza, Western threats to respond to Zionist expansion both in the West Bank and in Gaza have proven empty, meaning Netanyahu knows he can push as far as he wants. Emboldened by the total impunity afforded to Israel by the West, the Israeli government opened up the tender process for the first 1,000 homes to be built in E1, a Rubicon that no previous prime minister of Israel had previously crossed. It's also a potential Hail Mary for Netanyahu's governing coalition who are currently trailing in the opinion polls ahead of elections in November. Up until now, the UK foreign office had taken all their cues from Washington. But with a change in personnel has come a change in tone towards Israel, and UK foreign secretary Ed Milliband has at last taken at least some initiative ahead of other states in response. A Milliband made this statement on the settlement plans. This Israeli government's publication of a tender for the E1 settlement project is an unacceptable and destructive act. E1 would cut across the heart of Palestine and risks separating the West Bank from East Jerusalem, which would endanger the viability of a two-state solution. The UK has been clear privately and publicly in our opposition to E1 and our support for a two-state solution is the only way to ensure long-term security and peace for both Palestinians and Israelis. All settlements damage that prospect and are a flagrant breach of international law. Today I made clear to the Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sarah that the Israeli government must halt E1 plans immediately, retract the tender and stop all settlement expansion. Miliband then went on to detail the government's response should the settlement plan go ahead. Britain will not stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution. In the coming weeks, we will set out a comprehensive set of measures to respond to Israeli government policies, protect the viability of a Palestinian state, target sanctions at those who participate in legal settlement expansion, and support a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians. Now, what is interesting here is two things. First of all, they are opening the gates with potential actions that are going to be taken. They talk about strong actions that might potentially be taken. Now, whilst I'm not counting my chickens, that is at least further than has been before. When previously things like E1 were discussed, when David Lammy, for example, was foreign secretary, it was just they should stop, please stop, strongly worded letter. This is actually something towards an actual threat to engage in real material actions which have been quite frankly long forthcoming given the fact that these expansion of settlements, illegal settlements has been happening for decades and decades and decades. E1 isn't a new thing. is connecting two existing settlements that are illegal already with each other and we should have been engaging in some levels of sanctions before now. The problem comes in what do those sanctions look like and is an empty threat. Plenty of empty threats have come towards the Israeli government previously. For example, you look at Joe Biden threatening to withhold support should they invade Rafa. They had invaded Rafa and then he still bypassed Congress to give them more support for example in the United States. So given we don't really have much of a track record and understanding of Biban's position, this would now be a time for him to showcase his metal and actually go ahead. The issue of course comes with only sanctioning some people who support settlement. Well, the whole of Israel supports settlement. The government supports settlement, right? There have to be much larger scale sanctions than what are being suggested here if it's actually going to material affect what's happening in Israel. We shouldn't be trading with the actual settlements themselves at all. But in terms of a broader sanctions package, we should be looking at the entire country and forcing the government's hand because they are all of people who support this project. And indeed, every prime minister up until now from when they were proposed by Yidsacre in the '90s, they've all backed E1 to varying degrees. So the idea that only sanctioning certain pro-settlement politicians or the settlements themselves, that's not far enough in my opinion. Now, Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sar did not hold back in his response to admittaband. I reject outright the statement of the UK foreign secretary and the patronizing tone of his words. The Jewish people have a right to live throughout the land of Israel just as the British have the right to live in London and throughout the United Kingdom. More than a century ago, the Balffor Declaration formally recognized the historic right of the Jewish people to reestablish their national home in the land of Israel, including in the area in question. The government's decision to damage the relationship between our countries is deeply unfortunate. But Israel will not be a passive victim of this policy. Israel will defend its rights, its interests, and its people. Now, you don't actually have any rights to engage in illegal settlements. In fact, you you don't have any right at all. In fact, you're you're engaging in illegality, you know, international crimes by engaging in the settlement plan. When it comes to the discussion of the right of people to live in Israel, even if you want to take the Balffor declaration as read, obviously I don't as an anti-ionist, right? But if you want to take the Balffor declaration as read, it never said anything about the entirety of what the pro-Zionists would call Judea in Samaria. said a Jewish state. It also was explicit in not violating the civil rights of the people who already lived in Palestine at the time under the British mandate. And in on top of this on top of this, the idea that somehow that that means that you can just evict people from the lands because there are still bedwins who live in the current E1 area is nonsensical. And they're already in trying to gain much further much further incursions into Gaza to be able to gain more territory there. The idea that somehow we should accept even further incursions to the West Bank is nonsense to me. Barry, what did you make of the tit for tat there between Melaband and Sar? >> I think it's interesting that to hear Gideon Sar calling somebody else patronizing. Wow, he's got some neck doing that. Um, but no, I think you you know, you're you're right. You you you nailed it when you said that this has uh been something of a taboo before, but it's something that everybody has wanted to do and in Israel. And I think that it's so instructive when you say that, you know, Netanyahu knows that there's an election coming up and that they're behind in the polls and this is a sort of a hail Mary to get support. that really sort of underlines the the problematic extreme politics of the majority of Israeli society that the majority of people in Israel would support that do support settlement expansion but support settlement expansion even into the even into the E1 area. It just says so much about where Israeli politics is right now. And I think that Netanyahu is trying to rush this through because this is his moment as well. this is his moment to achieve everything that he's ever wanted to achieve as a politician. Um we've seen that with Iran. You know, we had um president after president after president in the US not, you know, a bow to Netany Netanyahu's kind of desire to go to war with Iran until Trump came along and he managed to push Trump into it. And and and look where Trump is now. It's it's it's the worst mistake he's probably made across his two terms. and he is now, I believe, at his lowest approval rating certainly that he's had this term. And if you look at, you know, if you look at the answers to other polling questions that Americans were asked in that latest poll, it showed that Iran was actually the driver of his drop in popularity. So Netanyahu has pushed Trump into a disaster in Iran. I think he knows that he has an open door to violate international law right now. And so it's like all the taboos are falling away. it can get away with anything because there's utter impunity to do whatever Israel wants. And um but you know the Milliban response is interesting to me. I um it's definitely a change in tone. I mean it's a very it's a very clear change in tone to what we had under the Smer government um or under Iet Cooper or um or David Lammy. I want to say that I do not trust this government. I do not trust this Labor cabinet. I think everything needs to be a wait and see. So when you see these tough words, it's like as you say, well, okay, but let's see something actually happen. Does this signal something that something that might happen? Does this signal an actual possible material change in UK policy towards Israel in general? Um, I do think it's interesting that he summoned a diplomat. I mean, that is a a big move usually. I think that's usually seen as quite an aggressive step in diplomacy to to summon a senior diplomat um to talk about an issue. Um, and you know, they said that that they have done that publicly and I I do think that is um is um is significant. I do want to say one thing on speaking out about the about the West Bank though. I think it's easier for politicians to speak out. You know, politicians in countries like Britain who are allies of Israel who have spent the last almost 3 years backing Israelis genocide materially and diplomatically running cover for a genocide carried out by another country. I think it's easier for them to criticize things that happen in the West Bank than it is things that happen in Gaza. Because in the West Bank, you can always blame the settlers, right? You can always say that settlers need to be sanctioned. We condemn settlement. And in that way, you can sort of distance the Israeli government from what's happening. You know, you can paint the settlers as extremists or you can paint the settlers as rogue, you know, and you can ignore the fact that the Israeli government has sort of given taceta approval to settlers over the years to to undertake, as you say, their their illegal acts acts, their illegal settlements of Palestinian land. And so I do think that's that's a it's an easier place for a government to go and it's a much harder place for them to go to criticize what's happening in Gaza because if you criticize what's happening in Gaza, you're directly criticizing the Israeli military and you offer them no wiggle room unlike the wiggle room that they get when the conversation is focused on the West Bank. So I do think that's interesting when you look at sort of the fact that labor also engaged in some damage control right with um with Burnham's statement that he was sorry for Gaza although again if you look into what he was actually sorry for he seemed to be sorry for two things he seemed to be sorry that Stammer when he was leader of the of the opposition essentially uh supported a war crime said it was okay to keep water and and and electricity out of Gaza and he seemed to say that the the UK should have called for a ceasefire sooner. That's it, by the way. That's it. I know that the headlines say that he said sorry for Gaza and news bulletins keep saying, "Well, Andy Burnham said sorry for Gaza." He didn't say sorry for Gaza. He said sorry for two specific things that happened early on. So, you know, when you look at that and then you look at Milliban speaking tough on the West Bank, is it real? Is it posturing? Is it a way to be quote unquote tough on Israel without actually touching Gaza? But I do want to say also that it is the summertime and Burnham has only been in in in he's not only been prime minister for a month. Feels like a lot longer. I think it's about exactly a month actually. So Burnham has been in for a month. It's the summer. Things are kind of quiet. I would like to see what happens around uh conference season with where Milibar goes and where Labor goes with uh is Israeli policy. So, an interesting indication that there might be a change in stance from the British government, but wait and see is my take. >> My favorite part of Gideon Zar's statement there was trying to compare like British citizens living within the territory of the nation state of Great Britain with people living in Israel, like the the entity in in Palestine. And I'm like, okay, well, if you believe that people have the right to live in Israel, where's your borders? Where's your borders, Gideon? because obviously they won't tell you because they can't call it the armistice line because they believe they have the right to jude and Samaria. But they also can't call it the the Jordan River because that would then assume that all the people within that area are also then Israeli citizens too. They actually don't have a real set of borders here which is one of the funny reasons why they say they can't be a Palestinian state that they're trying to nick with this particular plan here. When it comes to Bernham and Milliban though I I think I agree with your statement there. What is interesting is that Ed Milliban is like the first European leader to be this kind of heavy-handed in terms of a response to E1. We might see I think the French have also been potentially looking at the same kind of things. I'll be interested to see how it develops in terms of other EU European states and how they respond to this because again it's international pressure that stopped them expanding E1 before now. So that is encouraging. What's also interesting is that it seems like Andy Bernham's just not been involved in much of this decision-m. Do you feel like that he is spending much more time delegating out these kinds of roles to foreign policy and uh other kind of things? For example, the home secretary, Chuman Mahmood, he's got autonomy there. Does this show that he's really just kind of letting people do their jobs in ministerial posts and just focusing on domestic issues himself? >> I think when he came in, a lot of people theorized that. think, you know, even before he became prime minister, people were saying or predicting that this is what he would be like because he's always come across as a politician who is is is very focused on domestic issues, right? And um even when you look back on his foreign policy record, he's always just gone with the flow on foreign policy. You know, he's never had different ideas on foreign policy. He's never spoken with any passion about foreign policy. It's always he's always just done what's like politically expedient on foreign policy, right? So, if it's if it's good for him politically to support the war in Iraq, then he would support the war in Iraq. See, also Afghanistan, um, etc. And I know that when he was running for the Labor Party leadership, he said that he didn't regret voting for the Iraq war. I remember that. I think I think I think Miliband said he did regret voting for the war at that time. You can correct me, Helena, with your encyclopedic brain, but then in 2024, um, uh, Burnham said he in fact did regret voting for the Iraq war. So, I've always felt like he on foreign policy, he just kind of goes with the flow. He's not a man who's shown any real, as I say, creativity or passion or or interest in it. Um, but like I do think that it's completely impossible to to step away from foreign policy and like basically secund your foreign your your foreign secretary to make all the decisions. Especially because, you know, probably the only time I agreed with Kirst is when just before he left office, it was put to him that Andy Burnham was somebody who would mainly focus on domestic issues and perhaps want to separate out domestic issues and foreign policy. And Sam said in my view rightly that it's impossible to do that that you can't do that. I mean because you know because foreign policy directly impacts things that happen in the UK and we've seen that I think most clearly with the straight of horses right of course the straight of horses directly affects the UK economy and therefore it directly affects the money in people's pockets and therefore it directly affects the thing that Burnham should be focusing on and it's been good to see he's started his his his uh term in office focusing on which is the cost of living also So Ukraine, you know, when the Ukraine war broke out, it immediately impacted economies all around the world. It pushed food prices up. It had other economic impacts. So you can say that Ukraine is not related to domestic issues. Of course it is. Um so so yeah, but look, if Miliband is a more proactive foreign secretary than say Ivet Cooper or David Lammy was, is that good thing? Is that a bad thing? Does it mean that there will be a more creative perhaps more forthright foreign policy than if Burnham was very engaged given what I said which is that Burnham seems to be seems to be always quite conservative uh about his foreign policy and Miban seems to be sort of a more creative player who has shown in the past a strong interest um in foreign policy. I think it's interesting to look at some of the media reports around foreign office staff as well um foreign office because I mean during the you know all throughout the genocide we have seen foreign office staff speaking to the media to express their disqu about British policy when it comes to Gaza and we've seen resignations right there's been a couple of people who resigned from the foreign office over um over Gaza policy um and so I Wonder if with Miband they have a foreign secretary those people who they can work with to come up with a more robust policy towards Israel and a more humanitarian policy towards the Palestinian people. But again I hate to keep saying it remains to be seen but I think it remains to be seen. What is interesting with Ed Milliband as an individual is that one of the my biggest criticism, it drives me absolutely mad when you look at governments in this country is that they refuse to take a line that in any way diverts from the line that DC is going with that's coming out of Washington. And Ed Miller Band has a history of being able to diverge from that in so far as I think it was John Kerry reported a few years back now that it was only Ed Miller band whipping Labour MPs to vote against strikes in Syria which then lost the vote for David Cameron in parliament David Cameron in parliament that then made Obama decide not to intervene in the end. The embarrassment of being undermined by an ally because the the government couldn't win a vote in the commons was enough to stop US intervention in this case. So Miller Band has previously got track record in not being entirely tied to what's coming out of the state department. Uh one group in Labor who don't like this idea though are Labour Friends of Israel. They say a boycott of all trade with settlements is practically and politically impossible and risks becoming a de facto boycott of all of Israel. Israel votes on the 27th of October with opposition ahead in the polls. A ban will help the Israeli right and harm the center and the left's push for international diplomacy. The Israel and Palestine economies are interlin with the West Bank economy already fragile. A ban could be catastrophic. An extensive Israel and British commercial relationship creates significant legal, economic and practical complications. These may have unintended consequences for farmer, banking, higher education, charities, financial services, and wider Israeli British trade. So, notwithstanding the idea that somehow we just kind of got to accept the idea that we have these interlin economy with a state that's been illegally occupying another for decades and decades and decades. But I will say, might it turn into a deacto boycott of the whole of Israel uh based deal? I'll take it. I'll take it. That seems absolutely fine to me. Uh what did you make of LFI statement there, Barry? >> Was that I I I couldn't quite see because I'm remote, but was that full of emojis? >> It was It was entirely full of emojis. Yeah. By the way, this is this was from earlier in August in response to I believe more discussion around a more uh more kind of strong policy against settlements and a potential boycott. if that was being discussed by people like Andy Bunnon, but it's before the latest announcement from from Ed Meliband for just for clarity. >> Yeah. I wonder if like, you know, do emojis uh represent panic? I don't know the the you know, looking at the tweet, it looks slightly unhinged, right? It looks like the tweet you would see from somebody somebody unhinged and chaotic on Twitter. Um but look, for me, if Labor Friends of Israel are angry, then yes, then that's a good thing. you know, the the the angrier they are, I think that clearly the more um you know, the more moral and humane and politically righteous the British government's policy probably is. You know, I think you can, you know, you can directly measure that the angrier LFI is, then the better uh British government policy is. I mean it it it could be interesting if Miband is a politician who is willing not to bend to LFI. It could be that LFI thinks that it's losing some influence maybe as as as deeply that as it has penetrated the Labor party. Um it does seem to be panicking slightly. Um, I think that, um, yeah, I think it's super interesting what you said about about Trump and, um, how Miliband, you know, essentially might have been personally responsible for that lack of intervention in Syria over the the red line and the chemical weapons. That's a hell of a thing to have on the CV. I mean what a sort of a consequential thing to have done for geopolitics and something that is clearly still remembered in Washington. I also do find it interesting that you know the US administration made it pretty clear that it didn't want Miband um as foreign secretary. So Bernham was able to take a decision that he knew would rile Trump and would rile the current leadership of the uh state department and he made that anyway. Um he has said although always this remains to be seen because always people talk big on Trump before they come into office. He did say he was willing to stand against Trump. He did say he was willing to disagree with Trump. And what's interesting to me here is, you know, we we've we've already had disquire from the US about Milliband and now here's Miband and the government putting out a statement that we know will rile the Americans further. So it's like we've appointed a foreign secretary whose appointment immediately annoys the Americans and then they've done something that will immediately annoy the Americans a month in. And so, you know, given that British foreign policy, and by the way, I'm not saying that this is is is has sign has significantly changed or is likely to significantly change, but how British foreign policy has always been or has been for a very long time linked to US foreign policy and very rarely does the British government deviate from that shadowing essentially of US foreign policy. Um, if this government is trying to get a little bit of wiggle room and if Ed Milliband is the kind of person who actually believes in something, could it be could it be that Ed Milliband actually believes in something? You know, because that's the other thing that we've seen with this Labor government famously with Star, but also I think with other members of the government, like they're rabid flipfloppers and also Burnham has been a rabid flip-flopper in his career. So I think you know we've talked about about this on the show at Nauseium and it's definitely one of my bug bears where you get these career politicians which Burnham also is who um who who who who don't seem to believe in anything beyond power? Like what was Stalmer the prime minister for? Why did he want to be prime minister? Like still you know a month after he's left I have no idea what that man wanted to do as prime minister or why he wanted that job. I actually believe I'm going off on a tangent here, but I actually believe that politics has become just a profession for them, you know. So, if they were in finance, they would do everything that they need to do to climb the slippery pole to the top. Um, you know, if they were in law, the same, you know, whatever industry, journalism, they would, you know, stab their colleagues in the back to become editor-inchief. I think that's how a lot of these politicians are these days. is I think it's just this is my job and I'm going to go to the top and I'm going to do anything that I can to go to the top and principles forget them. Anyway, that's the end of my tangent. But it's the question I'm asking is could Miland actually believe in something? If we have a foreign secretary who believes in something and we have a government that's willing to stand up to the United States a little bit more, then that could be a clue that we may see some changes on uh on policy towards Israel. But please, you know, to the listeners and viewers, don't think that I'm a true believer in this. I'm watching and waiting. >> Yeah. I think the big issue there comes down to the fact that the big thing that Andy Berner believes in is like being the cost of living prime minister, right? And you can't claim to be the cost of living prime minister whilst helping facilitate America's actions in Iran by use of our military bases, which is directly impacting the cost of living. seeing that I think it was news this week that inflation's already gone up higher than expected because of the fallout because of the closure of the straightforward moves. So like that's all one big mess and we have yet to see the governments change their position from what they previously had. Do you want to go to one of your comments here? So thank you first of all Amber for the two for the $2. And Mincy with the two pound asks uh why does the UN council call it the state of Palestine? So the state of Palestine is a observer non-member state if I remember correctly. I believe that's the reason why that they are called the state of Palestine. They're an observer non-member state. So I mean they are indeed recognized by some countries but not others. Thankfully they are now recognized by the UK at the very least. An extraordinary investigation by Rohit Katru, the global security editor for ICV News today revealed a plot funded by the United Arab Emirates to follow and potentially assassinate a British Iraqi activist in London. The story is perhaps another example of something we've discussed on the show before. The willingness of the UAE, a close UK ally, to make things difficult for the British government. The ITV story which drew on witness testimony, emails, text messages, and confidential Emirati records show that a team of mercenaries for hire ran a surveillance operational on an Alteriti, chief executive of the Cordoba Foundation, a think tank based in London in 2016. The covert team was led by a man named Abraham Golan, a dual Hungarian Israeli citizen based in the US. Galan was a former French foreign legion soldier who had worked as the head of a merant for the UAE in Yemen, targeting perceived Emirati enemies, including senior politicians for assassination. Galan's team in the UK compiled photographs of Alteriti's house in London, mapped his route to work, and even pinpointed the door he used to enter his office building. Here is Roit Catru showing Alteriti some of the evidence. >> 10 years on, I'm revealing to their target the operation against him. I feel a little bit physically sick. Yeah, it's uh it's uh disorienting, I have to say. >> We're showing Annas Alteriti some of the messages that Goland sent about him during his time in London. >> My local mosque, my activities in terms of where I've attended and spoken. Over WhatsApp, Goland sent a request to a potential researcher for a brief on outcry. He wanted a list of addresses for his home, his office, his mosque, and he offered $100,000. The fee could be a lifecher, he said. >> Clearly, they were following my movements around London. It's quite incredible what kind of emotions it's it invokes. The motive for the UAE targeting Alteriti appears to be his links to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the Arab world's largest and most influential Islamist organizations. Anis Alteriti's father, Osama Alteriti, had once been head of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which has linked the Brotherhood. Alteriti told it News this I have good relations because my father is my father. I understand the ideology. I studied the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe the Muslim Brotherhood to be a valid ideology for people who are seeking to free themselves from the clutches of oppression. However, I'm a Brit. I grew up in Britain. In my life, I have never done anything wrong whatsoever. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood connection is important. The UAE views the group as an existential threat and has been pushing the British government to prescribe it as a terrorist organization for years, something the government has resisted. Abu Dhabi has of course prescribed the Brotherhood. But in 2014, it released a new list of prescribed groups that raised eyebrows in Whiteall. That's because on the list alongside also was Altercrete Cordova Foundation and two other mainstream groups, Islamic Relief and the Muslim Association of Britain. Again, because the Emirati claimed that they were Muslim Brotherhood linked. ICV also spoke to an anonymous source who they called Victor. Victor, a strategist and researcher, said he had been called by Galan, who he had worked with before and met with him in a former US Navy Seal in a London pub. But Victor got cold feet when he believed he had figured out the operation's ultimate aim. Take a look. >> Golan's follow-up messages became increasingly urgent. He demanded to know personal details. His team was ready, he said. At one point, he suggested Victor should pretend to be an author writing about the Muslim Brotherhood and persuade out to grant him an interview somewhere outdoors. But it was during another meeting when Goland's colleague, the former Navy Seal, was much clearer. The final nail in the coffin was when he said to me, "What would happen if Alteriti was?" and then made a slicing motion across his neck, which suggested that the possible objective of that operation was to assassinate Alteriti. >> Alteriti said police later visited him at his home and informed her that his life was in danger, but refused to give him any details. The UAE has refused to comment on the ITV story and a spokesperson for the Home Office said, quote, "It is our long-standing policy not to comment on security and intelligence matters." Barry, we're going to talk about the wider story of the UAE interference in the UK and elsewhere in a minute. But first, what's your reaction to this story? >> It's insane. It's crazy. I saw it this morning and I couldn't believe it. Although, let me clarify. I can believe that the UAE would try something this outrageous, but when I read the details of it, it was still completely shocking to me. I mean, think about it. It's a foreign government, but that's a really close ally of the UK sending a mercenary group into London to hunt down and potentially assassinate a British citizen. Now, we know that states will, you know, go after dissident around the world or go after critics around the world. We've seen that before. We've seen Russia do it. We've seen Saudi Arabia infamously do it with Jamal Kosoi, who they dismembered with a bone saw in the Saudi embassy in Turkey. Um, but I think what's interesting here is that the UAE has effectively violated the sovereignty of a very key ally in the UK. and the UK and the UAE have a a a close relationship that has been getting closer and closer and actually grew a lot closer over the last decade and was growing closer just before this happened because this uh according to the ITV news report uh happened in 2016. It was 2016 when this uh this mercenary uh um Abraham Golan was was tracking um Anastasi around London. And you know when you look into the detail, you know, they're mapping his route to work. They have photographs of his car. They have photographs of his of his house. They want to know what corner shop he goes to. They want to know what mosque he prays at. They want to know exactly which door because apparently there were several different doors into the office building that he worked in. They wanted to know exactly which one he walked in and out. Now, ITV News have that one source, Victor, who was asked to get involved in the plot as a researcher, a strategist, and then said, "I think they're actually going to kill him." I mean, it's circumstantial, but if they want to know the exact door the man walks into in his office building, if they want to know what shop he goes to, if they wanted Victor to lure him out into the open, I mean, it's hard not to conclude that the ultimate aim here was to assassinate the guy on British soil, which again, I want to say is a violation of UK sovereignty. And what's really interesting is that at the same time this was happening, the UK was courting the UAE because um look, we know that the UAE is important to the UK for financial reasons, right? We have the UAE has billions and billions of pounds in investments in the UK. And then also, I think the UK sees as an important security ally in the Gulf. So the UK I think is often willing to close its eyes to the nefarious activities of the UAE. So again, we're looking at a potential assassination of a British citizen on British soil. And what's also really interesting from the ITV news piece is apparently Britain found out about it. So Anas uh Titi was visited by police who told him twice they visited him who told him that his life was in danger but refused to give him any detail about that. None. He says none whatsoever. Your life is in danger. I think it's they give you an give you an Osman notice when your life is in danger. So they went to him, they said, "Your life's in danger." Effectively, someone's trying to kill you. Here's an Osman notice. Well, who's trying to kill me? Can you give me any more details? No, sorry. It's a national security matter. Can you imagine? Can you imagine police coming to your house and telling you someone's trying to kill you and then refusing to give you any detail whatsoever on who's trying to kill you? Although he probably had quite a good guess, but it shows that the intelligence services knew. It shows that the intelligence services at some point found out about this plot, went and warned him, but then what? continued to develop this close relationship with the UAE. At the same time as he was being tracked around London, um then Prince Charles and Camila to the UAE for a big sort of UK loves the UAE jamberee, you know. So they were hanging out in the UAE at at at Swiss balls while the UAE had a British citizen being being tracked around London. I mean, it's crazy. Now, as we said, this is just the latest example of questionable Emirati dealings in the UK and elsewhere. We discussed the civil war in Sudan and Nova Live last month. In that segment, we covered the fact that the Rapid Support Forces or RSF, the paramilitary group, which has been accused of carrying out genocidal acts during the war, has been using British military equipment, including small arms target systems and engines for armored personnel carriers. And where did it get it from? You guessed it, from the UAE. But according to official data, the government approved more weapons exports to the UAE in the months after the UN Security Council received information about British arms being in RSF hands. And our government has been well very quiet about all of this. Another intriguing situation involving the UAE is its relations with hardright figures such as Tommy Robinson and Naja Farage. Robinson has developed some very keen interest in politics involving the UAE, weighing in on things that never really seemed to bother him before. Here's a bizarre Twitter post from September last year. A new report by the United Nations has shed light on a troubling reality. Turkishmade weapons are fueling the conflict in Sudan and South Sudan despite an international arms embargo in place since 2018. The findings presented to the UN Security Council in July highlight a pattern of weak export oversight, diversion of arms and resulting destabilization of one of Africa's most fragile regions. Beyond small arms, the use of Turkish drones, particularly by Ratkar, TB2, and Akinci models alongside electronic warfare systems has been reported in the Sudin conflict. These advanced weapon systems have shaped the battlefield, worsening the humanitarian crisis, displacing thousands and deepening instability in the region. Erdogan has been nothing but a sly dog, yet still rubs noses with European leaders. Does that sound like Tommy Robinson to you? Well, this next one's even weirder. In Yemen's fractured landscape, true unity starts with southern Yemen's cohesion from Hajrammut to al- Mahra as a cornerstone for regional peace. Yet, the Parliament's recent statement exposes its flaws. Largely inactive with members abroad and no real oversight, it lacked democratic legitimacy to issue warnings politicized by Muslim Brotherhood Isla agendas. It targets local actors while weaponizing unity for factional gain, ignoring civilian cries for salaries, services, and security. Worse, it sidesteps the Houthy menace. Backed by Iran, failing to condemn their sieges and attacks. Southern unity isn't division. It's the path to stability. Countering extremism and fostering genuine peace. Barry, what's going on here? How extensively is the UAE interfering in British politics? Why is the government so quiet? And why is Tommy Robinson talking about Al Makra? >> Sorry, I'm still laughing at those tweets. They're completely bizarre. Just pi like just picture Tommy Robinson sitting down in Yemen's fractured landscape. In Yemen's fractured landscape. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's absolutely bizarre. And it couldn't be clearer that he didn't write those tweets. And you know, oh my god, could they try and hide it just a touch? Just a little, guys. Can you not be so obvious? But Tommy Robinson is clearly part of what's actually a very extensive UAE sort of influence operation across social media and you know where the UAE is effectively contracting non-iratis to talk about its foreign policy goals or to paint its foreign policy activities in a positive light and there's also a huge network of Emirati influencers on Tik Tok, on YouTube, on Twitter, um, who speak in English, you know, that's so key. So, you have people from the UAE, young people from the UAE who are influencers who talk about Emirati politics in English. Who's that aimed at? We know who that's aimed at. It's not aimed at It's not aimed at Emiratis. And so they are very they're very across, you know, maintaining or controlling how they're perceived. Um, and you know, we can't prove it, but those posts from Tommy Robinson do look very, very odd. We've also seen the UAE cozying up to Nigel Farage. You know, I remember a few years ago Farage had called um the UAE sort of a um like a like an autocratic uh royal dictatorship or something. He he'd come out with a with a statement about the UAE essentially. Uh yeah, essentially calling it sort of an authoritative dictatorship. And now he talks about his great friends in the UAE and travels to the UA UAE, which by the way, Robinson has also traveled to the UAE several times. And there was one meeting recently where Farage went to meet politicians in the Emirates and it was almost like they were treating him like a prime minister and waiting, right? It's like when you know when you know that a government is about to change and representatives of that party go to meet an an ally like we see that happening, right? we've seen where if the Labor government is coming in, Chris Dammer will go and have a meeting with, you know, the America the State Department or something because they're getting their they're getting their their ducks in a row, right? And it felt like that with um with Farage and one of the trips that he did to the Emirates recently. And it's very obvious what the Emiratis are trying to do. Again, when you look at the Muslim Brotherhood and you look at um the fact that they um sanctioned all of those organizations who they believe or sorry, prescribed all of those British organizations who they believe are related to the Muslim Brotherhood, which by the way is not a terrorist organization. And if the UK thankfully has resisted so far was to prescribe the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, it would be absurd and it would be something that they had done completely at the behest of the Emiratis. But you can see where the kind of the intersection with Robinson and and Farage comes in because Robinson and Farage can their anti- their Islamophobia can be weaponized by the Emiratis for the Emiratis to you know to succeed with their policy goals in the UK. So, for example, there was a nonsense story that the Telegraph and other people picked up on that British university students were being radicalized by the Muslim Brotherhood in university on university campuses. And the UE UAE absurdly said that Emirati students couldn't come to the UK anymore because they would be radicalized by the Muslim Brotherhood, offering no proof, of course. I mean the whole thing was utter nonsense but it was you know mana from heaven for the telegraph and the times and whoever else wanted to push that agenda. So again, just being weaponized by the Emirates. And then, you know, you look at uh other intersections with British policy, which again, Sudan, like we talked about it on the show um last month. And again, like you like you said in the intro there, British weaponry has been found to have been in the hands of the RSF, a paramilitary group in Sudan that has committed genocidal acts. Nathaniel Raymond, a Yale researcher, appeared before a parliamentary committee recently and said bluntly that the UK had not intervened in the in what we knew was going to be a slaughter in the town of El Faser as it was surrounded by the RSF militia. It was surrounded by the militia for 18 months. Everybody knew that that if they get in, they if they got in that they would commit genocide acts. So in effect you can argue that there was 18 months there to call off the UAE which is key to backing the RSF and the UK sells weapons to the UAE which then go to the RSF. I mean you can see the problem and the UAE and the UK has never spoken out about the UAE. Sorry. What this all goes to show is that when it comes to the United Arab Emirates, it seems like there is nothing too nefarious that they can do that would make the UK government speak out. They can try to assassinate a British citizen in London. They can use British weapons weapons to perpetrate genocidal acts in Sudan. And yet the British government stays silent. More than that, the British government is what's called the penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council. What that effectively means is when there's you know a big issue or emergency that the security council is dealing with on an ongoing basis, one country takes the responsibility to sort of administratively handle that situation which also involves like drafting resolutions, calling meetings, holding meetings, chairing meetings. So with the UK being the pen holder for Sudan on the security council that Yale researcher Nathaniel Raymond said it actually puts the UK in in quite a uniquely influential position on the Sudan war on the security council. But couple that with the close relationship and you can see that the UK does have levers but it's sit back and let that massacre in Alaser happen. Anyway, the other thing that I do want to say is that the UAE is currently involved in an imperial project. You know, the UAE is involved in a colonial project in the Horn of Africa across the Sahel. You know, it's backing the RSF in Sudan. And we always call the war in Sudan a civil war, which yes, it is on the surface, but the more I see about the UAE involvement in this war, the more I actually think it's probably more accurate to call it a war between Sudan and the UAE. I mean, you know, this is not like some kind of a light proxy war. You know, experts say that if the UAE was to withdraw its strength from the RS, to withdraw it support from the RSF, the RSF could be defeated within a month. So, I'm increasingly seeing this as an actual war between the the Amiradis and the Sudin. The Ethiopian government propped up by um by UAE support, a government that has also committed genocidal acts in a civil war, accused of committing genocidal acts in a civil war. They're propping up um Muhammad Debbie in Chad, another uh questionable leader. And I think that what's happened in Africa actually is it's the biggest geopolitical change in terms of influence in African countries that we've seen since China came in and started to eat the West's lunch a little bit in its in its relations with Africa. So I just want to put sort of an overarching point on that which is that I feel like the UAE is one of the most nefarious actors on the world stage at the moment diplomatically and militarily. it slips under the radar. And I think this is another example of the British government staying close and staying quiet to a rogue state in the same way as it does with Israel. I mean, the UAE's actions in the world are getting so extreme. They're not at the Israeli level, but conceptually, you know, it's another rogue state that the British government will allow to do anything as long as it can maintain its relationship with it. want to pick up on that kind of comparison with Israel there. Like you're talking about the links between Islamophobes in the UK and the UAE in terms of their terms of like sharing support and things like that. Of course, there was a statement made by somebody Hasbro minister in Israel talking about how well Europeans don't care about anti-semitism, but they do care about Islamophobia. So, they're pushing Islamophobia. Israel are in terms of European politics. They're essentially trying to sew societal discord to move Europe closer towards Israel. And of course that's very similar to the kind of tactics that the UAE are doing there as well in trying to evoke kind of a moral panic about the Muslim Brotherhood to try and get support for the UAE as well for loads of different reasons too. And Israel and the UAE are now linked by the Abraham Accords. They actually have a really kind of cordial relationship now and we're seeing broader destabilization in countries across not just north of Africa and the Horn of Africa but also in the Gulf as well too. So in that Tommy Robinson tweet he mentions two governors of Yemen which is Hajbut and al- Makra. And those two places were places that were coveted by the UAE in terms of supporting the STC who were a third paramilitary organization in the Yemen civil war there to be able to bog down the Saudi efforts to try and deal with the Houthies, try and turn it into a more of a kind of a a more long-term conflict to make sure that the Saudis didn't spend time trying to gain influence in the region. influence in the whole of Africa who is again one of the other parties that are involved here in trying to maintain that that kind of level of regional power broker right and that is propaganda that's being spread it it seems to be I I can't confirm that or quash that but it seems to be the case if we're seeing these kind of tweets coming out from Tommy Robinson in the interests of what is essentially a fight for UAE and Israeli domination over that region. >> Yeah, absolutely. You nailed it. And um you know the the Yemen story is most often portrayed I mean partly rightly as a power struggle between um Iran and the Saudis, but the UAE is all over it too. And the UAE has been all over it for a long time. and UAE Saudi competition has played out in Yemen significantly and continues to play out in Yemen significantly, which is probably why they allegedly maybe wanted Tommy Robinson to send that weirdly detailed tweet about Yemen. But of course, the competition for influence in Yemen is as is intimately related to the competition for influence in the Horn, right? because they're, you know, they're all very sort of close geographically and and the key point is the ports. The key point is the Red Sea ports. You know, competition for Red Sea port access has just exploded in recent years, exploded. And I think it's only going to become more and more fierce. I mean, when we look at what the UA is doing in Sudan in supporting the RSF, I mean, there are several reasons why they're supporting the RSF. I mean, gold is a huge one. You know, they're already taking gold out of Sudan. You mean like they're not waiting for the RSF to get into power. They're already pulling all the go the gold out. I mean, there was actually um essentially an RSF heist on a gold mine, you know, at at some point in the early days of the war where they Yeah. they essentially launched a heist on a gold mine controlled by the government. Stole about hund00 million worth of gold. And it's well reported where that gold went. It went out on planes to the UAE. So, so the UAE is involved effectively in stealing gold from Sudan. So, there's that. There's agriculture, but there's also the the big prize, the big glittering jewel, which is which is uh access to Port Sudan. And so, I think that the port question is going to become a massive thing. And you know, when you look at your point about Israel and and the UAE being in lock step in this again colonial project to gain influence over the Horn, over Yemen, over the Red Sea. Also look at Somaliand you know Somaliand this you know breakaway region of Somalia that Somalia doesn't recognize as as an independent state. In fact nobody recognized as an independent state for a very very long time despite the fact that it has effectively been functioning as an independent state and functional quite successfully as an independent state. um you know we we're you know a mostly functioning democracy since it broke away from Somalia also and no country in the world had officially recognized Somali land until very recently when Israel did. So Israel has recognized Somaliand but also the UAE is intimately involved in Somaliand and is building uh very deep financial links with Somaliand and has access to Somaliand's port. So yes, it's it's it's a it's a fight for regional dominance. I think it's only going to get more intense. The UAE is in lock step with Israel, which I would contend are both rogue states and they're both rogue states who the UK government seems in seems intent on letting get away with anything as long as they stay cozy to the UK. >> And ultimately, I think that the way in which they're gathering their power is through destabilization. Like the one of the main kind of tenets of current nation states in Africa is that no one countenances any kind of border changes given the history of conflicts in the region. Right? That's been the reason the biggest reason why Somaland has never been recognized. It fits all the Monte Vido um stipulations for a new state. But no one wants to change the borders of Africa because of what happens if you unleash that can of worms. We see dstabilization in Yemen. We see it in Sudan. We see Egypt. They're not doing anything particularly strong at the moment. That's not a particularly stable country. Now we've seen destabilization in Syria, destabilization in Lebanon. It's all happening around so that all every all the other countries are having no time be able to gain a foothold whilst the UAE and the Israel with Western money and Western support continue to gain power and prominence. And that has been incredibly uh it's a very going to be very uh unstable region of the world even more so than it has been up until now. Now thank you very much Barry for joining me tonight. >> Thanks Elena. >> Absolute pleasure as always and thank you everyone at home for tuning in too. Come back tomorrow for another live stream from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Novara Media. Good night.