Israel FURIOUS Over New UK Sanctions on Illegal Settlements

Good evening. Welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, a very exciting day in parliament as foreign secretary Ed Milliban has announced new economic sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. I'll be talking about the government's new toughest stance to former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and Amnesty Internationals Tom Gua. And finally, billionaire Chris Rockos makes headlines as he plans to leave for Greece. But is the UK tax system really to blame? I'm joined tonight by Ben Seca KMBBa. Quite an exciting day in parliament either. I mean there'll be a lot of discussion about whether it went far enough um that kind of thing. But what was your what was your overall impression of like the the mood there from Milliband? >> The rhetoric's changed and I know that's not the same as substance. We'll get into that later obviously, but it's it's interesting to see the different uh pathway that this government might be taking in response to the kind of mass exodus of of Labor voters over over earlier in the year. in response to that. I mean that would be the the thing to politically respond to, but I also might mean personally from Med Milliband, I had the sense of actually, you know, a genuine some some meaning for him behind behind the actions taken today. But anyway, we'll get into that in a second. You you can decide for yourselves what you thought of it all. If you'd like to support our work, you can sign up at navardia.com/support. You can also listen to the show on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And please like this video, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and don't forget, as always, to let us know what you think in the comments. In a much anticipated announcement in the House of Commons, British Foreign Secretary Ed Milliband has announced a new range of economic measures against Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and he began by framing it in terms of long-standing British policy. I am proud of my Jewishness and unwavering in my support for the state of Israel, and there is absolutely no contradiction between this and my support for the state of Palestine. Indeed, quite the opposite. The two-state solution is based on an explicit belief that the only route to security for both peoples is to live side by side in peaceful coexistence with freedom, security, and self-determination. Securing the two-state solution in its fullest form is the northstar of this government's policy and indeed of successive British governments over decades. And it is precisely this belief in the rights and freedoms of the Israeli and Palestinian people that leads many, including me, to a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. >> In Gaza, the most unimaginable trauma and suffering in the last three years, death, destruction, and dehumanization on an appalling scale. A stain on the conscience of the world and of this country, too. And in the West Bank, the clear attempt to, in the words of Israeli Finance Minister Smottich, and I quote, bury the idea of a Palestinian state. >> Now, the framing there was the the the two-state solution, which there's a lot to say about, and not least of all some irony of the British government insisting on that program for many, many years while only coming to recognize one of the states involved in that solution uh in 2025. But it's that recognition and the legal demands it makes that appears to be driving today's developments. Miliban went on to lay out the situation on the ground in Palestine. >> At the time of the Oslo peace accords in 1993, around 270,000 settlers lived in the occupied Palestinian territories. Today it is some 770,000. More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli government than in the previous 20 years. Let us spell out what this has meant for Palestinian communities. Houses bulldozed, roads and public infrastructure destroyed, families displaced from their homes, community by community, family by family, person by person. Madame Deputy Speaker, 65 Palestinian communities completely expelled since 2023. A total of over 4,000 Palestinians evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions. And in August, the crossing of a long-standing red line, the issuing of E1 tenders for over,200 homes. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I visited a community in the area covered by E1 in 2014. The Bedawin communities I met in Caral Lamar >> had lived on that land for generations. E1 proposals would evict them and place settlements directly between East Jerusalem and the West Bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine. >> Let's be absolutely clear what this means. The creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable. >> Milliband also announced a very late but very necessary change to the British government's position on Israel's occupation. Now for a long time the British government has rightly said settlements are illegal but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful. Today I announce that the official view of the British government is that the occupation is unlawful >> because because of Israel's entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements. Madame Deputy Speaker, our position is not just an overdue statement of reality. The government believes the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the occupied territories. Miband then went into some of the details of what that would mean. >> I do not believe the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets. So, I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories. >> To do so, we will introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime working with my right honorable friend, the business secretary, with appropriate religious exemptions. And as part of this regime, we will go further. We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. >> So to those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this, you will face the full force of UK sanctions. >> So the sanctions apply to the settlements. But, you know, you might think that if you recognize that Palestine is being occupied and you recognize it's a state that's being occupied and you recognize the state that's behind the occupation, you might also target that. But think again. The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and value trade with Green Line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel. For this reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the boycott, divestment, sanctions, or BDS campaign. >> There going to be changes in the UK, too, with certain events set to be outlawed. In June this year, there were 14 arrests after demonstrators protested the presence of the Great Israeli Real Estate Fair taking place in a North London synagogue over allegations it was advertising land in the occupied territories. At the time, organizers and supporters of the fair denied that that was the case. It was later confirmed that pamphlets from the event did feature projects in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That didn't stop the fair from continuing to advertise them though, even after their business was reported to the police. Milliband, however, has today banned the advertising of illegal settlements in the UK. So, that should spell an end to those kinds of events. He also extended Britain's current arms export ban on weapons that could be used in Gaza to include weapons that could give material support to the occupation, saying it would remain in place until the occupation comes to an end. Of course, many have had doubts about the seriousness of that ban, but the focus today was on the occupied territories, and Miban also had something to say about Gaza. Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory. But, Madame Deputy Speaker, that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children. 20,000 children. The vast majority of the population is now dis displaced. Nearly 2 million people who are now penned into just onethird of the territory. Life-saving humanitarian aid and access has been routinely blocked. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Over 60% of homes are in ruins. Madam Deputy Speaker, international humanitarian law imposes clear rules for states fighting wars, including to ensure access to food and medical supplies, to avoid mass displacement of civilians, and to avoid the targeting of civilians. Serious and international violations of this law if proven amount to war crimes. What has occurred, including the actions of the IDF, have been examined in depth by a number of organizations, including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry. The conclusions of these reports represent increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, >> and we support legal processes to determine this. On the question of genocide, the UK has always supported full, robust, and fair judicial processes to consider allegations with final determinations made by competent courts before the British government reaches a conclusion. This has been the case for all of the genocides since the 1948 genocide convention, Shreitsa, Cambodia, and acts against the Yazidi people. That will remain our policy. It is right. This issue has been brought before the ICJ. And I want to and I want to make it clear that we support the court in coming to its determination. >> Britain's new sanctions regime against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the settlements was coordinated with two other countries. France and Canada have today also announced a raft of economic measures against Israeli settlements. A further nine countries including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden have also today said they intend to introduce their own sanctions. They join Spain and Ireland who already have. I'm joined now by Daniel Levy, an analyst and former adviser to the Israeli government. Um, I wonder if we could start with your just your overall impressions of today today's sanctions announcements. >> Look, my overall impression is we've gotten to a point where some of the things, far from everything, but some of the things that we have called for the UK government to do are now on the agenda, are now being acted on. You take that win. And I think the signal it sends to the people who have been mobilized, to anyone who has engaged and been active politically, anyone who's gone on a protest on a march is this can impact the politics. This can impact the policy. Now we keep going because what we saw today, of course, it isn't everything and it's not going to change the reality overnight. You don't go from zero to 100. But what you got was not just a ban on settlement goods that will be implemented. You got the financial services sector put in the mix. And that's something that other countries haven't done. When Ireland announced its ban, when others have announced their bans, they didn't include that. And that's where it becomes more consequential and significant. You saw the government more than 2 years. And remember, we had a Labor government for that 2 years, more than 2 years after the International Court of Justice made a ruling that the entirety of Israel's occupation is unlawful and that carries consequences for third party states. You saw the foreign secretary say, "Yes, we endorse that ruling. We make that designation." You saw uh the references to ethnic cleansing. You saw the double lock that he mentioned on arm sales. Now, all of those things will have to be translated into concrete policy and reality, but we now run with that. I think this now gives us something to build on. And those other countries, France, Canada, the other European countries that you mentioned, they swung in behind the ban on settlement goods, but they didn't yet swing in behind the financial services, which is so much more crucial. They didn't yet swing in behind that ICJ designation. So you've also seen here something that looks more like leadership. The Stalmer government never led and so here you have a Labor government that is actually beginning to be responsive to its constituency and we take it from here. >> I completely agree with you about the rhetoric. Um I mean the use of the term settler terrorist ethnic cleansing in the House of Commons from the foreign secretary is something that I wasn't expecting to see anytime soon. Um, I thought what was particularly significant was a change in the government's understanding of what of of the the occupation being itself as a whole unlawful. Um, but I have but that then for me raises a question about why the sanctions didn't go a little further. Right? We recognize Palestine as a state. We recognize that it's an occupied state. We recognize the occupation is unlawful. And although we haven't said it, we surely know that it's Israel's occupation. So why not sanction Israel as the occupying state of the occupation that you've just recognized as unlawful? >> Yes. And of course that distinction doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There is no settler economy. The settlements are Israel. It's the extension. And that's even if you draw your line at 67 rather than at 48 and the Nappa and the expulsion. So yes, absolutely it doesn't hold. Question is what are you going to do? because no country has done that. You do not have a recognized Palestinian national movement calling for that. You know, part of the story when we say this is insufficient. Yes, part of it is you're not fully adhering to your international legal obligations. Better though that you adhere to some of them than none of them. But the other part of the story is you do not actually have a Palestinian equivalent of the ANC calling for that. You have division on that side. Yes, you have civil society. You have the BDS movement. There was unnecessary gratuitous line about that which we could have done without. You do have that civil society movement, but you don't yet have whether it's in the call for equality in one state or whether it's in the call for a more comprehensive recognition that the violating party here is Israel. So that's where the sanction should be implied. And so what do you do in those circumstances? You say, okay, where is the argument being won? Where can we begin to apply something that has been called for for decades, which is differentiation, which is at least end your complicity in the illegality of the settlements. And if, and this is crucial, if that were to be stealed, watertight, if you were to actually say, "We will not have relations with any Israeli banks providing mortgages, loans, investments, then this begins to get really complicated because the Israeli economy can't do that disentanglement. So that's where this gives you a lot to work with. It's not there yet. It's not been implemented, but it gives you a lot to work with. And it what it does is it chips away at the thing which has most sustained endless decades of crimes against the Palestinians, which is impunity. So if we're now on this journey towards accountability, towards a different costbenefit equation, towards a different incentive structure, then Israel is no longer being able to say we can do this and get away with it. that requires the kinds of measures announced today to be implemented, to be doubled down on, to be carried out to their maximum. And what I would call for is okay, let's do a national audit of every way in which any UK institution, governmental corporation registered in this country is in any way involved with anything to do with Israel's unlawful occupation. Let's have that audit and then let's go after those things methodically. you've got a lot to work with today. >> I think that's right. And and I mean I take I take your point that um you know you've got to you've got to win the wins you can you can win. Um and you shouldn't be you know sacrificing the good for for the sake of the perfect. Like we live in the world of of of practice and material reality and you've got to work within the frameworks that that you can work in. But I want to I wanted to show you something from a Bloomberg article this morning. Perhaps you've seen it already and and see see what you make make of this. So So they wrote this. British diplomats have privately told the US that the sanctions are largely symbolic and will have no material impact on the UK's wider relationship with Israel on trade or security in a bid to soothe the Trump administration's response. People familiar with the matter said now obviously that's a classic you know uh sort of on on on background quote that somebody has has given them and they and they've they've run with it but people will be worried about that. What what do you what do you say to that? We're going to be bombarded with information, misinformation, partially accurate information. My sense is that if you're sitting in the UK embassy in Washington DC and you have to your job is to deflect make sure that we don't take a hit for this, right? partly because the better this lands in the UK, if the government turns around and sees that it can manage the fallout and that this is a political win, then all of us who want to see it go further are in a better position. So, if you're sitting in the British Embassy in Washington DC, and I don't know if this is what's happening, I'm speculating here. That's an anonymous unattributable quote. But what you say is, "Guys, why would you react now? You've seen that this is going to take time to implement it. If we end up implementing in ways that you find problematic, we can talk about it then. But hold your fire and this may help you that we're doing those things because you agree with us that you want to see less uh aggression in the West Bank. The one thing that they maybe agree on, you don't want to see this this settler violence. It didn't just focus on that. Of course, uh what the UK did. So I would be uh assuming that those are the kinds of instructions that would make sense or that's the initiative that that folks dealing with the American fallout have taken for themselves. But I I I do want to acknowledge that what we are seeing today is that the UK is no longer playing catchup and following. France recognized. So the UK recognized largely a symbolic meaningless gesture anyway. This is the UK going out ahead of others. So if the position here is to say having done that, we're still going to focus on what's missing rather than what's there, I'd say it's the wrong day for it. And and and I also think that we saw a foreign secretary in parliament today saying things, owning this in a way that many of us have waited for for a long time. In fact, those parliamentarians who have campaigned on this for a long time for the response from many of them was finally I got to see this state and it's not enough but I think he Ed Milliban the foreign secretary deserves credit for what he did and yes there were lines in that speech that I wouldn't have written. >> I mean I I sat here watching it live on TV and I you know I'll admit I I I felt a sense of history in in in the making of that statement today. It was I found it very impressive. Of course on analysis you start to look at the lines and you start to think about about the rhetoric. But one thing I think perhaps also >> I ju just if I can jump in I mean just I mean I wonder if you had the same response. I felt that in a way that I never felt on recognition. Not only because recognition lacked kind of teeth in any way but also the way it was delivered it it felt very different. I that was how I I viewed it. >> No of completely. And of course, I think we've seen texts that, you know, that show that Karma was sort of, you know, was sort of forced into it by by by France saying they were going to jump first. Um, but I I agree. I think it felt very very different. And one of the things that I think for me um gave Milliband some sort of moral authority here was the fact that actually within the Labour Party, this will be a really controversial move. Right? There'll be parts of the Labour party that we've seen spring into operation before um who will who will be furious about this and will try to seek ways to thwart it and so on and so forth. What do you think the risks are for Milliban here? I mean, how how is he going to avoid the kind of maneuvers that we've seen in the past? Look, we know because they were largely running the show for the almost two years of uh of of it was two years, wasn't it, of this government. Uh that there are those who wouldn't want to see this at all. Didn't want to see this. Worked really hard to avoid it. Refused to even acknowledge the political reality that this was harming them. It's a bit like in the US where the Democrats are like, "No, Camela Harris wasn't impacted by the whole Gaza thing. Let's just deny it." So we know that those forces exist. We also know that you now have a prime minister who set out his stall and said we didn't do enough. But there are surely those around him who are saying well hopefully now it goes away. We dealt with this now. We've ticked that box. Move on. But we also see that there is a camp that is saying now we have to move on. Now we do the right thing. Now if that camp if those who want to make real make good on today's announcement on the mood that today generated as well if they are going to have a chance at doing so actually we have to have their back actually the the message that has to go out is this is not only good policy it's not only correct visav our commitments under international law vis British leadership va be Britain looking more credible in the world but it's also good politics and that's our job right that's where the actions that got us to this moment that got us to having a Labour leader in number 10 who said yes let's do this that that then gets reinforced because they see that people are saying yes we can be with you don't stop there though don't think we're going to quietly crawl under a rock and shut up cuz we want to see implemented and that's our job. Really, that's our job. >> Daniel Levy, thanks so much for joining me today. >> Pleasure. Good to speak to you. >> It's not yet clear what the economic impact of today's sanctions will be on the settler economy in Palestine, but Middle East has reported on some estimates of the overall value of the economy being targeted. Saying this, a UN conference on trade and development, ANTAD study published in February estimated that settlements in area C of the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem generated 53 billion for the Israeli economy in 2024. ANTAD put the settlement's cumulative economic output over the 24 years from 2000 to 2024 to 832.7 billion, equivalent to more than $1 trillion once the earlier years are adjusted for inflation. A lot of money there. Ed Milliban's also said the sanctions would apply to quote specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real real estate for settlement expansion. Will they apply to British banks though? Middle East reports this. The 2024 don't buy into occupation report found that the UK was one of the most important sources of financing for 58 companies involved in Israel's settlement economy. It found that at least 49.3 billion in loans and underwriting were provided between January 2021 and August 2024. Funding to Israeli settlements in Palestine is also alleged to be channeled through charities. Last month, the charities commission launched an investigation into whether the UK's charity system, including through the use of gift aid, was being used to provide funds to illegal settlements. I'm joined now by Amnesty International UK's Tom Guha. You may have seen him on the show last week. Welcome back. He's been working on how the UK could most effectively apply a trade ban on Israeli settlements. Tom, thanks for coming back on. Uh sanctions on goods and services. We don't know the the detail yet. Um goods are easy, services much more difficult. Where are the pitfalls likely to be? >> Yeah. Um and thank you for having me on again for running this uh this segment. Um and can I actually open just by echoing some of what Daniel Levy said uh in the interview you just did? I mean, this really is a significant shift in both tone and policy from the UK government. I mean, I felt like I was hallucinating watching the British foreign secretary stand up in the House of Commons and say with total clarity that Israel's occupation of Palestine is unlawful and that Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians in areas of the West Bank. uh and not only making those statements but then attaching actions and uh attaching actions that demonstrate a commitment to international law and that attach a cost to Israel's repeated uh violations of Palestinian rights. So this really is to be welcomed without overstating it. Of course there are there are areas where it could go further and we can talk about that if you like. Um listen in terms of uh sort of the implementation what happens now what this means for businesses and charities um like first of all there are a couple of questions uh the the the policy on goods was very straightforward uh any any goods being imported from settlements uh that that must be stopped on services it was a little bit less clear uh the foreign secretary mentioned things like construction uh and marketing uh but didn't lay out uh spec the the the sort of full array of services that the settlements rely on uh in order to exist. So things like security, energy, um logistics, you know, there's there's a massive uh service economy that enables them to to continue existing and so that needs to be uh that needs to be included. But if I was the chief executive of a business uh let's say for example uh like Airbnb or Booking.com who uh currently advertise um holiday less in the settlement. I'd be looking at that now and trying to get ahead of that and removing those those um those adverts to ensure that I don't fall full fall the UK sanctions regime. Um, if I was the chief executive of a supermarket stocking produce that may come from settlements, um, I would be conducting enhanced due diligence um, in investigations to find out the true origin of those products and to make sure that we're no longer stocking them. Um, in short, all businesses and charities uh who may be exposed to these um sanctions need to start properly assessing their sanctions exposure and take the necessary steps to ensure that they don't uh that they're no longer um trading in these goods or services that are enabling an illegal occupation uh and ethnic cleansing and apartheid to continue. >> The economy of the settlements is really big. I think what was it $53 billion in 2024 alone contributed to the Israel is Israel's economy. Um last time you were on we discussed a little bit about in in terms of goods but let's talk about let's stick to goods now like the isolatability of those goods from like is non-sanctioned Israeli goods right so you know would you expect the UK to for example introduce a rule on on on exports from Israel that they have to be they have to label or they have to be open about the fact that for example this olive oil is part partly pressed in an olive grove that's somewhere somewhere somewhere in a settlement. I mean that seems to me that that would be you know without that kind with without something like that otherwise otherwise you don't import it right and I'm sure they won't go that far but it seems like unless unless you have something like that it's not clear how effective these sanctions can be on on on the question of goods >> I would expect the UK government to broadly use the sanctions regime that they've uh implemented against Russia and uh Russian occupied parts uh of Ukraine uh and those sanctions broadly operate by placing the onus on businesses to comply with the sanctions. Uh and often they don't say exactly the steps that the business needs to take. They recommend best practice things like um enhanced due diligence procedures uh contracts uh uh sorry for for companies to sign contracts with their suppliers that uh guarantee the proof of origin and things like that. But ultimately what they do is they place the emphasis on businesses to comply. They lay out the best practice and then the sanctions are backed up by a series of you know by civil and criminal consequences uh which are a very strong incentive for businesses to comply. I mean that's how they've worked in uh uh visav Russia and and Russian occupied Ukraine. Um I mean it's hard to say if a total cut and paste works but I think that template is there and can be used uh to inform how this uh trade prohibition can be uh enacted effectively as well. And it's also important to note that in the last few years the UK has significantly increased both the number and the value of fines on companies that have fallen foul of sanctions on Russia. uh including this year with a1 million pound fine on a company that um that was um that was trading in um in sanctioned goods. Uh and that is a very strong incentive to businesses. So these are the sorts of tools I'd expect them to be using and that I would hope they'd be using if they want this to have real teeth. >> So so it's let's be on British importers uh to to ensure that they're not importing sanctioned goods. And so it could have a knock- on effect onto the Israeli economy if they don't think that they can reliably trust Israel to tell them whether or not something has got ingredients from the settlements there. So, you know, unless unless Israel is quite careful about how it how it labels things, this could become in part de facto sanctions on Israel, right, for for certain goods if if if importers don't feel confident that they're not getting something from from the settlements when they shouldn't be. I think the key is that the UK suppliers need to have total confidence in uh sorry the UK businesses need to have total confidence in the Israeli companies they're dealing with that they're not sourcing from settlements. Um and so two two of the two of the things that the UK government has recommended in other areas are are things like contracts that make it very clear where things are coming from. uh enhanced due diligence uh measures. So conducting proper investigations into the supply and value chain uh and not just taking you know your your business partners' uh word for it but actually doing the investigation yourself. Um there are also things like if you're looking at exports uh there was a recommendation that businesses include a no reexport to Russia clause in contracts if they're dealing with products that are um sanctioned under trade prohibitions with Russia. So, so that there's all this guidance, but ultimately the onus is on the onus is on businesses to comply or face the consequences of not doing so. >> Got it. What about the financial stuff? Because I think that was like really really interesting. I mean, again, I had that quote before. I need to look at look back at it. Uh 49.3 billion in loans and underwriting were provided uh by 58 British companies um between January 2021 and August 2024 to to the settlements. um what are the kinds of things that can be done to make sure that our own banks, financial institutions and so on aren't aren't aren't doing that kind of thing. >> Yeah. And and this is where when I'm talking about services and ensuring it's comprehensive, this is where today's announcement wasn't totally clear. Um we need to ensure that this ban is fully comprehensive and includes all the different services that say UK financial institutions like banks may provide. Um and the other thing is to ensure that the appropriate uh government bodies within government are given real enforcement powers. So organizations like the office for financial sanctions implementation uh ensuring that they're able to properly investigate banks that may be flousing these sanctions um and uh and imposing penalties on them if they find that that is the case. So that's the kind of that's the the kind of thing I'd want the government to do to ensure that this is fully fully enforceable and comprehensive. >> I guess those details will all come out down down the road. I think I think Miban said 6 to9 months in the was the time frame for enacting these this this sanctions regime still at the level of top line. Was there anything that you didn't see today that you would have liked to have seen? >> Uh a few things. And also it has to be said um like Daniel Levy was saying that this is you know this this is massive genuinely this is a huge moment and I share what both of you said when watching the announcement being made that it really did feel like history was being made like the UK was playing a leadership role on this issue for the first time um and uh and we really mustn't downplay that but we also mustn't overstate it and that this really is a first step and it was important that the government recog recognized that this is that this represents a sort of reset in their approach to uh the occupation and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. That's that's really important. Um so what what other sorts of things do we want? I mean I've mentioned already we need to make sure this is fully comprehensive that it includes all services. There was one slightly worrying uh but subtle um thing that Ed Milliban said when he when he referenced services related to settlement expansion. They can't just be related to settlement expansion. This has to be services that enable settlement activity as a whole. Uh in fact by recognizing unlawful occupation the occupation as unlawful. The government is recognizing that all settlements are there illegally. So it's not just about settlement expansion. It's about all settlement activity. Um, there were some slightly worrying loopholes in there as well, which I would flag up. Um, there was a there was a mention of religious exemptions, which I I think could end up being a loophole that could be exploited by uh by exporters. Um, that there was the mention of arms exports as well, which I wasn't expecting and was very positive to see. Um, but how exactly will that be applied? Does that uh also include parts for F-35 fighter jets that have been used to bomb Gaza, raise Gaza to the ground, commit genocide there? Um what about investments as well? That that wasn't mentioned. Um and and and further than that, it's not just about settlement trade, settlement um and investments, but there are also companies that may not be operating in settlements, but that are involved in Israel's crimes. Um, and one of the companies we've been looking at a lot recently is Palanteer, who have been providing software tools to the Israeli military uh, in their operations in Gaza. Uh, and the UK government, if they want to seriously ensure that they're complying with international law and to ensure that they're no longer involved in any of Israel's crimes, should be ending contracts with companies like that that are that are involved in Israel's crimes. You know, just as as Daniel Levy said, like the progress that the Labour Party has made here is, you know, in large part down to the actions of civil society, to organizations such as yourself, but also to people who are protesting, changing how they vote, you know, really, really insisting on action from the government. Um, and I guess when we ask these questions and want to go further, we're also trying to point out the places where more of that activity can continue while we still, you know, reward Ed Milliban for actually having having broken through in a really really important way. Um Tom, thanks very much for for for joining me again. >> Yeah, thank you. >> The reaction to Ed Milliban sanctions announcement has been pretty intense. The biggest diplomatic reaction coming after Miban's announcement today was this. Israel's foreign minister Gideon Sar has ordered the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem. But others got in with their reaction long before Miliban even stood up in parliament. Israel's president is Herzog got in early with both an appeal and an accusation. Later today, we expect to see headlines announcing certain British trade sanctions on Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. If this happens and other nations may join, I believe it will prove to be a grave miscalculation, a decision that will fall on the wrong side of history. In the current context, it would be a gross interference in the democratic elections of a sovereign nation and it will serve no one. It will directly harm unfortunately Palestinians, robbing them of business and employment and ultimately it will undermine the interests and national security of freedom loving nations. Sanctions are not a solution. Dialogue is. I say to all foreign governments, stop. Step away from the dead end of sanctions and boycots and turn towards constructive dialogue and towards cooperation. Other Israeli ministers have called for tit fortat diplomatic moves. National security minister Bengavir said this. It's time for the state of Israel to publicly recognize that the Mulvenas islands are Argentine territory under occupation which the British violently stole from the Argentine people. The British are not content with merely occupying the territory. They also carry out oil drilling there and steal the money from the Argentinian people. I call upon Prime Minister Benet Netanyahu to recognize Argentina's sovereignty over the Malvvenas islands and to impose sanctions on Great Britain as long as the occupation continues. I mean, do your worst. There's also been a strong reaction from the US. The country's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabe, also a Christian Zionist, appeared on Radio 4 this morning. I don't know if they're really aware of the implications and how it's going to affect Brits. For example, 25% of pharmaceuticals that are used in the UK are made in Israel. Are they willing to give those up? It looks like they are. Are they willing also to do great damage to any Brits who are doing business in a number of states in the US? I don't know what all of the national sanctions or repercussions or retaliations will be from the US. hasn't been announced yet, but I do know that there are a number of states, let me mention one, one of the largest US states, Florida, that has a law that if this action is taken, then Brits will not be able to do business with any company or business in Florida. >> You have a big impact. >> You talked about the due hate of the UK government. Were you aware that the British foreign secretary is himself Jewish? >> Yes, I was aware of that. Uh there are some Americans that don't like America very much. They march in the streets and burn our flags doesn't mean that they uh love America just because they live there. >> So would you would you describe them as always a hater of Jews? >> Let me finish. You you go by what people do, not just by what they say or who they're related to. This is an irrational action. That's what I'm saying. I don't understand what it's supposed to achieve. If the UK is really interested in dealing with uh issues they feel like are wrong, where are the sanctions against North Korea, China, Russia? Where are the sanctions against many other nations in the world? >> But that that was an interesting comment, wasn't it, where you accused the government of due hate? Were you aware when you when you typed that out on social media that Ed Milliband is Jewish or did you find that out subsequently? >> No, I I was aware of it. Yes. And it's it did not change my opinion of what is being going on. I feel like that it's a discrimination against uh the Israeli government. It's a discrimin discrimination against the Jewish people and I don't understand the rationale of it. First of all, the US does sanction North Korea and it also sanctions Russia very heavily in fact and while we don't have any economic sanctions on China, we do have an embargo on arm sales to the country. But second of all, that was a senior US diplomat essentially calling Ed Miband a race traitor for criticizing and sanctioning Israel. In fact, he's not even sanctioning Israel. He's sanctioning the settlements of Israel in Palestin Palestinian territories. So what it sounds like Hakabe is saying there is that the measure of Jewishness is having an an allegiance to the expansionist plans of the current Israeli government or any other Israeli government. an allegiance to occupation of Palestinian territory, a political um aspect of Israeli of the Israeli government, an allegiance to violence against Palestinians, something that settlers and the IDF carry out. All of those things which Ed Mibad is objecting to in this package of sanctions um Huckabe is is is saying makes him not Jewish because Jewish people according to Huckabe support all those things. That is a dangerous and stupid anti-semitic statement if I ever heard one. So maybe Israel should expel him. Now there's been a fair amount of reaction from British politicians too. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn raised this question in the House of Commons. Will the foreign sector recognize that the hundreds of thousands of us that have marched and met and support the Palestinian people, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist, have done so out of a motivation to bring about justice and peace for the people of Palestine? >> 12 seconds. >> And will he specifically call for Israel to withdraw in totality from Gaza, not just the 70% they occupy now, but the remaining part that they're bombarding. And if the military sanctions are to mean anything, surely that must include an end to the sharing of surveillance information by the RAF overflying Gaza, the use of RAF accret and the ability that Israel has to manufacture weapons at Elbert Systems factories in this country as well. If we're serious about ending the military occupation, then we have to play a very full part in achieving that. I I do want to see Israel withdraw from Gaza and I want to see Hamas disarm and that is the whole point of the 20point plan and I agree with him on that. I do say that the campaigners on this issue have played an important role in this. Um, and I think the way in which actually young people, people across the country, and it's not just in Britain actually, it's across the world have been mobilized on this issue should tell all of us in this house something about the deep sense of injustice people feel uh about what has unfolded. On his point about intelligence, I want to be careful on this. We we we are not in any sense helping with the occupation. Uh, but we do have important and valued uh intelligence and security relationships with Israel. >> I don't know. I would, you know, I understand we can't know the the um what th what those relations are or you know I could s sort of understand maybe saying well you know we can't reveal uh what we're doing with those flights but I think people find it really hard to believe that those flights are not in some way um assistive of or were assistive of the gen or are assistive of the ongoing genocide but also the hot the hot war part of it were assistive of that and also it's it's you know I've never ever stopped talking about the three British citizens who were killed by, according to Israeli military sources, an Elbit drone in Gaza. Uh, one of whose family is you, from the World Central Kitchen, of course, one of whom family is still asking the government to release the intelligence it had on the day that that happened. Um, and so they're certainly not using uh those flights in the service of of British citizens who who have been killed by the the Israeli military. So, so what are they using them for? I think it was a very good question from from from from Jeremy Corbyn. Now, probably not for the first time in his life, Jeremy Corbyn has appeared on a list issued by the Israeli government today. In another announcement, Israel's foreign minister Gideon Sar said he would ban 12 MPs and other citizens from Israel listing these people. So, you've got Jeremy Corbyn, Zara Sautana for Hardanssari, who's a lawyer, Nash Sha, Dian Abbott, Hannah Spencer, Carla Dena, Shan Berry, Ellie Chs, John McDonald, Richard Bergen, and Adrien Ramsey. four Labor MPs, two your party MPs, a lawyer, and literally every sitting Green MP. The Green Party have said this in response. We will not be bullied into silence by the Israeli government. We are proud of our MPs for standing up for Palestinian rights and demanding an end to British complicity and genocide and illegal occupation. These threats only strengthen our resolve. The British government must stand firm and follow these overdue restrictions with a full arms embargo and wide ranging sanctions. If you ask me, kind of a badge of honor. Vaneka. Um well, let's start with your impressions of of the the announcement today. Um this this package of measures against settlements, the recognition of the occupation as unlawful. Um and uh the the the the also the the recognition of of potential war crimes having taken place in in Gaza and the authority of the ICJ when it makes its ruling on on genocide. >> Yeah, there's been a real tonal shift. You know, this this discussion about Andy Bernham will be karma 2.0. Oh, it'll be K with a northern accent. I think we've seen that. I think his approach is going to be clearly more more sophisticated than that. I don't know how much Andy Bernham has been directly involved in some of this because I always get the impression that international relations is not really his forte. So, I don't know how much um >> that's why you have a foreign secretary, right? >> That Yeah, just outsource it to a foreign secretary. And although at the time I remember being disappointed that Ed Milliban didn't get to become chancellor, we can maybe see the way in which we're getting some dividends in a in a really really important area as as foreign secretary. this this concept that that that there's a moral crime that has happened to me that is that is something very different. I know it's rhetoric. I know it's it's a tonal shift, but there is something very different about the packaging and the understanding broadly speaking of of what's happening here, which does feel really different from what was happening under under K star. you know, I think they're going to end up maybe towing a bit of a line or being quite careful about to what extent they talk about the those crimes because ultimately there are still people sitting in that cabinet, frankly, who will be implicated if we're going to talk about sort of Gaza at large um as as as as a as um as being subject to war crimes, which of course it it it has been. So, I think they're going to still tow this very careful line. Um, and I do think that, you know, although we can look at what we've seen and said, we see lots of shortcomings, we see lots of things that we would like to see, you know, why don't we have a full arms embargo, why are we still supplying them with intelligence? Personally, I'm not convinced by Ed Milliban's answer to to Jeremy Corbyn's very valid question there. Um, in many respects, I regard in some ways the intelligence we give them as potentially the most valuable thing actually that we're assisting with when it comes to particularly what's going on in in Gaza. So there's lots of shortcomings, but at the same time, I think there's something here, particularly when we're thinking about this from a campaigning lens, about understanding the wins and taking in the the small wins along the way. We're not at the end. We're not where we want to be. and thinking about in this kind of interim period where we've had this announcement but we don't have the detail yet and that will be fleshed out over the coming I suppose months as it uh as it goes through parliament is how how can campaigners capitalize on this you know how can those who you know really took a principle stand the hundreds of people have been arrested you know for example for for expressing support for Palestine action um people who voted you know people who who showed the Labour party their middle finger essentially and and and and voted in a different way you know which is essentially what has led in my opinion the number one thing you're never going to hear it from mainstream media but it's the number one thing that has led to the outcome of Andy Bham now being prime minister is actually people deciding to leave the Labour party principally over their position on Gaza how can these groups of people who've worked together in different ways protest protesting at the ballot box etc how do we work together to be able to shape the legislation to be as kind of impactful and and effective as possible push push them as far as I can in terms of understanding the way in which you know services for example um can can be targeted. Services are very complicated of course aren't they? Because they're not rooted in a particular physical place like the service economy is it's a global economy. It's part of a kind of wider capitalist global infrastructure. Um so so I'm I'm interested in in the ways in which I think we can use this slightly a jar door where the tone is different, the rhetoric is different, there's some different policies being put on the table. How do we push that forward? How do we really smash that through to get um to get to that kind of longer endterm result of of Palestinian liberation? >> Yeah, I think that's right. I I was trying to think a little bit more about like the domestic politics involved here going forward. So, and obviously the thing that jumped to mind is the bi-election in in Hoben and St. Pancress that is coming up >> uh early next month probably. Um and Zach Pansky, leader of the Greens has said he wants to stand there um for the Green Party. Um Labour candidate will be selected soon. I mean, I think there's a way in which, you know, this could shift things in ways that potentially make that more difficult for Zach because perhaps, you know, like I think the anxiety amongst Labour members about what's happening in in in Palestine, what's happening in Gaza, what's happening in the West Bank, which has also heated up um over the last year and a bit uh even more um has has just been growing and growing growing. And that there was a question I guess for like Palansky and the Greens in in that in that in in that constituency that they could they could just press press that issue all the time. Now of course it can't be pressed in in quite the same way because as you say there have been there have been some wins there. Some people will I suppose feel satisfied but I guess they can be pressed in in another way in the way that you suggested which is that you say well actually these aren't the this isn't enough and it's not going to have the impact and also it's not going to happen for another six or nine months. So we won't have seen any input. I don't know. What do you think? How do you think this is going to play out in this like very one small election bi-election which is going to be like a kind of microcosm in some way of of of the role that this issue plays and how people vote? >> Yeah. I mean, it's the stuff that Ed Milliban talked about where he was very kind of uh clear on not supporting BDS, for example, which I think BDS is it's such a milk toast in many ways sort of initiative really that speaks to a lot of very you kind of obvious traditions about, you know, wishing to to sanction and and and boycott uh uh uh organizations and companies involved in in in in war crimes. Um I think there's still lots of lots of space there, you know, for for for somebody like Zach Palansky to to be able to kind of move into. Similarly with climate change, right, as well, which is something they're probably going to be even worse on, I think potentially actually this this government. I still think there's going to be lots of scope there um for Zach Palansky to to kind of, you know, move into. And and and again, like some people don't maybe like me saying this because I think lots of people want to think about the Green Party as its own political vehicle in of itself, and it is, but I also think like the Green Party does still exist to push the Labour Party into a better position on things. It's done that remarkably successfully. You can be both things, right? You can be a political vehicle and you can also be perform the more the bigger the political vehicle you become, the more you'll perform that function of pushing as well. >> Yeah. I mean, think about the way Nigel Farage has positioned himself, for example, in politics on on the right flank, you know, for a long time. He had no hard political power, you know, but he still managed to do a lot of levering and and and maneuvering on on the right to get them to engage in things like, you know, Brexit, for example, which changed this this country quite demonstrabably. So I I I agree like they can do both at at the same time and arguably one is kind of precient then of of the other and and and the bigger shift which may be that we have a a green government one day maybe. Um >> and the Green Party can of course claim a lot of what's happened today as a win for them, right? Because they're pressurizing the party in this. >> Yeah, absolutely. And it and it shows that they were they were right much earlier than the Labour Party. Uh Ed Milliband has has conceded several times, you know, we we weren't we didn't get this right. We were too late on this actually. Um, so yeah, >> but I think that is the line actually, the one that you point out when you bring up BDS is that is is because he said he didn't want to do he didn't agree with BDS because it it um, you know, had an economic impact on is on Israel. Um, and that is the line, right? The sanctions have to apply to Israel because Israel is of course the power that drives the settlements that has driven the war in Gaza. They're one and the same. >> Uh, there's no there's no distinction. It's the Yeah. And it just like just say it just feels weirdly ahistorical obviously because I'm assuming people had the same types of debates when we're talking about boycotting South Africa and this might harm black South Africans and there may be a validity a truth to that but I suppose you're you're weighing up the morality of things. One of the things uh I can't remember who said it um it was Herzog wasn't it talking about we need to continue dialogue dialogue has been happening for a very long time now and it's not gone anywhere. So I think there's a justification even if there may be some harm to to citizens economically to say we have to take this to the next level because otherwise nothing is going to change. We have to use that leverage. >> Yeah. Herzog said in that speech that exactly as you said about sanctions with with with South Africa that that um you know it would hurt Palestinians and it's like Palestinians like you know not in the same ways I'm not comparing the cases but like black South Africans and a partate South African are already extremely hurt. sanctions are not really going to make a massive difference to them, whereas they will make a difference to Israeli society as they made a difference to South African society. >> And it's just haunting that he would use Palestinian suffering in that way to continue the status quo. I mean, it's just it's unnervingly evil. >> Israeli newspaper Harets has broken a story that appears to confirm what many have suspected for the last 3 years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only received an explicit warning days before Hamas broke out of Gaza on October 7th, 2023. He also failed to brief the country's security chiefs on the intelligence. In late September 2023, Herets reports that the UAE's president, Shik Muhammad bin Zed, also known as MBZ, was in regular contact with Israel's government over what he saw as an unraveling situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories. But a week and a half before October 7th, bin Zed made a call to Netanyahu to report more than just concerns. Harets reports this. A week and a half before October 7th, 2023, the Emirati ruler called Netanyahu from the presidential palace in Abu Dhabi and spoke with him for 45 minutes. In that conversation, bin Zed warned that Hamas's leader in in Gaza, Yasinir, was planning a major operation against Israel. Bin Zed expressed concern that the event in question would not only lead to bloodshed but also destabilize the entire region and undermine the Abram Accords. Three foreign senior sources are familiar with the contents of the conversation, the existence of which is revealed here for the first time. Goes on to say this. Also present during the call was a close adviser to bin Zed, a Palestinian who had immigrated years ago from Gaza to Abu Dhabi and maintained strong ties in the strip. According to the adviser, the Emirati ruler impressed upon Netanyahu the need to prepare for the threat. The Amir explained that in his assessment, Sinoir was preparing for a major event. The adviser says he told Netanyahu that Israel should be ready. Concurrently, he recommended trying to find an economic solution for the strip and calming the West Bank to prevent escalation. Bin Zed urged Netanyahu to take the situation seriously. To his surprise, however, the prime minister reacted with relative calm. Netanyahu said that in his assessment, Hamas intended to operate in the West Bank area and he reassured bins that Israel was preparing for any scenario. And herets also reports this. The Emirati ruler would later recount the conversation he had with Netanyahu and the warning he also relayed to CIA director William J. Burns. Bin Zayed shared with Burns the sense he tried to convey to Netanyahu that something there is about to explode and told him that the Israeli prime minister believed the volatile area was in fact the West Bank. The Amir hoped that despite his reserved response, Netanyahu would take the message seriously and take action. The adviser says none of them imagined that the prime minister would hear the message but wouldn't brief the heads of the defense establishment. The head of the Shinbet, the head of the Mossad, the Israel Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, none of them knew about bin Zed's warning. Now, those claims come from a new book called Hostages 840 days of abandonment written by Herets's reporters. They say it's based on dozens of sources in Israel and worldwide, including very senior officials. And ahead of Israeli elections in October, it's already making some waves. The heads of the main opposition parties to Netanyahu's Lakood have issued a statement saying this. The shocking revelations this morning demand an immediate and thorough investigation. They add to a growing body of revelations about Netanyahu's failures and dysfunction and once again underscore why Netanyahu is fighting for his political life to prevent the establishment of a state commission of inquiry and to prevent the truth from being brought before the Israeli public. The Israeli public has a right to know. What did Netanyahu know? When did he know it? Why did he fail to inform the security establishment? And why did he fail to act to protect the citizens of Israel? Opposition parties have pledged that if they win the election, they'll open that commission of inquiry into what Netanyahu knew prior to October 7th and why he failed to act. Of course, once October 7th happened, in which 800 Israeli civilians and 400 security personnel were killed, Israel's almost three-yearong reaction continues with over 70,000 Palestinians killed by the country so far. Among them, more than 20,000 children. And that nightmare continues. Israel still controls at least 60% of Gaza with the enclaves roughly 2 million strong population squeezed into an ever shrinking area of destroyed neighborhoods as Israeli forces continue to advance. And while 92% of Gaza's housing stock has been damaged or destroyed, Palestinians still naturally long to return to their homes. That's not easy. With the Financial Times reporting today on the battle many Palestinians are fighting to prove which part of Gaza's ruins they actually own. Israel's assault on the strip has destroyed libraries, archives, and municipal buildings. And of course, when you're fleeing missiles, bombs, bombs, and drones, a state that really just wants to destroy you and wipe you out. You don't necessarily grab your deeds before you go. The paper reports this. Retrieving the missing evidence has become increasingly vital. Is Israeli forces occupy more than half of the land in Gaza, an expanding zone of control. While at the same time, plans are being discussed for militarized enclosures, multinational security bases, and even luxury real estate. Fearing dispossession, Palestinians have begun collecting what documents they can from across Gaza's shattered bureaucracies, from water bills to property tax receipts, anything that might show proof of ownership. I mean, can you imagine, you know, like if I think about where I keep all my paperwork and I had to flee, none of that would be coming with me, you know, council tax bills, that would that would all disappear in the blowing up of the building that that that I live in. And, you know, where does your claim go then? Adding to their anxiety is the lack of care the US and Israel, who are overseeing Trump's so-called Gaza reconstruction plan, are paying to Palestinian land rights. The article goes on to say this. US and Israeli officials have made plans for the establishment of controlled residential sites and troop bases in areas held by the Israeli military, but it's not clear how they will approach the property rights of Palestinians. Three people described meetings at the civil military coordination center in Israel, a US military-led headquarters set up after a truce in October 2025 in which planners at first reacted with dismay and apparent surprise when told that they had to consider who in Gaza owned the land before any construction went ahead. I mean, Benzeka, one of the things that I've always worried about with these little front reconstruction plans and so on and so forth is it's it's a great time for a land grab, right? It's a great time to throw up buildings and just be let's sort it out later, aka never uh who this belongs to, whose land we've actually built it on. And Israel has done a very good job of ensuring that actually those claims are very hard to substantiate just as they do, I suppose, in the West Bank in the way that you like knock down people's houses and so on and so forth. um very hard when once you've done that for there, you know, to for people to make the claim that there's something for them to move back into. >> Yeah. And you know, it just speaks to the way in which the kind of broader strategy of um the the genocide in in Gaza and it's about it's about completely erasing like the the presence of Palestinian people and clearly that's that's a physical thing as in you want Palestinian people off the land. Um but also erasing and and kind of removing all of their history as well, kind of completely dismantling that. One of the things that's always stood out for me a lot in terms of thinking about the ways in which Palestinian people don't have their rights is I always thought about the fact that many Palestinian people obviously in Gaza they're stateless. They don't have a passport. How do you move around? How how do you exist in this world without that kind of documentation? There's kind of a further extension of that as well because of course you don't have the documents to prove that you own this house or this piece of land. How >> you actually don't even have the documents to prove that you're not not um someone who's entered um Gaza, right? belong there which helps with things like um moving people out of it at some point. >> No no no not at all. That's a really good point and yeah in the in the sort of the aftermath of of the fog of war again this speaks to the the urgency in which people were saying we we can't in the aftermath of October 7th just have kind of Gaza raised. We can't just have this kind of indiscriminate bombing. um this is this is just another way in which those people have been proven to be absolutely right about that because now we're looking at a total mess. We're looking at a very long prolonged period of time where you know people people are not going to have access to to the things they should have had access to. They're not going to have access to the the homes that they should have access to. And then who benefits from that? You the settler colonialists benefit from that? They get something out of that whilst Palestinian people continue to suffer and not have their their full rights. So it's it's it's really really devastating to be honest. And again thinking I suppose about what the UK government is going to have in response to you know in response to the to that they've steered quite clear of talking about Gaza a lot today has been about the West Bank and for a long time there's been a long precedent in this country actually of of successive governments talking about the West Bank and talking about you know extreme settlers David Cameron used to talk about the same thing actually um so in some ways that rhetoric is not brand new right but they're not talking or they're not touching Gaza as much and yet there is a total total mess that we have helped as a state to facilitate there where there's a lot of big questions to answer that that they they aren't confronting as of yet. >> I think that's completely right. Let me ask you about this book that's come out just in time for the elections and this claim that it may that that it makes that Netanyahu had had good information um about October 7th and didn't brief any of his security apparatus. >> Um I mean what do you make of the claim? What do you make of the timing? >> Yeah, it's it's long been rumored. Yeah. You know that this this has kind of had the murmurings uh uh for a long time to be honest since since October 7th really. So I'm not surprised if this is the case or it or it has merit. Um the timing is is interesting, isn't it? Um I don't know if there are power holders or power players in Israel who just think actually Netanyahu's time it it's time for it to be up actually. Um and so there may be moves um for for that to happen that may benefit some people feel like it's going to be in Israel's better interest at this point that Netanyahu at some point perhaps just loses this election. Um if it is true then it it underscores something I think very important. And I don't know to what extent the wider Israeli society will you know be able to kind of take this in or most Israelis will but it underscores the way in which in the pursuit of colonialism and of settler colonialism just how many people can become collateral and expendable and of course the primary targets of that in this situation are Palestinians people in Gaza absolutely but of course it also starts to include people within the colonial state itself and and so Israeli people potentially then in that situation have been deemed as acceptable collateral in the pursuit of a wider goal of greater Israel. And that should be something that really wakes people up in in Israel. I don't know if it will if that's the case and this is true, but that should be something really quite gling to to contend with. You are also an instrument in this. You potentially are also expendable. Yes, of course you b, you know, they benefit from settler colonism. Of course they do. But there is a portion of you at least who who may also suffer or be deemed be acceptable to suffer in this kind of grand expansionary plan. >> Yeah. I mean I guess it's important to say that um it's not clear from what was written in herets today. The accusation isn't that um Netanyahu deliberately suppressed the information because he wanted something to happen. Um plenty of people have speculated about about that in which case you know that would if that were true that would show the expendability but there's also you know even if you ignore it right or even if you just forget about it or even if you're just so arrogant which is the claim that the opposition parties in Israel are making you're so arrogant and complacent that you think you know what's going to happen so you don't put the put the information to your security services that shows that you that there is some disregard for your own people right um which results in expendability right if you're not really thinking about about security then of course a result a result of that could be that you you you actually do you do think they're expendable but not for like strategic purposes which is the the kind of stronger claim I guess >> and you know he he I feel like he's built his political career a lot on talking about how seriously he takes security right that's kind of like a major pillar of of of his politics right and so if you don't have that anymore if you don't have that to be able to tell people and security is a thing that of course scares people you know telling people your life is in immediate danger Maslo's hierarchy of needs. That's, you know, very very much a foundational foundational need for people is for people to be kept safe. If if your whole thing is that you can't keep people safe actually despite the fact that that's what you've been telling your your electorate for a very long period of time. To me that suggests that maybe he as a leader he's just not really going to have much much use I suppose anymore um at all. I mean it it frustrates me in a sense because I suppose it means that we kind of overpersonalize the issue a little bit and a lot of the issues that happen that are going on um with Israel then become distilled into one man and one person or maybe one government and obviously like we think that it's you know it's it's a far more wide ranging issue um than that. And and the other thing I thought about as well was that it could also lead to a kind of solidifying of of hyperscurity as well. If people might be like, well, even Netanyahu, you know, didn't have the ability to be able to keep us safe or, you know, got a bit complacent. So now we need to go even more further in terms of, you know, really securitizing our our settler colonial state basically. And so it could it could also swing a worse way. It's difficult to imagine it being worse, but it could also swing to a more extreme. I mean, it's not diffult to imagine it being worse because we have like ministers in his cabinet who say worse things like you talk about the expulsion the mass expulsion of Palestinians from from from from Gaza that the only the only way to settle this will be to get them out. Um, I mean, I don't think that those those those ministers are anywhere near I mean, the problem with with Israeli politics is it's all kind of moving coalitions and, you know, and and you know, you end up whoever wins is going to have to end up working with people they don't necessarily want to work with in order to to to hold power. This October, we'll see the first budget under Prime Minister Andy Bernham. It'll be a big moment for judging the direction of the government and for and and there is pressure for the left to raise taxes on wealth. But a well-timed exit of a billionaire hedge fund manager has been jumped on by the press as evidence of the dangers of clamping down on the super rich. It's so dangerous. The Telegraph reports that Britain's third highest taxpayer has moved to Greece. Bloomberg reports that a hedge fund Titan has joined the billionaires in quitting the UK. The Guardian reports that Chris Rockos, who paid3 million pounds in tax last year, is to quit the UK. So, who is Chris Rockos? Well, he's the founder of Rockos Capital Management, a hedge fund which manages around $22 billion. Rockos is him is himself worth around4 billion. Now, the framing of this story highlighting the apparent tax rockos paid last year clearly gives the impression this is a major blow to the UK and a vote of no confidence in the Labor government. That 330 million figure is not confirmed to be what Rockos personally paid last year or what the Treasury will necessarily lose out on when he moves to Greece. So, where does that number come from? Well, it's an estimate from the Sunday Times report earlier this year. This is how they estimate the tax paid. The tax list rankings include corporation tax, dividend tax, capital gains tax, income tax, and some payroll taxes, as well as gambling and alcohol duties according to the most recently filed company accounts up to January 10th. These are calculated in proportion with ownership of the company in question. We exclude any personal taxation if someone is not listed as resident in the UK. So you'll notice this includes a hell of a lot more than just personal taxes. And if Rockus Capital Management continues to operate in the UK, it's still going to have to pay payroll taxes to the UK Treasury. And if it remains registered here, it will still have to pay UK corporation tax. But Rockos leaving still will present a blow to government coffers. According to the Sunday Times, he paid himself £476 million last year. As a UK resident, that would have been subject to income tax, substantial income tax. Though again, the precise amount paid can only be estimated. So, so why has he gone? Well, there's no public statement from Rockos, but most of the reporting has suggested it's a response to Labour abolishing Britain's non-dom tax regime, which meant wealthy UK residents could pay zero tax on their income earned abroad. We don't even know if Rockos was a was a nondom in the nondom tax regime. And his choice of Greece as a destination is unlikely to be motivated by the Mediterranean scenery. The BBC reports this. Greeters tax rules are seen as attractive to the ultra wealthy. They allow foreigners who meet certain criteria to pay a flat yearly tax of £100,000 or £86,000 on all overseas income. Tax expert Dan Needle told the BBC this. He will probably pay almost nothing in Greece and we can't compete with that. It's worth noting his decision to leave the UK isn't the first time Chris Rockos has made the headlines this year. Uh in March, Rockos donated mill£190 million pounds to Cambridge. The university said it was the largest single donation made to a British university in modern times. So Rockos is in one sense generous, but he's not modest. The donation will go towards funding the Rockos School of Government, proving that while the wealthy might not like paying tax, they sure love putting their name on things. The Cambridge University YouTube has a video where Rockos explains his vision for the school. Tomorrow's leaders need to be armed with the political skills and an understanding of the policy frameworks which meet the demands of the 21st century if we want good outcomes. And without wanting to sound dramatic, good outcomes for humanity and our shared planet, our leaders, our governmental systems must evolve. It seems harder and harder for our political systems to deliver the stability we all need. and the school of government will develop the skills and the solutions needed to navigate this new world. >> I don't know if it's just me, but I always think that like style of jumper is bad vibes. Well, Mr. Rockos, maybe one reason it's getting harder for our political systems to deliver the change we all need is because rich people like you keep running away to low tax jurisdictions. Benka, look, this is a frustrating story. It's it's difficult to know what the Labor government can can do about it, but but what do you make of this idea of just, you know, I mean, is it a loss? Is it a loss to lose a billionaire? Yes, we're going to lose some tax. I mean, 330 million is what they say he paid last year. That I don't think that can be in personal tax unless there was some like loads of backdated tax that had to be paid or something like that. So, I mean, it's it's that's that's a lot of money to you to to lose in terms of tax, but it's not it's not that much, right? >> It's not about to break HMRC, right? I mean, this is such a frustrating story. Sorry. I mean, I think we're going to be okay without him. Um to be honest with you, I'm quite fascinated with this Cambridge. This Cambridge uh school of government is what he calls it. Um >> governance or government. Yeah, >> governance. Um fascinating that he thinks Yeah. that the biggest problem I suppose with with our governments at the moment and getting things wrong is purely a skills issue and they just need to go to a kind of billionaire backed funded Cambridge University course and that'll fix everything. >> I think it ever was the case with Cambridge and Oxford. The billionaires were always handy. >> I It's total mockery. I'm actually quite I shouldn't be, but I'm perhaps I'm just too naive on universities. I need to be more I mean to be more more cynical, but it makes a total mockery of education >> that he can even do this, right? And that there's I'm I'm sure there's all kinds of ways financially in which they they've worked it out to suggest that, you know, he won't have too much influence and that type of stuff. But in invariably, I think when you've given that much money to a single institution, you're going to have at least soft soft influence there. And again, there's going to be a reason like what why do you want to invest your money so much money maybe for him it's not that much but still a lot of money isn't it you're investing that money for a reason right and it suggests that that wealthy people can buy a significant amount of our intellectual infrastructure you know the people that go to Cambridge and Oxford these are the people who go into positions of of power right you know he's not taking it to like a polytechnic >> he's he's he's taking it to to to people who he expects to be empowering almost priming them or grooming um for that for that position. So I find that yeah I I found that personally very very uncomfortable. I mean the Dan Dan needles point as well uh because he went viral recently, didn't he? A couple of months ago we had a little spar with Gary Stevens so many dead to suggest that we should have a modest wealth tax and he lost his basically on it. Um you know Dan Needle's point about you know we're simply not able to compete with Greece. Um you know what's Greece's economy like? Not for wealthy people, of course, but what's Greece's economy like for ordinary people. I don't think it's a particularly egalitarian economy. We know that they went through they were forced through that all those austerity measures that the the EU essentially corn cornered them into. Um they have had some growth apparently. I did a bit of research on this, but you know, it's not it's not very nicely spread out because you've got this system where apparently ordinary people are taxed quite progressively. So, they're paying quite a lot in tax. And then you've got all these exemptions and all these kind of nice juicy deals for wealthy people who are kind of tempted to to to to go there. You know, capital is taxed far less than than wages. And I think it's worse actually than than it is here. So, it's not really ordinary Greek citizens who are reaping the rewards of, you know, being more competitive to wealthy people so that the likes of Chris can go there. They're not seeing any dividends for that. So, I in lots of ways I don't really see why we should be jealous or upset about him leaving and going there. He's not going to be helping out the Greek economy that much either. >> Yeah, I think it's this crazy idea that you should be competing for billionaires with your tax your tax systems, right? I mean, I can definitely see the point of compet competing for businesses, right? Of thinking like let's create environments where you know, you know, where where businesses can have a fair go. I'm not necessar not necessarily talking about like massive business like people can start businesses and they can have a fair go and you know, maybe they can be profitable, they can employ, etc., pay more tax, you know, like, you know, I'm not I'm not a believer in a trick trickle down model of economics, but I also do think that, you know, that that employee employment is is important and and and in businesses are important employers. Um, so I can see why you might might do that, but I don't really I don't really understand why why you want to create economies where you can where like you've got this like guy who's worth four billion and all he has to do is pay 100 grand a year on what he makes on his foreign foreign earnings. Um, why that's at all attractive to you as a country? Is it because you think his sort of spending power is like so enormous that it's going to you know like his I don't know luxury yacht purchases are going to like flood the Greek economy? I mean, you know, that money is going to be making money in financial services in London, right? It's not he's probably not like going to be a massive spend. I mean, be a reasonable size spender, but it's not going to be put in British banks or in in Greek banks or Greek Greek businesses. Um, so yeah, I don't really I don't really understand it. And of course, like, you know, all you need, you know, if you're an econom, you know, in Greece, for example, you just need a billionaire who decides that he wants to move to like, I don't know, an island. Um, and then suddenly you got like inflation, massive inflationary pressures caused by, you know, one person just coming in with a with a huge amount of wealth. It's what you see happening there when, you know, millionaires arrive in their in various islands in the in the summer with their with their yachts and so on. >> Yeah. And even if he was investing that money in Greek investments or or banks or whatever, you know, again, so much of that money just stays at the top. It just sits there. It inflates assets for everybody else. You know, we've seen that happen here with housing, for example, in the way in which, you know, the very wealthy have just poured all the extra millions and multi-millions that they've got. They just poured it into housing and made it exp more expensive for everybody else. So, it's I I just don't think there's a lot really to gain. I don't really care if we're not deemed as competitive uh for billionaire people who are not putting anything into our society anyway and in lots of ways are actively poisoning it. >> Yeah. I I definitely don't want to compete in a collective billionaire economy, right? I think, you know, Yeah. billionaires. If if we're not if if we if we're not as a country sufficiently bent to the servicing of billionaires, I'm quite happy with that. >> Can live with that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Ben, for joining me tonight. >> Thanks for having me, Stephen. >> And uh thank you everyone for tuning in. Come back tomorrow for another show from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Navara Media. Good night.