Showing posts sorted by date for query STARMER. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query STARMER. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2026

   

EU and Canada draw closer in Trump’s unpredictable world – with Britain looking on

From left, From left, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Copyright AP Photo/Toby Melville


By Luca Bertuzzi
Published on


The EU and Canada are hoping to deepen ties at their upcoming Montreal summit, in areas like trade, energy, defence and critical minerals. Meanwhile, the UK is seeking its own reset with Brussels.

The European Union has offered Canada something it has never offered another country: associate membership. Quite what that means remains unclear, but Brussels and Ottawa are determined to turn their shared values and increasingly close relationship into a new kind of partnership in a world shaken by Donald Trump's unpredictable foreign policy.

The experiment is being watched closely in London, where Prime Minister Andy Burnham is seeking to rebuild Britain's post-Brexit relationship with the EU, raising the question of whether a similar arrangement might eventually be available to the UK.

The offer, made by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last month, has raised questions about whether associate membership is a meaningful new status, an honorary title or something in between.

At a summit in Montreal next week, the two sides will begin putting substance behind the idea, seeking closer cooperation on trade, defence, technology and energy without Canada formally joining the bloc.

But while Canada is searching for a new framework, Britain is attempting to improve an existing one, with EU and UK leaders set to meet next month to seek a much-needed reset in their relationship.

"This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely - economically, technologically, and strategically - Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values," reads the latest draft of the EU-Canada joint statement, discussed by ambassadors on Wednesday.

A blank sheet

Since European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen invited Canada last month to become the EU’s first “associate member,” Brussels and Ottawa have been exploring what this privileged partnership could look like.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney prefers to talk about an “Alliance for the Future.” He has sidestepped questions on whether he is comfortable with the “associate membership” label, stressing that substance matters more.

The summit in Montreal on 29-30 October is the first real chance to define the partnership in more detail. The latest draft uses “associate membership” interchangeably with “Alliance for the Future.”

Crucially, the proposal envisages giving Canada a more regular place at the EU's table, with participation in summits, ministerial meetings and technical discussions.

It calls for "early consultations on major policy and regulatory initiatives, with Canada’s participation in these processes as an associate member of the Union."

Whether the term survives in the final text is an open question. In any case, “the full scope of this associate membership will be defined by the 2027 Canada-EU Summit,” the conclusions read.

From trade to defence

The document nonetheless tries to put more meat on the bone. It builds on the 2016 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which 10 EU countries have yet to ratify, to remove remaining trade barriers and ensure reciprocal market access.

“We will ensure mutually favourable treatment in our respective economic security measures, based on the principle of reciprocity in industrial sectors where both sides have agreed to align their external measures to ensure the same outcome,” the draft statement reads.

On energy, the conclusions open the door to “the development of liquefied natural gas exchanges,” notably through a joint long-term feasibility study on LNG exports to Europe.

On technology, Canada will join the EU’s supercomputer initiative, a new digital partnership will tackle issues like AI and digital identity, and an agreement to facilitate cross-border data flows is in the making.

Critical raw materials, one of Canada’s key assets for the EU, are also on the table. The two sides have agreed that the European Investment Bank will play a role in critical mineral projects, from extraction and processing to manufacturing and recycling.

In defence, Canada is already part of several EU projects, including the Permanent Structured Cooperation and the Capability Coalition, and both sides intend to deepen that cooperation on maritime security, crisis management and industrial cooperation.

The partners also envisage a cooperation framework to safeguard the information space and protect electoral integrity, with an early warning mechanism and a dialogue dedicated to foreign interference.

Other areas under discussion include border security cooperation with EU agency Frontex, criminal justice, climate security, transport and the Arctic.

Taken together, the proposals suggest a partnership extending far beyond conventional trade agreements, even if its institutional form remains uncertain.

Searching for a reset

The EU's growing closeness to Canada comes as Britain searches for a new relationship with the bloc, a decade after the Brexit referendum.

The contrast is striking. While Ottawa is being offered an undefined but potentially far-reaching new status, London is still negotiating improvements to its relationship with Brussels, largely one sector at a time.

The next EU-UK summit, postponed from the summer following Keir Starmer's resignation and Burnham's arrival in Downing Street, offers an opportunity to make progress.

While the UK government was already searching for amending ties with the bloc, Canada's approach to the EU definitively shattered one of the Brexiteers' key hopes to turn the so-called Anglosphere into a free trade area encompassing the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

"It is hardly surprising that Brexit has not delivered on that promise, and UK opinion polls have slowly started to shift in favour of rejoining," Charles Tannock, a former Conservative MEP who campaigned for Remain, told Euronews.

Since becoming Prime Minister, Burnham has repeatedly signalled that he wants to take the UK closer to the EU. He considers the status quo “not good enough” and has vowed to consider options ranging from following Canada’s example to re-entering the bloc.

While Burnham has restarted the domestic debate about rejoining the EU, the post-Brexit relationship between Brussels and London has not always been easy, with some UK officials asking why "associate membership" should not also be available for them.

“In an ideal world, with the UK we have even closer ties to the extent that the UK is a European country and if it wishes so, the ambition should not be an associate membership, but full membership,” Tobias Cremer (Germany/S&D), a leading lawmaker on EU-Canada relations, told Euronews.

Moving forward

Speaking during a European Parliament debate on Wednesday, Bernd Lange, the German Socialist who chairs the Trade Committee, welcomed a “new mood” in EU-UK relations.

He suggested that Britain could pursue an arrangement resembling Switzerland's relationship with the bloc, alongside closer political and security cooperation and a customs union.

But Brussels rejected the Swiss model as a template for Britain during the Brexit negotiations.

Switzerland's complex network of bilateral agreements has long frustrated EU officials, who argue that such arrangements are difficult to oversee and enforce, particularly when they provide access to parts of the single market without all the accompanying obligations.

Instead, British and EU negotiators are focusing on specific agreements covering agricultural trade, emissions trading and youth mobility.

A recent Franco-German proposal to include the UK in the 'Made in Europe' rules removed one sore point, but London is hoping to extend it to other sectors where it sees EU industrial policy becoming increasingly protectionist.

In defence, the EU needs the UK as part of a broader European security architecture, but the two sides failed to agree to include Britain in the planned Security Action for Europe (SAFE) for defence procurement.

Brussels offered Canada much better terms for SAFE, with a token upfront payment of around €10m. It asked the UK for a whopping €6.5bn, with no guarantee its industry would win any contracts, leading to a breakdown in the negotiations.

“Burnham is on a learning curve, to be honest," Tannock said. "He needs to. He’s been the mayor of Manchester for some years. He hasn’t been focused on this issue. He will be trying to get fully up to speed with what’s available."

Peggy Corlin contributed to the reporting.




EU-Canada 'love story' needs more than warm words, senior MEP warns

Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, Sept 17, 2026.
Copyright AP Photo

By Peggy Corlin
Published on

European Parliament’s point man on Canada, Tobias Cremer, told Euronews that the planned “associate membership” should include an institutional framework formalising closer ties between the EU and Canada.

The EU must turn its offer of “associate membership” to Canada into a meaningful partnership that goes well beyond trade, Tobias Cremer, the European Parliament's standing rapporteur on Canada, told Euronews.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen invited Canada to become the EU's first “associate member” in September, but gave little indication of what the unprecedented status would mean in practice.

The offer comes as geopolitical upheaval draws Brussels and Ottawa closer together. Canada is embroiled in a trade war with its traditional US ally, while the EU is struggling to keep Washington on its side over Ukraine.

The two sides are due to meet at a summit in Montreal at the end of next week, with agreements expected in several areas, including critical raw materials and digital cooperation.

“For the last couple of months, we've been great, Canada and Europe, at writing each other love letters and saying how much we really want to work together,” said Cremer, a German socialist MEP. “But I think now is really the time to start to get serious and turn that love story into concrete commitments.”

He added that “associate membership” must mean the “closest possible partnership that the EU can offer to a non-European country and since Canada is probably the most European of non-European countries that should be very close.”

Beyond trade deals

Cremer insisted that the relationship must amount to more than “a trade deal ‘plus’”.

“There must be a new quality to the relation.”

He called for a “pragmatic approach,” involving sectoral agreements covering trade, defence, digital cooperation, the Arctic and students, but also going further.

“We should go a step further and start embedding all of these great initiatives into something more enduring, into a common institutional framework of coordination and cooperation.”

Cremer suggested that Canada could participate “as an observer” in the Council of the EU, where national ministers meet, and called for the creation of a formal parliamentary partnership assembly.

Such a body could follow the model of the existing EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, which brings together 35 members from each side twice a year for sessions that can focus on specific policy areas.

Regarding the UK, however, the MEP described it as a European country for which, “if it wishes so,” the ambition “should not be associate membership, but full membership.”

His comments came as UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham recently floated the idea of rejoining the EU, with polls showing that a majority of Britons want to return to the bloc.

But Cremer also argued for closer cooperation not only with the UK and Canada, but also with countries such as Australia and South Korea.

“I think it is of our interest to bring all of these actors together and say 'hold on, actually the majority of the world wants to play 21st century politics which is focused on collective security, on shared interests, on mutual respect rather than might is right.'”



Turkey, Canada unveil new “strategic partnership” as Carney visits Ankara

Turkey, Canada unveil new “strategic partnership” as Carney visits Ankara
Erdogan, right, was reported as telling Carney: "We had diplomatic relations, but we had some kind of disconnect for a very long time now. And today we put an end to it." / Turkish presidencyFacebook
By bne IntelliNews October 22, 2026

Defence, transportation and energy will be at the heart of a new “strategic partnership” between Canada and Turkey, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on October 22, while on an official visit to Ankara.

Carney is eager to build ties with countries around the world, given that he is locked in an escalating and bruising trade war with US President Donald Trump that means he is in a hurry to reduce Canadian dependence on neighbouring America.

Carney and Erdogan signed the partnership declaration between the two middle powers together and announced the start of negotiations on a free trade agreement.

“We have taken a historic step toward the future of our relations,” Erdogan said after the signing ceremony, as quoted by the Associated Press (AP). “Elevating our relations to the level of a strategic partnership will not remain merely on paper; it will not be a merely symbolic step,” he added.

“No country, whatever it’s blessed with, no country builds strength alone,” Carney said. “The most resilient countries bring together complementary strengths, with trusted partners.”

Carney will visit Istanbul on October 23 for talks with Turkish business groups.

Erdogan said Turkey and Canada are hopeful of building up their annual bilateral trade from around $3bn to $5bn initially, and then to $10bn.

In investment, there is some prospect that Ottawa and Ankara will study the feasibility of a bid by Canada's Candu nuclear team to build Turkey's planned second or third nuclear power plant.

In 2024, Canada ended an export ban on the sale of weapons to Turkey. It was imposed in a response to military incursions into Syria conducted by Turkey, as well as to show Canada’s opposition to the provision by Ankara of backing for Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia. Some military drone equipment provided to the Azerbaijanis by Turkey was, to Ottawa's displeasure, partly made with Canadian parts.

“Allies must be able to rely on each other for equipment and capabilities that keep us safe,” Carney was further reported as saying by the AP.

“Today’s new agreement on defence industry partnership will connect Canadian and Turkish companies to work together, creating good jobs at home, export opportunities abroad, greater security for our citizens and contributing to a stronger Nato alliance,” he added.

CBC reported Erdogan as saying that a new chapter in relations between Turkey and Canada was opening, stating: "We had diplomatic relations, but we had some kind of disconnect for a very long time now. And today we put an end to it. Now comes a new period, a new era for Turkey and Canada. This is what we're starting today."

The fact that Turkey has become increasingly authoritarian under Erdogan, its leader of 23 years, has not gone unnoticed in Canada and there is considerable disquiet in the country at the upgrading in relations with Ankara.

"This is morally a difficult dilemma on the Canadian side, but the calculus appears on the part of the government that if Canada were to choose to diversify only with democracies the ceiling for success would be low," Thomas Juneau of the University of Ottawa, an expert on the Middle East, was quoted as saying by CBC.

Monday, October 19, 2026

 

Three Years of Gaza as a Ghetto of Genocidal Extermination


by | Oct 9, 2026 |


Reprinted from Andy Worthington’s website.

Israel is lost.

Every day for the last three years, the decent people of the world — in our untold millions — have been sunk in a pit of moral despair, weeping, having breakdowns or being permanently enraged by the most extraordinarily depraved example of full-spectrum, live-streamed barbarism in our lifetimes — the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip by the State of Israel.

The trigger for Israel’s ongoing genocide was, of course, one particularly bloody day, October 7, 2023, when militants from the Gaza Strip, which had been maintained by Israel as an “open-air prison” for the previous 16 years, broke out through the perimeter fence and went on a killing spree in southern Israel in which 1,195 people were killed, and 251 others were taken hostage.

These are the bare facts, and, for anyone like myself who is an intuitive lifelong pacifist, they are, of course, deeply unpalatable. 1,124 Israelis and 71 foreign nationals, who all had hopes and dreams and loves and fears, were killed on October 7. 367 of them were members of the Israeli security forces, while the rest, including 36 children, were civilians.

We should mourn them all, but we cannot regard their deaths in isolation, because, in response, beginning on the evening of October 7, 2023 and continuing ever since, the Israelis have killed, at the barest minimum, 75 times as many Palestinians over the last three years, including over 21,500 children — at least 600 times as many children as were killed on October 7.

In total, according to statistics with which no one can seriously argue, 74,228 Palestinians have been killed and 175,188 injured (many very severely so) by Israeli forces over the last three years, although those figures are undoubtedly a serious undercount (see my notes at the end of this article). The remains of at least 8,000 Palestinians are still buried under the rubble, and untold numbers of others are unaccounted for, or are dying of secondary causes beyond the direct military attacks — of starvation and disease, and of everyday ailments, grievous wounds or chronic pre-existing health conditions, few of which can be adequately treated in a healthcare sector that has been deliberately destroyed by Israel, and from which it is still deliberately preventing the delivery of essential medical supplies and equipment.

According to an invisible assessment of the relative value of lives that Israel uses, and that has been shamefully adopted by most western leaders, we’re meant, today, to continue mourning those who died on October 7, 2023, while completely ignoring the genocidal carnage visited on the Palestinians ever since.

In the narrative of unique trauma and victimhood that Israel has maintained since October 7, the attacks on southern Israel were entirely unprovoked, and those killed or injured in response — even though they constitute over 10 percent of Gaza’s population — must all be regarded as legitimate targets or as acceptable “collateral damage”, as Israel continues to seek “total victory” in its “elimination” of Hamas.

That, of course, is untrue and unforgivable. The attacks by Hamas militants and other Palestinian factions on October 7, 2023 didn’t occur in a vacuum, and were not the actions of terrorists who, entirely unprovoked, sought to destroy the State of Israel.

They were, instead, a response — the bloodiest to date, but a response, nonetheless — to 75 years of oppression by the Israelis, dating back to 1948 when Jewish terrorist settler militias founded the State of Israel in an orgy of genocidal violence, killing 15,000 Palestinians, erasing 500 towns and villages and forcing 750,000 Palestinians from their homes, and into exile in neighboring countries, where their descendants still live in refugee camps, as well as in the Gaza Strip, administered by Egypt, and in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, administered by Jordan.

The militias were formed by Jewish settlers who arrived in Palestine, mostly from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, in their hundreds of thousands from the 1920s to the 1940s, after the British government, in the most ill-advised foreign policy decision in human history, offered Jewish people around the world a homeland in Palestine in 1917, which they proceeded to facilitate after they took over the running of Palestine in 1923 from the Ottoman Empire, defeated and dissolved after the Second World War.

After seizing control of 78 percent of Palestine at its blood-soaked founding in 1948, the State of Israel proceeded, in 1967, to seize the remaining 22 percent after the Six Days’ War, taking Gaza from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Israel was condemned internationally for these occupations, but, shielded by its perpetual ally, the US, ignored all UN resolutions demanding its withdrawal, and established various punitive mechanisms to consolidate its control — amongst them, the widespread arbitrary imprisonment of Palestinians without charge or trial, killings with impunity, the colossal expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, policed through huge barrier walls and demeaning and dehumanizing checkpoints, and, in Gaza, the entrapment and isolation of the entire population after Hamas won elections in 2006, via a total land, sea and air blockade, in place since 2007, and with the entry and exit of all goods and people strictly controlled and largely and deliberately rationed or prevented.

In response to periodic rocket attacks by militant forces within Gaza, Israel also undertook, every few years, what was sickeningly and euphemistically described as “mowing the lawn” — military attacks, lasting for weeks or months, in which thousands of Palestinians were killed.

In total, between 1948 and October 7, 2023, an estimated 100,000 to 130,000 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces, compared to an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 Israelis killed by Palestinians.

No one seeking to define the events of October 7 as pure, unprovoked evil should be allowed to forget the previous 75 years of Israel’s sustained oppression, dispossession and slaughter of the Palestinian people — and that is without even getting into the alarming subtexts of that particular day.

These include the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu was repeatedly warned of impending attacks, but chose not to inform the intelligence services, the fact that former defense minister Yoav Gallant has admitted that Israel used the Hannibal Directive on October 7, killing an untold number of its own people to prevent them being seized as hostages, and the fact that, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the almost unthinkably cynical lies that were told about 40 beheaded babies and mass rapes on October 7 have never been properly refuted, and continue to feed the seemingly endless genocidal hysteria, in some quarters, that has transformed Israel into a state that now lives only to kill.

Burnt-out cars from October 7, 2023. No one has been able to explain how such destruction was undertaken by Hamas and other militants from the Gaza Strip, when they didn’t have the heavy weaponry required.

Western government’s complicity in endorsing Israel’s open-ended “right to defend itself” and in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization

Despite the long history of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, in which the events of October 7 were part of an ongoing conflict between oppressed people on the one hand, and their almost infinitely better-armed oppressor on the other, all of this was immediately forgotten, as western leaders, simultaneously, endorsed Israel’s open-ended and undefined “right to defend itself”, even though no such right exists in international law.

Even worse was the endorsement for open-ended barbarism that western countries had already given to Israel by helpfully proscribing Hamas — in its entirety, and not just its military wing — as a terrorist organization.

The US led the way, in 1997, while the EU, having designed Hamas’s military wing as terrorists in 2001, expanded that designation to include the entire organization in 2003. The UK, which also proscribed Hamas’s military wing as terrorists in 2001, only belatedly — under the ferocious Zionist Priti Patel — expanded that proscription to include the entire organization in December 2021. Other notable countries that have proscribed the whole of Hamas as terrorists include Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand.

The problem with these sweeping designations are two-fold. Firstly, they completely and deliberately erase the rights of an oppressed and occupied people to militarily resist their occupation, as enshrined in the UN Charter and recognized in the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, and secondly, by erasing any distinction between Hamas’s military wing and its administrative government, they have, in Gaza, paved the way for Israel to be able to claim that almost anyone it has targeted and killed was a terrorist.

It cannot be underestimated how cynical, devious and wrong these ever-expanding western terrorist proscriptions are.

Firstly, Hamas are not terrorists; they are a legitimate resistance movement, but secondly, and even more crucially, if an entire government — and not just its military wing — is proscribed as a terrorist organization, it becomes theoretically legitimate for Israel, as it has demonstrated so sickeningly for the last three years, to target and murder doctors and medical staff because they work for the Health Ministry, professors, academics and teachers because they work for the Ministry of Education, farmers because they work for the Ministry of Agriculture, judges and lawyers because they work for the Ministry of Justice, all emergency services workers, all of the police, all water engineers and sewage engineers, and many, many other people whose work was, in any way, even tangentially connected to Gaza’s administrative government.

Automated warfare: how the impact of Israel’s attacks on Gaza was multiplied through the sweeping use of AI-driven military targeting

Having directly facilitated the unbridled slaughter of Palestinian civilians, western governments also failed to show any alarm that, from the very beginning of Israel’s unprecedented attacks on Gaza, the destruction was so intense that it resembled nothing less than some of the most extraordinarily sickening campaigns of the last year of the Second World War — the firebombing of Tokyo and the destruction of Dresden, and, in their intensity, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It looked like carpet-bombing, which, after the Vietnam War, was outlawed as a war crime in the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions, but it was actually even worse, as was only revealed in November 2024, when Israel’s +972 Magazine published the first of two revelatory articles that disclosed how, although there were undoubtedly many elements of arbitrary and indiscriminate carpet-bombing in Israel’s devastating aerial assaults, the Israelis had manufactured a cutting-edge excuse — the use of military targeting driven by AI (artificial intelligence).

In the first of these articles, “‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza” (which I wrote about here), the journalist Yuval Abraham, after discussions with seven current and former members of Israel’s intelligence community, revealed how Israel had deliberately launched mass bombing campaigns against what were described as “power targets”, including “private residences as well as public buildings, infrastructure, and high-rise blocks”, to “create a shock” that would reverberate powerfully and “lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas.”

The header of +972 Magazine’s first revelatory article about Israel’s use of AI and its erasure of proportionality in military targeting, published on November 30, 2023.

Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to achieve a political aim is, of course, illegal under international humanitarian law, in which all parties to a military conflict “must at all times distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives.” It is also a central component of the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, and its status as a war crime was spelled out in the Rome Stature of 1998 establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), which states that “intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives”, constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

It should also be noted that deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to achieve a political aim is a hallmark of terrorism, but, through the connivance of the most powerful states in the world, as discussed above, only those resisting occupation and oppression are regarded as terrorists, while state parties are, it seems, always to be regarded as beyond reproach.

For those paying attention, Israel’s focus on “power targets” was not new, as it first emerged, in 2006, as the Dahiya Doctrine, named after a neighborhood in Beirut, during one of Israel’s many “wars” on Lebanon, deliberately “targeting economic interests and the centers of civilian power” that allegedly supported Hezbollah, to persuade the population to turn on them.

In the first weeks of the assault on Gaza, as the article explained, “Israel bombed the Islamic University of Gaza, the Palestinian Bar Association, a UN building for an educational program for outstanding students, a building belonging to the Palestine Telecommunications Company, the Ministry of National Economy, the Ministry of Culture, roads, and dozens of high-rise buildings and homes — especially in Gaza’s northern neighborhoods.” And this list is, of course, only a snapshot of the immense destruction that Israel rained down on the whole of Gaza’s infrastructure.

A “mass assassination factory”

More shocking than this revival of the Dahiya Doctrine, however, was +972 Magazine’s revelation of the existence of an AI system, “Habsora” (“The Gospel”), which is able to “‘generate’ targets almost automatically at a rate that far exceeds what was previously possible”, creating what a former intelligence officer described as a “mass assassination factory.”

When Israel first began using AI in its attacks on Gaza, in 2021, former IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi said of it that it “processes a lot of data better and faster than any human, and translates it into targets for attack”, adding that it “generated 100 new targets every day”, contrasting that with times in the past “when we would create 50 targets per year” in Gaza.

AI programs require targeting parameters, however, and it was clear that, to create so many targets, low-level Hamas members, who would never have been targeted before, were included along with senior commanders, and, in addition, all notions of proportionality and acceptable “collateral damage” were swept aside.

The article noted how, according to the intelligence sources, the “Habsora” program “generates, among other things, automatic recommendations for attacking private residences where people suspected of being Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives live”, and Israel “then carries out large-scale assassination operations through the heavy shelling of these residential homes.” These “assassination operations”, inevitably, included all the members of the “suspected” militants’ families, but no one cared anymore.

One source explained that “a senior intelligence officer told his officers after October 7 that the goal was to ‘kill as many Hamas operatives as possible’, for which the criteria around harming Palestinian civilians were significantly relaxed.”

In one case, involving “a single top Hamas military commander”, the sources explained how the Israeli military command “knowingly approved the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians” during his attempted assassination. “The numbers increased from dozens of civilian deaths [permitted] as collateral damage as part of an attack on a senior official in previous operations, to hundreds of civilian deaths as collateral damage”, one source said.

In addition, the sources “confirmed that the Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes”, and that, as a result, they knew “the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target.”

“Nothing happens by accident,” one source said, adding, “When a 3-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it’s because someone in the army decided it wasn’t a big deal for her to be killed — that it was a price worth paying in order to hit [another] target. We are not Hamas. These are not random rockets. Everything is intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home.”

Another source, clearly appalled, said, “To my understanding, today they can mark all the houses of [any Hamas military operative regardless of rank]. That is a lot of houses. Hamas members who don’t really matter for anything live in homes across Gaza. So they mark the home and bomb the house and kill everyone there.”

Sweeping and ill-defined human targets

Even graver revelations emerged in a follow-up article in April 2024, “‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza”, which I wrote about here, in which six Israeli intelligence officers spoke about an AI program specifically used to “mark all suspected operatives in the military wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), including low-ranking ones, as potential bombing targets.”

The header of +972 Magazine’s second revelatory article about Israel’s use of AI and its erasure of proportionality in military targeting, published on April 3, 2024.

The sources explained that, “during the first weeks of the war, the army almost completely relied on Lavender, which clocked as many as 37,000 Palestinians as suspected militants — and their homes — for possible air strikes”, exceeding the total number of militants — 30,000 — estimated to be in Gaza.

As the sources added, during this period, “the army gave sweeping approval for officers to adopt Lavender’s kill lists, with no requirement to thoroughly check why the machine made those choices or to examine the raw intelligence data on which they were based.” One source “stated that human personnel often served only as a ‘rubber stamp’ for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about ’20 seconds’ to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male.”

“This”, the article added, “was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded as ‘errors’ in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to militant groups, or no connection at all.”

The sources confirmed that those identified were generally targeted in their homes — “usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity”, because it was “easier to locate” them there. The sources also revealed that one particular tracking program was, sickeningly, known as “Where’s Daddy?”

The sources also explained how, once the decision was made to target all low-level militants, there was no other option but to turn to AI to make the decisions, which were beyond the capacity of human operators to check. “They wanted to allow us to attack [the junior operatives] automatically”, one source said, “That’s the Holy Grail. Once you go automatic, target generation goes crazy.”

In an explanation of how sweeping the program was, the article stated that the “Lavender” software “analyzes information collected on most of the 2.3 million residents of the Gaza Strip through a system of mass surveillance, then assesses and ranks the likelihood that each particular person is active in the military wing of Hamas or PIJ”, giving everyone a rating from 1 to 100, based on “how likely it is that they are a militant.” The program was then instructed “to locate these same characteristics — also called ‘features’ — among the general population.”

Anyone “found to have several different incriminating features”, the sources explained, “will reach a high rating, and thus automatically becomes a potential target for assassination”, even though the “features” incriminating them might be nothing more than “being in a Whatsapp group with a known militant, changing cell phone every few months, and changing addresses frequently.”

One source explained how often mistakes were made, stating that a common error occurred “if the [Hamas] target gave [his phone] to his son, his older brother, or just a random man. That person will be bombed in his house with his family. This happened often.”

Expanding the program to include civilians

While everyone should be horrified that such an imprecise system was used automatically to generate targets for killing without any human oversight, the sources also revealed how easily the system strayed into defining civilian employees of the Hamas government as legitimate targets when its parameters were tweaked to make up for shortfalls in the numbers of targets required by death-hungry commanders.

One source talked about “times when a Hamas operative was defined more broadly, and then the machine started bringing us all kinds of civil defense personnel, police officers.” This particular source thought that “it would be a shame to waste bombs” on them, because, although “they help the Hamas government, they don’t really endanger soldiers.”

While this source appeared to be blithely unaware of the illegality of targeting civil defense personnel and police officers, another said he was “bothered by the fact that when Lavender was trained, they used the term ‘Hamas operative’ loosely, and included people who were civil defense workers in the training dataset.”

This source also explained the perils of expanding the program to include civilians working for the Hamas government, because doing so “made Lavender more likely to select civilians by mistake when its algorithms were applied to the general population.” In the source’s words, “Since it’s an automatic system that isn’t operated manually by humans, the meaning of this decision is dramatic: it means you’re including many people with a civilian communication profile as potential targets.”

I’ve previously written extensively about +972 Magazine’s revelatory articles about the horribly flawed AI-driven military targeting in Gaza, and the loosening of any definitions of proportionality and acceptable “collateral damage”, and I’m doing so again in this article because they are so crucial to understanding how horrific AI-driven military targeting is, and how it has been used to justify the extraordinary and unacceptable death toll in Gaza.

I’m glad to see that, with Rachel Szor, Yuval Abraham has expanded his coverage into a documentary film “NAZA” (“collateral damage”), which has caused hysteria in Israel because it so clearly conveys crucial truths about how sweeping genocidal intent can be disguised as clinical military accuracy.

The poster for the newly-released documentary “NAZA.”

Genocidal intent and the persistent implementation of genocidal actions

Nevertheless, the main thrust of Israel’s actions remains what it has been since the beginning — genocidal intent, as openly expressed by senior government officials immediately after October 7, and as manifested not only through broadening the scope of acceptable “collateral damage” beyond anything previously imagined in its disguised carpet-bombing, but also through its destruction of almost the entirety of Gaza’s built environment, and its persistent, and almost incessant sieges on supplies of food, water, fuel and medical supplies.

The Genocide Convention specifically defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, including, inter alia, not only “killing members of the group”, and “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”, but also “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

Everything Israel has been doing over the last three years has been designed not just to kill, but also to “deliberately inflict on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”, as I have discussed in most of my nearly 100 articles over the last 36 months.

While the sieges have been almost relentless, punctuated only briefly for a six-week period during a ceasefire in January and February 2025, and have not even been adequately relieved since the supposed ceasefire over the last year — the terms of which Israel has deliberately and persistently flouted — the entire history of the last 36 months is one of relentless efforts to kill the Palestinians by all means imaginable.

A brief list of the almost bewildering number of grave crimes that have taken place includes Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s entire healthcare sector and the “war” on its hospitals and its doctors, through invented and illegal assertions of the hospitals’ use as Hamas “control and command centers”, its evacuation orders for almost the entire population to supposed safe zones that were subsequently bombed, its destruction of water and sewage systems, its withholding of fuel for generators, its snipers and armed quadcopter drones persistently targeting civilians, and especially children, the rounding up and abuse of countless civilians, many of whom subsequently disappeared into Israel’s brutal gulag of torture prisons for Palestinians, overseen by the monstrous Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, the license to kill anyone regarded as remotely suspicious at any time, the brazen murder of five-year old Hind Rajab and her family, the brazen killing of foreign aid workers, the brazen point-blank murder of 15 paramedics and aid workers and the botched attempts to hide the evidence, the “genocide within a genocide” in northern Gaza from October 2024 to January 2025, when everyone was ordered to evacuate, and those who remained, for whatever reason, were regarded as “enemy combatants” who could be summarily executed, the killing fields established by the joint US-Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as a murderous alternative to the aid supplied by UNRWA and international NGOs, and the targeted killing of journalists in numbers never witnessed before in times of war, and subsequent slanderous allegations that they were all Hamas operatives.

This list barely scratches the surface of the enormity of Israel’s genocidal depravity, and, throughout, it has wheedled and lied about everything it has done, and has continued to deny any wrongdoing, even as its pundits, former politicians and members of the public have openly declared that everyone in Gaza should be killed, even children, because they will only grow up to become terrorists.

While Israel’s genocidal intent has been widely recognized, and the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant in November 2024, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, no significant opposition to its actions has been undertaken by any of its western supporters, even as it has expanded its horrors into the West Bank, where government-backed settler violence is ever-increasing, and southern Lebanon, where it has inflicted Gaza-style destruction and extermination on the Lebanese people, under the same genocidal context of conflating Hezbollah with Lebanese civilians, and indiscriminately slaughtering as many of them as possible.

Throughout, the US, whether under Joe Biden or Donald Trump, has continued to supply Israel with weapons, as has Germany, and, throughout the west, pliant governments have embarked on furious authoritarian clampdowns on their recalcitrant citizens.

The ever-growing backlash against Israel

Despite this, the people have refused to be cowed. Recent polling shows that the people are prevailing over the complicit politicians — and the largely compliant mainstream media. Israel’s carefully cultivated support for many decades — through bribery and bullying — has collapsed, with polls showing that it is hated by a majority of people in a majority of countries worldwide.

Pew’s polling, from earlier this year, showing how unfavorably Israel is regarded around the world.

Faced with moral disgust on an unprecedented scale, there are, finally, signs that at least some corrupt western governments are starting to recognize that three years of a genocide that Israel still doesn’t want to end, in which civilians are still being killed on a daily basis without any possible justification, and Israel’s leaders — Netanyahu, defense minster Israel Katz and the two far-right ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich — are only stepping up their genocidal rhetoric is increasingly difficult to defend, and that a genocidal “forever war” is not what they signed up for when those calls from Tel Aviv came though, three years ago, telling them all, in no uncertain terms, that they must openly declare in unison that Israel has “the right to defend itself.”

How can Israel be allowed to continue “defending itself” when all it is defending itself against is the lives of civilians, from Gaza to the West Bank and Lebanon, who continue to be regarded as legitimate targets because Israel has deliberately forgotten how to distinguish between civilians and combatants?

How can Israel be allowed to continue “defending itself” when it wants dead anyone who, even in their thoughts alone, poses a threat to its claims that it has a God-given right, 3,000 years old, to everything in the Levant that it eyes up as its own, and that, if the indigenous people won’t recognize that, they all deserve to be killed; or, in an even more extreme interpretation, that they all must be killed to ensure Israel’s safety, and to cement its divinely-ordained rights?

In recent weeks, as the leadership of the Labour government passed from the staunchly Zionist Keir Starmer — who was put in place to defend Israel at all costs, even though he was an empty shell lacking any leadership skills — to another Zionist appointment, the rather more palatable Andy Burnham, one appointment — of Ed Miliband, the only Jewish person amongst Labour’s Zionist elite, as foreign secretary — led, finally, to a recognition that Israel has been committing unacceptable crimes under international law, which has largely been buried over the last three years.

In a speech in Parliament, which was supposed to be a “comprehensive reset” of UK policy towards Israel, but which was, nevertheless, largely full of ongoing support for the genocidal entity, Miliband managed, at least, to support the hugely important findings of the International Court of Justice in July 2024, declaring that Israel’s entire post-1967 occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal, and to demand its withdrawal and an end to complicity in its crimes by UN member states, and also recognized the findings, in September 2025, of the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, that Israel was engaged in war crimes in Gaza. (The UN Commission also found that Israel was engaged in a genocide, but Miliband wasn’t prepared to go that far).

He also condemned Israel for its proposed E1 settlement in the West Bank, which would completely cut off the West Bank from East Jerusalem, and prevent any notion of a future two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine question, to which most western nations, nominally at least, claim to be committed, and announced the imposition of sanctions. Eight Muslim-majority countries followed his lead, while, just two days ago, over 500 European former ministers and senior officials urged the EU to take action.

Of course, all of this means very little against a backdrop in which the government refuses to do anything meaningful to isolate and punish Israel, but I believe Ed Miliband to be a decent man, and, at the very least, a weather vane for a wider recognition, upheld with such endurance by campaigners over the last three years, that Israel’s behavior, its unwillingness to even contemplate bringing its depravity to an end, and the ever more unacceptable utterances of its leaders have reached a point that is no longer either tenable or tolerable for those in positions of power to continue to give it unconditional support.

“Zionism is racism”

On Sunday, the UK’s Green Party went even further, with party members passing a motion declaring that “Zionism is racism”, proposed by the British Palestinian artist Lubna Speitan on behalf of Greens4Palestine. The full text, and a detailed explanation of the reasons why the motion was proposed, are available here.

The cover of Greens4Palestine’s booklet providing the full text of the motion that was passed at the Green Party conference, and a detailed explanation of the reasons why it was proposed.

The motion stated, “The Green Party declares itself to be an anti-Zionist party”, adding that it “rejects attempts to normalize the racist subjugation and oppression of Palestinians; to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism; to deny or minimize Palestinian human rights; to create hierarchies of racism; and to normalize or attempt to justify apartheid, ethnic cleansing or genocide.”

The motion also affirmed that “definitions of anti-Jewish discrimination should not equate Jewish identity with Zionist ideology or political practice. As with any ethnicity or faith group, no single political ideology should be ascribed to an entire people.”

In addition, the motion also affirmed “the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination, including the[ir] right … to resistance and liberation from Israeli occupation, domination and subjugation”, and acknowledged, correctly, that “the struggle to achieve that liberation by all available means under international law is legitimate.”

It also endorsed “the call from Palestinian civil society to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era”, and called for “the release of all Palestinian prisoners of conscience (including Marwan Barghouti), the end of the use of administrative detention of Palestinians by Israel, and the treatment of Palestinian combatants in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

Domestically, the motion also called for “the removal of Palestine Action from the list of proscribed organizations” under the Terrorism Act 2000 — the UK’s single most unacceptable act of punitive authoritarianism on behalf of Israel — and called for “the release of all prisoners detained for non-violent direct action in support of Palestinian rights and the end of the genocide, apartheid and the illegal occupation of Palestine.”

It also supported “the establishment of a single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital, equal rights for all, and the right of return for Palestinians and their descendants.”

In explanatory notes, the motion made clear that “Zionism is a political ideology which called for the creation – and, now it exists, the continuity – of an ethno-nationalist Jewish State in historic Palestine to the exclusion and/or domination of the non-Jewish population”, adding, “The real, material manifestation of Zionism has been the historic and ongoing dehumanization, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians … based upon European settler-colonial systems of domination and oppression, which has also created racial hierarchies between Jews of different ethnicities in Palestine.”

Zionism as genocide, and its inevitable end

None of this ought to be even remotely contentious. Zionism, founded in Europe in the late 19th century, was, explicitly, a movement to create a national state for Jews in Palestine, where a mixed population of Muslims, Christians and Jews had been living for centuries, with a Muslim majority from the 12th century onwards, and with, at the start of the British Mandate in 1922, Muslims making up 78% of the population, Jews 11% and Christians 10%. Zionism, however, sought to establish a Jewish majority state, explicitly occupying as much of the land as possible, and with as few Arabs as possible.

It’s a sign of how deranged the discourse protecting Israel has become that the backlash against the Green Party motion has been immense. No one seems to want to recall that, 51 years ago, in 1975, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism. That was withdrawn in 1991, under pressure from Israel and President George H. W. Bush, but it not only remains as true now as it was in 1975; Israel’s actions over the last 35 years — and, especially, over the last three years — have confirmed, more than ever, that it is a racist endeavor of such ferocious depravity that its leaders — and far too many of its people — now believe not only that the unending slaughter of Palestinian civilians is divinely ordained, but also that the Palestinian population should not just be minimized, but erased entirely.

Polling in Israel shows around 80 percent support for the forced expulsion of the Palestinians, which is not only unforgivable in and of itself; it also conveniently ignores the fact that there is nowhere for them to go. While the most fanatical settler enthusiasts, like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and the monstrous settler matriarch Daniella Weiss fulminate endlessly about the need for other countries to step up and fulfill their dream of the “voluntary migration” of the Palestinians, the world’s nation states either recognize that this would be the greatest example of mass ethnic cleansing in modern times, and want nothing to do with it, or, in many cases, are so consumed with a rising tide of far-right anti-immigrant sentiment that they are seeking to close their borders entirely, and certainly won’t open them to welcome a displaced people who have been designated, collectively, as terrorists, not only by those seeking to get rid of them, but also by their own governments.

As I have repeatedly stated, the illusion of “voluntary migration” is nothing less than a deliberate and deeply cynical smokescreen for the continuing extermination of the Palestinian people.

No one, of course, has any idea how all this will end, whether Israel, as would be morally appropriate, will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and the self-inflicted mental health costs of its own genocidal violence, or whether the world will, eventually, isolate it as a pariah state, as happened with South Africa. No route is clear to the realization of either a two-state or a one-state solution, but the people of the world are adamant, by a clear majority, that a no-state solution of steady and relentless extermination is a moral stain that can no longer be tolerated.

Israel is lost, and terminally so. Only the means of its collapse and its epitaph remain to be written.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer (of a photo-journalism project, ‘The State of London’, which ran from 2012 to 2023), film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose music is available via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (see the ongoing photo campaign here) and the successful We Stand With Shaker campaign of 2014-15, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo”, which you can watch on YouTube here.

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s new Substack account, set up in November 2024, where he’ll be sending out a weekly newsletter, or his RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, The Complete Guantánamo Files, the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, and the full military commissions list.  Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation via PayPal or via Stripe.

Andy Worthington is a historian based in London. He is the author of The Guantánamo Files, the first book to tell the stories of all the detainees in Guantanámo. He writes regularly on issues related to Guantánamo and the "War on Terror" on his Web site.