Pro-Palestinian student protesters outside King’s College London during an inter-university march for Gaza in London on 7 October 2025 (AFP)
British universities and security networks coordinated with government officials and private intelligence, Amnesty International says
British universities worked together to suppress pro-Palestine activism on student campuses, a new report has revealed.
Amnesty International on Tuesday published its Silencing Dissent report, which found that UK universities actively worked together to stop students protesting their universities’ ties to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosures examined in the report found that universities “were not acting in isolation when responding to Palestine solidarity protest, but are operating within a network which encouraged repressive responses”.
FOI-obtained messages showed university administrators discussing disciplinary measures, including injunctions to stop protests and referring student protesters to the UK’s Prevent counterterrorism programme.
…
The report notes that at least nine universities received threat briefings from private intelligence firms, including Horus Security Consultancy Ltd, Mitie Intelligence Hub and the risk specialist Global Situational Awareness (GSA).
Intelligence updates routinely classified non-violent student actions with severe threat levels.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel. New Labour UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues Labour party policy of active support and complicity in Israel’s genocide.UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham admits to blatently lying and engaging in deception to become leader of the UK Labour Party and Prime Minister.
Addressing the UN General Assembly in September, Donald Trump gloated about his strategy toward “narcoterrorist” cartels, the menace du jour in the United States’ self-declared backyard. Pulling numbers out of his ass per usual, Trump claimed that the manic bombing campaign against alleged seafaring narcoterrorists (read: fishermen) in Central and South America has cut maritime drug trafficking by 97%, and called drug cartels the “ISIS of the Western Hemisphere.”
While it was by no means the president’s intention, he accidentally hit the nail on the head with the ISIS comparison. Both the Islamic State and Latin American drug trafficking outfits are a direct result of US policy—as well as a convenient excuse for the Americans to continue terrorizing people under the pretext of combating the very phenomena they caused in the first place. Just as ISIS owes its origins to the US invasion of Iraq, drug traffickers wouldn’t be in big business if not for—what else?—the US’s so-called “war on drugs” that renders the international movement of illicit substances so lucrative.
‘Same effect on land’
AP (8/17/26) describes the US military’s role in Latin America as “supplying allies with weapons, intelligence and training to fight drug trafficking”—while acknowledging “a fraught legacy of support for military coups and dictatorships.”
This year, the Trump administration has significantly ramped up its drug war beyond just randomly blowing people up in the ocean. In August, the Associated Press (8/17/26) reported on the government’s plans to expand operations to terra firma, quoting Secretary of War Pete Hegseth:
It will be “like you saw with the strikes on the drug boats,” Hegseth said during a military drill in the jungle in Panama. “Same effect on land.”
But since there are generally more people on land than in the middle of the sea, there will no doubt be far greater opportunities for extrajudicial execution in this new terrestrial phase of operations.
The escalated campaign takes place against the backdrop of the US-led “Shield of the Americas,” a hemispheric “anti-cartel coalition” inaugurated in March that now boasts the participation of 19 countries. Ecuador has been among the most gung-ho about joining forces with the US to launch “anti-cartel” raids, with such impressive feats to show for it as the joint bombing of a drug trafficking compound that turned out to be a dairy farm.
‘Long and bloody history’
The New York Times (10/14/26) describes the US sending hundreds of combat troops to Latin America as “expanding its fight against drug traffickers.”
This month, the New York Times (10/14/26) was the first to report that the US had begun deploying a shit ton of troops to Latin America, and that a “new jungle training facility” in Panama was receiving “the first elements of a 600-soldier battalion from the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY.” The Times also mentioned the Defense Department’s “recent movement of several MQ-9 Reaper drones from Africa to Colombia and Ecuador.”
The article’s subhead—“The Pentagon is expanding its fight against drug traffickers, even as the plans recall a long and bloody history of US intervention in the region”—leaves us with the expectation that we might be hearing something about, I dunno, the long and bloody history of US intervention in the region. And yet the only reference to that history in the body of the article occurs in a single sentence that is a modified replica of the subhead: “But the prospect of US operations on Latin American soil has raised concerns about sovereignty, and has recalled a long and bloody history of US intervention in the region.”
Surely an example or three of “intervention” wouldn’t have taken up too much space on the pages of the Times; the authors could have mentioned that time in 1989 the US military bombed to smithereens an impoverished neighborhood in Panama City, killing as many as several thousand civilians, in a bid to capture Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. A longtime US buddy who had been on the CIA payroll for decades despite common knowledge of his involvement in the drug trade, Noriega had outlived his usefulness, and his drug dealings were suddenly so wrong and horrible as to necessitate the psychotic bombardment of poor Panamanians living in wooden shacks.
Or the Times could have delved into disproportionate US financial and moral support for the homicidal regime of Colombia’s far-right President Alvaro Uribe during the first decade of this century. Uribe himself appeared on a 1991 US Defense Intelligence Agency list of the “more important Colombian narco-traffickers contracted by the Colombian narcotic cartels”—but that was no reason he couldn’t be promoted to the role of America’s Super Drug War Ally and vanquisher of narcoterrorists.
As president, Uribe oversaw what came to be known as the “false positives” scandal, in which potentially more than 10,000 Colombian civilians were slaughtered by members of the Colombian army, who disguised the corpses as left-wing guerrillas in order to accrue promotions and vacation time. The Uribe administration then used these ostensible battlefield achievements to petition the US for yet more aid.
Last but not least, the Times could have brought up the Contra war on Nicaragua in the 1980s, when CIA-backed mercenaries unleashed terror on that nation while overseeing a profitable side hustle trafficking drugs to the US. The ensuing crack cocaine epidemic devastated Black communities across the country, but, hey, it was all in the name of saving the world from Communism.
Indeed, not only would such details give the Times’ readers an idea of the extent to which the US has traditionally been up to no good in Latin America (and at home), they would also soundly obliterate the official “drug war” narrative and expose it for what it is: a façade for imperial domination that really has nothing to do with stopping the flow of drugs at all.
‘Fight against drug traffickers’
The Wall Street Journal headline (9/25/26) called the US military carrying out assassinations in Ecuador “Fighting the Drug War on the Ground.”
But for the New York Times and other corporate media, speaking truth to power is not part of the job description. While they may critique the methods or effectiveness of the “war on drugs,” these media stop far short of questioning its entire premise, and time and again the US government is allowed to set the terms of the discourse. Thus we have the Times droning on about the “fight against drug traffickers,” the “war against drugs,” the “escalating US-led military campaign against drug traffickers,” and the move “to target cartels.”
In a typical example from September, the Wall Street Journal (9/25/26) announced that “US Troops Are Now Fighting the Drug War on the Ground in Ecuador.” This month, the Washington Post (10/16/26) reported on shifting tactics in US “anti-drug strikes at sea.” The Hill’s Filip Timotija (10/7/26) observed that “the Pentagon is expanding the US military’s multifront war against drug cartels in South America.” And so on.
For its part, Reuters (9/22/26) has described Trump’s escalation as an “expanding campaign against drug cartels,” even while diplomatically cautioning that “rights groups” have said the US boat strikes “amount to extrajudicial killings.” This sort of diplomatic maneuver is another hallmark of a corporate media that can never come right out and say that spontaneously pulverizing people on fishing vessels actually counts as extrajudicial killing, whether you’re a “rights group” or not.
Mechanism for control
CNN (5/12/26) reported on an alleged CIA assassination in Mexico as being part of an effort “to dismantle the entrenched cartel networks.”
In May, CNN (5/12/26) published an exclusive report titled: “CIA Escalates Secret War on Cartels With Deadly Operations Inside Mexico.” This is the same CIA, of course, that has been up to its ears in drug trafficking since the Korean war—including, as it so happens, in Mexico. (For a rundown on CIA narco-exploits over the decades, see the 1993 article “The CIA Drug Connection Is as Old as the Agency,” which somehow made it onto the New York Times website. It begins with a “recent news item: The Justice Department is investigating allegations that officers of a special Venezuelan anti-drug unit funded by the CIA smuggled more than 2,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States with the knowledge of CIA officials.”)
The CNN piece details the targeted assassination of alleged Sinaloa Cartel operative Francisco Beltrán, whose car was blown up in March on a highway outside Mexico City. According to CNN:
The Beltrán operation was part of an expanded, and previously unreported, CIA campaign inside Mexico—spearheaded by the agency’s elite and secretive Ground Branch—to dismantle the entrenched cartel networks.
On the surface, at least, CNN is thus being insubordinate by publishing information that the US government does not want people to know; as the article specifies, the news outlet even gets dramatically accused by the CIA spokesperson of “false and salacious reporting that serves as nothing more than a PR campaign for the cartels and puts American lives at risk.”
And yet the apparent defiance of the government only goes so far. At the end of the day, the CNN exposé simply reinforces the narrative that the US is in fact fighting against drug cartels—and not using the “drug war” apparatus as a politico-economic weapon and mechanism for control.
No reference is made to the history of US government agencies collaborating with Mexican drug trafficking groups, including the Sinaloa Cartel itself, or to the preponderant role of US weapons manufacturers in arming criminal organizations in Mexico. (Recall that brilliant experiment during the Barack Obama presidency when the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives facilitated the illegal purchase of thousands and thousands of guns on the off chance the trail would lead them to Mexican cartel leaders.)
‘Politics of extermination’
Oswaldo Zavala (Baffler, 6/18/26): “Government-sanctioned extrajudicial murders have been part of US military operations across the planet for several decades.”
Many corporate media interventions do take care to note that the current US approach in Latin America has not had any apparent effect on the drug trade; the New York Times (10/14/26), for instance, notes that “experts say that killing members of trafficking groups—even top leaders—does little to stem the flow of drugs.”
But media are never compelled to entertain the idea that stemming the flow of drugs may not even be the point—not even when, after using the drug war as a pretext, Trump straight-up admits that he attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its president for oil, plain and simple.
Since President Richard Nixon launched the “war on drugs” in 1971, the US still hasn’t managed to stem the flow, but the war has provided a whole lot of opportunities for the US militarization of Latin America and alliances with an array of regional right-wing nutjobs who are only too happy to facilitate imperial intrusion and neoliberal corporate assault at the expense of their populations.
The scholar Oswaldo Zavala, author of Drug Cartels Do Not Exist, contends in a recent essay for the Baffler (6/18/26) that “the ‘war on drugs’ is an overt politics of extermination.” It’s part of a panorama in which
from the Middle East to Latin America, a transnational military use of force has consistently been deployed against impoverished people in developing countries and sold as a war against “narcos,” “terrorists,” the artificial hybrid “narco-terrorists.”
Mexico, Zavala writes, has hosted the “most devastating such campaign in Latin America”; since the launch of the US-imposed war on drugs in 2006, more than 460,000 people have been killed and more than 134,000 disappeared, “a disproportionate number [of whom] have been poor, young, brown, uneducated men living in the outskirts of major cities.”
In their book Cocaine, Death Squads and the War on Terror:US Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia, Oliver Villar and Drew Cottle illustrate how the US-backed drug war in Colombia has traditionally not been against drugs, but rather for the control of the drug trade, which in the 1980s became a significant “source of profit for US capital.” To this day, the overwhelming majority of profits from the ongoing drug trade remain in the US.
‘Failed to curb cocaine supply’
Washington Post (7/27/26): “Trump has transformed traditional US drug enforcement into a military campaign that fuses the legal and strategic approaches of the war on drugs and the war on terror.”
But corporate media continue to portray the “war on drugs” as just that, casting hints to the contrary as mere failures of drug war tactics and strategy. In an article headlined “Deadly US Boat Strikes Have Failed to Curb Cocaine Supply, Pentagon and DEA Officials Say,” the Washington Post (7/27/26) speculates that “there might, in fact, now be more cocaine circulating in the United States.” But for the Post, it’s still all ultimately part of a “decades-long war on drugs”—and no need to turn the entire concept on its head.
It should be quite clear, after 250 years of the United States of America, that the government is very often lying through its teeth. But corporate media outlets just can’t bring themselves to integrate the mass of incriminating material on the political expedience of the “drug war” into one cohesive anti-systemic analysis that would upend the government narrative.
Forty years ago, in September 1986, then-President Ronald Reagan solemnly addressed the nation about the dangers of drugs, even as he was funding the drug-running Contras: “Drugs are menacing our society. They’re threatening our values and undercutting our institutions. They’re killing our children.”
And judging from the behavior of the media, it seems that defying the government line might be equally menacing to society.
Featured Image: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks at a forum of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition in Panama City, August 12, 2026 (AP Photo: Matias Delacroix).
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Guardian (9/26/26): “Donald Trump has long coveted the oilfields of other nations.” [26/9/26]
Since the January 3, 2026, military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has imposed semi-colonial rule over Venezuela, forcing dramatic shifts in the country’s domestic and foreign policies.
The capstone of the new tutelary regime is an oil deal announced in late August that Trump called “the biggest in history.” The agreement turns over 17 prime oilfields, holding over 20% of the country’s reserves, to a Pentagon-controlled corporation tasked with supplying cheap fuel to the US war machine for decades to come.
After spending years manufacturing consent for US-sponsored regime change in Venezuela (e.g., FAIR.org, 6/4/21, 1/11/23, 2/12/25), having a government in Caracas subservient to Washington represented a new scenario for the corporate media. The novel conditions have raised few significant qualms for Western outlets. Tactical objections notwithstanding, there is no fundamental disagreement with the US running the affairs of a Global South country.
Not ‘stealing Venezuela’s oil’
Energy Secretary Chris Wright (France 24, 3/9/26): “I’ve seen those headlines. ‘We’re Stealing Venezuelan Oil.’ Of course, that’s not true at all.”
Working hand in glove with the Trump administration, the acting Delcy Rodríguez government has overhauled Venezuela’s hydrocarbon legislation (Venezuelanalysis, 7/13/26) to offer what oil experts consider a business environment more favorable to foreign capital than at any point in the country’s history. The new oil agreement with the White House manages to go even further.
The 17 oilfields in question will be taken over by North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), a private company in which the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) will get a 35% stake while investing nothing—and wielding veto power over its board.
Furthermore, according to the White House, the US State Department will secure 20% of NABEP’s output at cost, and have a right of first refusal over the remaining 80%. On top of this, Venezuelan officials have already suggested Washington would be given an additional “sales discount” (Venezuelanalysis, 9/9/26).
In summary, Trump is looking to secure cheap crude supplies at a time when his disastrous Iran debacle has thrown global energy markets into upheaval. The agreement is so blatantly skewed that US Energy Secretary Chris Wright felt he needed to clarify that Washington was not “stealing Venezuela’s oil” (AFP, 9/3/26).
Nevertheless, Western media outlets were largely unfazed by such an obvious oil grab, euphemistically referring to the deal as “highly unusual” (New York Times, 8/29/26) or “remarkable” (BBC, 9/1/26), at most as “contentious” (Guardian, 9/1/26).
Corporate journalists did raise objections over the central role played by NABEP owner Alejandro Betancourt, a shady Venezuelan businessman who faced multiple money-laundering probes before the Trump administration intervened, and pressured judicial authorities at home and abroad to drop the investigations (BBC, 9/2/26; CNN, 9/4/26; New York Times, 9/4/26).
But media seemed satisfied with Trump’s state and energy secretaries Marco Rubio and Chris Wright pledging that US oversight will keep proceedings honest (Reuters, 9/2/26; New York Times, 9/4/26), despite the fact that billions in Venezuelan oil revenues, controlled by the US Treasury Department since January, are unaccounted for (Council on Foreign Relations, 6/3/26; Financial Times, 7/22/26).
Procedurally transparent plunder
The New York Times (5/5/26) wrote positively of “a new era of accountability” in which “the United States would control Venezuelan oil sales” and “Venezuela would submit monthly budgets to the White House.”
Objections to the Venezuela/NABEP/Pentagon venture were mostly procedural and out of concern for appearances, not driven by any principled opposition to US imperialist predation. Faced with outright colonial plunder of Venezuela, the political and media establishment only demands “accountability” and “transparency” (New York Times, 5/5/26; Financial Times, 9/18/26).
For months, the White House has controlled Venezuelan oil export revenues, with Trump officials openly calling them “one of the largest assets ever to go on the US balance sheet,” and a source of “leverage” over Caracas. Yet Trump’s Democratic opponents have found no issue with seizing another country’s income, raising only questions about the allocation of the funds in reference to alleged corruption on the part of Caracas and Trump insiders (The Hill, 9/30/26; Washington Post, 9/17/26). This despite the fact that the Venezuelan government has to submit a “monthly budget” to access its own funds (New York Times, 1/28/26) and is subjected to US-imposed auditors (Reuters, 4/27/26).
The other source of disappointment with Trump stomping all over Venezuelan sovereignty, but prioritizing oil over regime change, is impatience for the restoration/recovery/return of “democracy” to Venezuela (Politico, 9/2/26; Guardian, 8/30/26; CBC, 9/3/26). Despite widely acknowledgement that Trump is eroding democracy at home (New York Times, 8/20/26, 10/14/26; Guardian, 10/8/26), somehow pundits expected him to prioritize it in an oil-rich foreign country.
In the establishment’s consensus, “democracy” does not mean a political system that meaningfully reflects the Venezuelan people’s collective will, but simply one that empowers opposition figures that have been groomed for years, like far-right María Corina Machado, their undemocratic credentials notwithstanding (FAIR.org, 10/23/25).
Eager to stay in power, Rodríguez has over-complied with every US demand, going as far as adopting language about Venezuela undergoing a “democratic transformation.” Her pliancy has earned her favorable corporate media profiles that completely contrast with the demonization of Maduro.
After securing an exclusive interview, Time (7/30/26) described the acting leader as a “disciplined operator” who “advocate[s] for greater economic openness,” in contrast to the “authoritarian” Maduro, who oversaw “economic collapse.” Along the same lines, the Guardian (9/12/26) presented Rodríguez as a “a pragmatic, witty and intelligent workaholic,” unlike her “authoritarian” and “incompetent” predecessor in the presidential palace.
Nevertheless, given the broad Beltway consensus for comprehensive regime change, it is unlikely that the Rodríguez administration’s subservience to Trump will secure any leeway in determining its political path forward, free from outside meddling—especially if, as is anticipated, the GOP lawmakers most likely to be impressed by such obsequiousness lose power in the US’s upcoming midterm elections (Axios, 9/23/26; Financial Times, 10/9/26).
Please think of the corporations!
Reuters (9/1/26): ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips “have repeatedly said that their requirements of legal certainty and contract sanctity have not yet been met.”
Alongside their exceptionalist expectations about “democracy,” legacy outlets also focus on those they consider the true victims of Trump’s neocolonial offensive in Venezuela: multinational oil corporations.
According to Reuters (9/1/26), the recent oil deal “raises red flags for major producers,” who fear having their reputation sullied by being “seated at the same table with Betancourt,” as well as the prospect of the US government becoming a “competitor.”
Bloomberg (8/30/26) raised concerns that the agreement “reprises [the] neocolonial past” of Venezuela’s oil industry. The warning stems not from apprehension that the Venezuelan people’s future is being determined by a foreign nation, but from fear that the US’s “out-sized power” might lead to “popular unrest.” This could create conditions for what the business mouthpiece views as a catastrophic outcome: the nationalization of foreign-owned oil assets.
“The troubled history of Venezuela’s oil offers a cautionary tale,” Bloomberg’s Kevin Crowley and Patricia Garip wrote:
The country was once dominated by US and European operators and was among the world’s largest producers. But assets owned by ExxonMobil Holdings Corps. and ConocoPhillips were seized and nationalized during political upheaval in the 2000s.
Corporate media present companies that made massive profits in Venezuela for decades as victims, because the Chávez government wanted them to comply with new laws and accept minority stakes in joint ventures.
The New York Times (9/1/26) complains that the two corporations “have spent years trying to get the country to repay them for their seized assets, with little success.” The statement conceals the fact that the Venezuelan government, when it enacted the 2007 decree imposing state majority in all Orinoco Oil Belt projects, offered to compensate ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips for their transition to minority partners, or to buy out their assets altogether. However, both corporations rejected the offers in order to pursue international arbitration. The former has already recouped most of what it was granted, while the latter will eventually collect on a significant award.
Despite the fact that Chevron, BP, Shell and other energy giants have signed deals in recent months taking advantage of the reformed hydrocarbon law (Venezuelanalysis, 9/3/26), pundits complain that ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips remain “hesitant” (CBS, 8/31/26) and need to be “lured” (Reuters, 9/1/26). Still, the Western corporations are likely to return to the country with favorable deals (Reuters, 9/16/26).
The victor and his spoils
Belén Fernández (Al Jazeera, 9/24/26): “You’re not technically supposed to admit that you attacked a country just to get its oil.”
Faced with strategic defeat in West Asia, Trump has clung to his Venezuela success, stating on multiple occasions that “to the victor belong the spoils,” in reference to the US hijacking the Venezuelan oil industry following the January 3 attacks and presidential kidnapping (Al Jazeera, 9/24/26; Guardian, 9/26/26).
Furthermore, Trump has not been shy in boasting about the US winning a “war” against Venezuela (Financial Times, 9/18/26; New York Times, 6/26/26). Corporate journalists have rarely pointed out that this stance directly contradicts the administration’s official position that the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores was a “law enforcement” operation (New York Times, 1/6/26; PBS, 1/8/26) in order to justify bypassing congressional approval.
The US president has likewise claimed to have recovered the costs of the military operation “many times over” (Al Jazeera, 3/3/26; Guardian, 6/28/26), a fact confirmed by Luigi Pisella, a business sector spokesperson with close ties to the acting Rodríguez administration (Venezuelanalysis, 8/10/26). Pisella stated that the US has retained $4.7 billion from the Venezuelan export revenues it controls to cover the costs of its military operation.
In spite of their ostensible hostility to Trump, corporate outlets have historically been complicit with his Venezuela policies, from whitewashing a deadly sanctions program (FAIR.org, 6/13/22) to endorsing a military buildup over debunked “narcoterrorism” accusations (FAIR.org, 11/19/25). The New York Times and Washington Post went as far as to withhold information in order to not jeopardize the January 3 operation (FAIR.org, 1/13/26).
Now, with a semi-colonial regime in place, the only concerns are about procedural transparency, democratic appearances and the well-being of multinational corporations. The Venezuelan people always get the short end of the stick.
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.
Diggers were seen demolishing Palestinian homes on Friday afternoon
The Israeli military has begun demolishing Palestinian buildings in the city of Hebron, after two Israeli soldiers were killed in an attack by two Palestinian gunmen.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the military would “destroy” the neighbourhood where the two attackers came from, and that Israel was ready for “extensive action” in the occupied West Bank.
Three other soldiers were wounded in the attack at a checkpoint outside Hebron, before the gunmen were shot dead, officials say.
It comes at a time of high tensions, with extremist Jewish settlers targeting Palestinians during the annual olive harvest, and Israel’s general election taking place in four days’ time.
Footage verified by the BBC shows an intense gun battle between soldiers and the gunmen. Other footage shows two gunmen exit a car armed with what appears to be a handgun and an assault rifle and start firing on soldiers at the checkpoint, before coming under return fire.
…
Speaking later from the scene, Netanyahu said that the military would “demolish this place and completely transform it,” referring to the Hebron neighbourhood where the attackers are said to have come from.
It is common for Israeli forces to demolish the homes of Palestinians who are suspected of carrying out attacks on Israelis -a practice Israeli rights groups have criticised as collective punishment.
Netanyahu likened his plans to previous operations in West Bank refugee camps where residential buildings were demolished and thousands were displaced.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel. New Labour UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues Labour party policy of active support and complicity in Israel’s genocide.
An injured child is transferred to a Yemeni hospital after a Saudi strike in Saada province on 18 October (Photo: Houthi Media Center/Alamy)
Wes Streeting once called for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia. Now he’s helping its air force bomb Yemen.
Britain is expanding its aerial refuelling of Saudi fighter jets to include bombing raids on Yemen, despite a major spike in civilians being killed in these airstrikes.
Wes Streeting initially said the UK would only provide air-to-air refuelling for Saudi jets patrolling the kingdom’s skies to ward off drone and missile attacks on airports and oil infrastructure by Yemen’s Houthi movement.
The defence secretary is now letting British fighter jets join those patrols, as well as providing refuelling for Saudi airstrikes on “Houthi military targets in Yemen”.
It comes as last month saw more civilian casualties resulting from Saudi airstrikes on Yemen than any other since 2022, according to the Yemen Data Project.
At least 66 civilians were killed and a further 90 injured, with eight children among the dead.
One of the deadliest strikes came on 22 September, when six civilians including a woman and two children were killed in the bombing of a residential home in the city of Mokha.
That same day, Britain agreed to provide air-to-air refuelling support to the Saudi air force, supplementing the deployment of air defence equipment and UK personnel already in the region.
Saudi forces struck a market in the Al-Taiziyah district of Taiz governorate five days later, killing seven civilians and injuring 40 others, including five children.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel. New Labour UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues Labour party policy of active support and complicity in Israel’s genocide.UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham admits to blatently lying and engaging in deception to become leader of the UK Labour Party and Prime Minister.Ed Miliband says that he and the Labour Party are full of shit criminalising people holding signs as terrorists despite anything he says.
