David Lammy met Benjamin Netanyahu in July 2024 soon after Labour won power. (Photo: Ben Dance / FCDO)
Book review: Peter Oborne spares neither Labour nor the Conservatives in his searing history of Gaza’s destruction.
As British people have turned against Israel’s destruction of Gaza, leading figures in its present and former governing parties still deny that Israel has committed even war crimes, let alone genocide.
Some of these denialists are hardened Zionists, others are opportunists, but the bottom line is summed up in the one-word title of Peter Oborne’s timely book. They have made themselves “complicit” (at the very least) in Israel’s monstrous crimes.
Oborne traces British complicity through Rishi Sunak’s unconditional backing for Israel after 7 October 2023, and Keir Starmer’s outrageous statement that Israel had the right to cut off power and water, to their joint opposition to a ceasefire.
Through a “cross-party cartel”, they “established the political foundation that would make Britain complicit” in massacres, indiscriminate bombing, torture and displacement.
This led to specific contributions to Israel’s genocide. Britain sold parts for the F-35 fighter jets that it used to kill civilians, and withdrew funding for UNRWA, the agency that provided Gaza’s humanitarian lifeline.
The RAF flew hundreds of reconnaissance flights, as Declassified exposed. The pretext of helping to find Israel’s hostages was quickly undermined as it became clear that Netanyahu was sacrificing them in his pursuit of endless destruction.
Genocide denier and Current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is quoted that he supports Zionism without qualification. He also confirms that UK air force support has been essential in Israel’s mass-murdering genocide. Includes URLs https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmers-100-spy-flights-over-gaza-in-support-of-israel/ and https://youtu.be/O74hZCKKdpAKeir 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.Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has described her plan to “maximise extraction” of the UK’s oil and gas from the North Sea as a “common sense” energy policy.
Politicians are using language like this increasingly often – calling themselves “pragmatic” on climate change and invoking “common sense”. It sounds reasonable, reassuring, and grownup – the opposite of “hysterical” campaigners or “unrealistic” targets.
But new research my colleagues and I conducted, calling on a decade of interviews with UK MPs, shows that political “pragmatism” is fast becoming a dangerous form of climate delay. By framing urgent action as “extreme” and steady-as-she-goes policies as “pragmatic”, leaders across the political spectrum are protecting the fossil-fuel status quo at the very moment scientists warn we need rapid, transformative change.
Badenoch’s latest intervention is a perfect example. She said “common sense” dictates that every drop of oil must be extracted from the North Sea, and that net zero by 2050 was a policy pushed by “bullies”. This came just a day after the UK Met Office declared summer 2025 as the hottest on record.
We found that members of parliament deploy the same language of pragmatism to defend fossil fuel companies and to insist to their constituents that nothing needs to change too fast. The paradox, of course, is that more urgent social and economic change is precisely what the world’s climate scientists say is necessary to avert climate breakdown.
In our recent interviews with politicians, MPs from across the political spectrum tended towards gradual change in order to maintain political and public support. One said:
First and foremost be pragmatic. Accept incremental change, because incremental change often accelerates, but you take people with you. If you didn’t take people with you, you’ll start getting resistance.
Another MP contrasted a pragmatic approach with the calls from some campaign groups for more rapid action:
There are campaigns that say we’ve got to be net zero by 2025, or 2030. [laughing incredulously] … do you realise what the consequences of that will be … you’d have a revolution in Britain if you tried to do that, in terms of destroying people’s quality of life.
Interestingly, despite rejecting more ambitious targets, later in the interview the same MP acknowledged that faster change was needed:
We need to do more, we could do more, we are, you know, I’m sure the government will do more. I’m certainly pushing it to do more. But fundamentally we’ve halved our emissions since 1990.
Here we see the nuance, and the danger, of the language of pragmatism. It allows politicians to hold two positions at once. They can acknowledge the need for rapid change, while promoting a “pragmatic” position against it.
The calls for pragmatism appeared to stem from MPs’ desire to present a reasoned and rational case for climate action that does not impinge on constituents’ lives. They also used pragmatism to distance themselves from arguments they portrayed as “extreme” or “shrill”.
The flawed assumption underlying these calls to pragmatism is that the public will not support ambitious, transformative climate policies. We concluded that whereas a few years ago MPs promoted climate policies “by stealth”, meaning they did it on the quiet, now they turn to ideas of pragmatism in an attempt to maintain a fragile political consensus in favour of net zero – a consensus that is already fracturing.
Top-down pragmatism
This turn to pragmatism can now be seen at the very top of British politics, threatening the UK’s steady ratcheting up of climate ambition to date.
Former Labour prime minister Tony Blair recently wrote in the Blair Institute’s report on climate change: “People know that the current state of debate over climate change is riven with irrationality.”
Blair then asserted: “Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.” This is despite the widespread consensus among scientists that both phasing out fossil fuels and reducing consumption of at least some products are essential.
The report goes on to say: “A realistic voice in the climate debate is required, neither ideological nor alarmist but pragmatic.” This language is intended to sound rational, reasonable and even scientific. The problem is that it can be used to justify actions that appear to ignore what the science is telling us.
Former Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak warned against treating climate change as an “ideology” . Notably, Sunak referred to “pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic” climate action shortly after his government announced hundreds of new licences for oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
His message coincided with ongoing road-building programmes, plans for airport expansion, and insufficient action to insulate the UK’s housing stock, all of which could jeopardise the UK’s climate targets. Again we see the language of pragmatism working against the rapid societal changes that are necessary.
The pragmatic road ahead
In general, the MPs we spoke to were not using pragmatism in bad faith. Rather it was a way of navigating the complexities of climate politics where the huge changes demanded by climate mitigation are deemed too challenging to sell to constituents. But this political strategy is a very risky one and underestimates the public’s appetite for “strong and clear” climate leadership from government.
The current government is already struggling to reconcile net zero commitments with its economic growth agenda, which includes a new runway at Heathrow airport. Not only is prime minister Keir Starmer facing divisions within the ruling Labour party over net zero ambitions, he is also dealing with increasingly prominent net zero scepticism from the leaders of the Conservative and Reform parties.
The political language of “pragmatism” therefore risks spreading from Badenoch to Starmer, becoming a discourse of delay that promotes non-transformative solutions.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
[I previously published this article on 31 December 2023. It’s a little dated but still a good one.]
In the ‘coming soon’ notice announcing this article I said that “[t]here aren’t any real climate deniers anymore”. I was mistaken and there are a very few people like Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers Corbyn. I’ve only met and spoken with him once but I’m satisfied that he’s genuine in his beliefs despite them being misguided. He and others like him have the right to believe whatever they like and he’s harmless enough – while he may persuade a few people the vast majority will understand that he’s mistaken and wrong.
Image of UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reads 1% RICHEST 100% CLIMATE DENIER
So apart from Piers Corbyn and a few similar people, there is no such thing as a climate denier nowadays. The Capitalists profiting from climate destruction have known for 60 years of more that they were profiting from destroying the planet and were forcing future generations to endure intolerable climate conditions, annihilating many thousands of species of plants and animals and generally totally fekking everything.
Governments are controlled, directed, owned by a very few extremely rich and powerful people, the very people that are profiting and maintaining their wealth, power and influence from destroying the planet. According to this perspective we do not exist in a democracy and it is instead a pretence hiding the influence of the rich and powerful. We exist in a plutocracy – we have a wealthy ruling class that politicians serve.
It cannot be accepted that politicians like UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak or our expected next Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the like are mistaken true believers like Piers Corbyn believes. Rather they are climate deniers in the sense of the fossil fuel industries – Exxon, Shell and BP – who know fully well that they are destroying the planet but deceive and mislead to continue making a filthy profit. It’s obvious to see that these politician cnuts serve this rich elite’s interests – Tory and Labour UK governments have answered to media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, sucking up to him, grateful to accept his orders.
Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil’s You May Find Yourself… art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
Sunak, despite being fully aware of the climate crisis is continuing to destroy the planet. Announcing the go-ahead for the Rosebank oil field he said that he intends to get every last drop of North Sea oil.
President Trump is a climate science denier because he was supported financially by the fossil fuel industry during his re-election campaign. He explicitly called for financial support from the “liquid gold” fossil fuel industry.
Power-mad orange gasbag Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
A pro-Palestinian protester holds a placard accusing U.S. President Joe Biden, former U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of war crimes at a demonstration against Israeli attacks on Gaza in central London, U.K. (Photo: Andy Soloman/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
In less than a year, more than a dozen U.S. officials publicly resigned in protest of Biden’s policy on Israel-Palestine. I was one of them.
Every so often, countless young hopefuls arrive in Washington, D.C., eager to help implement policies that improve the lives of Americans. But some quickly come to find out that U.S. imperialism bleeds into all areas of policy, it impacts all facets of government directly or indirectly, and sometimes at the expense of Americans in need. That was my rude awakening, at least.
I was one of those young hopefuls, and two years later, I publicly resigned from my post as a political appointee in the Biden-Harris administration because the cost of U.S. imperialism occupied every one of my thoughts. I felt I strayed away from my goal of pursuing justice through policy every time I thought about the cost of funding destruction and death in Palestine at the expense of us Americans, roughly half of whom are struggling to afford food, clothing, and housing.
And I am not the only one who resigned under President Joe Biden. In less than a year, more than a dozen U.S. officials publicly resigned in protest of Biden’s policy on Israel-Palestine, and many others left quietly. This level of dissent within the realm of government is unheard of and it can be characterized as a fight against imperialistic policy.
If, in his final days, Biden strayed away from the norm far enough to pardon his own son, exemplifying the instinct we have to protect our family and keep them safe, he should have known of the hypocrisy in enabling the orphaning and killing of children in Palestine.
The imperialistic features of our government disillusion passionate people, it turns them away from a life of public service. It is difficult to stay motivated while seeing the military spending in our country grow astronomically by the year while education and transportation face steep budget cuts. Americans do not get to see the benefits of high military spending materialized, but they would directly benefit from sufficiently funded schools and public transportation. And imperialism only succeeds abroad in ruining the United States’ reputation, casting it as a force wreaking havoc in the Global South. So, when I think about the United States’ role in supporting Israel’s aggression in Palestine, I wonder what it is all for in the grand scheme of bettering the lives of Americans.
If the administration’s insistence on supporting Israel no matter the cost was about maintaining the status quo, something the Biden-Harris administration had no trouble straying away from in other cases, then it was both a failed and hypocritical policy. Biden did not mind the status quo when he chose a woman as a vice president in a historic first or when he nominated the first Black female Supreme Court Justice. One can argue those steps were superficial, but regardless, they signaled progress to some. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the same administration that took those steps tarnished their legacy when they, time and time again, failed Palestine on a catastrophic level.
My generation and community will remember this administration for one thing: genocide. It will go down in history as the administration that could not stray away from the status quo on Israel-Palestine policy at the expense of Americans in need, the lives of American activists like Ayşenur Eygi, and the safety of Arab and Muslim Americans. Not to mention, the Biden-Harris administration and Democratic Party leadership at large sacrificed the 2024 presidential election and Democratic voters in the process when they refused to campaign differently on Palestine.
As the Biden-Harris administration departs, their legacy is being immortalized. The hundreds of thousands of Americans who have advocated for a change in policy since October 2023 can argue that the legacy of the administration becoming stained permanently was avoidable.
If, in his final days, Biden strayed away from the norm far enough to pardon his own son, exemplifying the instinct we have to protect our family and keep them safe, he should have known of the hypocrisy in enabling the orphaning and killing of children in Palestine. If he was able to use his authority for good to commute the sentences of 37 prisoners on federal death row, he should have known to uphold the law and ensure Israel is not receiving an endless supply of weapons illegally. What may be worse than ignorant leaders are ones who are aware and indifferent, willingly complicit, and that may very well be the Biden administration’s legacy.
Some updates have been made throughout this piece at the author’s request.
‘Great stories begin in social homes. But we’re living in a housing emergency, and we need to build more. Now.’
In England alone, 1.3 million households are stuck on waiting lists for housing. 145,800 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. During the last decade, 19,000 social rent homes have been lost every year. 90,000 social homes need to be built every year for the next ten years to end the housing emergency.
These alarming statistics are provided by the housing and homelessness charity Shelter. The research, carried out by Shelter and the National Housing Federation, found that the building of 90,000 social homes a year would pay for itself within three years, add over £50bn to the economy over 30 years, and support 140k direct jobs in the first year.
In the run-up to the general election, the charity has launched a Vote for Home campaign. Over 35,000 people have already put their signature to a letter calling on political leaders to fix the country’s housing crisis by building new social homes.
It urges Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Ed Davey, Carla Denya, and Adrian Ramsey to build social homes and “create a fairer renting system that will end the housing emergency.”
The letter notes how none of the leaders have promised to prioritise fixing the housing emergency.
