A Palestinian girl struggles to obtain donated food at a community kitchen in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, May 9, 2025
ANSELM ELDERGILL draws attention to a legal case on Tuesday in which a human rights group is challenging the government’s decision to allow the sale of weapons used against Palestinians
A FOUR-DAY High Court hearing begins on Tuesday in which Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, is challenging the government’s decision to continue granting licences to sell F-35 fighter jet components and other weapons to Israel. Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have intervened in the case.
Public statements by Israeli officials make it clear that F-35s are regularly used in military attacks on Gaza. The British government accepts there is a “clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international law.” It has also admitted that Israel is not committed to complying with international humanitarian law. However, it says that stopping the F-35 licences would “cause disruption to the global supply chain,” which will have a profound impact on international peace and security.
Al-Haq considers that this is an extraordinary position to take. According to its general director, “Gaza is destroyed, it is unliveable. Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and erased by weapons whose components are supplied to Israel by the British government, acting in full knowledge of the consequences.”
The Arms Trade Treaty of 2014 regulates the international trade in conventional arms. Authorising the export of weapons and related items is prohibited if a government knows that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 or attacks on civilian objects or protected civilians.
UK Labour Party government Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are participants and complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide providing Israel with army and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.UK Labour Party Shadow Foreign Secretary repeatedly heckled at a speech to the Fabian Society over his and the Labour Party’s support for and complicity in Israel’s genocide of Gaza.Keir Starmer wanted for Genocide and war crimes
UK Labour Party government Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are participants and complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide providing Israel with army and air force support. They explain that they don’t do gas chambers but do do forced marches, starvation, destroy hospitals, mass-murders of journalists and healthcare workers.
A Yemeni soldier inspects the damage reportedly caused by U.S. airstrikes in Sanaa, Yemen, April 27, 2025
WHILE today electors endured the rituals of our vastly undemocratic electoral system, Britain was at war. As we approach the anniversary of the victory over fascism in Europe, the Royal Air Force is in action against our former colonial subjects in the Yemen.
Far from defending our shores from foreign invaders, the Royal Air Force is attacking Yemeni targets in co-ordination with Donald Trump’s military as part of the multi-national operation in the Middle East in defence of Israel.
Parliament has not met to discuss launching a war, the British people have not been consulted and only the most alert will have noticed this dangerous escalation in a region where British public opinion is overwhelmingly in sympathy with the Palestinian people who, both in devastated Gaza and in the Occupied Territories and the West Bank, are bearing the brunt of Israel’s genocidal attack.
Make no mistake, US and British logistical support allows Israel’s assault on the Palestinian people. It is a joint operation with intelligence and communications support from British military assets in the region including in Cyprus where an unequal treaty imposed on that country permits Britain to maintain military bases, airfields and electronic intelligence gathering installations.
Long deployed to Israel’s strategic advantage, now these assets are targeted on Yemenis who have leveraged their advantageous strategic position aside the Red Sea and the approaches to the Suez Canal to interdict shipping they suspect of supplying Israel.
UK Labour Party government Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are participants and complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide providing Israel with army and air force support.
The UK government is about to host a summit with the International Energy Agency (IEA) on the future of energy security. It does so as the world grapples with war, geopolitical realignments and trade barriers, against a backdrop of accelerating climate upheavals. One of the expected outcomes of this summit is a new, agreed definition of what constitutes energy security in the 21st century.
Common understandings of energy security have focused on making supplies reliable and affordable, with less attention paid to ensuring sources of energy are sustainable and less volatile over the medium- and long-term. This neglect compromises our collective security.
The IEA’s 31 member countries and 13 associates include most of the world’s most powerful states. Its influence means that this new definition of energy security will be used to inform government policies and investment decisions around the world. Given the cost of energy infrastructure, and the lengthy time it takes to build these projects, this definition is set to shape our future, economically and climatically.
But there is a very real risk that this definition will open the door to further investments into fossil fuel production under the guise of energy security.
International Energy Agency (IEA) member and ‘association member’ countries. IEA, CC BY-SA
After Russia invaded Ukraine, governments rushed to cut their reliance on Russian fossil fuels. This caused major disruptions as prices spiked and millions were pushed into energy poverty.
Europe alone spent an extra €517–€831 billion (£444–£713 billion) on energy in 2021 and 2022, even though some imports from Russia continued through so-called “shadow fleets”. Some argued that high fossil fuel prices only embolden leaders like Putin and help fund their conflicts.
Governments responded with “energy nativism”, as they sought to secure as much energy as possible for their citizens at whatever cost. This typically meant boosting renewables and bulk buying oil and gas. In the UK’s case, it also meant the previous government issuing hundreds of new licenses to drill for oil and gas to “increase energy security” – licenses the current government says it will honour).
Shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG) were also redirected from poorer countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh towards the highest bidders in Europe and Asia. This raises the question of who exactly is becoming more energy secure and at what cost.
Meanwhile, large fossil fuel exporters like Qatar, the US and Australia ramped up production. A US official even referred to its gas exports as “molecules of freedom”. Australia has exported so much natural gas it may have to buy its own gas back from Japan at market price.
The sheer volume of investment in new oil and gas infrastructure like offshore rigs or LNG terminals, combined with long build times, has locked in higher fossil fuel production and pushed emissions to record levels. This poses significant risks for both exporters and importers, especially as future demand is uncertain and energy markets remain volatile.
Fossil fuels remain dominant
More fundamentally, continued reliance on fossil fuels is making humanity less secure. The vast majority of emissions still come from burning coal, oil or gas. Preventing climate catastrophe therefore requires us to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible – with wealthy nations leading the charge. In their place, we’ll have to generate energy from renewable sources that do not replicate the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels.
Yet despite some progressive policies, fossil fuels remain dominant across the global economy. Investment in oil and gas today is almost double the level it must fall below if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, according to the IEA’s own modelling.
The pursuit of energy security has boosted renewables, but adding additional clean energy isn’t enough – it must ultimately displace fossil fuels entirely. This will require a whole-economy shift. That means cutting production of fossil fuels while also reducing demand, stabilising prices and building out clean energy fast enough to support the electrification of transport, industry and heating.
But supply chains for batteries, solar panels and other key technologies are vulnerable. Delays and shortages could mean electricity prices spike, sparking social unrest. This is yet another risk of getting energy security wrong: if inflationary pressures drive the immiseration of the general public, governments and their energy plans will be short lived.
The definition of energy security that comes out of the IEA summit should reflect the fact we’re now in a world of constant crises. True energy security means charting a path towards a world that is more socially, economically and environmentally secure. This means developing a well-managed global plan to phase out fossil fuels.
UK Labour Party government’s Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves explain that they are participants and complicit in Israel’s Gaza genocide providing Israel with army and air force support.
A Palestinian girl struggles to obtain donated food at a community kitchen in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, May 9, 2025
