October 23, 2025 • 41 mins
Is the UK government complicit in the destruction of Gaza? That's the assertion in the new book by journalist and polemicist Peter Oborne, with both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak under fire for backing what he calls Israel's “criminal assault” following the Hamas attack of October 7.
What's more, he says, the British media played its part too: colluding with the government as well as misrepresenting or under-reporting those voices opposed.
On this episode of the Fourcast, Krishnan Guru-Murthy speaks to Peter Oborne and Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former UK ambassador to Yemen, previously a UN monitor, and now a senior fellow at the foreign affairs think-tank RUSI.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
It's one of the great crimes of the 21st century and being
supported by Britain. This is the idea that there is a
an established pattern of deliberate massacre of
civilians. I simply.
Reject. We cannot become part of a
lawless international system which uses mass murder as a
weapon of war. If you're looking at British
(00:20):
foreign policy interests and whoare the powers in the world that
explicitly mean US harm, yeah, Britain.
Britain has every right to supply arms to Israel.
You're denying Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, the United Nations. You have explained very well the
British policy of staying alongside our ally, but it's
taken us into a moral cessprit. Hello and welcome to the
(00:47):
forecast. Is the UK government complicit
in the destruction of Gaza? That's the assertion in the new
book by journalist and polemicist Peter Oborn, with
both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak and many of their
ministers under fire for backingwhat he calls Israel's criminal
assault following the Hamas attack of October the 7th.
What's more, he says the Britishmedia played its part too,
(01:10):
colluding with the government aswell as misrepresenting or under
reporting those voices opposed. Well, Peter Oborn is with us
today as well as someone who doesn't necessarily agree with
many of these arguments. Edmund Fitton Brown, a former UK
ambassador to Yemen, previously AUN Monitor and now a senior
fellow at the foreign affairs think tank Rusey, Peter the The
(01:31):
book is called complicit and it's I mean you, you don't hold
back and you believe that there are legal and moral wrongs that
the British government has committed.
There certainly are. Well, we start off with the
atrocities committed by Hamas, terrible atrocities committed on
the 7th of October. And then you look at the British
(01:53):
government response. I thought maybe we're doing that
game there where he was right. It's a bit like after 911, you
know, Tony Blair going to Washington.
What he didn't do was issue warnings because by by the time
Sunak, it was only about 10 daysafter the 7th of October he got
there, but by then Israel had started to pummel Gaza.
(02:16):
You know, 5000 to be being killed by the Palestinians,
being killed by the end of October 20,000 by the beginning
of the beginning of January by the and whole families were
being wiped out. They were sort of it was it was
indiscriminate slaughter and destruction was and I'm sure
(02:40):
that Sinak as Prime Minister would have been briefed about
that. And what he never did was issue
a proper warning that we can't back you all the way.
And the same was the case with with the the current Prime
Minister Osama, who made this remarkable support for
collective punishment issue on the Nick Ferrari show.
(03:01):
When ask do he was given a quotefrom one of the Israeli lead,
one of the Israeli leaders saying, you know, no fuel, no
water, that sort of thing. And he was.
The defence minister wasn't it who said gallant Gaza?
And he's and Stammer said, yes, they have that right to do that,
although he sort of said also they must obey international
(03:22):
law. But it was a shambles of
announcement. He did qualify us afterwards,
didn't he? I mean they, you.
Know he went on supporting it and his fellow ministers met up,
fellow shadow ministers supported him for about a week.
And then Osama realized that it had not been a clever thing to
say. I mean, I mean, it was an
outrageous thing to say. It was he was supporting war
crimes. But your your basic intention is
(03:44):
that is is that Britain supported its ally.
Yes, absolutely. But that is the one part of the
contention now that raises the question, profound moral
question. You support an ally when they
commit war crimes, when they commit what most experts now
regard as a genocide. And it is, you have to remember,
(04:08):
in the context of this conversation we're going to be
having for the next half an hour, the enormity of the horror
which Israel inflicted on Gaza, 20,000 children at least dead,
killed by the Israelis, torture.Look at the condition of Israeli
prisoners, prisons, the, the destruction of 90 percent, 90%
(04:34):
of the housing in Gaza, the shooting, the shooting of
children, the targeting of children, the, the destruction
of the health facilities, of hospitals, of schools.
(04:55):
It's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's one of the great crimes
of the 21st century and being supported by Britain.
Now throughout this period, of course, Israel said it did not
target civilians, it did not target children, it was
targeting Hamas that that that any civilian death was
collateral damage, that their enemy was not the Palestinian
people. And the British government said
(05:16):
the British government, both theConservative and the that Labour
government, has had stuck to this line that Israel has the
right to defend itself. Yeah, well, by the way, Israelis
didn't didn't say what you've just claimed.
They said, for instance, the president of Israel said words
to the effect there are no innocence, everybody's guilty.
There were there were contradicts to the the position
(05:39):
of the government. I'll give you yeah of.
Course I will. Contradict from from different
ministers if you look. At the statements made as as as
assembled by South Africa in it's very powerful case that the
International Court of Justice, there was genocidal talk from
the top of the Israeli administration right from the
start. So, Edmund, I mean just take
(06:00):
take on Peter's basic first contention that the the British
government should have done morethan just offer IT support to an
ally, that it should have warnedmuch more vociferously about the
need to adhere to international laws and to not commit war
crimes. Yeah.
So I, I think I would take issuewith that because Britain to, in
doing that would have been taking, staking out a unique
(06:22):
position in the Western bloc. It would not, it would not have
been consistent with what any ofour allies were doing.
Why isn't that wrong? I'm not.
So give me a minute. I mean, you know, I appreciate
that there may be times when it is necessary to stake out a
unique position if you're absolutely certain that
everybody else has got it wrong.But the British government was
not certain that, that, that we that everybody else had got it
(06:42):
wrong. And the alliance with Israel
does matter. The fact that Israel was
responding to an extremely serious, you know, arguably the
worst terrorist attack of moderntimes, that also does matter.
And I, I must take issue with one thing which Peter said very
specifically about the allegation of genocide.
I simply don't accept it. And I don't believe that it is
(07:03):
remotely established that there is even a credible indication of
genocide in the case of the UK government.
They also do not accept. That, well, the ICJ says there
was a plausible case. They spoke of a plausible case.
Also the, as you know, the United Nations Commission made a
rather more aggressive case against Israel, which they laid
(07:24):
out, I think in September, although all all three of those
commissioners had actually resigned their position back in
July. And if you look at that it, it
gives you the best possible indication of what Israel is up
against in terms of its public relations.
And that is that these are threepeople who had a long standing
(07:45):
conviction against Israel. And they were when they finally
let this this allegation of genocide drop, it was a sort of
a parting shot of a very, very long and completely one sided
campaign. And if you read the report that
they wrote, it eliminates all context.
Anyone would think that there had never been an attack on
Israel and that they had not been having to deal with an
(08:07):
extreme. Sorry, you're saying the UN
Commission were three people whohad a long standing animosity
towards Israel? Yes, Navi Pillay, he's one of
the most respected. I am all crimes investigators
and judges. In the world, I'm saying exactly
that. Who investigated Rwanda and
everything and you think she hadsome sort of?
Bone to pick. I'm not.
I'm not saying that she was. It's quite an allegation to make
against. I'm not saying.
Very well respected people I'm. Not saying that she was without
(08:29):
qualifications, I'm saying that she had a long standing bias and
animus. Well, for example, when when it
when the Mr. Kafari, one of the one of the other commissioners
spoke about social media being controlled by largely controlled
by the Jews, she defended him. So there was a long standing
(08:49):
Western concern about Navi Pillai and her and her bias or
her lack of objectivity in this matter.
I mean, obviously I spoke to Navi Pillai about the, the, the
report and she, she makes the case that they came to it
sincerely. She's an extremely experienced
person and that she has no bias and no animosity towards Israel
(09:10):
at all. And she she's, she's very
distressed, I think by allegations such as the one
you're. By the way, can I make it?
Can I just butt in there in a little bit?
So you, you're maintaining that,you know that Bet Salem, which
is the Israeli human rights organization which has said it's
a genocide, Amnesty International, Human Rights
(09:34):
Watch, all these organisations and many more and most of the
world's leading genocide expertssuch as Mabatov and they schlame
in Oxford and so on. They're wrong and and you're
right. Well, I'm not, I'm not on my own
in this. So I yes, I think they're wrong
and I think in many cases. Mind you, you have got David
(09:56):
Lammy agrees with you, Keir Starmer agrees with you, David
Cameron agreed with you and Rishi Sunak agreed with you.
So luckily you've got some very distinguished people on your
side. I mean, it's, it's kind of you
to say so, Peter. And actually, I would take all
of those people as excellent. I mean, let let's take it as
read that you disagree on the question of genocide.
Peter thinks that there was a genocide, you think there
wasn't. Yes, but, but in terms of your
(10:16):
argument of complicity, Peter, there you derive from the ICJ
case that there could even be legal implications for the
British government and for British ministers.
I'm quite certain that there will be and this will happen in
due course. In fact, under I'm not saying by
the way, that there is a generous that I'm saying is that
(10:37):
the vast majority of knowledgeable opinion trends
trends that way. If you look at David Cameron's
contacts when he became back as Foreign Secretary and the acts
which he carried out, one of themost shocking was to when Israel
produced some basically incredible evidence that Umbra
(11:00):
was heavily involved in the in the events of October the 7th.
They produced this which has been shown today's report from
the ICJ shows that's nonsense. The and it was been long been
accepted as nonsense. Cameron accepted it and stopped
funding. He paused.
The British funding. Just remind people, is the is
(11:21):
the humanitarian organization for refugees?
Which is the main supplier or had been the main supplier?
The main militarian aid desperately needed education.
We should say specifically for Palestinian refugee.
For Palestinian refugee. No.
Then he carried on supplying arms and that in, in the face of
growing evidence that Israel, inmy view, completely undeniable
(11:43):
evidence, even the experts who don't think there's a genocide,
except that Israel has committedatrocities in, in face of
growing evidence of that, Cameron dismissed alarm within
the Foreign Office and he carried on supplying arms.
There's many other. Or allow allowing the purchase
of. Arms.
The British government supplying, of course.
(12:03):
And then we have the matter of the using our base in in Cyprus
to supply Israel, which is quitemurky what's actually going on
there. The overflights, the diplomatic
support are blocking ceasefire motions in the, in the Security
Council, stuff like that, which Britain has done.
So we have done in the early months.
(12:24):
We can talk about how things changed a little bit with
Labour. Britain was a sort of 100%
behind and Benjamin Netanyahu and Ben Gavir and Smotrich and
Co as they as they carried out. Just take on that point, Edmund.
I mean, you know, as Peter says,Britain allowed the supply of
weapons. It used RAF flights to overfly
(12:47):
Gaza. It's said to look for the
hostages. But it's never been clear what
the data was or how how you distinguished between where the
hostages are and where Hamas fighters might be.
Peter's contention is that that that was aiding and abetting the
Israeli military action, whatever you think it amounted
to. I mean, the Israelis are
(13:09):
partners, allies, as you referred to them earlier,
they're they're intelligence partners and to some degree
they're military partners. It is worth just widening the
lens a little here and remembering that the Israelis
are not just fighting on one front.
They were also, you know, of course, the the Gaza campaign
was running for these two years and there was a great deal of
(13:30):
rocket fire coming from Gaza as well in the early stages.
But you also then had sustained attacks on northern Israel from
Hezbollah, Lebanese Hezbollah. And you had effectively the, it
was the latest iteration of the Iranian proxy war against
Israel, which I don't think anyone would deny is a reality.
(13:50):
And now the Israelis have more or less neutralized the threat
from Lebanese Hezbollah for now.They've also, as a indirect
result of that, we've seen a change of government in Syria.
And we've also seen the war between Israel and Iran, in
which the Americans were also partners of the Israelis.
(14:13):
And if you're looking at Britishforeign policy interests and who
are the powers in the world thatexplicitly mean US harm.
And of course, I would include the the Yemeni Houthis in this
as well. Yeah, Britain.
Britain has every right to supply arms to Israel, just as
our main ally, the United States, continues to do.
(14:33):
And so the the aim of RAF flights as well would have been
right to help Israeli intelligence.
I have no problem with the British helping Israel, Israeli
intelligence and military operations.
So just explain then what you think the relationship is.
You know what? Why is that relationship so
important and beneficial to Britain?
I think to a large degree it's related to common enemies.
(14:57):
So, you know, the Israelis obviously suffer those threats
that I've just mentioned. If you look at those from a
British point of view, you couldperhaps make a case that
Lebanese Hezblar is marginal. But of course, Lebanese Hezblar
took a lot of British hostages and they have a lot of allied
blood on their hands, American and French blood on their hands
as well. The Houthis are obstructing
(15:19):
commerce in the Red Sea. Iran has been a consistent enemy
of the United Kingdom, has been conspiring to murder a British
author over decades, and has been trying to kill people on
the streets of the United Kingdom.
The Israelis provide preventive intelligence that has enabled us
to stop some of those plots fromgoing ahead.
(15:39):
I would simply say here the Israelis also carried out a
number of illegal assassinations.
The attack on Iran which they brought the United States in was
illegal. There haven't been proper
propagation from Iraq. Go back to your earlier
question. Under the genocide laws, if you
(15:59):
are Aidan abet a genocide, you were then opening yourself up
under British, British law to prosecution.
And I think this is something which I, I, I, I'm certain that
Sunak Starmer, etcetera will have taken advice on it.
They have one comfort, which is although it's perfectly clear
(16:23):
that if the ICJ, and it's prettyobvious they eventually will
deem this has been a genocide, there will be a prima facia case
to prosecute certain British ministers.
Can I, can I, can I just go in there?
Because first of all, I, I will not accept genocide as a given.
I don't, I don't know. If he's sorry.
Based on if there's a court ruling, yeah.
(16:45):
If there is, but I But you know,he's keeps saying, you know,
this is bound to happen. So, you know, I want to say that
there is no genocide in Gaza, and I don't believe that it will
be there's. No legal legally agreed
downocide. I don't believe it ever will be
legally agreed and therefore there will be no legal jeopardy
for British ministers or Britishopposition figures for that.
But the the other point that I want to make is that the United
(17:06):
Kingdom in my view, has calibrated its approach to this
conflict reasonably, reasonably judiciously.
I don't always agree with them by the way, You know you, you
will probably find me more pro Israeli than than either David
Lammy or Keir Starmer. But the fact of the matter is
that the Labour government has continually monitored this
(17:28):
conflict in a critical way and has sought to influence it,
including trying to influence the Israelis to an early
ceasefire. And that includes what I
consider to have been the misguided policy of recognizing
the state of Palestine. Peter I mean, you know, the,
the, the, the, there's almost the most important point that
Edmund is making is because theyare our allies, because they are
(17:54):
strategically in the same place as we are in the Middle East.
Helping Israel was the right thing to do.
Yes, I I'm Mr. Fitton Brown. What?
You were ambassador to the Yemen.
I, I went to Yemen in 2016. And so when you were ambassador,
I dare say you were in Riyadh. No, I was in Jeddah.
(18:16):
Jeddah, I saw a humanitarian catastrophe visited on Yemen by
again British backed bombing. I saw the bombing of hospitals,
I saw the slaughter of civilians.
There you are in Jeddah and I and I also because I'm in a part
(18:36):
of an investigative journalist, I learnt of the deep concern
inside the Foreign Office then as now that the Britain was
party to war crimes. What is your you have a record
here of supporting the mass slaughter of Arabs and you did
this in Yemen as British? I'm sorry.
(18:57):
It's a very serious matter. It isn't something you should
laugh about, no. It's a laugh of accusation.
It is the slaughter of of Arabs in the Yemen and now the
slaughter of Arabs in Gaza. These are these are two.
You have defended British government policies in each
case. Do you and I, I find it very
(19:18):
troubling and morally wrong and morally atrocious and deeply
shaming for our country that we should support that, that that
kind of hand, that kind of contact and brings us deeply
into disrepute across the world.Well, we're going a long way out
from your book in Gaza, but but yeah, let's go there.
(19:38):
Why not My horror about the abuse of the population of Yemen
and the systematic and deliberate cruelty, including
slaughter, of the population of Yemen by the Houthis is I?
Was there and you weren't you were in Jeddah, where the from
(19:58):
where from Riyadh, the Saudis were were bombing the Yemen.
I I spoke to a lot of ordinary Yemeni people I was hardly with.
They were supporting the Houthisbecause they saw the atrocities
being carried out against them by the Saudis, supported by
Britain. The Houthis and.
So you cut, you have no, you have no knowledge of what the
ordinary people who are Yemen were saying that because even
(20:19):
though you were the ambassador, you weren't actually there.
But I am in contact with many ordinary Yemenis and still AM.
And you know the important, I mean, I love the way that you
you imply that the Houthis were some sort of, they somehow
morphed rapidly into just being the honest.
Representative, I didn't say that you're misrepresenting what
I said. I said that they suppose the
Houthis have done terrible things and continue to do them,
(20:42):
but there's the ordinary people of Yemen were so horrified
because they were being slaughtered by.
There's no doubt is there that there was a blockade that was
imposed by the Saudi LED coalition.
I also reported from the Houthi run part of Yemen in 2016 and I
saw babies starving to death because there was no food in
there. And, and we were very much
(21:03):
engaged, you know. Humanitarian like, like Gaza,
you know, some people will say, well, there was all the Houthis
fault. As people say, well, it's all
Hamas fault. And other people will say, well,
there's a conflict here and the people who are imposing the
blockade, as in Gaza, are also responsible for the impacts.
Let's. Let's let's try to narrow this
because I mean, if we get reallydeep into Yemen, we are going an
awfully long way off the point. But let's try to go into the
(21:25):
point about British complicity because I think that seems to be
the nub of what Peter is saying.The British government and the
American government at that timewere deeply involved in trying
to make the Saudis as discriminating, as careful, as
professional as possible in conducting a war that let's not
(21:48):
forget, was endorsed by the United Nations in the face of
the illegal Houthi occupation ofSanaa.
That's. Just.
I mean, there there is a similarity in the argument, but
I think we should get back together because that's really
what we're we're we're we're trying to sort of values holding
on. I mean, how, how do you think,
Peter, the you, you've mentioneda couple of instances of things
(22:11):
politicians said, you know, KeirStarmer on the radio, David
Cameron. But what are you actually saying
about our responsibility as a nation for the killing and the
starvation in Gaza? First of all.
You know, that we haven't noticed because this is a
conversation, you know, this conversation doesn't, maybe
doesn't play out on the media very much, but it's conversation
(22:32):
that happens I think a lot in Britain.
You know, to what extent are we to blame as well?
And your, you know, your book isall about that.
So what? Why do you think it's systematic
rather than amounting to a few supportive comments?
Well, hang on, it's not supportive comments.
I've mentioned the Cameron's defunding of Unruh, I've
mentioned the British arms goingthere, etcetera, etcetera.
(22:54):
Look if if, if this if the massacres of which took place in
Gaza and are still taking place even despite the ceasefire have
been carried out by Russia, Russia in Ukraine on this scale
or must even think we would havedone the following things.
(23:14):
We would have sanctioned when wedo in Russia.
We would we as we'd have had done in Russia, we'd have
sanctioned as well. I would have I there was a very
strong case for a no fly zone over Gaza when those F30 fives
are just bombing the place to smithereens and slaughtering
people, that we would have set up a war crimes strike bean.
(23:36):
All these are all things. Now you say it's because we're
that Israel is our ally that we we shouldn't do them.
I say one of the reasons we should do them is because
because Israel is our ally, we cannot become part of a lawless
international system which uses mass murder as a weapon of war,
(23:56):
starvation as a weapon of war. We can't do that.
That isn't what we as a nation stand for.
And I'm surprised. I'm very, I'm quite shocked
actually to hear a former British diplomat defend that
kind of contact. So once again, I don't accept
your premise in many of this, You know, the, the, the the.
So the idea that there is a an established pattern of
deliberate massacre of civiliansI simply reject.
(24:18):
It's spelled documented by all of the human rights
organisations by the UN, it's and this is a matter of that
we'll just. Have to make his point.
That would be nice, yes. Let's at least look at the
company that we are in. You know, we are not talking
about just being in, you know, some level of coordination with
the United States, which is partof this.
(24:40):
You know, it's part the part partly British foreign policy
over many years, of course, has been, you know, partly about a
close relationship with the United States.
Now that's just that's just a fact of the matter.
It may. I'm sure you can make objections
to it. And, and, and, and I wouldn't
necessarily disagree with those objections, but that is a
guiding principle that both of our political parties have
(25:01):
accepted over decades. But it isn't just the United
States. We're also very much in step
with Germany on this. We're very much in step with
Japan on this. We're very much in step with
France on this. There is, you know, there is no
international unanimity, certainly not in the West,
against British policy on Gaza. And yet all of these countries,
(25:25):
their their positions evolved over time and particularly.
Britain's position and. Started saying this is
unacceptable. The level of killing is, is, is
horrific. There's got to be a ceasefire.
Eventually they got to the, you know, calling for a ceasefire,
even though they rejected the idea of calling for a ceasefire
at the at the beginning. And yet, for all the, you know,
(25:46):
the ally ship that you talk of, they were unable to effect any
change in Israel's behaviour at all.
Well, so you know, you're exactly as you say, the, the
evolution of policy is what you would expect to see.
You would expect any Western country sensitive to its own
electorate, sensitive to international dynamics to look
(26:06):
at this and to say this has to stop.
And people have been saying that, you know, that we need to
get to a an off ramp as soon as possible.
It isn't only the Israelis who had to stop.
You know, Hamas were also part of this equation.
They have been all the way through.
And of course, they are still avowedly committed to the
destruction of Israel. They haven't changed their
fundamental position and they have said on the record multiple
(26:29):
times that what they're looking for is not a peace agreement
with Israel. It's a ceasefire that will
enable, that will enable them toregroup and to carry out another
October the 7th when the chance arises again.
So the evil. Representation of the of the
Hamas position. You think they're looking for a
peace agreement with Israel? Yes, they are.
They've been quite that and theythat what has been tragic is
(26:51):
again and again in one of the things which has been tragic in
the course of this carnage has been there, there have been
peace movements towards peace which have been blocked by
Netanyahu, particularly when he he breached the ceasefire in
March this year. And actually going back before
October the 7th. It was quite the political
(27:12):
leadership has been sending out messages.
It's ready to talk and ready to actually to recognise the state
of Isabel. So you mustn't over, you're
overstating the position and youmustn't misrepresent it because
you're presenting it as as therecan be no.
Solution. I'm directly quoting what a
number of Hamas leaders have said.
But we know, we know and you know, actually because you're a
(27:33):
British diplomat that Hamas has been saying other things and
frequently has said other things, things and we must
pursue peace and not and not thethe carrying on this, I mean.
We are pursuing peace and, and Donald Trump has actually
produced a peace plan which has actually done something
meaningful. He's produced, Britain has
supported it. He's produced, he's.
(27:53):
Produced a peace plan. It's not a peace plan and if
you've studied those 20 points you wouldn't you understand that
perfectly well. He's produced a ceasefire and of
course, hopefully this will movetowards a peace.
But I, I, I, I think that this is the, the, the genocide or
the, the carnage. As such, The Economist estimates
(28:14):
that 4 to 4 to 5% of the population of Gaza has been, has
been killed. That's probably about 100,000
people. Others think it's more if that
was in Britain, that'd be about $3,000,000, so I don't.
Accept that figure either. You don't accept this figure.
I know there's a lot of facts which you find difficult to
(28:34):
accept. You're in a state of denial.
But. Many people talk about between.
60 or you're denying, you're denying, you're denying.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United
Nations. You're in a small place along
with you, Mr. Netanyahu, perhapsBen Gavir.
It's, it's and I and I and I, One of the things, one of the
problems of the British government has been we have, we
(28:57):
haven't. You have explained very well,
very articulately, the British policy of not trying to offend
the United States, of staying alongside our ally, but it's
taken us in to a moral cesspit. Let me, let me just move us on
to another part of your argument, Peter, which is, which
(29:17):
is why complicity in your framing has been acceptable in
Britain. And the, the conversation that
we've had around it, the way it's been framed, the way it's
been reported in the media and the, and the way that we
describe people and deaths on both sides.
Why? Why do you think it's been
distorted and wrong? I look at the contacts of the
(29:41):
mainstream British media in the way that it's reported the event
since October the 7th, and it's been shocking.
I mean the greater value attached to Israeli people
who've been killed by Hamas, theIsraelis, than the Palestinian.
(30:02):
Why? Just explain why you think how?
How has that happened? You know what?
What are the examples? If you like the most desperate
day of the war, 22 Israelis killed.
Terrible. But, you know, the same day
something like 200 Palestinians were killed, there's a basic
racist about Western reporting, an Israeli person who's been
(30:23):
killed. It's a terrible tragedy.
I'm all for it. Give them a name, give them a
job, explain what they were doing.
Palestinian person who gets killed doesn't matter.
Let's look at the treatment of Palestinian journalists.
More than 200, I think, according to the latest numbers,
have been killed, many of them targeted.
What attention has been given tothat in the Western media?
Very, very little the the targeting of of aid workers, you
(30:47):
know, well over 300 hundred workers killed.
Hardly nobody notices. All of these things have been
reported though, haven't they? I mean, they are part of the
conversation. It's part of the the protest
movement, it's part of all the activist.
The protest movement has been largely ignored and it's been
systematically smeared by the British media.
I have a chapter on this, about how the the the fabricated
(31:11):
stories published all over the mainstream media making out
about terrorist supporters or Hamas supporters or anti Semites
or violent thugs. These protesters who'd be
walking through Britain, Britishstreets week after week
protesting simply in favour of international law.
(31:33):
They've been invited. They they they on the same side
as the United Nations, the International Court, Criminal
Court, the International Court of Justice Against War crash.
How do you think, how do you think that?
Where do you think the bias is in the framing of that?
Because obviously people on Edmund's side of the argument
tend to call those hate marches.Well, exactly.
And describe you know. Gross, gross misrepresentations,
but. That's not how the media.
(31:54):
Tends to no the media bought. I've done one of my chapters.
I look into this. I show how the media presented
the marches as as violence and Ishow that in fact they were
incredibly peaceful and and indeed the far right marchers
who disrupted the let's say at the cenotaph, they were they
were a bit embarrassing for the media.
(32:15):
The media doesn't like to pay attention to the fact that the
extraordinary far right support which Israel's generated Tommy
Robinson, Nigel Farage, the the fact that there's this this
coalition between the British government.
Not a fraud dispute. He's far.
Right. Well, I won't.
I'm. I'm happy to say he's far right,
I can assure you. Can I can I please at least make
the point? I do not associate with people
(32:36):
like Tommy Robinson. Yeah, but he's, he's there,
There he is in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli
government. And that is a that is a problem
that you have a very ugly forcesin Western society supporting
Israel as it slaughters Arabs inGaza.
(32:57):
What would you make of the way it's been framed?
I mean, do you think it's? Been fair.
So, I mean, I, I, I was surprised when we were preparing
for this that, that this was a significant part of Peter's
argumentation, because I would have thought that on this
particular point about alleged media bias for Israel, I, I
(33:18):
hadn't really heard that before.It's a.
It's an unusual point of view now, for example.
Because Israel's forces feel themedia is against them.
So, so I, you know, I don't, so I don't want to get into, I
don't want, you know, all of us,whatever our point of view, we
will always say that we feel that the media is not
representative properly. And I've talked a good deal to
(33:39):
people in the BBC and people in the BBC have said, you know,
we're attacked all the time for being pro Israeli and we're
attacked all the time for being anti Israeli.
And we can only, we can only sort of surmise that we may be
roughly in the right place. Now, I realize that's rather
approximate and it's maybe not avery scientific basis on which
to make an argument. But the the I would say that in
(34:03):
general, whether you feel that the media has been has lent
slightly one way or the other, Ithink the argument that the
media has been systematically pro Israeli is eccentric.
It's just. Striking, I mean haven't just
come back from Israel, I know you've been there as well
recently. I mean, I found with, with my TV
cameras, people with people in Israel much more hostile towards
(34:25):
British journalists. And, and particularly they would
say, are you the BBC? And when you say no way Channel
4, they say, OK, at least you'renot, you're not, you're not on
the BBC. They think the BBC is against
them. And by the way.
Well, actually they were. In favor, look, structurally
they are, and I, and I look forward to somebody rebutting.
I put these points to BBC executives, the relevant BBC
executives. They can't answer them.
Let's go beyond the BBC because it's, you know, they're not here
(34:48):
to defend themselves. And they say that we're, we're a
public service broadcaster trying to get it right.
Because your, your criticism really goes beyond that.
Isn't it's, it's, it's, it's thewhole conversation in most of
the media that most of Britain reads and watches that you feel
has been slanted and racist. Yeah, and you just said you can
(35:08):
see that very graphic case in point over last weekend over the
Maccabi fans and Aston Villa where the Prime Minister
intervened against police adviceand has got a bloody nose for it
politically because he's been proved to have been wrong.
I mean, it's the and and the media coverage of that was
(35:29):
phonetically we must let the this is a free speech issue.
This is a fairness issue. You've got to let the Maccabee
fans into Britain, even though they you know, they, they're
known for their genocidal chantsand their and their violence and
death to Arabs and all the rest of it.
It's and the media cast that as went after an MP called Ayub
(35:51):
Khan who'd been calling for Maccabee fans to be banned.
They it was a racist campaign ofAyub Khan.
I saw one remark by a a shock jock saying he should go back to
Pakistan. This is on a respectable
channel. He's been suspended.
Thank God for that, but I mean it.
Yeah. And that was a very clear
example. I think one of the point
(36:11):
arguments I do make in this bookis the is the the far right
fascist Islamophobic arguments being made for Israel and allies
that the pro Israel side has gotand and Starmer in my view, and
it's shaming in a British Prime Minister was that's part of
Labour's strategy to win over the red wall voters, win back
(36:36):
the voters who've gone to reformfrom Labour actually are
basically doing what they wantedappealing to them by siding
against Ayub Khan and and with Maccabee fans.
Evan what? What's your?
I mean, I don't want to get deepinto the Aston Villa thing.
It's again, it's it feels to me as if it's a little bit off the
(36:56):
off the subject, but but. Generally you feel bemused that
you think that that that the media is being described as.
Precisely, yes. I, I I just don't see it.
I, I, I mean I see, I see in some areas I see balance.
I, I think I, I, I, I see some areas where I definitely see a
very anti Israeli bent. I'm not sure where I see the Pro
(37:18):
is it really bent? But I can believe that it might
exist in some newspapers. But I would have thought on
balance. Try reading the Times.
What about the It's extraordinary you read the
Telegraph, you don't think it's pro Israeli?
I mean, it's very odd actually the, the mental outlook.
You're betrayed. So as a matter of fact, I don't
particularly read the Telegraph and if you say it's pro.
Really. The Spectator, old boy.
(37:40):
But these? Are outlets that are open about
that position. There's nothing wrong with that.
And they're private outlets as well.
I mean, let's go back to the BBC.
The BBC is under pressure over justifying the license fee and
what that implies in terms of its obligations to the to the
British people. And they're walking a tightrope
and I don't think they always get it right, but I don't think
they get it systematically wrong.
(38:02):
I think I'm afraid they they do and they've systematically kept
from their audiences vital information for the
understanding of of how this warhas progressed.
Finally, Peter, I mean, you haveyou, you, you, you built a case
in your book which is basically arguing our our politicians,
our, our political decisions, our media, our national
(38:25):
conversation makes us complicit as a nation in what has happened
in Gaza. What are you?
What are you hoping people will do as a result of reading that?
Well, one of the things which isvery hard to remember is that
the vast majority of the Britishpeople are decent people.
(38:46):
Right from the outset of this conflict, the majority of the
British people have been for a ceasefire.
They have been for the, the, therule of law.
I think now I, I, I have made the case in this conversation,
but much more thoroughly in the book, that British ministers
have been complicit in what is likely to be judged to be a
(39:08):
genocide. I hope that these ministers will
be brought to justice. There must be accountability.
I I don't believe that Britain should support barbaric
policies, whether our friends decide is in the Yemen or the,
or the Israelis in Gaza. I think we should be a force for
good in the world. We should respect international
institutions like the International Criminal Court,
(39:31):
the United Nations and and have a foreign policy which is a
force for good in the world, notfor one which is a force for
violence, mayhem, court chaos and law breaking.
You'd agree with that when you. I I would agree that that is
what we should do. I would also claim that that is
(39:51):
exactly what we already do. Do.
I mean, I think we're into concluding points, aren't we?
And let me make, let me just make a couple of points. 1 Is
that because I haven't said it explicitly?
Let me say explicitly that I am no apologist for Benjamin
Netanyahu. I'm not here to defend him and
there are many problems that I have with the way that he has
approached Israeli national security over over recent years.
(40:15):
The second thing I should say, just because it's an honest, an
honest disclosure, is that although I've in a way sort of
been cast here as someone who will defend the actions of the
British government, the British government itself would not be
terribly happy with that becauseI no longer work for the British
government. I'm no longer British ambassador
and I'm not under any obligationto defend them if I didn't agree
(40:38):
with what they were doing. So, you know, I'm not giving
British propaganda here. I don't have to and I don't even
want to. But I would argue that the
British government over the past, well, let's say for as
long as I have been involved in foreign policy, and that would
be going back to the 1980s, I would say that the British
(40:58):
government, of the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, which is to say obviously France,
China, Soviet Union and Russia and the United States, I would
say the British government has most consistently factored in
values into its understanding ofits interests and the policies
that it has pursued. And it doesn't always get it
(41:20):
right. But I I am generally proud of
the way the British government has approached most
international issues. I've been fit and brown.
Peter O'bourne. We must leave it there.
Thank you both very much. And that's it for this episode
of The Forecast. Until next time, bye.
Bye.
It's one of the great crimes of the 21st century and being
supported by Britain. This is the idea that there is a
an established pattern of deliberate massacre of
civilians. I simply.
Reject. We cannot become part of a
lawless international system which uses mass murder as a
weapon of war. If you're looking at British
(00:20):
foreign policy interests and whoare the powers in the world that
explicitly mean US harm, yeah, Britain.
Britain has every right to supply arms to Israel.
You're denying Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, the United Nations. You have explained very well the
British policy of staying alongside our ally, but it's
taken us into a moral cessprit. Hello and welcome to the
(00:47):
forecast. Is the UK government complicit
in the destruction of Gaza? That's the assertion in the new
book by journalist and polemicist Peter Oborn, with
both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak and many of their
ministers under fire for backingwhat he calls Israel's criminal
assault following the Hamas attack of October the 7th.
What's more, he says the Britishmedia played its part too,
(01:10):
colluding with the government aswell as misrepresenting or under
reporting those voices opposed. Well, Peter Oborn is with us
today as well as someone who doesn't necessarily agree with
many of these arguments. Edmund Fitton Brown, a former UK
ambassador to Yemen, previously AUN Monitor and now a senior
fellow at the foreign affairs think tank Rusey, Peter the The
(01:31):
book is called complicit and it's I mean you, you don't hold
back and you believe that there are legal and moral wrongs that
the British government has committed.
There certainly are. Well, we start off with the
atrocities committed by Hamas, terrible atrocities committed on
the 7th of October. And then you look at the British
(01:53):
government response. I thought maybe we're doing that
game there where he was right. It's a bit like after 911, you
know, Tony Blair going to Washington.
What he didn't do was issue warnings because by by the time
Sunak, it was only about 10 daysafter the 7th of October he got
there, but by then Israel had started to pummel Gaza.
(02:16):
You know, 5000 to be being killed by the Palestinians,
being killed by the end of October 20,000 by the beginning
of the beginning of January by the and whole families were
being wiped out. They were sort of it was it was
indiscriminate slaughter and destruction was and I'm sure
(02:40):
that Sinak as Prime Minister would have been briefed about
that. And what he never did was issue
a proper warning that we can't back you all the way.
And the same was the case with with the the current Prime
Minister Osama, who made this remarkable support for
collective punishment issue on the Nick Ferrari show.
(03:01):
When ask do he was given a quotefrom one of the Israeli lead,
one of the Israeli leaders saying, you know, no fuel, no
water, that sort of thing. And he was.
The defence minister wasn't it who said gallant Gaza?
And he's and Stammer said, yes, they have that right to do that,
although he sort of said also they must obey international
(03:22):
law. But it was a shambles of
announcement. He did qualify us afterwards,
didn't he? I mean they, you.
Know he went on supporting it and his fellow ministers met up,
fellow shadow ministers supported him for about a week.
And then Osama realized that it had not been a clever thing to
say. I mean, I mean, it was an
outrageous thing to say. It was he was supporting war
crimes. But your your basic intention is
(03:44):
that is is that Britain supported its ally.
Yes, absolutely. But that is the one part of the
contention now that raises the question, profound moral
question. You support an ally when they
commit war crimes, when they commit what most experts now
regard as a genocide. And it is, you have to remember,
(04:08):
in the context of this conversation we're going to be
having for the next half an hour, the enormity of the horror
which Israel inflicted on Gaza, 20,000 children at least dead,
killed by the Israelis, torture.Look at the condition of Israeli
prisoners, prisons, the, the destruction of 90 percent, 90%
(04:34):
of the housing in Gaza, the shooting, the shooting of
children, the targeting of children, the, the destruction
of the health facilities, of hospitals, of schools.
(04:55):
It's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a, it's one of the great crimes
of the 21st century and being supported by Britain.
Now throughout this period, of course, Israel said it did not
target civilians, it did not target children, it was
targeting Hamas that that that any civilian death was
collateral damage, that their enemy was not the Palestinian
people. And the British government said
(05:16):
the British government, both theConservative and the that Labour
government, has had stuck to this line that Israel has the
right to defend itself. Yeah, well, by the way, Israelis
didn't didn't say what you've just claimed.
They said, for instance, the president of Israel said words
to the effect there are no innocence, everybody's guilty.
There were there were contradicts to the the position
(05:39):
of the government. I'll give you yeah of.
Course I will. Contradict from from different
ministers if you look. At the statements made as as as
assembled by South Africa in it's very powerful case that the
International Court of Justice, there was genocidal talk from
the top of the Israeli administration right from the
start. So, Edmund, I mean just take
(06:00):
take on Peter's basic first contention that the the British
government should have done morethan just offer IT support to an
ally, that it should have warnedmuch more vociferously about the
need to adhere to international laws and to not commit war
crimes. Yeah.
So I, I think I would take issuewith that because Britain to, in
doing that would have been taking, staking out a unique
(06:22):
position in the Western bloc. It would not, it would not have
been consistent with what any ofour allies were doing.
Why isn't that wrong? I'm not.
So give me a minute. I mean, you know, I appreciate
that there may be times when it is necessary to stake out a
unique position if you're absolutely certain that
everybody else has got it wrong.But the British government was
not certain that, that, that we that everybody else had got it
(06:42):
wrong. And the alliance with Israel
does matter. The fact that Israel was
responding to an extremely serious, you know, arguably the
worst terrorist attack of moderntimes, that also does matter.
And I, I must take issue with one thing which Peter said very
specifically about the allegation of genocide.
I simply don't accept it. And I don't believe that it is
(07:03):
remotely established that there is even a credible indication of
genocide in the case of the UK government.
They also do not accept. That, well, the ICJ says there
was a plausible case. They spoke of a plausible case.
Also the, as you know, the United Nations Commission made a
rather more aggressive case against Israel, which they laid
(07:24):
out, I think in September, although all all three of those
commissioners had actually resigned their position back in
July. And if you look at that it, it
gives you the best possible indication of what Israel is up
against in terms of its public relations.
And that is that these are threepeople who had a long standing
(07:45):
conviction against Israel. And they were when they finally
let this this allegation of genocide drop, it was a sort of
a parting shot of a very, very long and completely one sided
campaign. And if you read the report that
they wrote, it eliminates all context.
Anyone would think that there had never been an attack on
Israel and that they had not been having to deal with an
(08:07):
extreme. Sorry, you're saying the UN
Commission were three people whohad a long standing animosity
towards Israel? Yes, Navi Pillay, he's one of
the most respected. I am all crimes investigators
and judges. In the world, I'm saying exactly
that. Who investigated Rwanda and
everything and you think she hadsome sort of?
Bone to pick. I'm not.
I'm not saying that she was. It's quite an allegation to make
against. I'm not saying.
Very well respected people I'm. Not saying that she was without
(08:29):
qualifications, I'm saying that she had a long standing bias and
animus. Well, for example, when when it
when the Mr. Kafari, one of the one of the other commissioners
spoke about social media being controlled by largely controlled
by the Jews, she defended him. So there was a long standing
(08:49):
Western concern about Navi Pillai and her and her bias or
her lack of objectivity in this matter.
I mean, obviously I spoke to Navi Pillai about the, the, the
report and she, she makes the case that they came to it
sincerely. She's an extremely experienced
person and that she has no bias and no animosity towards Israel
(09:10):
at all. And she she's, she's very
distressed, I think by allegations such as the one
you're. By the way, can I make it?
Can I just butt in there in a little bit?
So you, you're maintaining that,you know that Bet Salem, which
is the Israeli human rights organization which has said it's
a genocide, Amnesty International, Human Rights
(09:34):
Watch, all these organisations and many more and most of the
world's leading genocide expertssuch as Mabatov and they schlame
in Oxford and so on. They're wrong and and you're
right. Well, I'm not, I'm not on my own
in this. So I yes, I think they're wrong
and I think in many cases. Mind you, you have got David
(09:56):
Lammy agrees with you, Keir Starmer agrees with you, David
Cameron agreed with you and Rishi Sunak agreed with you.
So luckily you've got some very distinguished people on your
side. I mean, it's, it's kind of you
to say so, Peter. And actually, I would take all
of those people as excellent. I mean, let let's take it as
read that you disagree on the question of genocide.
Peter thinks that there was a genocide, you think there
wasn't. Yes, but, but in terms of your
(10:16):
argument of complicity, Peter, there you derive from the ICJ
case that there could even be legal implications for the
British government and for British ministers.
I'm quite certain that there will be and this will happen in
due course. In fact, under I'm not saying by
the way, that there is a generous that I'm saying is that
(10:37):
the vast majority of knowledgeable opinion trends
trends that way. If you look at David Cameron's
contacts when he became back as Foreign Secretary and the acts
which he carried out, one of themost shocking was to when Israel
produced some basically incredible evidence that Umbra
(11:00):
was heavily involved in the in the events of October the 7th.
They produced this which has been shown today's report from
the ICJ shows that's nonsense. The and it was been long been
accepted as nonsense. Cameron accepted it and stopped
funding. He paused.
The British funding. Just remind people, is the is
(11:21):
the humanitarian organization for refugees?
Which is the main supplier or had been the main supplier?
The main militarian aid desperately needed education.
We should say specifically for Palestinian refugee.
For Palestinian refugee. No.
Then he carried on supplying arms and that in, in the face of
growing evidence that Israel, inmy view, completely undeniable
(11:43):
evidence, even the experts who don't think there's a genocide,
except that Israel has committedatrocities in, in face of
growing evidence of that, Cameron dismissed alarm within
the Foreign Office and he carried on supplying arms.
There's many other. Or allow allowing the purchase
of. Arms.
The British government supplying, of course.
(12:03):
And then we have the matter of the using our base in in Cyprus
to supply Israel, which is quitemurky what's actually going on
there. The overflights, the diplomatic
support are blocking ceasefire motions in the, in the Security
Council, stuff like that, which Britain has done.
So we have done in the early months.
(12:24):
We can talk about how things changed a little bit with
Labour. Britain was a sort of 100%
behind and Benjamin Netanyahu and Ben Gavir and Smotrich and
Co as they as they carried out. Just take on that point, Edmund.
I mean, you know, as Peter says,Britain allowed the supply of
weapons. It used RAF flights to overfly
(12:47):
Gaza. It's said to look for the
hostages. But it's never been clear what
the data was or how how you distinguished between where the
hostages are and where Hamas fighters might be.
Peter's contention is that that that was aiding and abetting the
Israeli military action, whatever you think it amounted
to. I mean, the Israelis are
(13:09):
partners, allies, as you referred to them earlier,
they're they're intelligence partners and to some degree
they're military partners. It is worth just widening the
lens a little here and remembering that the Israelis
are not just fighting on one front.
They were also, you know, of course, the the Gaza campaign
was running for these two years and there was a great deal of
(13:30):
rocket fire coming from Gaza as well in the early stages.
But you also then had sustained attacks on northern Israel from
Hezbollah, Lebanese Hezbollah. And you had effectively the, it
was the latest iteration of the Iranian proxy war against
Israel, which I don't think anyone would deny is a reality.
(13:50):
And now the Israelis have more or less neutralized the threat
from Lebanese Hezbollah for now.They've also, as a indirect
result of that, we've seen a change of government in Syria.
And we've also seen the war between Israel and Iran, in
which the Americans were also partners of the Israelis.
(14:13):
And if you're looking at Britishforeign policy interests and who
are the powers in the world thatexplicitly mean US harm.
And of course, I would include the the Yemeni Houthis in this
as well. Yeah, Britain.
Britain has every right to supply arms to Israel, just as
our main ally, the United States, continues to do.
(14:33):
And so the the aim of RAF flights as well would have been
right to help Israeli intelligence.
I have no problem with the British helping Israel, Israeli
intelligence and military operations.
So just explain then what you think the relationship is.
You know what? Why is that relationship so
important and beneficial to Britain?
I think to a large degree it's related to common enemies.
(14:57):
So, you know, the Israelis obviously suffer those threats
that I've just mentioned. If you look at those from a
British point of view, you couldperhaps make a case that
Lebanese Hezblar is marginal. But of course, Lebanese Hezblar
took a lot of British hostages and they have a lot of allied
blood on their hands, American and French blood on their hands
as well. The Houthis are obstructing
(15:19):
commerce in the Red Sea. Iran has been a consistent enemy
of the United Kingdom, has been conspiring to murder a British
author over decades, and has been trying to kill people on
the streets of the United Kingdom.
The Israelis provide preventive intelligence that has enabled us
to stop some of those plots fromgoing ahead.
(15:39):
I would simply say here the Israelis also carried out a
number of illegal assassinations.
The attack on Iran which they brought the United States in was
illegal. There haven't been proper
propagation from Iraq. Go back to your earlier
question. Under the genocide laws, if you
(15:59):
are Aidan abet a genocide, you were then opening yourself up
under British, British law to prosecution.
And I think this is something which I, I, I, I'm certain that
Sunak Starmer, etcetera will have taken advice on it.
They have one comfort, which is although it's perfectly clear
(16:23):
that if the ICJ, and it's prettyobvious they eventually will
deem this has been a genocide, there will be a prima facia case
to prosecute certain British ministers.
Can I, can I, can I just go in there?
Because first of all, I, I will not accept genocide as a given.
I don't, I don't know. If he's sorry.
Based on if there's a court ruling, yeah.
(16:45):
If there is, but I But you know,he's keeps saying, you know,
this is bound to happen. So, you know, I want to say that
there is no genocide in Gaza, and I don't believe that it will
be there's. No legal legally agreed
downocide. I don't believe it ever will be
legally agreed and therefore there will be no legal jeopardy
for British ministers or Britishopposition figures for that.
But the the other point that I want to make is that the United
(17:06):
Kingdom in my view, has calibrated its approach to this
conflict reasonably, reasonably judiciously.
I don't always agree with them by the way, You know you, you
will probably find me more pro Israeli than than either David
Lammy or Keir Starmer. But the fact of the matter is
that the Labour government has continually monitored this
(17:28):
conflict in a critical way and has sought to influence it,
including trying to influence the Israelis to an early
ceasefire. And that includes what I
consider to have been the misguided policy of recognizing
the state of Palestine. Peter I mean, you know, the,
the, the, the, there's almost the most important point that
Edmund is making is because theyare our allies, because they are
(17:54):
strategically in the same place as we are in the Middle East.
Helping Israel was the right thing to do.
Yes, I I'm Mr. Fitton Brown. What?
You were ambassador to the Yemen.
I, I went to Yemen in 2016. And so when you were ambassador,
I dare say you were in Riyadh. No, I was in Jeddah.
(18:16):
Jeddah, I saw a humanitarian catastrophe visited on Yemen by
again British backed bombing. I saw the bombing of hospitals,
I saw the slaughter of civilians.
There you are in Jeddah and I and I also because I'm in a part
(18:36):
of an investigative journalist, I learnt of the deep concern
inside the Foreign Office then as now that the Britain was
party to war crimes. What is your you have a record
here of supporting the mass slaughter of Arabs and you did
this in Yemen as British? I'm sorry.
(18:57):
It's a very serious matter. It isn't something you should
laugh about, no. It's a laugh of accusation.
It is the slaughter of of Arabs in the Yemen and now the
slaughter of Arabs in Gaza. These are these are two.
You have defended British government policies in each
case. Do you and I, I find it very
(19:18):
troubling and morally wrong and morally atrocious and deeply
shaming for our country that we should support that, that that
kind of hand, that kind of contact and brings us deeply
into disrepute across the world.Well, we're going a long way out
from your book in Gaza, but but yeah, let's go there.
(19:38):
Why not My horror about the abuse of the population of Yemen
and the systematic and deliberate cruelty, including
slaughter, of the population of Yemen by the Houthis is I?
Was there and you weren't you were in Jeddah, where the from
(19:58):
where from Riyadh, the Saudis were were bombing the Yemen.
I I spoke to a lot of ordinary Yemeni people I was hardly with.
They were supporting the Houthisbecause they saw the atrocities
being carried out against them by the Saudis, supported by
Britain. The Houthis and.
So you cut, you have no, you have no knowledge of what the
ordinary people who are Yemen were saying that because even
(20:19):
though you were the ambassador, you weren't actually there.
But I am in contact with many ordinary Yemenis and still AM.
And you know the important, I mean, I love the way that you
you imply that the Houthis were some sort of, they somehow
morphed rapidly into just being the honest.
Representative, I didn't say that you're misrepresenting what
I said. I said that they suppose the
Houthis have done terrible things and continue to do them,
(20:42):
but there's the ordinary people of Yemen were so horrified
because they were being slaughtered by.
There's no doubt is there that there was a blockade that was
imposed by the Saudi LED coalition.
I also reported from the Houthi run part of Yemen in 2016 and I
saw babies starving to death because there was no food in
there. And, and we were very much
(21:03):
engaged, you know. Humanitarian like, like Gaza,
you know, some people will say, well, there was all the Houthis
fault. As people say, well, it's all
Hamas fault. And other people will say, well,
there's a conflict here and the people who are imposing the
blockade, as in Gaza, are also responsible for the impacts.
Let's. Let's let's try to narrow this
because I mean, if we get reallydeep into Yemen, we are going an
awfully long way off the point. But let's try to go into the
(21:25):
point about British complicity because I think that seems to be
the nub of what Peter is saying.The British government and the
American government at that timewere deeply involved in trying
to make the Saudis as discriminating, as careful, as
professional as possible in conducting a war that let's not
(21:48):
forget, was endorsed by the United Nations in the face of
the illegal Houthi occupation ofSanaa.
That's. Just.
I mean, there there is a similarity in the argument, but
I think we should get back together because that's really
what we're we're we're we're trying to sort of values holding
on. I mean, how, how do you think,
Peter, the you, you've mentioneda couple of instances of things
(22:11):
politicians said, you know, KeirStarmer on the radio, David
Cameron. But what are you actually saying
about our responsibility as a nation for the killing and the
starvation in Gaza? First of all.
You know, that we haven't noticed because this is a
conversation, you know, this conversation doesn't, maybe
doesn't play out on the media very much, but it's conversation
(22:32):
that happens I think a lot in Britain.
You know, to what extent are we to blame as well?
And your, you know, your book isall about that.
So what? Why do you think it's systematic
rather than amounting to a few supportive comments?
Well, hang on, it's not supportive comments.
I've mentioned the Cameron's defunding of Unruh, I've
mentioned the British arms goingthere, etcetera, etcetera.
(22:54):
Look if if, if this if the massacres of which took place in
Gaza and are still taking place even despite the ceasefire have
been carried out by Russia, Russia in Ukraine on this scale
or must even think we would havedone the following things.
(23:14):
We would have sanctioned when wedo in Russia.
We would we as we'd have had done in Russia, we'd have
sanctioned as well. I would have I there was a very
strong case for a no fly zone over Gaza when those F30 fives
are just bombing the place to smithereens and slaughtering
people, that we would have set up a war crimes strike bean.
(23:36):
All these are all things. Now you say it's because we're
that Israel is our ally that we we shouldn't do them.
I say one of the reasons we should do them is because
because Israel is our ally, we cannot become part of a lawless
international system which uses mass murder as a weapon of war,
(23:56):
starvation as a weapon of war. We can't do that.
That isn't what we as a nation stand for.
And I'm surprised. I'm very, I'm quite shocked
actually to hear a former British diplomat defend that
kind of contact. So once again, I don't accept
your premise in many of this, You know, the, the, the the.
So the idea that there is a an established pattern of
deliberate massacre of civiliansI simply reject.
(24:18):
It's spelled documented by all of the human rights
organisations by the UN, it's and this is a matter of that
we'll just. Have to make his point.
That would be nice, yes. Let's at least look at the
company that we are in. You know, we are not talking
about just being in, you know, some level of coordination with
the United States, which is partof this.
(24:40):
You know, it's part the part partly British foreign policy
over many years, of course, has been, you know, partly about a
close relationship with the United States.
Now that's just that's just a fact of the matter.
It may. I'm sure you can make objections
to it. And, and, and, and I wouldn't
necessarily disagree with those objections, but that is a
guiding principle that both of our political parties have
(25:01):
accepted over decades. But it isn't just the United
States. We're also very much in step
with Germany on this. We're very much in step with
Japan on this. We're very much in step with
France on this. There is, you know, there is no
international unanimity, certainly not in the West,
against British policy on Gaza. And yet all of these countries,
(25:25):
their their positions evolved over time and particularly.
Britain's position and. Started saying this is
unacceptable. The level of killing is, is, is
horrific. There's got to be a ceasefire.
Eventually they got to the, you know, calling for a ceasefire,
even though they rejected the idea of calling for a ceasefire
at the at the beginning. And yet, for all the, you know,
(25:46):
the ally ship that you talk of, they were unable to effect any
change in Israel's behaviour at all.
Well, so you know, you're exactly as you say, the, the
evolution of policy is what you would expect to see.
You would expect any Western country sensitive to its own
electorate, sensitive to international dynamics to look
(26:06):
at this and to say this has to stop.
And people have been saying that, you know, that we need to
get to a an off ramp as soon as possible.
It isn't only the Israelis who had to stop.
You know, Hamas were also part of this equation.
They have been all the way through.
And of course, they are still avowedly committed to the
destruction of Israel. They haven't changed their
fundamental position and they have said on the record multiple
(26:29):
times that what they're looking for is not a peace agreement
with Israel. It's a ceasefire that will
enable, that will enable them toregroup and to carry out another
October the 7th when the chance arises again.
So the evil. Representation of the of the
Hamas position. You think they're looking for a
peace agreement with Israel? Yes, they are.
They've been quite that and theythat what has been tragic is
(26:51):
again and again in one of the things which has been tragic in
the course of this carnage has been there, there have been
peace movements towards peace which have been blocked by
Netanyahu, particularly when he he breached the ceasefire in
March this year. And actually going back before
October the 7th. It was quite the political
(27:12):
leadership has been sending out messages.
It's ready to talk and ready to actually to recognise the state
of Isabel. So you mustn't over, you're
overstating the position and youmustn't misrepresent it because
you're presenting it as as therecan be no.
Solution. I'm directly quoting what a
number of Hamas leaders have said.
But we know, we know and you know, actually because you're a
(27:33):
British diplomat that Hamas has been saying other things and
frequently has said other things, things and we must
pursue peace and not and not thethe carrying on this, I mean.
We are pursuing peace and, and Donald Trump has actually
produced a peace plan which has actually done something
meaningful. He's produced, Britain has
supported it. He's produced, he's.
(27:53):
Produced a peace plan. It's not a peace plan and if
you've studied those 20 points you wouldn't you understand that
perfectly well. He's produced a ceasefire and of
course, hopefully this will movetowards a peace.
But I, I, I, I think that this is the, the, the genocide or
the, the carnage. As such, The Economist estimates
(28:14):
that 4 to 4 to 5% of the population of Gaza has been, has
been killed. That's probably about 100,000
people. Others think it's more if that
was in Britain, that'd be about $3,000,000, so I don't.
Accept that figure either. You don't accept this figure.
I know there's a lot of facts which you find difficult to
(28:34):
accept. You're in a state of denial.
But. Many people talk about between.
60 or you're denying, you're denying, you're denying.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United
Nations. You're in a small place along
with you, Mr. Netanyahu, perhapsBen Gavir.
It's, it's and I and I and I, One of the things, one of the
problems of the British government has been we have, we
(28:57):
haven't. You have explained very well,
very articulately, the British policy of not trying to offend
the United States, of staying alongside our ally, but it's
taken us in to a moral cesspit. Let me, let me just move us on
to another part of your argument, Peter, which is, which
(29:17):
is why complicity in your framing has been acceptable in
Britain. And the, the conversation that
we've had around it, the way it's been framed, the way it's
been reported in the media and the, and the way that we
describe people and deaths on both sides.
Why? Why do you think it's been
distorted and wrong? I look at the contacts of the
(29:41):
mainstream British media in the way that it's reported the event
since October the 7th, and it's been shocking.
I mean the greater value attached to Israeli people
who've been killed by Hamas, theIsraelis, than the Palestinian.
(30:02):
Why? Just explain why you think how?
How has that happened? You know what?
What are the examples? If you like the most desperate
day of the war, 22 Israelis killed.
Terrible. But, you know, the same day
something like 200 Palestinians were killed, there's a basic
racist about Western reporting, an Israeli person who's been
(30:23):
killed. It's a terrible tragedy.
I'm all for it. Give them a name, give them a
job, explain what they were doing.
Palestinian person who gets killed doesn't matter.
Let's look at the treatment of Palestinian journalists.
More than 200, I think, according to the latest numbers,
have been killed, many of them targeted.
What attention has been given tothat in the Western media?
Very, very little the the targeting of of aid workers, you
(30:47):
know, well over 300 hundred workers killed.
Hardly nobody notices. All of these things have been
reported though, haven't they? I mean, they are part of the
conversation. It's part of the the protest
movement, it's part of all the activist.
The protest movement has been largely ignored and it's been
systematically smeared by the British media.
I have a chapter on this, about how the the the fabricated
(31:11):
stories published all over the mainstream media making out
about terrorist supporters or Hamas supporters or anti Semites
or violent thugs. These protesters who'd be
walking through Britain, Britishstreets week after week
protesting simply in favour of international law.
(31:33):
They've been invited. They they they on the same side
as the United Nations, the International Court, Criminal
Court, the International Court of Justice Against War crash.
How do you think, how do you think that?
Where do you think the bias is in the framing of that?
Because obviously people on Edmund's side of the argument
tend to call those hate marches.Well, exactly.
And describe you know. Gross, gross misrepresentations,
but. That's not how the media.
(31:54):
Tends to no the media bought. I've done one of my chapters.
I look into this. I show how the media presented
the marches as as violence and Ishow that in fact they were
incredibly peaceful and and indeed the far right marchers
who disrupted the let's say at the cenotaph, they were they
were a bit embarrassing for the media.
(32:15):
The media doesn't like to pay attention to the fact that the
extraordinary far right support which Israel's generated Tommy
Robinson, Nigel Farage, the the fact that there's this this
coalition between the British government.
Not a fraud dispute. He's far.
Right. Well, I won't.
I'm. I'm happy to say he's far right,
I can assure you. Can I can I please at least make
the point? I do not associate with people
(32:36):
like Tommy Robinson. Yeah, but he's, he's there,
There he is in Israel at the invitation of the Israeli
government. And that is a that is a problem
that you have a very ugly forcesin Western society supporting
Israel as it slaughters Arabs inGaza.
(32:57):
What would you make of the way it's been framed?
I mean, do you think it's? Been fair.
So, I mean, I, I, I was surprised when we were preparing
for this that, that this was a significant part of Peter's
argumentation, because I would have thought that on this
particular point about alleged media bias for Israel, I, I
(33:18):
hadn't really heard that before.It's a.
It's an unusual point of view now, for example.
Because Israel's forces feel themedia is against them.
So, so I, you know, I don't, so I don't want to get into, I
don't want, you know, all of us,whatever our point of view, we
will always say that we feel that the media is not
representative properly. And I've talked a good deal to
(33:39):
people in the BBC and people in the BBC have said, you know,
we're attacked all the time for being pro Israeli and we're
attacked all the time for being anti Israeli.
And we can only, we can only sort of surmise that we may be
roughly in the right place. Now, I realize that's rather
approximate and it's maybe not avery scientific basis on which
to make an argument. But the the I would say that in
(34:03):
general, whether you feel that the media has been has lent
slightly one way or the other, Ithink the argument that the
media has been systematically pro Israeli is eccentric.
It's just. Striking, I mean haven't just
come back from Israel, I know you've been there as well
recently. I mean, I found with, with my TV
cameras, people with people in Israel much more hostile towards
(34:25):
British journalists. And, and particularly they would
say, are you the BBC? And when you say no way Channel
4, they say, OK, at least you'renot, you're not, you're not on
the BBC. They think the BBC is against
them. And by the way.
Well, actually they were. In favor, look, structurally
they are, and I, and I look forward to somebody rebutting.
I put these points to BBC executives, the relevant BBC
executives. They can't answer them.
Let's go beyond the BBC because it's, you know, they're not here
(34:48):
to defend themselves. And they say that we're, we're a
public service broadcaster trying to get it right.
Because your, your criticism really goes beyond that.
Isn't it's, it's, it's, it's thewhole conversation in most of
the media that most of Britain reads and watches that you feel
has been slanted and racist. Yeah, and you just said you can
(35:08):
see that very graphic case in point over last weekend over the
Maccabi fans and Aston Villa where the Prime Minister
intervened against police adviceand has got a bloody nose for it
politically because he's been proved to have been wrong.
I mean, it's the and and the media coverage of that was
(35:29):
phonetically we must let the this is a free speech issue.
This is a fairness issue. You've got to let the Maccabee
fans into Britain, even though they you know, they, they're
known for their genocidal chantsand their and their violence and
death to Arabs and all the rest of it.
It's and the media cast that as went after an MP called Ayub
(35:51):
Khan who'd been calling for Maccabee fans to be banned.
They it was a racist campaign ofAyub Khan.
I saw one remark by a a shock jock saying he should go back to
Pakistan. This is on a respectable
channel. He's been suspended.
Thank God for that, but I mean it.
Yeah. And that was a very clear
example. I think one of the point
(36:11):
arguments I do make in this bookis the is the the far right
fascist Islamophobic arguments being made for Israel and allies
that the pro Israel side has gotand and Starmer in my view, and
it's shaming in a British Prime Minister was that's part of
Labour's strategy to win over the red wall voters, win back
(36:36):
the voters who've gone to reformfrom Labour actually are
basically doing what they wantedappealing to them by siding
against Ayub Khan and and with Maccabee fans.
Evan what? What's your?
I mean, I don't want to get deepinto the Aston Villa thing.
It's again, it's it feels to me as if it's a little bit off the
(36:56):
off the subject, but but. Generally you feel bemused that
you think that that that the media is being described as.
Precisely, yes. I, I I just don't see it.
I, I, I mean I see, I see in some areas I see balance.
I, I think I, I, I, I see some areas where I definitely see a
very anti Israeli bent. I'm not sure where I see the Pro
(37:18):
is it really bent? But I can believe that it might
exist in some newspapers. But I would have thought on
balance. Try reading the Times.
What about the It's extraordinary you read the
Telegraph, you don't think it's pro Israeli?
I mean, it's very odd actually the, the mental outlook.
You're betrayed. So as a matter of fact, I don't
particularly read the Telegraph and if you say it's pro.
Really. The Spectator, old boy.
(37:40):
But these? Are outlets that are open about
that position. There's nothing wrong with that.
And they're private outlets as well.
I mean, let's go back to the BBC.
The BBC is under pressure over justifying the license fee and
what that implies in terms of its obligations to the to the
British people. And they're walking a tightrope
and I don't think they always get it right, but I don't think
they get it systematically wrong.
(38:02):
I think I'm afraid they they do and they've systematically kept
from their audiences vital information for the
understanding of of how this warhas progressed.
Finally, Peter, I mean, you haveyou, you, you, you built a case
in your book which is basically arguing our our politicians,
our, our political decisions, our media, our national
(38:25):
conversation makes us complicit as a nation in what has happened
in Gaza. What are you?
What are you hoping people will do as a result of reading that?
Well, one of the things which isvery hard to remember is that
the vast majority of the Britishpeople are decent people.
(38:46):
Right from the outset of this conflict, the majority of the
British people have been for a ceasefire.
They have been for the, the, therule of law.
I think now I, I, I have made the case in this conversation,
but much more thoroughly in the book, that British ministers
have been complicit in what is likely to be judged to be a
(39:08):
genocide. I hope that these ministers will
be brought to justice. There must be accountability.
I I don't believe that Britain should support barbaric
policies, whether our friends decide is in the Yemen or the,
or the Israelis in Gaza. I think we should be a force for
good in the world. We should respect international
institutions like the International Criminal Court,
(39:31):
the United Nations and and have a foreign policy which is a
force for good in the world, notfor one which is a force for
violence, mayhem, court chaos and law breaking.
You'd agree with that when you. I I would agree that that is
what we should do. I would also claim that that is
(39:51):
exactly what we already do. Do.
I mean, I think we're into concluding points, aren't we?
And let me make, let me just make a couple of points. 1 Is
that because I haven't said it explicitly?
Let me say explicitly that I am no apologist for Benjamin
Netanyahu. I'm not here to defend him and
there are many problems that I have with the way that he has
approached Israeli national security over over recent years.
(40:15):
The second thing I should say, just because it's an honest, an
honest disclosure, is that although I've in a way sort of
been cast here as someone who will defend the actions of the
British government, the British government itself would not be
terribly happy with that becauseI no longer work for the British
government. I'm no longer British ambassador
and I'm not under any obligationto defend them if I didn't agree
(40:38):
with what they were doing. So, you know, I'm not giving
British propaganda here. I don't have to and I don't even
want to. But I would argue that the
British government over the past, well, let's say for as
long as I have been involved in foreign policy, and that would
be going back to the 1980s, I would say that the British
(40:58):
government, of the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, which is to say obviously France,
China, Soviet Union and Russia and the United States, I would
say the British government has most consistently factored in
values into its understanding ofits interests and the policies
that it has pursued. And it doesn't always get it
(41:20):
right. But I I am generally proud of
the way the British government has approached most
international issues. I've been fit and brown.
Peter O'bourne. We must leave it there.
Thank you both very much. And that's it for this episode
of The Forecast. Until next time, bye.
Bye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.