Posted on

LABOUR CND STATEMENT on Palestine

Labour CND welcomes the UK government’s recognition of the state of Palestine, alongside Canada, Australia, and Portugal ahead of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) this week, and recognises France, Belgium, Malta, and others are likely to do so during the course of the General Assembly, which will discuss Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Labour CND supports all steps which highlight Israel’s illegal, unjust, and discriminatory treatment of the Palestinian people with the de facto support of the United States.

Two years of Israel’s war on Gaza, together with a growing number of forced and illegal seizures of West Bank land by Israeli settlers, backed up by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), are shattering Israel’s impunity. After decades of acquiescence in the barbarous treatment of the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and West Bank, the majority of the world’s states and international institutions are speaking up and speaking out.

Palestine is already recognised by 150 of the 193 UN members and has diplomatic missions in many countries including Britain. The Palestinian Authority has permanent observer status at the UN, which allows it to take part but without the right to vote. Yet Palestine does not have full control of its territory or people; it has no internationally agreed boundaries or capital city, and no army. Israel remains an occupying force which fails to recognise the human and political rights of the people of Palestine.

International opinion

The overwhelming support of UN member states for the recognition of Palestinian statehood is symbolic of the shift in international opinion which has taken place over the two years of Israel’s horrendous war on Gaza. Acceptance of Palestine as a UN member state would convey significant practical rights across the international arena. The weight of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) however, is a serious obstacle in the way of the majority will being expressed.

States are admitted into UN membership by a two-thirds majority vote by the General Assembly. Before this takes place though, the application for membership is first considered by the Security Council Two conditions must be fulfilled before a vote of the General Assembly takes place:

— Nine out of the 15 UNSC members must cast a positive vote for the recommendation.

— Even then, however, a recommendation for membership cannot go forward to the General Assembly if one of the five permanent members of the Security Council – China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK, and the USA – votes against the application for membership.

Trump’s obstruction

China and Russia have long since recognised the state of Palestine, the UK did so this weekend. If France recognises Palestine at the UN this week, as it has committed to do, only the US stands in the way of Security Council approval for Palestine’s membership of the UN. After the Oslo Accords of 1993 and ’95, which were opposed by a majority of the Palestinian people, the US recognised the Palestinian Authority (PA) as exercising limited Palestinian self-governance over the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The current administration, however, opposes even the most limited form of Palestinian independence. President Trump acknowledged this in a press conference with Prime Minister Starmer during the recent state visit.

Last week the US denied an entry visa for the Palestinian Authority delegation to attend this week’s General Assembly. In response, the UN majority has voted to allow the PA to submit a pre-recorded statement to be played in the General Assembly and participate via video conference. The US was one of only five GA members to vote against this procedure, ‘explaining’ its negative vote by claiming the Palestinian Authority undermines any prospects of peace and ‘rewards and incentivises terror’.

The procedure by which a state is admitted into UN membership means it lies in the hands of the Trump administration to block UN membership of Palestine, just as the ability to call a halt to the atrocities against the people of Gaza also lies with Trump.

Palestinian statehood is by no means the only occasion on which the US has frustrated the majority will of the UN. This happened in the case of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

The Nuclear Ban Treaty is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons. After decades of preparation, it was adopted by 127 votes at the UNGA in July 2017 and opened for signature that September. It came into force in January 2021, when 50 states had ratified the Treaty. To date, 94 UN members are signatories to the Treaty; 73 have incorporated it in into law. The International Red Cross-Red Crescent has championed the Treaty. Thousands of scientists across the world have signed an open letter in support, and many faith communities have called for its adoption.

When the UN voted for the TPNW in 2017, the US, UK, and French delegations issued a joint press statement rejecting the Treaty, saying they had not participated in the negotiations and did not intend to sign, ratify, or become a party to the TPNW because it was incompatible with nuclear ‘deterrence’. To date, no nuclear weapons state has signed or ratified the the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Time for change, time for action

The General Assembly is the only UN body where every member has a say. As in the case of Gaza, majority opinion can carry moral authority and exercise influence on a range of UN agencies. But its decisions are recommendations only. It’s time to recognise – and tackle – the anti-democratic practices that nuclear-armed states such as the US can exercise as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Meanwhile though, the most practical and immediate pressure the UK can bring to bear to stop the genocide and starvation in Gaza remains that of ending all arms exports to Isreal – including so-called secondary arms sales such as the supply of 15% of parts used in building US F35 fighter jets which have bombed Gaza for the past two years. It should do so now.

Labour CND says
Recognise Palestine !
End the genocide !
Stop Arming Israel !

Posted on

US-Israel shadow war on Iran continues with the threat of snapback sanctions

There’s a lot the media isn’t telling us about US and Israeli relations with Iran. Carol Turner traces Trump’s approach, the controversial history of snapback sanctions, and demands an end to nuclear hypocrisy.

The fragile ceasefire that followed the US and Israel’s military assault on Iran is holding, for now at least, while Benjamin Netanyahu’s attention is focussed on his endgame for Gaza. The western media lens, which shifted away from Iran after the 12-day military campaign in June, recently returned with the announcement that Britain, France, and Germany (E3) are initiating snapback sanctions. 

During the 12-day attack, Trump and Netanyahu claimed their aim was preventing Iran’s imminent development of nuclear weapons. President Trump has repeatedly insisted Iran is a few weeks away from having a nuclear bomb. Throughout the 12 days, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) insisted there was no evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons. He told the UN Security Council: “The IAEA can guarantee, through a watertight inspections system, that nuclear weapons will not be developed in Iran.”  

US and Israel’s strategic goals

Though militarily weakened by this and other recent attacks, and despite the economic strain caused by international sanctions, Iran is still a powerful obstacle to Trump’s strategic goal in the region. Trump’s goal being to normalise relations between Israel and its regional neighbours. Iran is also a chief obstacle in the way of Netanyahu’s attempts to quell Palestinian opposition and strengthen Israel’s grip on the Middle East. 

Israel is explicitly seeking regime change, quietly supported by the United States. On day one of the June attack, Netanyahu appealed to the people of Iran to rise up against the regime, and he continues to do so. 

The breadth of targets in June not only included nuclear research facilities, fuel enrichment plants, and nuclear power plants, but also Iran’s air defences, and other military and civilian facilities. Israel’s Defence Force (IDF) assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, politicians, and military leaders. Images broadcast by Iranian state media have exposed Israel’s covert operations inside Iran before the attacks – showing the deployment of Israeli agents and extensive use of small drones in the opening hours of the June offensive. 

The Israel-Iran ceasefire may be holding, but the shadow war with Iran continues. In a StW-CND webinar during the military bombardment, General Secretary of the TSSA rail union Maryam Eslamdoust, speaking in a personal capacity, explained what this means. The bombardment, she said, was not only a military campaign but also a psychological and propaganda campaign. 

Trump’s objectives

Trump’s so-called nuclear talks go deeper than Iran’s potential for a nuclear weapons programme. They seek to further limit the development of a civil nuclear power programme (which all nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories are entitled to pursue), end Iran expanding drone and ballistic missile capabilities, and its support for a network of regional proxies. Within weeks of taking office in January this year, Trump  signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 2 (NSPM2) which turned those objectives into a directive to all offices of state. 

Trump also announced a campaign of ‘secondary sanctions’ aimed at countries buying oil and gas from Iran, suggesting US businesses will not be allowed to trade with these countries. This campaign is mainly aimed – with little success – at China which accounts for around 90% of Iran’s oil exports. In April Trump also imposed secondary sanctions on countries importing oil from Venezuela, again aimed at China. 

Trump’s approach to Iran’s nuclear weapons potential contrasts with that of President Obama, which resulted in the Iran nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), widely regarded as a successful arms limitation agreement. It lifted nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in return for a commitment by Iran to restrict its civil nuclear programme and permit rigorous International Atomic Energy Association (IAEL) inspections. Germany and the five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council – US, UK, China, Russia, and France – as well as Iran were signatories to the JCPoA. 

The agreement was codified in UNSC Resolution 2231 of 2015.  However, Trump effectively killed the JCPoA in his first presidential term by withdrawing the US from the JCPoA in 2018 and de-certifying UNSC 2231, claiming Iran was developing nuclear weapons. 

Snapback sanctions

Multiple IAEA inspection reports at that time confirmed Iran was adhering to the terms of the agreement. These reports were universally accepted, including by US authorities. In 2020, however, even though the US was no longer party to the JCPoA, Trump invoked a ‘snapback’ mechanism in UNSC 2231, claiming Iran was failing to honour the agreement and calling for the UN to reimpose sanctions. 

The UNSC president at that time blocked Trump’s attempt to activate snapback, citing a lack of consensus in the Security Council, after which Trump imposed US sanctions on Iran. A year later the E5 followed suit. Unlike the US, however, they remained parties to the JCPoA and UNSC 2231. Despite objections by other P5 Security Council members, a year later Britain, France, and Germany followed suit and reimposed sanctions. 

The above events, in outline, are the basis for continuing claims by Russia and China that sanctions on Iran are illegal – a position they reiterated as recently as March this year. A joint statement by China, Russia, and Iran, called for restraint not escalation – emphasising their support for UNSC 2331 and the need to uphold the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Iran’s right to civil nuclear power as a signatory, and calling for the removal of unlawful sanctions on Iran. 

Iran responded to the US and E3 sanctions imposed during Trump’s first term by exceeding the agreed limits on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium and enriching uranium in higher concentrations. It must be noted that these higher levels of uranium enrichment were not high enough for their use in a nuclear bomb, as the IAEA and other experts have pointed out. Nonetheless, increasing uranium enrichment has become the basis of current claims by the US and its allies that Iran is in breach of the JCPoA and on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons. 

Under the terms of UNSC 2231, the JCPoA terminates on 18 October this year, at which point all nuclear related sanctions against Iran are due to end. However, on 28 August this year, the E3 notified the UNSC they were initiating snapback sanctions on the grounds of Iran’s ‘significant non-compliance’ with the terms of the JCPoA, These are due to kick in 30 days after notification of snapback, unless the UNSC adopts a resolution against snapback. 

In a statement to the IAEA’s Board of Governors on 8 October, Grossi confirmed he had “continuously and systematically” reached out to restore the “indispensable cooperation” with Iran, and that “progress has been made” during ongoing discussions. It remains to be seen if this is likely to influence the imposition of snapback.

Iran’s response

Throughout Trump’s election campaign and his second term in office, Iran has repeatedly called for nuclear negotiations with the US to be resumed and, until the military attack in June, continued to permit IAEA inspections. The latter were the basis on which the IAEA Director General confirmed to the UNSC that there were no credible indications that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

After the June attack, Iran halted IAEA inspections and threatened withdrawal from the NPT – a clear hint that a nuclear weapons programme might be pursued. This was widely reported in the western media. Since then, and noticeably less reported in the west, Iran has opened talks with the IAEA and remains a member of the NPT. 

Limited military exchanges between Israel and Iran had already taken place in April 2024, and more extensive exchanges in September-October after an Israeli airstrike killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and others. Leaked US classified documents suggest CIA involvement. The Fars News Agency, controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released footage suggesting Israel was targeting Iran’s air defences in preparation for future attacks.

Against this background, talks between Iran and the Trump administration, which began in early March hosted by Qatar on behalf of the Gulf States, have floundered. Netanyahu’s relentless  onslaught against Palestinians across the Occupied Territories have so far proved insurmountable in Trump’s attempts to gain Gulf state support for his campaign to lever Iran into an agreement which goes beyond nuclear weapons. On the contrary, there has been limited signs that the actions of Trump and Netanyahu have resulted in a partial thaw in relations between Iran and the Gulf states.

The military attacks of 2024-25 have by and large seen the Iranian opposition retreat from the streets. As with Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and many other examples across the world, the Iranian people have united for now against their foreign invaders.

End the nuclear hypocrisy

The mendacity of Israel, the US, and the E3 is clear from the events described above, and by and large, the abject failure of western media to report the full story surrounding Iran nuclear negotiations. It should come as no surprise that the events of 2024-25 have strengthened the voice of Iranian hawks calling for withdrawal from the NPT and the development of  a nuclear weapons programme. 

Most breathtaking of all perhaps, is the hypocrisy of the United States and Europe in failing to acknowledge that Isreal has possessed nuclear weapons since the 1960s. Israel has never acknowledged it has nuclear weapons, and has never signed the NPT. 

Isreal’s nuclear weapons were disclosed by Mordecai Vanunu, an heroic Israeli whistle-blower at the Dimona nuclear plant. Vanunu spent 18 years in Israeli jails, mostly in solitary confinement, for his disclosure. He was released in 2004, but his movements are still severely restricted.

Israel’s nuclear weapons are unacknowledged by the US and its allies, and rarely mentioned by a compliant western media. 

The double standards applied to the treatment of Iran by Israel, the US, Britain, and Europe compared to the disregard of Israel’s nuclear armoury should be challenged as fiercely and as frequently by the anti-war movements across Europe and North America, as Netanyahu’s actions against Gaza have been. 

Removing Israel’s nuclear weapons is every bit as important as preventing Iran from acquiring them, and indispensable to the long-term stability of the Middle East.

  • Read Maryam Eslamdoust’s description of the shadow war in an earlier Labour CND post here.

* This article was first published on Stop the War Coalition website, 10 September 2025

Posted on

Arming Israel’s war on Gaza: Tory scandal, Labour shame

Above: Khan Younis bombing during the early phase of Israel’s operation in Rafah provence

In a guest blog which appeared on CND’s website, CAROL TURNER explains why Britain is complicit in what’s happening to Palestinians across the Occupied Territories right now. Instead of promising to stop this, Labour is echoing the misdirection of David Cameron and Grant Shapps who argue UK arms exports to Israel are derisory.

If anything can convince the British government, out-going or in-coming, that the UK must halt arms exports to Israel, the Rafah offensive should. Day by day, hour by hour, the toll of Palestinian dead and injured slowly mounts. As far back as December President Netanyahu made clear that military operations would go on throughout 2024. In the midst of the Rafah carnage, and despite the international outcry, he recently reiterated this.

David Cameron has dismissed the idea of halting arms sales as gesture politics. Britain, he claims, supplies ‘less than 1% of Israel’s arms’.[i] Grant Shapps recently told parliament ‘defence exports to Israel are relatively small—just £42 million last year’.[ii] This deliberate misdirection is echoed by Labour.

The UK is among the world’s biggest arms exporters, the seventh largest in 2023.[iii] Arms manufacturers in Britain need a government license to export military goods, software and technology overseas.[iv] Applications are evaluated against criteria which include Britain’s obligations under international law and the risk that exported items might be used in the violation of human rights.

No arms export license should be granted if there’s a clear risk the items: [v]

  • might be used to ‘commit or facilitate’ internal repression or a serious violation of international humanitarian law; or
  • would undermine internal, regional, or international peace and security.

Existing licences can be revoked if they don’t match the criteria. But the government has resisted the introduction of post-shipment verification or end-use monitoring of military exports from the UK.[vi]

BAE Systems is a British company and leading supplier of parts for American F35 fighter bombers that the US supplies to Israel, They are being used against Gaza. Campaign Against Arms and others point out that 15% of every US F35 supplied to Israel is built in the UK.[vii]

This means Britain is complicit in what’s happening to Palestinians across the Occupied Territories right now.

Individual MPs have spoken up. Leyla Moran, a British Palestinian and a LibDem MP broke the parliamentary consensus by speaking on national media about what was happening to her family there. Labour MPs Richard Burgon and Imran Hussain recently delivered a dossier of evidence on Israeli war crimes in Gaza to the International Criminal Court, evidence compiled from a series of panels they organised in parliament.

In April this year, UK opinion polls[viii] showed a majority in favour of banning arms sales after aid workers were killed, including three UK citizens. Plaid Cymru wanted parliament reconvened. Green Party spokespeople have called for the cancelling of all arms export licences, and the LibDems and SNP want suspension.

Last October, Labour MP Zarah Sultana introduced a Private Members Bill calling for a halt to exports to countries ‘where it cannot be demonstrated that arms sold will not be used in violation of international law’ and led a Westminster Hall debate in December. At the end of March, recognising Israel would disregard the UN ceasefire resolution, she coordinated an open letter to Cameron, condemning the government’s failure to act, and calling again for a suspension of arms sales. It was signed by 134 parliamentarians from across the parties, including a Tory peer.

Under pressure from the solidarity movement which, week after week, has taken to the streets in cities and towns across the country, both Conservative and Labour have slowly been forced to increase criticism of Israel. To date, actions have not followed words. Not a single step towards halting British arms exports has been taken by the government, nor has any demand they do so come from the official opposition.

CND takes this issue very seriously indeed. Israel is one of only nine nuclear armed states in the world, and the only one that doesn’t admit to having them. Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty designed to limit their spread and secure nuclear disarmament.

The nuclear risks involved in the war on Gaza may not be as remote as they seem. Since the October attack by Hamas, a few Israeli politicians have floated the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran or Lebanon. Most of the drones and missiles Iran launched against Israel in April were taken out before they reached their targets. One missile was not. It successfully reached its target, Nevatim in southern Israel, near the Dimona nuclear facility. 

Far from being gesture politics, the unwillingness of the US, UK, and other governments to halt arms sales has emboldened Israel which is pressing ahead with its attack on the Palestinian people in defiance of international law and international outrage.

The next 5 weeks of general election campaigning is an opportunity to make our voice heard by every candidate in every constituency across the country. CND members should act, and act now.

[i]David Cameron, Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, 12 May 2024 at https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001z828/sunday-with-laura-kuenssberg-arms-to-israel-gaza-protests-eurovision

[ii] Grant Shapps, Hansard, House of Commons, 20 November 2023 at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-11-20/debates/776C2068-C460-402F-8826-ECAE91256A56/UKArmsSalesToIsrael#contribution-7ACCD6F1-79D9-4859-9429-EFA71569E209

[iii] D Pieter et al, Trends in International Arms Transfers 2023, SIPRI at  https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at_2023.pdf

[iv] Louisa Brooke-Holland, An introduction to UK arms exports, House of Commons Library Briefing, 24 January 2024 at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8312/

[v] Louisa Brooke-Holland and Nigel Walker, Arms export licences for sales to Israel, Housse of Commons Library Briefing, 7 December, 2023 at https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2023-0223/CDP-2023-0223.pdf

[vi] Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) joint report ‘Developments in UK Strategic Export Controls’, 9 January 2024 at  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/caec-report-on-uk-strategic-export-controls-government-response

[vii] BAE Systems, F-35: a trusted partner on the world’s largest defence programme, at https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/f-35-lightning-ii

[viii] YouGov polls in March and April, reported by the Guardian and others, showed majority support for a suspension of arms sales to Israel, see for example https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/majority-of-voters-in-uk-back-banning-arm-sales-to-israel-poll-finds  In May, YouGov found opinion had remained static: ‘56% would support the UK ending the sale of arms to Israel for the duration of the conflict in Gaza. Only 20% would oppose this move’ reported https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49366-british-attitudes-to-the-israel-gaza-conflict-may-2024-update

WeThink digital polling, reported by Byline Times in April, found 68% of those surveyed would support a ban, compared to 32% who were opposed https://bylinetimes.com/2024/04/03/brits-want-the-uk-to-ban-arms-sales-to-israel-but-its-political-parties-arent-listening/