There's a lot here. On a narrow level @EmilyThornberry's attempt to wriggle out of responsibility by effectively saying " I didn't say what you thought I said" is for the birds. When Yaev Galant announced what Israel intended to do in imposing a siege his meaning was clear. We are going to prevent Palestinians In Gaza from receving food water and essential supplies because they are not human. His remarks came at the same time as Isaac Herzog, Israel's President , saying there were no innocents In Gaza and Netanyau saying Israel would turn Gaza into a deserted Island. Galant wasn't talking about a brief temporary measure to aid the rescue of hostages and it is incredible for anyone to say they understood it in that way. If thats what she thought she's a fool. More likely she is lying . The true reason for her remarks takes us deeper. It is the same explanation , in my opinion, for why Starmer said Israel had the right to cut everything off. If you watch the interview again you can see how uncomfortable he is... which was why he came up with the absurd caveat that they could do this as long as it was " within International law" He's an international rights lawyer. He knows collective punishment of such a nature is a violation of IHL. So the caveat was there to reassure himself he wasn't endorsing law breaking as he did exactly that. The core message he wanted to convey was I fully support Israel to do whatever it wants to do. Both Starmer and Thornberry as Human rights lawyers knew that Israel at the time of Oct 7th had been enacting an illegal Occupation for 56 years. They know this compromises the notion of its right to defend itself. Force used ultimately to sustain an occupation is not justified regardless of whether Hamas had breached IHL on Oct 7th. So go deeper and ask why did both lawyers end up in the grotesque place they did. And the answer is that they had learned that unquestioning support for Israel in alignment with the US , is the price you pay for being seen to be a credible statesperson and as a Labour politician, to avoid charges of antisemtism. Now the dial has turned because the genocide has awakened people to the nature of this racist supremacist state and being a supporter of Israel is now toxic . Hence no cabinet minister at LFI reception for the first time in living memory. So Thornberry now wants to say not only am I on the right side of this.... I always was. Remember Omar Al Akkad.... one day everyone will always have been against all of this. We should welcome this shift but be clear eyed about its motivations. It is a response to the pressure generated by the movement .... everyone of you who joined us in marching, lobbying, boycotting. The further massive change required for this Gov to be truly confronting injustice and ending complicity with it requires further such pressure. We keep the foot on the pedal.

Thinking we have time left to address climate change, or that “Net Zero by 2050” will save us, is driving us toward full social collapse in ways that become more obvious with every new broken temperature record. currentaffairs.org/news/the-…

I'm in the Star today with a piece on the Carney government's handling of relations with the United States. Last year, Canadians gave Mark Carney a mandate to disentangle our country from the empire to the south. He's done the exact opposite. Link in next tweet.