Politics
The alcohol in Parliament debate has turned nasty
On Sunday 26 April, Green Party MP Hannah Spencer complained that MPs are boozing at work. Her comments went down incredibly poorly with soused MPs and journalists, but the public overwhelmingly backed her.
Now, the debate has turned nasty, because the only establishment figures left fighting are the grimmest perverts imaginable:
Great to see that the Spectator have wheeled out their finest to attack Hannah Spencer. Only in the UK can you write a column about how you cannot be trusted not to r*pe children and still keep your job. https://t.co/REJSHUnpDn pic.twitter.com/aehRlPbsO0
— Dr Iain Darcy
(@doctoriaindarcy) April 28, 2026
Send in the creeps
Self-confessed mind-paedophile Rod Liddle’s article begins:
I think the best and most succinct description of the Green party was Tim Stanley’s ‘Stalin with a nose ring’. It gives a nod to the witless middle-class skankery of the party’s members and supporters but posits that there might be, underneath, a darker undercurrent.
This ‘dark undercurrent’ he’s talking about is not wanting MPs to drink at work – something the public overwhelmingly backs:
A total of 76% of people agree that it is unacceptable — and 52% completely unacceptable — for MPs to be drinking at work.
Labour MPs and grifter lobby journalists spent 48 hours telling us that this is a working class tradition! And that the Greens are “puritanical.” pic.twitter.com/E2f2qn3CwK — Philip Proudfoot (@PhilipProudfoot) April 27, 2026
Liddle also said:
I’m sorry Spencer doesn’t like the smell. I suspect her fellow MPs aren’t too keen on the stench of semi-digested kale which emanates from the woman, either, but we have to put these minor inconveniences aside. She represents a party which sees no harm in legalising Class A drugs, but cavils at alcohol. And she does so because alcohol is enjoyed largely by people who don’t like the Greens. It is alcohol as a signifier which annoys her, not the state of being incapacitated by it.
Rod – like your establishment media friends – you’re pretending not to understand what she said:
The UK's political culture relies on performative and aggressive stupidity to make sure nothing actually ever changes for the better. https://t.co/qlF7ePXWyX
— Marl Karx (@BareLeft) April 27, 2026
To make it simple for you:
- The Greens have spoken about legalising drugs to remove a source of income for criminal enterprise and to ensure that anyone taking hard drugs does so safely; they’re not advocating for crack pipes in the office.
- Spencer very clearly said her issue was with MPs drinking at work – not with people drinking in general.
We’d provide a longer numbered list, but we suspect Liddle wouldn’t be interested in anything past 16.
Menace to society
The next establishment figure to wade in is literally famous for being a drunken menace in Parliament. Here’s what MP Neil Coyle had to say:
I haven’t drunk alcohol in over 4 years but I don’t believe a total ban is necessary in Parliament and know Southwark brewers have loved being the guest beer in Strangers.
I’m also unaware of any Labour MP who took money from women to hypnotise their breasts larger. https://t.co/CaamewxhhD
— Neil Coyle (@coyleneil) April 28, 2026
First off, fair play to Labour politicians for sticking with the ‘hypno-boobitism’ schtick. Since they first cracked it out, the Green have overtaken them in the polls and nearly quadrupled their membership, and yet Labour MPs are still convinced the attack line is going to land at some point – an attack line which originated with the Sun, no less!
A Scottish Labour candidate in next months election using the S*n to attack Zack Polanski.
I stood on the picket line at Wapping in 1986 (I went with my mum & dad!) and I saw at first hand what the Murdoch owned scum thinks of the labour movement. https://t.co/vz0up5xbvV — Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 28, 2026
Back to Coyle, people were quick to point out he’s literally the poster boy for not allowing alcohol at work:
Four years ago he got drunk, sexually harassed a woman and was racially abusive to a journalist. And got away with it. Coyle should have maybe kept out of this one. https://t.co/mE7nBXomLi
— Dr Iain Darcy
(@doctoriaindarcy) April 28, 2026
Neil Coyle has been reinstated as a Labour MP, following a Commons suspension for breaching Parliament’s harassment rules.
He was suspended as an MP for five days in March, after a parliamentary probe found he had made racist comments towards a journalist.
He was also found to have engaged in “foul-mouthed and drunken abuse” of a parliamentary assistant to another MP.
Labour sources said his conduct would be monitored by its chief whip.
Mr Coyle, the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, was suspended by the party last year after allegations about his comments to the reporter emerged.
The move meant he had to sit as an independent MP in the House of Commons. He was also banned from bars in Parliament for six months.
The problem with giving MPs access to cheap booze at work is it essentially encourages them to drink.
This is just another way our political establishment is at odds with the public, because Britons are overall drinking less and less. Largely, this is because people’s increased awareness of health and fitness means they understand they shouldn’t feel rundown and tetchy all the time; they should actually feel alive and happy.
Do the MPs attacking Spencer seem alive and happy to you?
Fresh, un-bloodshot eyes
While the attacks on Spencer are getting grimmer, they’re also getting lazier:
I thought this was a Green making a joke but their account is anti-Green. They thought people were gonna fall for that beer png they photoshopped onto it — cez (@cezthesocialist) April 28, 2026
I mean I commend them for not using AI at least. https://t.co/zIyHKszBLC
We predict that, a year from now, you’ll struggle to find a single MP who publicly condones drinking at work. This is the benefit of having politicians like Spencer who aren’t a product of the establishment pipeline. They point out things that are obvious to the rest of us, but are completely mystifying to the degenerates who rule the country.
Featured image via Parliament
By Willem Moore
Fleur Butler OBE is Director of Development for Conservative Women’s Organisation
The row over the two-child benefit cap has become a predictable clash between left-wing moral outrage about “the poor” and right-wing arguments about cost, GDP and fairness to taxpayers. Conservatives rarely say they care; the Greens rarely say where the money will come from, beyond “the rich.” But the Conservative case on fiscal restraint simply does not land with younger voters. Their economic reality is different from their parents’, and their news comes through social media algorithms that reward emotion over economics. If we only speak the language of older voters, we have no future.
We also fail to explain that this debate is not just about welfare policy. It is about what kind of society we want, and whether capitalism can still offer young people, especially women with children, a safer, freer and more prosperous future. A basic economic truth is being ignored: partnership between two people is still the most effective form of wealth-sharing most people will ever experience, while the state will always be limited and often disappointing. Of the 1.5 million children in single-parent households, 41 per cent are in poverty, compared with 23 per cent in two-parent households. Stable partnerships reduce child poverty, women’s pension poverty, demand for social housing, loneliness, mental health strain and dependence on welfare. They reduce the tax burden on working families. On average, women and men get more financial support from a partnership than from the state.
Yet politicians are afraid to talk about this for fear of sounding moralistic. We should make the economic case instead. The state is increasingly being asked to take on functions once shared within families. But it is structurally incapable of providing emotional, practical and flexible support. It cannot read a bedtime story, collect a sick child from school, or share the daily load of care. It cannot even put the bins out badly. It can only redistribute money, inefficiently and at enormous cost. Attitudinal studies published this spring show young women in particular are increasingly distrustful of men and are delaying relationships and children. Yet no one points out that the state is an even worse partner: cold, bureaucratic and transactional. Even the most average man will often offer more support than the welfare system ever can. For those in abusive or broken relationships, the state must always be there. But it should never be sold as the first or better option, because it cannot be.
Polling from the 2024 election revealed a deeper divide. While attention focused on young men voting Reform, far less was said about the overwhelming number of young women voting Left or Green. There has been no Louis Theroux documentary on the femo-rage conspiracy theories on line, nor film of young women committing acts of violence against the police and state infrastructure. This invisible shift is not driven by understanding the details of welfare policy It reflects a broader belief that capitalism is failing them and that the state offers more security. This is where Conservatives are losing. We argue macroeconomics and statistics while the Left sells a vision.
Young women facing high rents, insecure work and a cost-of-living crisis do not feel “fiscal responsibility” in daily life. To them, the state feels safer than the market, safer than men and safer than family. But this misunderstands what the state can provide. Welfare can redistribute income, but it cannot create resilience, stability or shared resources in a household. It cannot insulate women from the economic realities of childbirth, caring responsibilities, healthcare needs and time out of the labour market. The state will always be a second-best partner. We need to make the case that capitalism is not just about growth, but about freedom, resilience and choice. It has done more than any welfare state to lift people out of poverty and has given women independence, opportunity and freedom. Yes, capitalism needs rules and reform to remain fair and resilient. But destroying it will not make young people safer, they need to work with us to make it function better for all. To join us, as we have the better vision for the future.
The two-child cap is a case study in this. Lifting it may help some families, but it also increases the burden on working people already struggling, many of them young themselves. Yet the debate is framed as compassion versus cruelty, rather than two competing visions of how society shares risk and responsibility. If Conservatives want to reach younger voters, we must stop speaking in abstract fiscal language and start speaking to everyday life. Explain how high taxes limit personal freedom. Explain that building a household, a business or a partnership is not a moral act, but a practical route to resilience when the state lets you down. Explain the limits of the state through lived experience, not ideology.
And yes, we must make the emotional case too. We need to challenge young women’s distrust of men while acknowledging it, and remind them that most men are not the online caricatures they see. Society works best through strong partnerships between men and women in the work place and in private lives, not dependence on bureaucracies. The message is not “get married.” The message is: don’t let the state be your only safety net, “build your own”. It is not an attack on single mothers or a call to dismantle welfare. Life goes wrong in ways the lucky often cannot imagine. The state should always be there for those who need it. But we must be honest about what it can and cannot do.
Young voters, both men and women, are not hearing this argument because we are not making it. Until we do, the generational divide will grow and the welfare state will keep being sold as the answer to every problem, expanding in ways that strain both public finances and the social fabric.
Earlier this year I had the pleasure of sponsoring a Dogs Trust event in parliament highlighting an important and overlooked issue concerning animal rehoming organisations. It is frankly shocking that rehoming organisations, rescues and shelters across England, Wales and Northern Ireland remain unlicensed and not subject to inspections, even when they are registered charities. Whilst most organisations do vital work in protecting vulnerable animals, the absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework has sadly left ample room for abuse.
This was unfortunately brought into sharp focus in Billericay last year when an Essex Police raid on an animal rehoming organisation led to the discovery of 41 dead dogs in squalid conditions. While it is important to recognise that this incident is an outlier and not representative of most rehoming organisations, it does highlight the risks that can arise in the absence of oversight.
Despite this, public awareness of the status of animal rehoming organisations is remarkably low. Polling data from Dogs Trust outlined that 79% of the population wrongly believe that these organisations are already subject to licensing and inspection. However, once informed of the current situation, 89% support the introduction of regulation. Whilst significant efforts by animal welfare organisations in recent years have sought to raise awareness, the contrast between widespread misunderstanding and strong public support for reform highlights that much more still needs to be done.
For those that are aware of the situation, there is a clear concern and a demand for change. A petition that was established in the aftermath of the Billericay case, gathered over 109,000 signatures and was subsequently debated in parliament earlier this year. This demonstrated a strong and shared desire across the House with the public to seek action and protect animal welfare.
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
At the event, we heard compelling arguments for the introduction of a proportionate system of licensing and regulation. This would help ensure that rehoming organisations are supported by clear minimum standards and effective enforcement, ultimately strengthening the excellent work already happening across the sector. Scotland has already provided a framework for this, having in 2021 introduced legislation to regulate both rehoming organisations and rehoming activities under the Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (Scotland) Regulations Act.
The government’s recent Animal Welfare Strategy is a welcome and ambitious step forward in this space. Its commitment to consult on the regulation of rehoming organisations reflects a clear recognition of the issue and the need to address it. Whilst that ambition is to be commended, it is important that the government provides a clear timeline for the consultation to ensure that a resolution is not delayed as it has been by previous administrations.
With the absence of a clear licensing framework, there remains a clear risk that both bad actors and well-intentioned individuals who become overwhelmed may fall short of the standards that animals deserve. Introducing sensible regulation would help mitigate these risks, provided it was underpinned by appropriate enforcement to safeguard animal welfare and protect prospective adopters. By setting out a clear timetable and working collaboratively with welfare organisations, the government can deliver a system that protects animals, supports reputable rescues, and meets the expectations of the public.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
The London Irish Brigade and others gathered in the capital on 30 April to deliver a letter to the German embassy. The letter supported, and demanded the release of, the ‘Ulm 5‘ prisoners held for months without trial for action.
As with the ‘Filton 24‘, imprisoned for more than 18 months by the UK government, the Ulm 5 are imprisoned for damaging equipment belonging to Israel’s Elbit Systems, making weapons for Israel’s Gaza genocide.
The prisoners are an international mix: Irish, Spanish, British, and German. Unsurprisingly, Keir Starmer has said nothing against Germany’s imprisonment of two Britons, nor its brutal repression of protest. How could he, when he has done the same?
The Brigade’s Frank Glynn gave a speech. He pointed out Germany’s attempts to ‘wash its hands of the Holocaust in the blood of the Palestinians’ – and of its shameful record in other genocides:
Cowardly refusal
Disgracefully, the embassy refused to take the letter. Like the Starmer regime in the UK, the German government is deeply complicit in Israel’s genocide.
Read more about the Ulm 5 here.
By Skwawkbox
lead image
(Alamy)
3 min read
The Tony Blair Institute (TBI) think tank has called for the government to scrap the “unaffordable” triple lock on state pensions.
In a new report published on Friday, the think tank said current pensions policy is unsustainable and outdated and should be replaced by a more flexible alternative.
“Britain’s state pension system was built for a different era. We can’t keep pouring money into a system that is increasingly unaffordable,” said Tom Smith, TBI Director of Economic Policy.
Under the existing policy, pensions are guaranteed to rise by the highest of inflation, average earnings and 2.5 per cent.
However, there have been growing warnings that factors like people living longer, a falling birth rate and high inflation levels mean that it is not sustainable in the long term.
The TBI report points to the number of pensioners in Britain being expected to rise from 12.6m this year to 19m in 2070, with spending on the state pension expected to increase from 5 per cent of GDP to 7.5 per cent, costing the Treasury an additional £85bn a year.
There is also an argument that to maintain the triple lock in its current form would worsen generational inequality, given the financial challenges faced by younger people.
Despite these warnings, the triple lock continues to enjoy broad cross-party support, partly because older people are seen as a key voter group. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said last week that the government was not changing its triple lock policy.
TBI’s Smith said it would take “political leadership” to reform the policy, but that doing so would create a system “fairer, more flexible, and designed for how people live today”.
The think tank has proposed what it calls a new ‘Lifespan Fund’, which would replace the fixed pension age with a system whereby one full year of contribution would add half a year of entitlement, up to a maximum of 20 years of support.
It would also allow people to use the fund earlier in life to support them in key moments like finding work, funding child care, and looking after a sick relative, with safeguards included to ensure people do not draw out too much too early.
Smith said the model “keeps the promise of a secure retirement while making the system more flexible and financially sustainable” and would be “the upgrade Britain needs”.
The TBI estimates that these reforms would keep long-term state pension spending at around 5.5 per cent of GDP, rather than allowing it to rise towards 7.8 per cent, avoiding roughly £66bn a year in additional costs by 2070.
The intervention was welcomed by the Labour MP for Dunfermline and Dollar, Graeme Downie, who, in a recent piece for The House, called for the triple lock to be reformed to help fund greater defence spending.
“This is the kind of conversation I called for a few weeks ago,” he told PoliticsHome.
Our welfare needs to be fit for the future, helping those who need it most and being a strong safety net, effectively supporting people to get them into work and keep them in work to drive economic growth, and to fund critical national priorities like defence, which are vital to protecting our people and our democracy.”
On 30 April, during one of their regular raids on Shuafat Refugee Camp, North East of Jerusalem, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) assaulted Mehdi Al Arabi, a child with Down’s Syndrome.
15-year-old Mehdi ran away from the IOF, who then chased him:
He was detained for 15 minutes before being released.
Mohammad al Arabi was at the scene and tried to intervene, but was beaten and injured in the face by the occupation as he tried to protect his brother.
‘Israel’, as an occupying power, has clear legal obligations toward Palestinians with disabilities under international law, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These obligations require the occupation to ensure protection and safety during military operations, access to essential services, and non‑discrimination for disabled Palestinians.
Indiscriminate attacks by the IOF have killed and injured disabled Palestinians who posed no security threat. Such attacks violate international humanitarian law obligations to protect civilians, especially those with limited mobility or communication barriers.
Featured image provided by the author
By Charlie Jaay
The refusal to allow the Iranian Football Federation delegation to enter Canada has led to an escalating crisis with FIFA, after it became clear that Tehran would be absent from the Congress, the most significant event bringing together all national associations to discuss global football matters and take crucial decisions.
According to Reuters, the Iranian delegation was unable to enter Canadian territory despite prior arrangements, amid allegations of “mistreatment” by immigration authorities, forcing it to withdraw from the event.
In contrast, Canadian officials reportedly confirming that entry procedures are subject to strict legal and security considerations, given potential restrictions on individuals suspected of links to designated entities, which explains the decision from an official standpoint.
This development places FIFA in an extremely delicate position, as it is required to ensure the neutrality of international competitions and events, whilst facing a political reality that directly affects the participation of certain federations.
The event takes on deeper dimensions, as it comes against a backdrop of escalating political and military tensions linked to Iran, transforming the crisis from a mere administrative issue into a matter with political ramifications that may cast a shadow over upcoming football events — most importantly those hosted by Canada.
Featured image via IRNA
By Alaa Shamali
As we all know, things are looking dire for Labour in the upcoming local elections. On a positive note, however, they may do so badly that they end up winning a Guinness World Record:
“Anything north of 1500 seats lost would trigger a collective nervous breakdown”
Exclusive data from Lord Hayward suggests Labour may lose 1850 English councils in the upcoming local elections, the worst midterm results by any modern government#Peston pic.twitter.com/0JXXTLrYMk — Peston (@itvpeston) April 29, 2026
EXCLUSIVE
Labour: record breakers
First things first, we want to apologise on behalf of Peston for the word ‘midterm’:
why is the phrase ‘midterm’ eeking its way into British politics pic.twitter.com/BbFnJhER4S
— DX (@diggingmad) April 29, 2026
They’re not ‘midterm elections’; they’re ‘local elections’. In the American midterms, they vote for national politicians; in the British locals, we vote for local politicians. You may not know this if you watch the mainstream news, of course, because they refuse to engage with local issues.
The Peston team made another mistake too – namely by stating Labour is set to lose 1,850 “councils”. There actually aren’t that many councils in the UK, and what they meant to say was ‘seats’. In other words, Labour are potentially set to lose 1,850 councillors.
In the clip at the top, Pippa Crerar says:
I want to show you a projection by the elections expert Robert Hayward shared exclusively with the Preston Show which shows just how bad it could get. Now he predicts… that Labour could lose as many as 1,850 seats. That’s of the 2,500 they’re defending so pretty terrible prediction.
And you can see also that the Tories lose almost half their seats that are up for grabs, with the Greens and Reform the big winners.
This is the poll in question:
Peston asked:
Now, Heywood has a formidable reputation for getting these things right. Now, this might be an occasion when he’s not, but if it were 1,850 losses for Labour, Is that worse than Labour campaigners’ fears?
Crerar responded:
I think, in short, yes. I mean, ministers tell me that anything north of 1,500 seats lost would trigger a collective nervous breakdown in the Cabinet and potentially a revolt. And that’s obviously very dangerous territory for Starmer.
. … This comes, of course, on top of results in Scotland and Wales, which are also expected to be pretty dire for the government, the UK government, and that inevitably creates yet more danger for Starmer.
Things look equally bad in other polls too (albeit better for the Greens):
Median estimate via @Moreincommon_, April '26 pic.twitter.com/OFxPMxmoUV
— Stats for Lefties
Projected net changes for local elections:
Ref +1,437
Grn +926
Lib +327
Con -627
Lab -1,738
(@LeftieStats) April 21, 2026
Median estimate via @Moreincommon_, April '26 pic.twitter.com/OFxPMxmoUV
— Stats for Lefties
Projected net changes for local elections:
Ref +1,437 Grn +926 Lib +327 Con -627 Lab -1,738
(@LeftieStats) April 21, 2026
Time to go
At this point, it seems that Starmer has to go after the local elections. The only reason it’s not entirely certain is because this current crop of Labour MPs are so weak and directionless that they might just go with the flow all the way down the electoral drain.
Featured image via Peston
By Willem Moore
Take Back Power supporters have been ‘taking over’ the playgrounds of the super-rich on the morning of 30 April. Take Back Power is a nonviolent campaign, demanding a tax on extreme wealth, to be decided by a ‘House of the People’.
At around 10am, 22 Take Back Power supporters occupied a Ferrari dealership in Berkeley Square. They chanted “WE DEMAND EQUALITY!” and “THE BILLIONAIRES HAVE GOT TO GO!”. By around 10.30am the group left the store.
At around 11.30am the group reconvened at Burlington Arcade, the world’s first modern shopping mall. It positions itself as an ‘elegant and exclusive upmarket shopping venue’. The group held signs which read “HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE” and “4 MILLION KIDS IN POVERTY”. Door staff quickly seized the placards.
By around 12.20pm the group had moved on to the food hall at luxury department store Harrod’s. Security was much more reactive, dragging Take Back Power supporters from the building.
A Take Back Power spokesperson said:
This country is in crisis and everyone knows it! The people to blame are the corporations and super-rich who are extracting every last penny from working people, and then using their ownership of the media to distract people into blaming the poor and migrants.
Nothing short of a massive transfer of wealth and power away from the 1% and back to working people can hope to fix Britain.
One of those taking action today is Robert Pembroke, 43, a builder and dad from Devon. He said:
It’s time ordinary people take back our power from the super-rich. Inequality is spiralling out of control, 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than 50% of the country. Around the world, it’s even worse with eight men holding more wealth than 50% of the world’s population!
It is obscene to allow this, people are dying. We need ordinary people, taking part in a permanent citizens’ assembly – a House of the People – deciding how to tackle this.
Also taking action today is Ana Heyatawin, 63, a grandmother from Somerset. She said:
Inequality, which is being imposed on ordinary people by big business, billionaires and the politicians who work for them, is killing people right now. More than a third of people in the UK now don’t earn enough to buy life’s essentials.
We need ordinary people at the heart of deciding how to tax extreme wealth to begin fixing this mess. This is why we are calling for a permanent citizen’s assembly, with the power to tax extreme wealth – a House of the People.
Take Back Power is demanding that the UK government establishes a permanent House of the People – a citizen’s assembly chosen by democratic lottery, that has the power to tax extreme wealth and fix Britain.
Until the government makes a meaningful statement in response to this demand, the group says it will undertake nonviolent action to resist the super-rich, who are driving us towards social collapse. Donate or sign up to take action at TakeBackPower.net.
Featured image via Take Back Power
By The Canary
Israel’s government has approved the construction of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish religious school on stolen Palestinian land.
View this post on Instagram
This decision only formalises the systemic takeover of Palestinian land through illegal Israeli settlement expansion. It comes only months after the Israeli government demolished the UNRWA headquarters in Sheikh Jarrah, an agency that served millions of Palestinian refugees.
The school is set to be built in the heart of Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood, across 5000 square metres. It will include housing for hundreds of students and residential units for the teaching staff.
The bigger picture
The plan is in conjunction with Israel’s “E1 Plan”. This paves the way for the construction of thousands of settlement units between East Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim – an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
According to the Institute for Middle East Understanding:
E1 (“East 1”) is the Israeli administrative name for an area in the occupied Palestinian West Bank east of occupied Palestinian East Jerusalem. It’s located inside the boundaries of the large illegal Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Adumim. Israel is planning to expand the Ma’ale Adumim settlement into E1, including nearly 4,000 housing units for Jewish Israelis.
Around 3,700 Palestinians live in E1. These are mostly Bedouins who live in 18 different villages. The residents pursue a traditional way of life based on shepherding. This is despite their limited access to pastures and markets.
The E1 and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement cut deep into the West Bank, basically dividing it into two sections.
It is part of Israel’s plan to take full control over East Jerusalem in Occupied Palestine, by cutting it off from the West Bank with a ring of Jewish settlements in and around the city’s eastern perimeter.
Israel is aiming to make an independent Palestinian state physically impossible.
The approval of the school means that the Israeli government continues to facilitate the coercive transfer of Palestinians from East Jerusalem through land confiscation, increased settler harassment and terrorism.
As miftahpal said in a post on Instagram:
It is yet another systematic effort to erase the Palestinian presence by reshaping the land’s identity and forcing out its indigenous people.
Israel government policy
Occupation and stealing Palestinian land are a core part of Israeli government policy.
In December 2022, in a post on X, Benjamin Netanyahu stated:
These are the basic lines of the national government under my leadership:
The Jewish people has an exclusive and indisputable right to all spaces of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel—in the Galilee, in the Negev, in the Golan, in Judea and Samaria.
There are currently more than 737,000 illegal Jewish settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They have the full backing of the state – both ideologically and materially. They are armed by the government and protected by the IOF and the Israeli police.
Only this week, Israel has illegally ordered 42 Palestinians to leave their homes in Batn al-Hawa, East Jerusalem, by May 17, so it can hand the homes to Israeli terrorist settlers.
As the Canary previously reported:
These settlers only aim is to force Palestinians off their land, so their colonial settlements can be built there instead, and they do this by storming villages and terrorising residents, burning homes, killing livestock, and destroying crops and trees.
Currently, Israel is perpetrating its biggest expansion of Jewish settlements in decades across the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Settlements are illegal under international law.
Article 49 of the Geneva Convention states:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Additionally, the Hague Regulations [1907] prohibit the seizure and destruction of private property. This means that both building and expanding settlements breach international humanitarian law.
Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, and settler violence are all war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has been committing these crimes since its creation in 1948 – and the international community has just stood by and let it.
The world should be holding Israel to account – but it has not up to this point. Unless that changes soon, Israel will continue to forcibly expel the indigenous people of Palestine and import its own imported settler-colonialists.
Feature image via Middle East Eye/YouTube
By HG
Save $100 on these popular products
Q2 China demand lies in good products that resonate
Ben McKenzie – Exposing Crypto in “Everyone Is Lying to You for Money” | The Daily Show
Manchester United reach agreement with Casemiro over contract clause amid transfer speculation
US brings back mandatory military draft registration
Steven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
-
Tech4 days agoRegister Renaming | Hackaday
-
Fashion7 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World6 days agoHyperliquid $HYPE Rally Builds Momentum as AI Sector Enters Prove-It Phase
-
Politics3 days agoDrax board avoid their own AGM, accused of greenwashing & environmental racism
-
Tech4 days agoImages of Samsung’s rumored smart glasses have leaked
-
Sports5 days agoIPL 2026: Ruturaj Gaikwad registers slowest fifty of the season, enters all-time unwanted list | Cricket News
-
NewsBeat5 days agoLK Bennett closes all stores after entering administration
-
Tech4 days agoWhy Blue Badges Disappeared From Toyota Hybrids
-
Fashion2 days agoKylie Jenner’s KHY Enters a New Era with ‘Born in LA’
-
Crypto World7 days agoMichael Saylor says BTC winter is over. Market analyst disagrees, says bitcoin was in a pullback
-
Entertainment6 days agoMariah Carey Slams Deposition Claims In Brother’s Lawsuit
-
Business2 days agoMost Commercial Energy Audits Miss the Real Losses
-
NewsBeat7 days agoTrump threatens to review UK’s claim to Falkland Islands and punish Nato allies over Iran war disagreement
-
Business4 days ago(VIDEO) Charlize Theron Climbs Times Square Billboard to Promote New Netflix Thriller ‘Apex’
-
Business7 days agoJeanine Pirro announces closure of Federal Reserve building cost probe
-
Crypto World6 days agoNvidia (NVDA) Stock Jumps 5% as Intel Earnings Ignite Semiconductor Rally
-
Tech5 days agoMicrosoft to roll out Entra passkeys on Windows in late April
-
Tech5 days agoOpenAI’s Sam Altman apologizes for not reporting ChatGPT account of Tumbler Ridge suspect to police
-
Crypto World3 days agoCFTC’s AI will review U.S. crypto registration applications, chairman tells CoinDesk
-
Tech5 days agoOpenAI CEO apologizes to Tumbler Ridge community
You must be logged in to post a comment Login