The Tribune

By Peter Young

IN 1946, President Harry Truman declared the support of the US for the creation of a Jewish state. Since then, its backing for Israel has been largely consistent even though, as demonstrated by Presidents Eisenhower and Ford, this has not necessarily been unwavering. Nonetheless, over the years, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of US aid to the extent that it can even be said to have relied on America for its very existence.

It has always been a fair bet, therefore, that Israel will ultimately dance to its main supporter’s tune, at least on major issues. However, the most recent evidence suggests that as regards the Middle East, and now Gaza and Lebanon in particular, Israel has been increasingly going its own way in dealing with what it sees as its own interests while even ignoring the entreaties of a weakened presidency in Washington. That said, the US has recently been getting tougher, and so much so that it has recently called on Israel to address immediately what is now being termed the catastrophic situation - and a horrific, humanitarian nightmare - in Gaza.

The Israeli Defence Force IDF) has been conducting a large offensive in the north of the Gaza Strip aimed at stopping Hamas fighters from regrouping. Under its international obligations, Israel must ensure that sufficient aid reaches civilians there and in Gaza as a whole. But the latest reports of the suffering of civilians have been grim. The UN claims that since the beginning of October little aid has been received while the US has stated forcefully that Israel must allow food, medicines and other supplies into Gaza and protect the workers distributing such aid.

Washington has now given its ally until November 12 to push forward with what is needed by improving the flow of humanitarian aid or face cuts to American military assistance. Specifically, this means a minimum of 350 lorries entering Gaza daily whereas, according to the UN, only some ten percent of that number has been crossing the border recently. Moreover, the US has cited appropriate domestic laws which can prohibit military assistance to countries that impede delivery of US humanitarian aid.

For its part, Israel claims that it is Hamas that is hijacking supplies and interfering with their distribution. But it has provided fresh assurances about aid that, it claims, means it is going ‘above and beyond’ to meet its international obligations. It has also rejected international criticism of the recent decision by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to ban UNRWA – the UN Relief and Works agency for Palestinian refugees – from any Israeli-controlled territory.

Last February, the IDF reported the discovery of a subterranean Hamas data centre below UNRWA’s offices, saying in its official statement that UNWRA was providing cover for Hamas and knew what was going on underground while also using its budget to fund some of Hamas’ military capabilities – in the words of the IDF, “this is for certain”.

The largely Western-funded body of UNRWA has been seen by others as playing a critical role, as the largest aid organisation on the ground, in delivering effective humanitarian assistance to Gaza. With a workforce of some 1,400, it provides essential aid, healthcare and education for Palestinians enduring war and deprivation across the region. But, according to the Israelis, it has been infiltrated by terrorists, some of whom took part in the October 7 atrocities, and is essentially “a terrorist front camouflaged as a humanitarian agency”.

The evidence in the UK press – though partially contradictory -- suggests that the banning of UNWRA is justified. Its funding by the US, the UK and others was suspended (though subsequently restored) after twelve of its employees were accused of taking part in October 7. The Israelis claim the organisation has been involved with Hamas and other terrorist groups in Lebanon and retains links with them. In August, UNRWA dismissed nine of its employees for possible involvement in October 7.

Notwithstanding all this, British prime minister, Keir Starmer, is on the record as saying that the banning of UNRWA by Israel risks making its “essential work for Palestinians impossible and is jeopardising the entire international humanitarian response in Gaza”.

Reportedly, many now believe that UNRWA should be allowed to continue to perform vital relief work in the midst of a terrible humanitarian crisis. But it could also be affecting negatively the long-term chances of peace - through, for example, misguided educational programmes and harbouring members of Hamas while also working with them to regroup their forces following Israel’s sustained assault on Gaza. Be that as it may, international pressure remains on Israel to ensure that adequate aid is delivered – perhaps through alternative means.

North Korea military set to join in Ukraine war

The extent to which the wider world - as well as domestic America - is focused on the outcome of today’s US presidential election is a measure of how much other countries feel that US power and influence affects their interests. The global impact of such an election is huge. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Ukraine will be one of those countries which awaits the outcome with some trepidation because a majority of the military aid and support received from the West comes from the US; and Ukraine will therefore worry about whether the commitment of the Biden administration will be repeated by a new government.

But other more immediate concerns are now facing the country; notably, the new involvement of North Korea in the war. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is quoted as saying “the world merely watches as this threat grows”; and it was clear he was referring to the recent news about the probability of troops from North Korea being drawn into the conflict.

In the view of many this appears to be a serious escalation. However, as so often in relation to the US media, the news seems to have escaped much publicity despite attracting international condemnation - though that is hardly surprising given their obsession domestically with the presidential election.

According to UK press reports, up to 10,000 North Korean troops are gathering in Russia - 8,000 of whom are on the brink of entering the Ukraine conflict - with intelligence sources saying some are already in the Kursk border region where Ukraine made its surprise incursion in August and still occupies some territory there.

What has apparently made this potentially more dangerous is that North Korean troops are said to be fully trained in aspects of warfare like artillery and infantry operations while also learning about modern tactics, all of which has advanced its military capability. What is more, North Korea has recently tested its new intercontinental missiles and this has attracted swift condemnation from the US, Japan and South Korea.

There has been considerable publicity recently about Zelensky’s request for permission to use the country’s UK-supplied missiles on targets inside Russia and that this was rebuffed. The US likewise turned down a similar request in respect of the long-range weapons it has supplied. But will these restrictions apply to North Korean troops, particularly if they are not fully integrated with Russian forces?

According to other UK press sources, top US officials are saying that Secretary of State Antony Blinken has warned that North Korean military personnel would be legitimate targets if they engaged in combat or combat support operations. So the potential for escalation is all too real.

The US and its allies are reported to be weighing up how to respond to the involvement of North Korean troops. Some commentators suggest that this is already the most potentially dangerous situation since the Second World War in so far as the introduction of foreign forces could lead to an even further escalation of hostilities.

The stark truth is that the inevitable North Korean casualties to come will almost certainly precipitate further international tensions – and, if other powers become involved, there are real fears in the West that the conflict in Ukraine will spread further and a new world war could become unstoppable.

New leader of Tories in UK

The British political scene last week was dominated by the election of Kemi Badenoch as leader of the Conservative Party. Having become an MP relatively recently in 2017, she is not widely known to the general public although she rose quickly in politics and has served in the cabinet as international trade secretary.

This 44-year-old of Nigerian heritage has made history as the first black woman to lead a major UK political party. Born in England, she grew up in Lagos and the USA before returning to Britain at the age of sixteen where she was at school and then took a degree at Sussex University where she acquired her taste for right-wing politics.

Kemi Badenoch is known as an “anti-woke” politician who aligns with the right. Her supporters admire her conviction, her plain speaking and “big thinking”. She has vowed to lead a return to authentic conservatism after the Tories’ heavy defeat in July’s election and the Conservative party membership now being at its lowest level on record.

At this early stage, Tory members are confident that the party will unite behind its new leader. She is going to need every bit of her political savvy to oppose effectively the new Labour government despite its stumbling start. But, as always, it is essential in a successful democracy to hold a sitting government to proper account. So, what is for sure is that all concerned should now be wishing her the greatest of good luck in her new endeavours.