Israel's latest actions mark a tipping point for the Middle East. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

This latest assault on the Gaza Strip is the tipping point for Palestine

The chair of Labour Friends of Palestine argues that the latest events in Gaza highlight a need for a paradigm shift in the international community. Focusing exclusively on negotiations, whilst failing to hold Israel accountable for their human rights violations and annexation of Palestinian land, is not enough.

At the time of writing, Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered an escalation of Israel’s current assault on the Gaza Strip, ordering his troops to “significantly widen” their ground offensive. This latest round of violence is rightly considered to be as futile as it was predictable. When a ceasefire is eventually agreed upon nothing productive will have been achieved. Ordinary Israelis will be no more secure and the beleaguered and long-suffering Palestinians of the Gaza Strip will be fewer in number and their humanitarian catastrophe will have been significantly worsened.

It is twenty years since the Oslo Accords and it would seem we are further away from peace than ever before. An entire generation of young Palestinians – the Oslo generation – have grown up to witness a worsening situation on the ground. There has been a significant expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, heightened security threats to both sides, the construction of an illegal separation barrier, punitive restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic decline, and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This can only be seen as a failure of the international community and the collapse of the Kerry-led peace talks has exposed the inadequacy of current efforts to achieve peace and security.

An immediate and unequivocal ceasefire must be reached to halt the bloodshed which is almost solely Palestinian and overwhelming civilian. But the pattern of "ceasefire and forget"should not be repeated. This opportunity must be seized to maximise diplomatic pressure on all parties to alter the fundamentals of the conflict. A ceasefire will allow Israelis to return to normality, but for Palestinians it will only mean return to their daily struggle for survival under a long-lasting and brutal military occupation. The illegal Israeli blockade forces the people of Gaza to endure a stark humanitarian crisis that the UN predicts will make the Strip unlivable by 2020, while Palestinians in the West Bank are seeing their dream of, and right to, statehood disappear, brick by brick, with the construction of every illegal Israeli settlement.

A paradigm shift in the international community is needed. A new approach to diplomacy must be based on the protection of civilians, equal respect for the human rights, security and sovereignty of both Israelis and Palestinians, and the actual respect of – rather than just rhetoric on – international law. Focusing exclusively on negotiations, whilst failing to hold Israel accountable for their human rights violations and annexation of Palestinian land, is not enough.

The UK must be honest brokers for peace and employ practical measures to to tackle the root cause of the conflict. This must include the end to UK arms, or arms components, being used in attacks on Gaza; demanding an end to the blockade on Gaza along with a complete freeze on illegal settlement growth; ending trade and investment with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank; and supporting a phased approach to end the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. We must support international mediation with a larger role for the EU so it becomes more of a player than simply a payer. Most importantly, we should set out clear parameters, targets and consequences for failure to end violations and make progress, including sanctions.

This is a tipping point for the Middle East. The UK was an architect of the current conflict and has been instrumental in sustaining the unacceptable injustices forced upon the Palestinian people, but now is the time for our Government to act in accordance with the overwhelming consensus of the international community and support the realisation of peace and justice in the Middle East.

Grahame Morris is Labour MP for Easington and chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.