Craig Mitchell

@stephenpollard @JewishChron Navi Pillay didn't chair this report.

Here's my @JewishChron column, 'Another evidence-free UN genocide charge against Israel – and another media feeding frenzy' thejc.com/opinion/anothe… The coverage of yesterday’s report submitted to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), “The essence of childhood has been destroyed: Israel’s deliberate targeting of Palestinian children in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 7 October 2023", has been variations on the same theme: “UN commission of inquiry says Israel committing genocide in Gaza by deliberately targeting children” (BBC); “Israel's deliberate targeting of Gaza children part of genocide: UN inquiry" (Al Jazeera); “Israel continues to commit genocide by targeting children in Gaza, UN inquiry finds” (Guardian). You get the drift. And on one level, fair enough because that is indeed what the UN inquiry claimed. But not one of the mainstream news organisations has provided any context about either the authors of the report or the body which commissioned it – context which is vital, because it shows how worthless a document it is. This was not some calm, deliberate and impartial inquiry designed to get at the facts. It was, rather, one of the two annual reports on Israel which have been mandated by the UNHRC, which has passed not a single resolution on any human rights abuses in Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, or Zimbabwe. But it has a standing order to debate a resolution against Israel at least once per session – the only country subject to such a standing order. Since the creation of the UNHRC it has held one special session on Libya, one on Iran, three on Myanmar, five on Syria – and nine on Israel. In May 2021 the UNHRC established its Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. After the October 7, 2023 massacre, the Commission focused on Gaza and pushed the accusation of genocide. Not by Hamas, but by Israel. This latest report, published yesterday, is chaired by Navi Pillay, the former chair of the overall Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Pillay has a long history of supporting extreme – some would say deranged – anti-Israel bias. In 2022 her fellow UNHRC commissioner, Miloon Kothari, gave an interview in which he said: "We are very disheartened by the social media that is controlled largely by, whether it's the Jewish lobby, or it's specific NGOs, a lot of money is being thrown into trying to discredit us.” He also questioned why Israel was even allowed to be a member of the UN. In the face of widespread criticism of his blatantly antisemitic comments, Pillay defended him, claiming his words had been "deliberately misquoted to imply that 'social media' was controlled by the Jewish lobby." The transcript showed there had been no misquotation – those were his exact words. As UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2009, Pillay set up four separate "fact-finding” missions targeting Israel – four more than for any other country. She also oversaw the Goldstone Report, which even its own lead author, Richard Goldstone, ended up repudiating. She sanctioned the appointment of Richard Falk as UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinians, despite – more likely because – Falk’s long history of antisemitic statements, such as pushing 9/11 conspiracies about the Jews. Pillay also convened the 2009 Durban II conference, which was boycotted by most Western countries, and at which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was handed a platform to deliver an antisemitic speech. When Jewish groups protested, Pillay dismissed them as "lobby groups focused on single issues." Pillay is on record describing Israel as an apartheid state and has signed petitions calling on governments to "sanction apartheid Israel." As UN Watch points out, this week’s HUNHRC report “appears to be presented under the Commission’s mandate to “collect, consolidate and analyse evidence” in order to “maximise the possibility of its admissibility in legal proceedings,” such as before the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) or the International Court Justice (“ICJ”). The UN Guidance and Practice for fact-finding missions provides that evidence must be evaluated for its “reliability” and “truthfulness,” that investigations must be conducted with “integrity,” meaning “without any bias,” and that factual findings must be “adequately corroborated” by at least two other “independent and reliable” sources.” This would be a joke were it not to appalling. The report is entirely one sided, takes its so-called evidence regarding intent, knowledge, and targeting decisions from witnesses whose outlook is prima facie loaded against Israel and whose testimony cannot be verified, and which ignores all facts which paint a different picture from the conclusion the report clearly sets out to reach. To quote UN Watch again: “These shortcomings would be troubling in any fact-finding exercise. They are particularly concerning here because the Commission’s findings are intended to inform international legal proceedings, including before the ICC and the ICJ. Findings of this nature – particularly those purporting to establish intent and criminal responsibility – would ordinarily require rigorous testing and corroboration before being relied upon in judicial proceedings. Yet international courts have an established practice of relying on UN reports as evidence. This report therefore undermines not only the integrity of international fact-finding, but also the application of international law and confidence in the UN system as a whole.” I urge you to look at UN Watch’s detailed legal rebuttal – destruction is a more accurate description – of the report, here. Meanwhile, these are its key points. Most obviously, it exposes how the gravest accusation of all, that Israel deliberately targeted Palestinian children in Gaza, which is an accusation of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, is made without a single verified example. The report simply concludes that because children died in the war – a tragic but unavoidable occurrence in war – this is proof of deliberate targeting. The report does not consider in any way the role of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as if they were not even present – concluding that the IDF, under orders from Israeli political and military leadership, was engaged in the deliberate killing of children for the sake of killing children. “Across 94 pages, the Report never acknowledges that the IDF was fighting a heavily armed force of tens of thousands of Hamas and PIJ operatives who constructed hundreds of kilometres of tunnels, embedded military infrastructure throughout civilian areas, and routinely operated from homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, and displacement zones. The result is a fictionalised account of the conflict in which there is no armed opposition, no complex urban battlefield, and no armed actors in Gaza other than the IDF. Combined with the erasure of militant activity in the West Bank, this distortion enables the COI to advance the fabricated narrative that Israeli forces were trained, directed, and deployed to deliberately target children as a matter of policy.” As UN Watch puts it, the report’s extreme length is intended to create the impression of rigorous evidentiary and forensic review, yet it still cannot mask the fundamental absence of reliable proof for its central allegations. None of this will be reported because it does not fit the now near-universal narrative – that Israel is a uniquely evil rogue state which commits genocide to satisfy its blood lust. But who now cares about the truth?

@robfordmancs Also, regarding the Mbatang article, isn't it more accurate to say that the lesson from Brown is not to let early election speculation go unchecked by sending out mixed and ambiguous messages from No. 10?

I will continue to die on the hill marked "it would be completely mad for a PM with 400 seats and 3 years left in a government term to call an early election which is all but certain to weaken his party." arguably.uk/p/dont-be-a-bo…

@stephenpollard @JewishChron This is poorly argued. It ignores the conduct of the Israeli government, military, and settler extremists. It misunderstands the concept and reality of statehood recognition. It assumes opposition to Israeli policy is antisemitic or electoral cowardice, not independent judgment.

Here's my @JewishChron column on Starmer and antisemitism, 'Starmer tackled antisemitism in opposition – but then helped fuel it in power' thejc.com/opinion/starme… Whatever your view of Sir Keir Starmer, he is clearly sincere in his view that he transformed Labour from a party which, under Jeremy Corbyn, was a magnet for antisemites to one which sought to expel them. Indeed, that transformation was the very first thing he mentioned in his resignation speech this morning in Downing Street. He referred to how he “changed our party – ripping out the poison of antisemitism, restoring trust on the economy, defence, and national security.” You might well find the last three of those four claims somewhat difficult to agree with. Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's September 2022 mini-budget pushed the 30-year gilt yield to around 5 per cent. Under Rachel Reeves, that same 30-year yield passed the Truss-era peak in January 2025, and by March 2026 the 10-year gilt had pushed UK borrowing costs to their highest level since the 2008 financial crisis. And Starmer lost both his Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister over his handling of defence and national security. But the first of his claims is broadly correct. When he took over as Labour leader, he made tackling the party’s welcome for antisemites a priority. It was the first thing he mentioned after his election as leader. And he was largely successful, with many of those who were either expelled or who left because they no longer found Labour so welcoming switching to the Greens, which has now become the political home for Jew hate. But when it comes to antisemitism, Starmer’s time as leader divides starkly into two periods: in opposition, when he tackled it, and in power – when he unleashed it. Because for all that he did in tackling antisemitism within Labour in opposition, in power he led a government which has given more succour to antisemites than any government since the founding of the state of Israel. Everything changed after the 2024 election. Suddenly Labour MPs were confronted with a rising force which they had previously not had to worry about: sectarian Muslim politics. Most attention on this has focused on the four so-called “Gaza Independent” MPs but results in other constituencies were equally concerning for Labour. In Ilford North, Wes Streeting held on by 528 votes; in Bethnal Green Rushanara Ali clung on narrowly; and in Birmingham Yardley Jess Phillips scraped home by 693 votes. Labour’s vote fell by over 14 per cent from 2019 in those constituencies where the Muslim population was above 15 per cent. With 37 constituencies having a Muslim population over 20 per cent and a further 73 having between 10 and 20 per cent Muslims, the threat to Labour MP was and remains real. Whatever else may lie behind Labour’s attitude to Israel, that political demography explains why Starmer started to deal with the Jewish state not as one of our nation’s most trusted and closest allies, which has been engaged in a battle to defeat Iranian proxies since the October 7, 2023 massacre, but as a de facto enemy state. Within weeks of taking office the then Foreign Secretary David Lammy had dropped Britain’s opposition to the ICC arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant and had imposed an entirely symbolic ban on the export of certain defence equipment to Israel – symbolic because Israel had no need of them, and because our armed forces rely far more heavily on Israeli technology than the other way round. Last year the Royal College of Defence Studies was instructed no longer to admit Israelis. Then last September Starmer did the bidding of antizionists and antisemites across the world by recognising a Palestinian state without demanding anything in return – especially and notably not requiring the release of the remaining hostages as a quid pro quo. His action was criticised as, at worst, rewarding Hamas for October 7 or, at best, giving Hamas a PR coup over more moderate Palestinians in showing that their terrorism had forced recognition. Starmer’s government has relentlessly portrayed Israel as some kind of rogue state, which has added fuel to the antisemitic fire which has taken hold since October 7, 2023. And until very recently, when the explosion in antisemitic incidents turned violent, Starmer had uttered not a word of criticism of the hate marches and demos across Britain which have been a festival of Jew hate since the Hamas massacre. It is all very well for Starmer to seek to portray himself as some sort of healer, expunging Jew hate from Labour. But he cannot have his cake and eat it. Since becoming PM, Starmer has hugely damaged relations with Israel (even if Israeli intelligence continues to provide vital information to our security services). The last two years will go down as the worst in living memory for relations with Israel – in large measure as a result of Starmer’s deliberate policy to appease the Muslim sectarian vote. The only question that remains now is how much worse this will get under Burnham.

@LouiseS11293637 @LukeTryl Good point re: COVID. That's the application of state power, distinct from state capacity, which produces effective governance. State capacity is variable, stronger in some areas than others. Aspects of the COVID response were ineffective: procurement and test & trace for example

@CraigRMitchell @LukeTryl I think that prior display of capacity is linked to the public's frustration 6 years on. If our government could act strongly in that (inter)national emergency, why can/will it not do so to meet the current ones?

Lots suggesting Brexit responsible for recent political turmoil. I think it's right issue, wrong frame. It's politicians inability to address what drove Brexit vote: too many Brits who don't think system works for them & communities who feel excluded from of our national story

@soniasodha @treesey I found my PPE degree to be invaluable and without it I wouldn't have been able to my politics masters.

@treesey Having done it, I know PPE at Oxford is an excellent degree. It can be technical depending on what options you pick. I don't understand what people have against it!

Private school & PPE

@the_mayoroff @PaulCoxComedy Leader effects matter less for an established party like Labour. 2024 was a "loveless landslide", lowest vote share of any majority government in modern history, driven by anti-Tory sentiment, not love for Starmer. And most 2024 Labour voters already rate Burnham above him.

Andy Burnham has no national mandate, has articulated no clear vision for the country, and has a poor track record from his time in government. Despite this, he has faced remarkably little scrutiny. I’m sure he’s a decent person, but being likeable is not a qualification for leading a country facing deep political and social divisions. Unless serious questions are asked and convincing answers are provided, there is every reason to believe that things could get significantly worse before they get better.

@ScotNational @SPARScotland Someone call Nicholas Cage: youtube.com/shorts/bKO42yS…

The Tartan Army flying to Miami from Boston has been treated to shortbread and snacks by Delta Airlines 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 The staff said they wanted to see fans off in style as they head to their 'winning game' against Brazil In partnership with @SPARScotland

@steverichards14 I think I agree re: the advantages of a leadership contest. There are short term costs (no total focus on governance) but I think it'll pay dividends in the medium to long term and help shield against pressure from the claim he needs to win a general election to have a mandate.

Latest podcast on the Andy Burnham victory- Amidst the speculation what do we already know? podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/roc…

@GerardoMunck That's great to know

@CraigRMitchell They are well worth it.

Finer on the Modern State I am covering the part of S.E. Finer’s third volume of his 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 where he discusses the creation of modern states in Europe. A very clear and good discussion.

@JAHeale @BNHWalker With the possible exception of Harold Wilson exiting on his own terms, I think this is true.

@BNHWalker I'm not sure how many ever go willingly tbh. The game tends to be "up" a while before the principal ever recognises it.

The weakest leader is one who doesn't know when the herd has moved and it's time to go. Poor guy

@OliDugmore @NewStatesman "The mistake is to treat Musk as a corruption of capitalism rather than its product". This is an important point. Musk's material status is not in tension with the logic of capitalism.

My first @NewStatesman column: newstatesman.com/comment/2026/0…

Liberals have no right to complain about Musk, or his views. He's the inevitable consequence of untrammelled capitalism.

@DAaronovitch @JACKGUYANDERTON @jtworr I can tell you, we mixed-race Brits really aren't that bad.

@JACKGUYANDERTON @jtworr why does it bother you so much what colour people are? Are mixed race Britons for example, some kind of threat to you? Dr Orr might care to answer the same question

'Thanks to the mass migration policies of Conservative and Labour governments, White Brits will become a minority in this country before the end of the century. Without a voice to speak up for them, the future will be manifestly unjust.'

@MazzucatoM Have purchased the Audiobook today. Looking forward to getting stuck in.

The Common Good Economy: A New Compass is out today in the UK. I recorded the audiobook myself — four days in a studio, which I did not entirely expect to enjoy, and did. One genuine piece of advice to fellow authors: record the audiobook before the final manuscript is locked. You will be amazed what you catch. International editions: 🇳🇱 Netherlands — 25th June 🇺🇸 USA — 11th September 🇩🇪 Germany — 24th September 🇪🇸 Spain — 27th September 🇮🇹 Italy — October 🇬🇷 🇵🇱 🇵🇹 Greece, Poland and Portugal — coming soon Order from @PenguinUKBooks ➡️ penguin.co.uk/books/464576/t…

@soniasodha Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy compared majoritarian and consensus democracies across 36 countries on metrics such as turnout, representation, and equality. Consensus democracies outperformed on most measures. 'No system is inherently better' is directly challenged by this data

The idea that one electoral system is innately 'fairer' or 'better' than others is wrong. What matters is that a system translates voter preferences into democratic outcomes in a way that citizens regard as legitimate. Process fairness, not outcome fairness.

@steverichards14 I have criticisms of Starmer's 'political economy' but his point about Blair failing to engage with the 2008 GFC is devastating. I found Blair's essay somewhat superficial. While he's able to identify symptoms, his causal explanations and offered remedies are unconvincing.

Tony Blair’s deeply flawed essay has triggered Keir Starmer’s best explanation of what his government is about.. finally linking ideas and values to policies and going well beyond his previous tendency ( influenced by Blair) to making a tame apolitical technocratic case.

"over 70% of claims by politicians on TV news received no or limited scrutiny...Instead of substantive policy debate, a significant proportion of the coverage focused on the “horse race” elements of the election." theguardian.com/politics/2026/…