A response from Thangam Debbonaire MP, regarding Early Day Motion 1685, and my response back

This response from Thangam Debbonaire is in response to this letter that I sent her on 21 October 2023, asking her to sign a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Her response came on 7th November, but due to personal commitments it has taken me until now to respond.

Thangam's email:

Dear George

Thank you for your email and for sharing your thoughts about the horrific situation in Gaza and also for telling me about your campaigning. I appreciate you coming directly to me with your concerns. I share your desperate desire for an end to the conflict, which cannot come a moment too soon.

I have set out some thoughts here on the crisis, and in particular on what we in the UK can and should be doing to alleviate the suffering in Gaza and chart a path to peace.

You may have already seen Keir Starmer’s speech last week setting out his position in detail and the rationale behind it—again, focusing on finding a viable path to peace. Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s article this weekend calls on Israel in strong terms to end siege conditions and respect international law, as well as reiterating Labour’s commitment to work towards a two-state solution.

As a member of the Shadow Cabinet I do not sign EDMs (these almost never result in a debate) as I am able to work directly with my Shadow Cabinet colleagues to engage the government on their response to the crisis, and engage with the Labour leadership on our position as this crisis continues to evolve. I will certainly keep your points in mind as I do so.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your views,

Yours,
Thangam

My reply:

Dear Thangam,

Thank you for your response. I will start with an apology for the fact that it's taken me so long to respond myself. I've been tied up with moving house over the last couple of weeks (more on that in my final paragraph) and I haven't had the spare time.

I don't wish to be rude, but frankly, what you've said is simply not good enough. I'm going to start with what you said about not signing EDMs because you're a member of the Shadow Cabinet. Firstly, whether an EDM results in a debate is not always really the point - obviously it's great if they do, but in a case such as this, when what is at stake is essentially whether our elected representatives will stand up to genocide, these motions are quite important to demonstrate the values of the people we elect. Even if they can't actually prevent what has been happening and continues to happen in Gaza, merely the signing of something unequivocally condemning it would show me as a citizen that you care and are willing to say so. Furthermore, there is a member of the Shadow Cabinet who has signed (or at least, someone who was a member at the time they signed) - your Labour colleague Imran Hussain, the MP for Bradford East who until earlier this month was Shadow Minister for the New Deal for Working People. Earlier this month, Imran resigned from the Shadow Cabinet in protest over Labour's current position on the Gaza ceasefire, saying, and I quote, 'It has become clear that my view on the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza differs substantially from the position [Keir Starmer] ha[s]adopted. I believe the party needs to go further and call for a ceasefire.'

If this is not your position, why is it not your position? I've read your comments on the link you sent, and I am not impressed at all. Keir Starmer is not finding a viable path to peace. Hamas may be awful, but support for extremism in every country in the world (including in ours) tends to come as a result of people rightly, rationally and intelligently being very unhappy in their circumstances. Palestinians are right to be unhappy with the circumstances they are in, and have been kept in, increasingly so, since 1967. The Labour Party's position has not been to recognise these circumstances for what they are. It will not criticise the Government of Israel in its own right. The closest it ever comes is to say that the elected leaders in both Israel and Palestine are bad - which I'll acknowledge is technically true, however the power that Likud and Israel hold is not in any way equivalent to the power that Palestine and Hamas hold. This has to be acknowledged if we're to have any hope of social justice.

I was told today that the Palestinian death toll has reached 14,532. More than 7,000 people are missing, believed to be trapped under the rubble. More than 4,772 men, more than 3920 women, more than 5,840 children. 205 medical staff, 64 journalists, and 26 out of 35 (74%) of hospitals out of service. The source for these numbers is the Government media office in Gaza - although I'm not sure how often it's updated, so it could be even more than that at the time of writing or by the time you read this. Just look at these figures. Look at them. Every single one of them was a real person, with a family, friends, hope and dreams, and they were murdered as part of a political choice. There is no justification whatsoever for this. Starving civilian populations from food, water and healthcare is against international law, something that Keir Starmer has failed to acknowledge when challenged - in spite of the fact that he's a former human rights lawyer. Of course, every innocent Israeli who has been killed in the crossfire was a life that had value as well just as equal to that of a Palestinian life. Qualitatively they are equal, but quantitatively they are not. There have been so many more Palestinians killed than there have Israelis. This is a glaring elephant in the room.

The prospect of a two-state solution being agreed amicably is dead in the water. You know that, and I know that. If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now. I've been campaigning on this issue for nearly ten years, and we aren't any closer to it happening than we were then - in fact, we're further away from it. Israel will not stop attacking the Gaza Strip unless they are made to by the international community. Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted as saying this year that Israel should crush any hope of Palestinian statehood. I very strongly recommend you read this interview with Yousef Munayyer, a Palestinian citizen of Israel who leads the Palestine/Israel Program at the Arab Center Washington, DC - it spells out very clearly what the situation is, what it isn't, and what it could be.

I have one more thing to say, which is that in some ways this email is a goodbye message as well. As I said at the beginning, I moved house last week. I am now no longer your constituent, and as a result this will most likely be the last interaction we have. I will miss Bristol West very much. In the interests of being polite and civil, I should say that I wish you all the best in the rest of your career. But I will also say that knowing Bristol West as I do, I'm not sure it will be an easy journey for you. I've been heartened to see how many people have come out in support of Palestine, and I think a lot of people will likely be just as upset by your position as I am. I voted for you in 2019, in part because of Labour's position on the Palestine situation. I have been horrified to see how starkly that has changed, and how you individually as an MP have gone along with that. The truth is that I deeply regret voting for you. I don't think you're a bad human being, and I believe that people who are wrong can change their ways. I genuinely hope that at some point you will see quite the level of harm you are endorsing by taking the line that you have done - hopefully before it's too late.

All the best,

George Harold Millman

My Facebook My Twitter

The current events in Gaza could be a game-changer - but it's a ceasefire, not a game-changer, that is needed

We live in a world of war. There are no bones about that.

I was born in 1993, four years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, two years after the collapse of the USSR, and the Gulf War, and the Cold War. It's against that backdrop that I, and everyone else of my generation, has grown up in. I was nearly eight when the attack on the Twin Towers happened, and I was nearly ten at the time of the announcement of the Iraq War. I vividly remember talking about this with my peers in the primary school dinner queue. I remember being taken to the anti-war protest on a Friday afternoon in Bristol City Centre (and not getting home until past ten o'clock because there were hardly any buses that day). I remember learning of our own Government's involvement in these terrible decisions; this was my introduction to politics and the concept of Government.

I remember every few subsequent years, hearing about more attacks in the Gaza Strip, feeling like I didn't understand any of it and could do nothing to help. I remember setting up camp outside the BBC in the summer of 2014, in protest against their coverage of the Gaza situation. I remember being asked by my then friend David, 'George, because you support Hamas, does that mean you support Isis?', being completely taken aback by the question and not being sure how to begin answering (I thought I was just on the side of ordinary people not being killed). I remember the heightened security at Colchester Institute, where I was studying at the time, when I returned for my second year - suddenly we all had to wear lanyards identifying us, there were constantly guards at the gates, just in case there might be a terrorist attack (although personally I always suspected that they were there more for show than because they actually had any relevant experience with domestic terrorism).

I remember my generation's excitement about Jeremy Corbyn standing for Labour leadership in 2015, in part because he actually spoke out about this constant world of war we were living in. I remember that his being so anti-war was constantly used as a smear against him by the very people that helped bring us into all these wars in the first place. I remember not understanding any of it, being completely baffled... wondering, 'Am I just too stupid to understand then?' And I remember the horror of the terrorist attack at Manchester Arena in May 2017, during a concert by singer Ariana Grande - a fun and exciting time for so many, that was destroyed in the most horrific possible way.

This has been the world in which I've had to grow up and come to terms with who I am and my identity. It's commonly stated that there is typically a lot of hostility between my generation and the baby boomer generation of the 1950s - they think we're really arrogant, up ourselves and entitled, and we tend to think the same thing about them. There are many, many complex reasons for this, and obviously I don't want to generalise because my parents are of that generation and so are many other amazing and lovely people - but I think that this war backdrop is a big part of the reason why so many people from across these generations struggle to get on well. The baby boomer generation were also born in the aftermath of a war - but from what I've seen of history, the 1950s was a real time of hope and of rebuilding. That war was still in recent memory, and had been on such a big scale that there was a collective attitude of 'never again can this be allowed to happen'. There was a feeling of wanting to give their kids a chance of life that wasn't full of war and conflict. My generation hasn't had that. We've had wars shoved at us constantly. And, unlike in the past, rises in technology, social media and news coverage have meant that this information is presented to us pretty much all the time. No wonder there's such a mental health crisis amongst the young... this is what we live with. I myself have no concept of living without continuous updates about wars, and I've struggled with severe anxiety partly as a result. (My first major mental health crisis was in 2003. I didn't know at the time that this was mental illness, and I wasn't aware of it having any particular connection to big global events - but I don't think it's a coincidence that Iraq had been invaded just a couple of months previously. Kids absorb these things, and it is reflected in their moods and behaviour.)

For these reasons, I absolutely dread events like the ones currently going on in Gaza. Obviously I dread them just on a human level - there has been so much blood shed over this, from people who are completely innocent, that I find my emotional capacity stretched to the absolute limit trying to feel for them and their loved ones. But I also dread it in a very personal way. I'm really frightened. I'm frightened by what human beings are capable of doing to one another, I'm frightened by the seeming inevitable escalation of all of this, I'm frightened by what it will all lead to and I'm frightened of where it will end. It gives me such crippling levels of fear that sometimes I can't bring myself to write about it - even though I know I have to, because writing about it does help emotionally, and I really hope that it helps educate others as well.

This is why, when people say that these most recent events are a game-changer, I find it very hard to be especially hopeful. I have been quite heartened by the amount of positive support I've seen for Palestine from people on social media - it's substantially more than usual, and I will acknowledge that it does feel like something may improve soon. But as far as I'm concerned, this is just not good enough. In the words of Bob Dylan, 'How many deaths will it take 'til he knows that too many people have died?' I think we've long surpassed that number already. It doesn't matter if Hamas' strike against Israel on October 7th ultimately proves successful and we eventually get peace in the Middle East over this - because none of this horror will ever be undone. Even in a best-case scenario, the suffering of the people living in both countries will never be over. They will live with this for the rest of their lives. And for those of us fortunate enough to live a long way away, we will continue to experience the fear and anxiety that war causes, forever most likely.

Even this is assuming that we'll get peace quite soon, which was by no means guaranteed. Today someone sent me this interview with international relations analyst Scott Ritter, which was very illuminating. I learned a lot that I didn't know already about the precise nature of the political status quo in the region and also its history, so it's worth watching for that. I also found it interesting that he was formerly an Israel supporter, and in some respects still is - it's always good to see that people won't turn a blind eye to everything Israel does, even if they're naturally inclined to back that side.

However, I also found it a really uncomfortable conversation to watch, and in particular I found Ritter's attitude really distasteful. He talked about these events being a potential game-changer, and to me his tone of voice sounded excited and enthusiastic about this. I didn't think this was appropriate in the circumstances. What do you think? Here's the video so you can make up your own mind:

I really hope that he's right in saying that this will inevitably lead to a Palestinian state, and also that the USA will be successful in de-escalating the situation. I have some degree of solace in the fact that he is a good deal more knowledgable about this kind of thing than I am, so as much as I fear for the future of myself and of mankind, I feel relatively secure in thinking I can take his word for it, for now at least.

But there was a fair bit that I felt was wrong, and the bit that really stood out to me is his insistence that Palestinians want a Palestinian state so badly that they're willing to die for it. I'm sure that they are desperate for a Palestinian state - but that doesn't mean they're willing to die for it, or for their children to die for it. Moreover, being willing to die for something implies that the person is in that situation by their own free choice, having weighed up all the options. Palestinians are not. They are, as Ritter himself acknowledges, living in the world's largest open-air concentration camp, being deprived of food, water and medicines. They aren't there because they are willing to die. They are there because they are being kept there, and the reason they're desperate for a Palestinian state is that they want a better life, for themselves and their children. Constant war does not achieve that, no matter who its victors are. I found this comment, and Ritter's whole attitude here, insanely insulting.

As odd as it may seem, I am actually an optimist. I sometimes wonder if it's right to be an optimist, if this world actually warrants optimism with all these awful things that happen. But the main reason is because I am immensely proud of my own generation, and the generation that's come immediately after us. I feel like we're far more moral than many of those who have come before us, and perhaps that's the consequence of growing up in great fear of war all the time. I do think mankind has a chance of improving the world, with the ideals that we hold - although there will be great challenges ahead. But in order to make those changes, I think it's really important that we acknowledge that continuous war is just not worth it. I'm a supporter of Palestine because I always try to support the underdog. It gives me just as much grief when Hamas hurts innocent civilians as when Likud does. No one, whether they're Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish or Muslim, really wants to live like this. No one is better off as a result of living like this.

Perhaps, if you were born in 1961 and have a military background, as Scott Ritter does, it's easier to take a step back and look at things from a cold rational standpoint without much empathy for the people involved. But I can't. More than that, I won't. I think it's completely at odds with our goals to achieve peace to not remember that every single person who loses their life in conflict is someone's child, someone's parent, someone's sibling, someone's friend. It doesn't matter what the outcome is - these actions are never worth it, whomever they're committed by.

And by the way, here in the UK we're still waiting for the leaders of both our main political parties to call for a ceasefire, even after being urged by the UN. It's somewhat heartening to me that it seems senior politicians in many countries in the world are calling for this - but that's also depressing, to learn that your own country is so many miles behind. We can do better than this, and we should.

My Facebook My Twitter

The five YouTubers keeping me sane in my thirties

 Today is 1 November, which will be the first full month of my thirties - I feel old! But still, I think thirties are probably a bit underrated - by this point in life I feel like we're all a little more settled and a little more emotionally secure.

To celebrate my entering a new decade of my life, I've decided to write something a bit more positive. A few months back I wrote this article about the declining quality of the news blog The Canary, something that has really disappointed and upset me, and to be honest still does. But recently I've been trying to find new media sources that fill the hole in my life that The Canary used to fill. And I'm delighted to say that I've recently come across five people on YouTube whose content keeps me sane, gives me hope and causes me to remain informed and aware. Each of them focus on a slightly different aspect of what I'm interested in, but of course there's a fair bit of crossover.

Without further ado, let me introduce these five people - some you may have heard of before (I don't like any of them any more than any of the others, so to be fair I'm just going to do this in alphabetical order of surname):

1. Rowan Ellis

Rowan Ellis is a vlogger on the subjects of feminism, LGBTQ+ issues and representation in the media. She deals particularly with the depictions of female and minority characters within television drama, but her work expands on multiple strands of these subjects, including LGBTQ+ history and the way that these things are presented within schools.

As a writer of character-driven stories (particularly one who works in collaboration with their same-sex partner) I've started being quite critical about a lot of what I watch and read, and I think it's important to be so. I've found Rowan's analysis of things to be incredibly informative and engaging, and she often has takes that I myself haven't thought of. Also, I like that she has a really nice way about her - she's certainly more diplomatic than me!

Check out Rowan's website. Her book Here and Queer: A Queer Girl's Guide to Life is available to order.

2. Owen Jones

If you're the kind of person who likes reading left-wing blogs like mine, you probably already know who Owen Jones is. He's a well-known journalist and writer, has been in the public eye regularly for more than ten years, regularly writing for The Guardian and The Independent (amongst others) and has books out including The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It and Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class.

I like Owen because he talks about politics and the world today, and always in a way that is clear, accessible and concise. He's incredibly knowledgable, and unafraid to use that knowledge in a way that speaks truth to power. I consume Owen's content when I want to know what's going on domestically in the UK, with the Tories and the Labour Party.

For some reason, it's become somewhat fashionable on the left to despise Owen Jones, and I've never fully understood why because I've always really appreciated his content, and find it well-researched and clearly explained. Perhaps he's a bit too mainstream for a lot of us. I understand that feeling very much - when someone apparently left-wing gets as big a platform as Owen does, it's natural to think 'What's the catch?' and maybe in a few years I'll find out something that will cause me to take back this recommendation. But for now, I really haven't seen what a lot of my fellow lefties apparently have, and that's why I firmly recommend Owen Jones' YouTube channel.

3. Adam Levy

Dr Adam Levy, known professionally as ClimateAdam, is a climate scientist from Oxford University. I can't remember exactly how I came across Adam's work, but I've found it to be really helpful in discussing climate issues again.Have a look at Adam's website as well.

Like a lot of other people, I often find climate anxiety so crippling that I'm unable to talk about it. And the worst thing about this is, online searches for climate-related content often bring up precisely what you're looking for in search terms. This is the problem with the Internet - that it's too robotic. This is why health professionals often advise against googling your symptoms, because much of the time it just comes up with literal scenarios. Likewise, with climate searches - searching 'Are we doomed?' will come up with articles that say we are, because the algorithm is looking for things that match with the word 'doomed'. And if you search terms like 'optimism' or 'hope', a lot of what comes up will play down the seriousness of the problem. And then there's the problem that a lot of the research itself is presented in ways that sound particularly dramatic so that people will click on them.

I find that Adam's work provides freedom from this. He creates videos that are easily accessible, that don't play down at all how serious the problems with global warming are but also put it in perspective, in a way that doesn't induce panic and that makes the viewer feel empowered to do something about it - and being an actual climate scientist rather than a mere armchair commentator like the rest of us, his word does carry weight. Weirdly, he also has a great sense of humour. It's hard to have humour when talking about something that threatens all our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren, but Adam manages it. There's a fantastic ongoing sketch he has (in which he plays all the characters) involving a character being repeatedly punched in the face and calling for help from a nearby onlooker. The onlooker is saying, 'Don't worry, we'll make sure we cap it to twenty punches.' After a while, the onlooker says, 'Unfortunately, we've now exceeded twenty punches' - of course, completely ignoring that they could prevent the person being punched right now. This is such a great metaphor for climate change - the more punches we receive, the more damage is caused and the more difficult it will be to reverse the damage, but preventing further punches will still be more beneficial than allowing the punches to carry on.

I've decided to only consume climate-related content from two people, as everyone else is just either overly reassuring or so doom-mongery that they aren't helpful. One of the two channels is Adam's...  the other is...

4. Leena Norms

Leena Norms is the other person I'll listen to on climate change, because I find she always cheers me up and gives me a fresh perspective. I do remember exactly how I came across Leena - I was suggested a video by YouTube's algorithms called 'Don't join the climate movement'. As a climate activist I was very doubtful, but for some reason I decided to click it, and I was glad I did. The title was slightly facetious, but I found it really useful on the themes of hope, personal power and the fact that although the climate movement exists for a good reason, you don't have to join it if you want to change things. There are other ways. This video made such an impact on me that I think I have to embed it. Take a look, then come back:

Personal power is what Leena is all about, and I respect that very much. A lot of her work is built around creating positive change where you are, particularly when it comes to fashion and clothing - she has many videos based around building a sustainable wardrobe. But she talks about lots of other things too - she has a lot of videos on books (which I haven't actually watched yet, but I will soon) and a lot about our own personal journey on this planet, friendships, life, political feelings and remembering who you are. I find her so engaging, personally and spiritually, and I cannot recommend her highly enough.

5. Ed Winters

Ed Winters, also known as Earthling Ed, is a well-known animal rights activist. You may have come across him before as his videos are often shared on social media, and his book This Is Vegan Propaganda (And Other Lies The Meat Industry Tells You) has been promoted quite heavily by retailers. Most of his videos involve debating with meat-eaters and encouraging them to follow a plant-based diet.

Although I'm a vegan and I agree very much with Ed's mission and viewpoints, this is not the reason I enjoy his videos so much. The thing that inspires me about Ed's videos is that he's an incredible debater - probably one of the best I've seen. I've found that a lot of people like to avoid debates because they like avoiding confrontation - and to me, debates are actually not meant to be confrontational. I don't think anyone should get angry during a debate. If you keep calm and rational in what you're saying, you can make so much more progress, cause the other person to learn something (and perhaps learn something yourself, as no one is right 100% of the time).

Ed's easy-going, polite, diplomatic approach really epitomises what I think debate should be like. I think whatever our opinions are on anything, we could all do with taking a leaf out of Ed's book.

--

So there we have it. Rowan, Owen, Adam, Leena and Ed. Five different YouTubers, all focussing on a slightly different topic, but with significant and important levels of overlap.

Is YouTube the future? I think, possibly. My disappointment with The Canary is something that has still not been resolved - I had a very kind response from their editorial team on the day I published that article and at the time they seemed keen to talk to me and improve (which I was very pleasantly surprised about). However, I have so far not had any further communication with them, so who knows?

My mission to find out what went wrong at The Canary is not over - I'm still eager to find this out, and sort it out. However, I also wonder if any media organisation run by multiple people is doomed to lower its standards over time, because this seems to have happened to every cutting-edge organisation in history. And YouTube is hardly cutting edge - it's owned by Google and extremely corporate nowadays, with the amount of sponsorships and so on involved. However, it still gives people a chance to raise their voices and speak out - and if you're following the right people, that can be pretty useful in hearing things that will be beneficial to your own life.

I think the most important thing for any media or news source is that it isn't handled from a top-down position. It should never be the case that one person is talking and everyone else is listening. This should be about dialogue. Whatever you're following, you should feel that they're as interested in you as you are in them, and that you're part of the conversation. That is how we make a change.

My Facebook My Twitter (and I don't think I will ever call it X)