Death of Iraqi teacher ‘a stain’ on British Army, says former top lawyer [British soldiers inspect a prison in Basra in June 2003 (Photo: Alamy)] The death of an Iraqi civilian after British soldiers forced him to perform exercises in dangerously hot weather “is a stain on the reputation of the British army,” the UK’s former top army lawyer in Iraq said. Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer made the comments after reviewing the findings of an official inquiry by retired British judge Dame Anne Rafferty in [a report][1] released in late November. Rafferty concluded that she had “no difficulty” in finding that Mousa Ali’s death was “the result of being forced to perform circuit-type exercises immediately prior to collapse”. However, none of the soldiers involved will be prosecuted because the terms of the inquiry effectively gave them immunity. Ali was a 35-year-old school teacher in Basra, southern Iraq when British soldiers detained him at his home in May 2003 in front of his wife and children, months after the US-led invasion. Ali, described by witnesses as “very obese”, tried to communicate that he had a medical issue by pointing at his heart, but was ignored by soldiers at Camp Stephen, the Iraq Fatality Investigations (IFI) inquiry found. Instead, he was forced by two soldiers to do “circuit-type exercises” and hold stress positions for two hours in over 40 degrees celsius “to relieve the boredom, play with his mind, make him feel uncomfortable and ‘muck about and have a bit of fun’”. Camp Stephen in Basra where Mousa Ali and Radhi Nama died in May 2003 (Iraqi Fatality Investigtaions) At the end of this gruelling ordeal, Ali collapsed from exhaustion. Rafferty characterised what the soldiers subjected Ali to as “acts of bullying and cruelty by those in a position of power”. Mercer, senior military legal adviser to the 1st Armoured Division during the Iraq war, said the IFI finding into his death revealed “a catalogue of abuse and failings in Iraq 2003”. “From the proper supervision of prisoners, the failure of command and the failure to provide proper medical supervision, Dame Anne Rafferty quite rightly concluded that the soldiers caused the death of Mousa Ali,” he said. However, Mercer said, such findings have been “treated with indifference”. “Immunity from prosecution has been granted to those responsible and, meanwhile, the popular political narrative that British soldiers are subject to a witch hunt continues,” he said. ## **‘Please, please’** The IFI was set up by the Ministry of Defence in 2014 after the High Court found that the existing mechanism to investigate allegations of abuse by British forces in Iraq was insufficient. Run on a [“quasi-inquest”][2] model, it was made clear that soldiers who gave evidence would not be subject to prosecution on the basis of what they revealed. In fact, an earlier investigation into Ali’s death by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, a British government unit investigating allegations of abuse and unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians by British armed forces, [recommended][3] that war crime charges be brought against the soldiers involved. But the Service Prosecuting Authority, the equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service for military personnel, [declined][4] to proceed. Five years later, the IFI found that Ali was in significant distress before he died. He repeatedly said: “Please, please, mister mister” and continuously fell over. But whenever he fell, one of the soldiers “forcibly grabbed him by his clothes and lifted him back to his feet”. Eventually, one soldier testified, Ali keeled over and fluid started coming out of his mouth – “perhaps foam or vomit”. A medic found no signs of life when he arrived to help. Ali’s body was taken the following day to Basra Teaching Hospital “where it was left without any conversation with staff”. ### RELATED [ ## Forgotten photos expose UK army abuses in Iraq ][5] [READ MORE **][6] ## **Wider problems** The IFI’s report also noted a broader culture of detainee abuse at Camp Stephen in Basra, with soldiers testifying that they witnessed detainees being verbally abused, kicked, slapped, forced into stress positions, and forced to do rigorous exercise. “A blind eye was turned to mistreatment and there was a culture of ‘us’ and ‘them’ as to the local population”, the report said, paraphrasing a soldier who gave evidence to the inquiry. Rafferty found that another Iraqi civilian, Radhi Nama, died at the camp during the same period as Ali, after British soldiers subjected him to hooding and forced him into a stress position. While she was unable to determine the exact cause of Nama’s death, she concluded that “the stress position should not have been used on Radhi Nama whilst he was asked questions”, and that it was unlawful for him to be “hooded for an unspecified period” while being transported to the camp. She also observed that despite being banned as an interrogation technique in 1972, on account of causing extreme discomfort and exhaustion to detainees, stress positions were “unacceptably still used on detainees by British Forces in Iraq until at least September 2003”. The unit responsible for detaining both Mousa Ali and Radhi Nama, she found, had “a widely held understanding… that use of stress positions on detainees was appropriate.” During the inquiry, she noted, it had been put to one soldier that investigators believed Nama had been beaten for “an unaccounted for period” while detained. The soldier responded: “Nobody gives a fuck, really. It was war . . .” The International Criminal Court has [concluded][7] that both Ali and Nama were victims of “the war crime of wilful killing/murder” at the hands of British soldiers. ## ‘Sobering reading’ Responding to the IFI report in parliament, Louise Sandher-Jones, minister for veterans and people, [said][8] that it “makes for sobering reading”, but did not condemn the lack of prosecutions, suggesting that the majority of British soldiers in Iraq served honourably. She said: “The misconduct of a small number of service personnel has detracted from the reputation of the thousands who served bravely and loyally through some of the most challenging operational circumstances we have encountered since the end of the second world war.” Mercer took a different view, recalling the case of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel worker who died at the hands of British soldiers in Basra four months after Mousa Ali. An inquiry in 2011 found that Baha Mousa sustained at least 93 separate injuries after an “appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence” including beatings, stress positions and episodes of sexual humiliation. That inquiry also found that eight Iraqi civilians had been tortured by the same unit. “Like Baha Mousa,” Mercer said of the IFI findings, “it is a stain on the reputation of the British Army.” The post [Death of Iraqi teacher ‘a stain’ on British Army, says former top lawyer][9] appeared first on [Declassified UK][10]. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iraq-fatality-investigations-consolidated-report-into-the-deaths-of-radhi-nama-and-mousa-ali-and-the-death-of-ahmed-jabbar-kareem-ali#:~:text=Independent%20report-,Iraq%20Fatality%20Investigations:%20Consolidated%20report%20into%20the%20deaths%20of%20Radhi,December%202025%20%E2%80%94%20See%20all%20updates [2]: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-11-24/debates/25112442000013/IraqFatalityInvestigationsReport [3]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf [4]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf [5]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61126 [6]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61126 [7]: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/itemsDocuments/201209-otp-final-report-iraq-uk-eng.pdf [8]: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-11-24/hlws1088 [9]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/death-of-iraqi-teacher-a-stain-on-british-army-says-former-top-lawyer/ [10]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/death-of-iraqi-teacher-a-stain-on-british-army-says-former-top-lawyer/

Over 2,000 Britons served for Israel amid Gaza genocide More than 2,000 Britons served in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) during the Gaza genocide, it can be revealed. The information was obtained by *Declassified* via a Freedom of Information request issued to the IDF by lawyer Elad Man from the NGO *Hatzlacha*. The data outlines the number of people with dual and multiple nationalities who were IDF service members as of March 2025. It shows how 1,686 British-Israelis and a further 383 people with British, Israeli, and another nationality served in the IDF amid the annihilation of Gaza. They were among over 50,000 IDF soldiers with Israeli and at least one other nationality. The largest cohorts come from the US, Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany. Prior to this, data was only available on the number of Britons without Israeli citizenship serving in the IDF, so-called lone soldiers, a figure that was as low as [54][1]. ## ‘Authorities must investigate’ The revelation that far more UK passport holders served in the IDF will raise serious legal questions for the British authorities, which have thus far failed to prosecute any citizens returning home after fighting in Gaza. Paul Heron, a lawyer with the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), told *Declassified*: “There must be no impunity where credible evidence links British nationals to grave breaches of international law. “The UK has clear duties to prevent genocide and avoid assisting unlawful military action. “Where dual nationals have served in units implicated in atrocities, the authorities must investigate promptly and, where the evidence meets the threshold, pursue arrest and prosecution like any other serious crime”. *Declassified* contributor Hamza Yusuf previously [exposed][2] how Britons were serving in some of Israel’s “craziest” combat units in Gaza where they viewed Palestinian fighters as “rats” and “animals”. Among the Britons identified by Yusuf was Levi Simon, who was seen “rummaging through the underwear drawers of Palestinian women forced to flee their homes” in Gaza. Another was master sergeant Sam Sank from London, who filmed himself fighting in Gaza between December 2023 and January 2024. Sank had [told][3] *The Times* that “based on the number of his friends in the IDF, which includes a Scot in his own small unit, [he] believes there are hundreds, if not thousands, more Britons fighting in Israel.” His estimates match with the data *Hatzlacha* has now obtained from Israeli authorities. The UK Foreign Office declined to comment on the new data but confirmed that it does not collect information on the number of Britons in the IDF. ### RELATED [ ## British fighters in Israel’s military: Is it legal? ][4] [READ MORE **][5] ## ‘No one is above the law’ The Metropolitan police’s war crimes unit was handed a complaint against ten Britons serving in the IDF last year. Although their names were not made public, the 240-page dossier accused the British suspects of “targeted killing of civilians and aid workers, including by sniper fire, and indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas”. It was submitted by the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC) and the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. “British nationals are under a legal obligation not to collude with crimes committed in Palestine. No one is above the law”, [said][6] Michael Mansfield, one of the lawyers who issued the complaint. Heron told *Declassified*: “In our report to the Metropolitan Police, we set out credible evidence that 10 British nationals served in the Israeli Defence Forces and were involved in war crimes and acts giving rise to genocide.” He said our findings showed “the issue is far deeper than we could ever believe.” The Metropolitan Police did not respond when* Declassified* asked last year whether the people referred by PILC would be investigated for potential involvement in war crimes. ## Lone soldiers In addition to dual nationals, over 50 “lone soldiers” from Britain – defined as IDF members without family in Israel to support them – have [served][7] for Israel amid the genocide. That data was released last year in a [report][8] on “lone soldiers” published by the Knesset Research and Information Center within Israel’s parliament. “Lone soldiers” also include immigrants who arrive in Israel alone and volunteers from abroad. The Knesset report detailed how 54 Britons were among around 3,000 lone soldiers serving in the IDF in August 2024. Thirty-three of those Britons joined through the Tzabar programme, which is an Israeli support system for young Jewish adults to “make Aliyah” (emigrate to Israel) and serve in the IDF. In the past, the UK government itself has offered support to “lone soldiers” in Israel. Chaim Schryer, originally from Manchester, served in *Netzah Yehuda*, an Israeli military unit which the US considered sanctioning in 2024 over evidence of gross human rights violations. Schryer was [invited][9] onto a British Royal Navy ship in 2021 alongside other British ‘lone soldiers’ who joined the IDF without family in Israel to support them. He was pictured walking onto the HMS Richmond wearing his *Netzah Yehuda* uniform, before being given a tour of the boat and meeting Britain’s defence attaché in Israel, Colonel Jim Priest. Schryer is among at least three Britons identified by *Declassified*, using open-source data and facial recognition software, who served with Netzah Yehuda over recent years. Chaim Schryer (right) boards HMS Richmond in 2021. (Photo: Royal Navy / X) ## Legal concerns In July 2024, the International Court of Justice handed down its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The court advised that all UN member states – including the United Kingdom – were obligated to refrain from assisting Israel in maintaining its occupation. In January 2024, the ICJ also put all member states on notice of the serious risk that genocide was being committed by Israel in Gaza. “The duty to prevent genocide was triggered due to the actual or constructive knowledge of the immediate plausiblity that genocide was being or was about to be committed”, the UN commission of inquiry subsequently wrote. To this end, the UK government’s failure to investigate or even monitor the activities of Britons serving in the IDF could be interpreted as tacit support for Israel’s military campaign. Britain’s recent recognition of a Palestinian state might also mean that British nationals serving in the IDF could be in breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act. This law, passed in 1870, makes it an [offence][10] for Britons “to fight for a foreign state at war with another state with which the UK is at peace” A spokesperson for the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) said: **“**No one in the UK wants to live next door to a potential war criminal. “And yet, British people who fought in the IDF are allowed to return to this country and live freely amongst us, despite fighting for an army that is committing genocide. “It is utterly inexcusable that the UK government is failing to take action to hold citizens accountable for potential violations of international and domestic law”. ***Read the FOI response from the IDF below (in Hebrew)*** The post [Over 2,000 Britons served for Israel amid Gaza genocide][11] appeared first on [Declassified UK][12]. [1]: http://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-over-50-britons-fought-for-israel-amid-gaza-genocide/ [2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-british-israeli-soldiers-at-risk-of-gaza-war-crimes-probe/ [3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/british-fighters-in-israels-military-is-it-legal/ [4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=53713 [5]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=53713 [6]: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/apr/07/ten-britons-accused-of-committing-war-crimes-while-fighting-for-israel-in-gaza [7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-over-50-britons-fought-for-israel-amid-gaza-genocide/ [8]: https://fs.knesset.gov.il/globaldocs/MMM/7d0e8fd4-e91c-ef11-815f-005056aac6c3/2_7d0e8fd4-e91c-ef11-815f-005056aac6c3_11_20806.pdf [9]: https://x.com/ukinisrael/status/1411664197113503744 [10]: https://novaramedia.com/2025/10/09/brits-serving-in-israeli-military-could-get-prison-time/ [11]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/over-2000-britons-served-for-israel-amid-gaza-genocide/ [12]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/over-2000-britons-served-for-israel-amid-gaza-genocide/

‘Israel wiped out my family’, Survivor warns as UK considers arms sales [An Israeli strike on a building in Gaza City this month, days after the al-Mawasi tent attack (Photo: Jehad Alshrafi / Alamy)] Hanan Abu Hadaid’s family was fast asleep in their tent when the attack began. “Suddenly, everything was turned upside down,” the 60-year-old told *Declassified* of the Israeli airstrike on 31 January that hit their shelter in al-Mawasi, an area in southern Gaza that the Israeli military has designated as a “safe zone”. “The place filled with shrapnel. I was injured in my foot and thigh, and when I looked around, I saw my sons and grandchildren lying on the ground. I started calling out to them one by one, screaming, but no one answered.” Her husband, Rebhi, and her sons, Muhammad, Hazem, and Hajar, as well as her grandchildren, Lia, Sham, and Jibril, were all dead. The tent where they were living – after being displaced four times- had burned to the ground, together with all of their belongings, from bedding and blankets to kitchen utensils and clothes. Hanan, who had been awake to perform dawn prayers when the explosion erupted, was the sole member of the family in the tent to survive. Speaking to *Declassified* as a constant stream of surveillance drones buzzed above, she said the attack had dispelled any illusions she might have had that there is a ceasefire in Gaza. “We posed no danger and were not a threat to anyone,” Hanan said. “What happened is proof that the targeting of civilians and displaced people continues, even in the places we are told to flee to.” A Quran was burnt by the attack. (Photo: Shaimaa Marwan) ## Repeated ceasefire violations The family is among at least [581][1] Palestinians who have been killed by Israel since the October ceasefire agreement. Despite these violations, trade secretary Peter Kyle said last month that 30 UK arms export licences to Israel suspended in 2024 could be “unblocked” when the ceasefire entered phase two. US officials [announced][2] in mid-January that phase two had begun. Asked on Monday whether the suspended licences would be resumed soon, the business department pointed *Declassified* to [recent comments][3] from trade minister Chris Bryant in which he said the situation continued to be regularly assessed. In private, some ministers have gone much further, with health secretary Wes Streeting saying in WhatsApp [messages][4] last July that “Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes”. Streeting said Netanyahu’s government “talks the language of ethnic cleansing”, was behaving like a “rogue state” and should be treated like “pariahs”. But comments in private mean nothing to victims like Hanan who stressed that staying silent on such massacres encourages Israel to commit more violations and reduces treaties to little more than ink on paper. Many Palestinians in Gaza are wary of the ceasefire plan led by US president Donald Trump, which has also seen the establishment of the so-called “Board of Peace” and the Civil-Military Coordination Centre (CMCC). The CMCC is responsible for monitoring the truce and facilitating the entry of aid into the enclave among other tasks, but has come under heavy criticism including for failing to halt ceasefire violations. Several European countries are [now reportedly][5] having doubts about participating in the CMCC and are considering reducing or pulling back personnel working at the centre. In late October, a small team of British planning officers embedded within the CMCC. The government said at the time that they were there “to ensure that the UK remains integrated into the US-led planning efforts for Gaza post-conflict stability”, but were not monitoring the ceasefire in Gaza. *Declassified* understands that this team is still in place, and asked the Ministry of Defence on Monday what role they were playing. A ministry spokesperson said: “The UK is committed to supporting the transition from a ceasefire to a sustainable peace. “We will continue to play our part, not just in supporting the implementation of phase one of the peace initiative, but also on the crucial work on progressing phase two, towards recovery and reconstruction.” ### RELATED [ ## ‘Not welcome’: Palestinians condemn Blair’s role on Gaza ‘peace board’ ][6] [READ MORE **][7] ## Shattered lives Nearby the Abu Hadaids’ tent at the moment of the attack was Nozha Abu Hadid, the sister of Hanan Abu Hadaid’s husband, Rebhi, who was living in a neighbouring tent. More than 20 people were injured in the vicinity of the targeted tent, she said. “We pulled the wounded out from the fire and shrapnel with our bare hands. There were only burned bodies and cries for help,” Nozha recounted. Among the injured, Nozha said, was a young woman who was four months pregnant. “A single piece of shrapnel shattered the fetus inside her. Doctors struggled greatly to save her life and were forced to clear the uterus of the fetal remains. She is now receiving treatment at Nasser Medical Complex,” she said. Nozha Abu Hadaid and her grandson sit near the sit of the attack in al-Mawasi. (Photo: Shaimaa Marwan) An Israeli military source [told][8] journalists that several attacks on 31 January, including the one in al-Mawasi were “in response to Hamas’ blatant violations of the ceasefire agreement” without further detail. Nozha said she is profoundly shocked after losing her brother and his family during what was supposed to be a ceasefire. “The presence of [ceasefire] monitors is meaningless if massacres are being committed before their eyes without accountability,” Nozha said. “Silence here is not neutrality; it is a clear form of bias.” She added: “There is no safe place in the Gaza Strip. Everyone is either conspiring against the Palestinian people here or hiding behind silence.” Her sister-in-law, Hanan, recalled her husband’s words before he was killed: “He was not optimistic about the ceasefire. He used to tell me: this is a devastating war, a war of annihilation. I didn’t want to believe him, but he was right. “After my entire family was wiped out, I no longer believe a single word about a ceasefire. The occupation killed them in cold blood and took them all from me: my husband, my sons, my grandchildren.” The post [‘Israel wiped out my family’, Survivor warns as UK considers arms sales][9] appeared first on [Declassified UK][10]. [1]: https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-report-207-situation-gaza-strip-and-west-bank-including-east-jerusalem [2]: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-administration-says-phase-two-gaza-ceasefire-has-begun [3]: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-01-29/debates/05476930-C060-4966-820E-F26B80C60E8D/details [4]: https://news.sky.com/story/read-wes-streetings-messages-with-mandelson-in-full-13505439 [5]: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/some-european-states-rethink-presence-us-backed-gaza-base-diplomats-say-2026-01-20/ [6]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61769 [7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61769 [8]: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/01/31/gaza-civil-defense-says-22-killed-in-israeli-strikes_6750009_4.html [9]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-wiped-out-my-family-survivor-warns-as-uk-considers-arms-sales/ [10]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-wiped-out-my-family-survivor-warns-as-uk-considers-arms-sales/

Mandelson ‘lobbied Israel for Tory government’ during Gaza genocide Peter Mandelson claimed he conducted unofficial diplomacy with Israel on behalf of the last Conservative government after fresh details of his ties to Jeffrey Epstein had emerged, *Declassified* has found. The disgraced Labour grandee said he raised questions with the Israeli government in the early months of the Palestinian genocide “on behalf” of then-foreign secretary, David Cameron, who returned to government in November 2023. New details of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein had emerged in June that year, with UK media outlets reporting that he stayed in contact with the billionaire long after his conviction for child sex offences. Yet Mandelson boasted about an apparent role with Rishi Sunak’s government months later during a Zoom call with a former Israeli military spokesman in April 2024. The revelation comes as the Conservatives are heavily criticising Labour for appointing Mandelson as British ambassador to Washington, saying he should have had no role in UK foreign policy once details of his ties to Epstein became known. Cameron did not initially respond to requests for comment. But since this article was published, his spokeperson has said he does not recognise Mandelson’s claims. ## Personal gain? Mandelson’s Zoom meeting took place weeks after three British aid workers were killed by Israel in Gaza. It was organised by the European Leadership Network (ELNET), which describes itself as “the most influential pro-Israel advocacy organisation in Europe”. A recording was [later published][1] on its YouTube channel. The video shows Mandelson saying: “[The Israeli government is] allowing aid to come in through Ashdod port, which they have been asked to do repeatedly by its allies since the beginning of the year. “Indeed, I did myself on behalf of the Foreign Secretary when I was in Israel.” He also suggested that he had been in discussions days earlier with the head of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), the Israeli defence ministry unit overseeing policies and coordinating aid in the occupied Palestinian territories. Mandelson concluded his comments on the Zoom call by saying: “The [Israeli] government might be better off if it listened more to the IDF. If you can pass on that one.” A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office refused to comment about Mandelson’s stated role, saying it would be inappropriate for them to discuss allegations against the previous government. Cameron’s spokesperson said of the Mandelson claims: “We do not recognise this at all. Peter Mandelson was never asked to represent Lord Cameron or the government on foreign affairs. “It was, however, the government’s policy to ask Israel repeatedly to open Ashdod Port to allow for more aid to flow into Gaza, something Lord Cameron regularly referred to in the House of Lords and in the media.” At the time, Mandelson did not hold any official government positions and was still director of his lobbying firm, Global Counsel. The company’s clients include the spy tech company Palantir, co-founded by Jeffrey Epstein’s “great friend” Peter Thiel. John McDonnell, the former Labour shadow chancellor, told *Declassified*: “The question to be asked about Mandelson’s involvement in any political or diplomatic venture is whether its motive was public service or personal gain.” ### RELATED [ ## Revealed: Peter Mandelson asked Jeffrey Epstein for Israel advice ][2] [READ MORE **][3] ## ‘Shadowy back channels’ Mandelson’s diplomatic efforts are likely to have come in January 2024, when he attended an ELNET trip to Israel. The delegation included former Conservative Party leader Lord Michael Howard and the former director of Conservative Friends of Israel, Lord Stuart Polak. They spent an hour with the Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, as well as attending a military briefing from the IDF and dining with “high-ranking Israeli policy makers”. During the trip Mandelson attended an ELNET dinner where Britain’s ambassador to Israel was present. One delegate later said that the Israeli side “came to talk to us and not to listen”, adding: “Israel needs an election soon to get rid of these terrible politicians.” The independent MP Zarah Sultana told *Declassified*: “It is another stain on our democracy that Peter Mandelson was conducting unofficial diplomacy with Israel while it was committing genocide in Gaza, and doing so ‘on behalf of’ the foreign secretary. “This is the same rotten pattern we keep seeing: a political establishment that operates through shadowy back channels, beyond democratic scrutiny, where the same well-connected figures resurface again and again no matter how many scandals trail behind them.” She added: “The government must urgently remove Palantir from all public contracts, and establish a full independent public inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s role, his contacts, and who he was really working for.” The Conservative Party and Global Counsel did not respond to questions from *Declassified*. The post [Mandelson ‘lobbied Israel for Tory government’ during Gaza genocide][4] appeared first on [Declassified UK][5]. [1]: https://youtu.be/yao_rCumGvQ?si=Ex8IxYfW2UVa5K3p&t=1658 [2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=60369 [3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=60369 [4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/mandelson-lobbied-israel-for-tory-government-during-gaza-genocide/ [5]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/mandelson-lobbied-israel-for-tory-government-during-gaza-genocide/

Starmer ‘on borrowed time’ after losing Mandelson and McSweeney Keir Starmer’s reputation will “forever…be associated with the decision to appoint the best friend of the world’s most notorious paedophile” as British ambassador to Washington, the author of a book on the prime minister has said. Investigative journalist Paul Holden told *Declassified* that after the resignation of the prime minister’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney: “Keir Starmer is on borrowed time. He’s done. There’s no coming back from this. “I mean he was pretty much toast before this because he was so deeply unpopular and there were already moves to remove him. “The problem is we now have this political vacuum because the success of the McSweeney-Mandelson-Starmer political project has been to totally take utter control of the commanding heights of the Labour party. It’s bureaucracy but also the cabinet.” ***Watch our interview with Paul Holden*** Holden, who wrote a [book][1] about Starmer’s top aide called *The Fraud*, said “The eight most senior people in cabinet all have links to McSweeney going back years and decades. This entire political project is implicated and tainted by this scandal. “And that’s a real problem because in normal governments you’ll have a cabinet that is chosen from a wide range of talents within a broad political movement. This isn’t.” Starmer’s most likely challenger as prime minister, health secretary Wes Streeting, has even closer ties to Mandelson, potentially ruining his leadership bid. “This is a cabinet chosen from a tiniest fraction, of the tiniest fraction, of the tiniest fraction of the Labour party,” Holden commented. “Not only are they despicable, not only are they loathed by the public, there’s nobody there to take over the reins as a result because they are all tainted by it.” ### RELATED [ ## How Keir Starmer conned the British electorate ][2] [READ MORE **][3] ## **‘They didn’t care’** Holden believes that Starmer’s team must have known about Mandelson’s ties to Epstein when they appointed him US ambassador. JP Morgan bank had investigated its own links to Epstein and the results were [disclosed][4] as part of “open court submissions” in the US at least a year before the appointment. Holden described the bank’s findings as “a forensic detailed analysis of all the emails between JP Morgan senior staff and Jeffrey Epstein in which Peter Mandelson’s relationship was uncovered.” The bank’s report “sets out on a timeline of every single email they have which indicates Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson had a close friendship after Jeffrey Epstein had been convicted of soliciting prostitution with a 14-year-old minor. “So the idea that [Labour] wouldn’t have known this is nonsense. Everyone knew this. They didn’t care. And they didn’t care because Petie was one of them,” Holden said, referring to an email in which Epstein referred to Mandelson by that nickname. ### RELATED [ ## Labour think tank paid PR firm to investigate Declassified journalist ][5] [READ MORE **][6] ## **‘Obvious’** Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador was inevitable in Holden’s understanding because “it was the culmination of a long term political project in which Mandelson and McSweeney were operating together. “When Sir Keir Starmer becomes prime minister and Morgan McSweeney becomes his chief of staff, it was obvious that Peter Mandelson was going to be chosen because why on earth wouldn’t they choose someone who Morgan McSweeney had been working with for absolute[ly] years? “This is what they do…when they assume this sort of power, this is how they behave – and they behave in ways that most people find despicable”. The consequences could even be felt in Gaza, Holden argued, saying McSweeney had a “really profound impact on the way in which the Labour party approached Israel and it’s an impact that has been created over a decade.” When Jeremy Corbyn led the Labour party, McSweeney was “secretly, for two years, working to inflame the so-called antisemitism crisis, which was then used when the Labour party came to power under Keir Starmer to effectively purge the left-wing from the labour party,” Holden reflected. “But what it also did was make it almost impossible to express any sort of meaningful solidarity with Palestine or to be robustly critical of Israel.” Looking ahead to the day after Keir Starmer, Holden warned: “If anybody takes over from this [same] political faction we are not going to see any change.” The post [Starmer ‘on borrowed time’ after losing Mandelson and McSweeney][7] appeared first on [Declassified UK][8]. [1]: https://orbooks.com/catalog/the-fraud/ [2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=60748 [3]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=60748 [4]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeffrey-epstein-peter-mandelson-jpmorgan-b2361580.html [5]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=62019 [6]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=62019 [7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/starmer-on-borrowed-time-after-losing-mandelson-and-mcsweeney/ [8]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/starmer-on-borrowed-time-after-losing-mandelson-and-mcsweeney/

Labour think tank paid PR firm to investigate Declassified journalist A think tank with ties to the top of the Labour government paid a PR firm £30,000 to investigate journalists from media outlets including *Declassified UK*, it has emerged. Our chief reporter [John McEvoy][1] was among the journalists targeted by the group Labour Together in November 2023, according to a [report][2] by *Democracy for Sale*. Labour Together turned to PR firm APCO Worldwide for help after media revelations about its undeclared funding, which resulted in a penalty from the Electoral Commission. The PR firm, which has also represented Israel’s largest arms firm Elbit Systems, was reportedly tasked with profiling journalists that might be investigating Labour Together’s funding. McEvoy had not, at that point, written about Labour Together for *Declassified*. However he believes an [article][3] he wrote in 2020 for the Canary could have put him on their radar. “It was the first time anyone had made the connection between Labour Together, Morgan McSweeney, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, and Stop Funding Fake News, which was running an astroturf campaign against the Canary, where I worked at the time”, McEvoy commented. This article may have been particularly sensitive for McSweeney, who reportedly told Labour Together MPs: “Destroy the Canary or the Canary destroys us”. ### RELATED [ ## How Keir Starmer conned the British electorate ][4] [READ MORE **][5] By 2023 McSweeney was Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, having passed command of Labour Together to Josh Simons, who is now a government minister. Simons personally commissioned and reviewed the intelligence report prepared by APCO on behalf of Labour Together, according to a [report][6] in the *Guardian*. Labour Together was instrumental in making Starmer leader of the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure. McSweeney steered the party back to the right, frequently turning to Peter Mandelson for advice and pushing for him to become Britain’s ambassador to the US. Labour Together has received significant funding from Sir Trevor Chinn, one of the most prominent pro-Israel donors in the UK. Stuart Polak, a stalwart of the pro-Israel lobby in Britain, was a Senior Counsellor at APCO between 2020 and 2025. In a statement on social media, Simons described the claims as “nonsense”, saying: “APCO were asked to look into a suspected illegal hack, which had nothing to do with UK journalists at Sunday Times, Guardian, or any other brilliant UK newspaper”. Simons did not add any further comment on whether he will commit to releasing the report. The post [Labour think tank paid PR firm to investigate Declassified journalist][7] appeared first on [Declassified UK][8]. [1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/author/john-mcevoy/ [2]: https://democracyforsale.substack.com/p/exclusive-morgan-mcsweeneys-labour-together-investigators-journalists [3]: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2020/12/01/exclusive-labour-right-linked-to-campaign-to-shut-down-the-canary/ [4]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=60748 [5]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=60748 [6]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/06/labour-minister-intelligence-files-gathered-on-journalists-josh-simons [7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/labour-think-tank-paid-pr-firm-to-investigate-declassified-journalist/ [8]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/labour-think-tank-paid-pr-firm-to-investigate-declassified-journalist/

One hundred years of British interference in Venezuela [Oil installations on Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela in 1935 (Photo: Alamy)] In October 2001, two years into his presidency, Hugo Chávez made a trip to London to meet with then UK prime minister Tony Blair and other high-level officials. Official records detail how the Venezuelan president’s proposed Hydrocarbons Law, a major restructuring of Venezuela’s oil industry, was high on the British agenda. The law aimed to assert sovereignty over Venezuela’s resources by mandating at least 50% state ownership in mixed enterprises and increasing royalties on foreign oil interests. This was a serious cause for concern for Britain, whose main interests in Venezuela centred on Shell, BP, and BG Group’s investments in the oil and gas industry. “British companies have over $4bn already invested” in Venezuela, noted one Foreign Office official, with new investments of another $3bn planned for the oil industry. Blair was thus instructed by advisers to impress on Chávez that the UK government was “following your proposed hydrocarbons legislation very closely”. In private, Blair’s adviser and future MI6 chief John Sawers wrote that “the only reason for seeing him is to benefit British oil and gas companies”. Sawers’ note drove at the core issue which had been guiding Britain’s relations with Venezuela for over a century: oil. *Declassified* has combed through dozens of files in the National Archives which expose how the UK government has repeatedly sought to thwart the nationalisation of oil in Venezuela since it was first discovered during the early twentieth century. Working in partnership with Britain’s leading oil corporations, the Foreign Office has resorted to political pressure, propaganda activities, and covert operations to maintain control over Venezuela’s lucrative crude. ## **The origins of Britain’s interest in Venezuela’s oil** In 1912, Royal Dutch-Shell[ began][1] operations in Venezuela and, two years later, the company – alongside US firm General Asphalt – [discovered][2] a petroleum field in the small town of Mene Grande. George Bernard Reynolds, a geologist at Venezuelan Oil Concessions Limited (VOC), a Shell subsidiary, [described][3] the supplies as “enough to satisfy the most exacting”. By 1920, the CIA [reported][4] that practically all of Venezuela’s oil production and its most promising concessions were held by Royal Dutch-Shell and two American companies, Jersey Standard (SOCNJ) and Gulf. Indeed, Venezuelan oil [controlled][5] by Royal Dutch-Shell had increased by over 600% from 210,000 barrels in 1917 to 1,584,000 in 1921. “Is there any other company more conclusively British than this”, [asked][6] Sir Marcus Samuel, chairman of the Shell Transport and Trading Company, in June 1915, “who have proved themselves more willing and able to serve the interests of the Empire?” But foreign control over oil had serious consequences for Venezuela’s land and people. In 1936, oil workers in Maracaibo called a general strike in response to low wages, poor living conditions and the association of oil firms with the late dictator, Juan Vicente Gómez. It lasted for 43 days, during which time oil production [decreased][7] by 39%. In[ response][8], Venezuelan president General Eleazar López Contreras introduced a series of reforms to improve labour conditions. This made him unpopular with the British and US oil executives, who were described by US ambassador Meredith Nicholson as belonging to “the old school of ‘imperialists’ who believed that might – in the business sense – was right”. Venezuela’s oil nonetheless remained central to the British imperial project and, by the outbreak of World War Two, Venezuelan oil “took on particular significance within the British war effort as oil from the Middle East became less accessible following the closure of the Mediterranean in 1940”, according to [research][9] by academic Mark Seddon. Officials therefore became increasingly worried about nationalisation in Latin America, particularly after foreign oil interests – including those of Shell – had been expropriated in Mexico in 1938. That year, for instance, British diplomat John Balfour[ wrote][10]: “We should do all we can to show that it is not in the interests of a Latin-American country like Mexico to eliminate British interests from participating in the exploitation of its oil resources”. ### RELATED [ ## How Britain helped Trump destabilise Venezuela ][11] [READ MORE **][12] ## **A dangerous opponent of capital** Concerns around nationalisation arose once again during the Rómulo Betancourt administration in the 1940s. He was described by the Foreign Office in 1945 as “by far the most dangerous opponent of capital in Venezuela”, while the oil companies worried about his past support for communism. These concerns proved overblown as Betancourt developed into a staunch anti-communist. According to a CIA [file][13] dated March 1948, Betancourt and his predecessor, Rómulo Gallegos, met to discuss “the proposed outlawing of the Communist Party in Venezuela.” The first step, according to the document, “was the dismissal from the [oil workers union] Fedepetrol of all Communist Party petroleum syndicate delegates”. Shell’s directors nonetheless responded positively to the military coup which toppled Betancourt in 1948. They believed, as UK ambassador John H. Magowan noted in February 1949, that the new administration would “reverse the Betancourt tendency to hostility towards the ‘capitalists’ and ‘colonial’ powers”. While US-owned SOCNJ had emerged as Venezuela’s main oil producer by this time, Shell remained the second most important player and, by 1950, the company had centralized its operations,[ building][14] a modernist headquarters in northern Caracas. ## **The propaganda campaign** During the 1960s, as the shadow of the Cold War cast over Latin America, a propaganda unit within the Foreign Office secretly worked to protect Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela. That unit, named the Information Research Department (IRD), had been set up in 1948 to collect information about communism and distribute it to contacts worldwide. The goal was to build resilience against communist and other national liberation movements while cultivating foreign agents of influence such as journalists, politicians, military officers, and businessmen. By 1961, the IRD viewed Venezuela as the third most important country in Latin America in light of the risk of left-wing “subversion” and Britain’s strategic stake in the country’s oil industry. That year, the IRD [worked][15] with Britain’s intelligence services to promote a boycott of *El Nacional*, the largest newspaper in Venezuela, with the goal of forcing it “to abandon its campaign in favor of expropriating foreign companies and promoting communist agitation”. The campaign not only had the backing of powerful conservative and anti-communist groups in Venezuela but also the foreign oil companies, who agreed to suspend their advertising in the newspaper. By 1962, IRD officer Leslie Boas was able to boast that *El Nacional* had “changed its tone in a great way”, with the newspaper’s circulation also dropping from 70,000 to 45,000 per day. Reactionary networks in Venezuela were also being covertly funded by Shell in this period, according to recently declassified files. In April 1962, Boas wrote to IRD chief Donald Hopson about the Latin American Information Committee (LAIC) which was “now doing quite active work… in Venezuela”. The first director of LAIC was Enno Hobbing, who divided his work between Time/Life magazine and the CIA and later played a role in Chile’s 1973 coup d’état. Boas explained that he “had a long talk with Hobbing […] and there do seem to be one or two ways in which we can be of mutual help without either of us burning our fingers”. A 1962 letter sent from Information Research Department officer Leslie Boas to his boss at the Foreign Office (National Archives) Such help would include “an unattributable supply of IRD material to contacts” of LAIC in return for LAIC supplying Boas with access to and information about local anti-communist networks. Remarkably, Boas disclosed that Shell was “contributing financially to” LAIC alongside US retailer Sears Roebuck and other “International Business Machines”. He added that “none of the local branches of these companies such as Shell de Venezuela are cooperating either financially or overtly in any way, it is being done through their head offices and LAIC who have their own offices in New York”. It was during this period that Shell and BP were also [providing][16] direct, “handsome” subsidies to the IRD to promote their oil interests across Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. ## **Nationalisation rekindled** The IRD continued to promote Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela through the 1960s and 1970s, until the unit was closed down in 1977. In a country assessment sheet for Venezuela, dated 1969, an IRD official noted how “we have considerable investments in the country, particularly those of Shell, whose fixed installations alone have been conservatively valued at £300 million”. The official continued: “Shell’s operations in Venezuela play an important role in the company’s very substantial contribution in invisibles [earnings through intangible assets] to our balance of payments”, noting that Britain’s key objective was therefore “to protect our investments”. Two years later, IRD field officer Ian Knight Smith wrote to London with concerns about how “the emotional issue of economic nationalism, always a potent force in a country whose main natural resources are largely in the hands of foreign companies, was [being] rekindled”. Worse still, the Venezuelan president, Rafael Caldera, had “made his own contribution to the new nationalism – in the shape of a law nationalising all natural gas deposits”. The IRD consequently prepared briefings “on communist instigation of charges against the international oil companies” to be shared with contacts across Venezuela. In addition, the propaganda unit “cast around for material with which to brief IRD contacts who are in a position to influence government policy or legislation affecting foreign investments in Venezuela”. Officials were particularly interested in commissioning a “well-researched paper on the positive aspects of foreign investment in developing countries, helping to counter the growing assumption, carefully fostered by the extreme left, that all foreign investment is basically suspect”. It was within this context that the Foreign Office privately advised that “we should protect as far as we are able Shell’s continued access to Venezuelan oil”. ## **Share of the gravy** For all its efforts, the IRD was not able to turn the tide of nationalisation in Venezuela, with plans developed during the 1970s for the early reversion of foreign oil interests to the state. Venezuelan oil was officially nationalised in 1976, with foreign companies including Shell being replaced by the state-owned Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). In 1976, President Carlos Andres Pérez and well-wishers celebrate as Venezuela’s oil industry is nationalised (Photo: Alamy) But this was by no means the end of the road for Britain’s oil interests in Venezuela. In a background briefing for a visit by Venezuelan president Carlos Andrés Pérez, dated November 1977, the Foreign Office observed that “Shell is still our largest single interest”. The official added: “It should not be forgotten that despite nationalisation our largest commercial stake in this country is still Shell, and although they no longer, since nationalisation, produce oil here, they earn millions of dollars from their service and marketing contracts with their former company”. The company also continued “to off-take very large volumes of Venezuelan oil for sale mostly in the US and Canada”. Another official remarked upon the “furious activity of all European countries, including ourselves, in trying to get our share of Venezuela’s economic gravy”. By 1978, the *New York Times* went so far as to say that Shell was “busier in Venezuela than before the oil industry was nationalized”. ## ‘**Shell has been active**‘ Even still, Britain’s oil firms wished to return to Venezuela’s oilfields. Those hopes were stoked in the early 1990s by the “Oil Opening” of President Carlos Andrés Péres, whose austerity measures led to an explosion of poverty and street protests, but dashed once again by Chávez’ proposed Hydrocarbons Law in 2001. In the lead-up to Chávez’ visit that year to London, Britain’s leading oil companies were once again in the prime minister’s ear about the projected impact on their interests. Blair’s briefing noted unambiguously that UK and US companies were “concerned” about the oil reforms and wanted them watered down. Days before the visit, Shell’s chairman Philip Watts offered suggestions on how Blair might handle Chávez. Letter sent in 2001 from Shell chairman Philip Watts to the Foreign Office (National Archives) “As you may have appreciated, Shell has been active in helping in the preparations for the visit through the Foreign Office”, Watts wrote. “Considering the importance of the energy sector for both the Venezuelan and UK economies, I thought the PM may appreciate a small briefing on our… plans in Venezuela”, he added. Those plans involved ameliorating the “uncertain investment climate” and softening the “fiscal and legal framework” in the country. As part of the charm offensive, Watts also hosted a “farewell” banquet for Chávez, to which foreign secretary Jack Straw and other senior ministers were invited. BP and BG Group also “registered their interest with No.10 about the visit”, with BP preparing “to put their case… forcefully” in favour of a meeting between the two leaders. ## ‘**The Americans are concerned**‘ The US government also weighed in on the matter. On 18 October, an official in the British embassy in Washington wrote to London that “the Americans are concerned about the impact that the Hydrocarbons Law will have on investment in the energy sector”. They continued: “The major oil companies, including BP, had all made clear that its tax and restrictive joint venture productions would hinder their operations”. The US state department “thought it would be particularly useful for Chavez to hear these concerns in London, given his tendency to discount messages from the US”. To this end, the George Bush administration hoped Blair would “talk sense into [Chávez] on the Hydrocarbons Law, where BP are among those who stand to lose”. [Blair hosts Chávez at Downing Street in October 2001 (Photo: Gerry Penny / Alamy)]Blair hosts Chávez at Downing Street in October 2001 (Photo: Gerry Penny / Alamy) Further pressure was applied by Gustavo Cisneros, a Venezuelan billionaire and media mogul who was introduced to Blair in 2000 by *Daily Telegraph* owner Conrad Black. Sawers, Blair’s adviser, noted that Cisneros’ “sole message” for Blair “was that Chávez was a real danger to stability and free markets (and, of course, rich Venezuelans like himself)”. A briefing document prepared by Cisneros, for instance, warned that “Chavez will likely react” to oil prices dropping “by lashing out at the private sector”. Sawers viewed Cisneros with suspicion but broadly agreed that Chávez was objectionable. There was, he wrote, “a chance that the picture [with Chávez] at the front door [of Downing Street] would come back to haunt us”. He continued: “This is one of the World’s tyrants whose hand I won’t have to shake”. ## **The coup against Chávez** A coup against Chávez broke out in April 2002, orchestrated by dissident military and political figures with support from Washington. Pedro Carmona, an economist who was unconstitutionally appointed Venezuela’s president, quickly set about dismantling the country’s democracy and reversing Chávez’s oil reforms. He happened to be in the offices of Cisneros, the mega mogul who had taken the opportunity to “pour poison” into Blair’s ears about Chávez, when the coup broke out. The declassified files show how Britain quietly hoped the Carmona regime would be more accommodating to foreign interests while noting the unconstitutional nature of the coup. “The Cabinet is strong on experience and business” and “hopefully its management capability will be much higher”, wrote the British embassy in Caracas. The embassy was also informed by UK business leaders in Venezuela that “their operations should be back to normal by 15 April”, while Shell’s “production of oil was unaffected”. At the same time, however, the Foreign Office was disturbed by the fact that “no one” had “ever elected” the Carmona regime. “Venezuela may or may not have wanted to get rid of Chavez, but not necessarily to lose the other parts of their democratic system”, one official wrote. “The right-wing businessmen seem to have shot themselves in the foot”. Notably, the UK government seemed to have some knowledge of Washington’s role in the events. On 14 April, with Chávez imprisoned in a military barracks, the British embassy in Caracas cabled to London that the US ambassador had been spending “some hours in the Presidential Palace”. “Please protect [the information]”, they instructed. ### RELATED [ ## Secretive UK team met in Venezuela to promote British energy... ][17] [READ MORE **][18] ## **The opposition** The coup was short-lived. Chávez was reinstated within 47 hours following a wave of popular mobilisations across Caracas. With Chávez back at the helm, the Foreign Office quietly hoped that “the events of the last few days” would be seen as “a serious warning to change his ways”. But the situation remained tense, with UK foreign secretary Jack Straw noting in July 2002 that Chávez’s position “remain[ed] shaky”. The political opposition in Venezuela was seen by Whitehall as particularly intransigent, with Straw declaring that Chávez looks “positively resplendent compared with [them]”. The Venezuelan opposition, Straw continued, “appear to be united, indeed motivated, by sheer indignation that someone like Chávez (not one of them and above all not white) should be in charge and have such a popular power base”. An official in Britain’s embassy in Caracas similarly noted in 2002 that the Venezuela opposition “looks like a train that tried to breach a wall on one track in April and are now seeking to do the same on a slightly different track and at a slightly different angle”. They added: “The opposition’s self-delusion is growing worse by the day: they claim alternately they are living in either a fascist or communist dictatorship”. One of the key opposition figures in this period was María Corina Machado, with whom the UK government is currently in talks amid a renewed regime change campaign in Venezuela. The post [One hundred years of British interference in Venezuela][19] appeared first on [Declassified UK][20]. [1]: https://www.shell.com.ve/sobre-nuestra-empresa/la-historia-de-shell-en-venezuela.html#:~:text=1912:%20Inicio%20de%20las%20actividades,lubricantes%20y%20estaciones%20de%20servicio [2]: https://x.com/retro_series/status/1055481202487054336 [3]: https://www.thetimes.com/tto/archive/article/1914-10-30/13/3.html#start%3D1914-07-01%26end%3D1915-01-01%26terms%3Dvenezuela%26back%3D/tto/archive/find/venezuela/w:1914-07-01%7E1915-01-01/o:date/3%26prev%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/venezuela/w:1914-07-01%7E1915-01-01/o:date/21%26next%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/venezuela/w:1914-07-01%7E1915-01-01/o:date/23 [4]: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP57-00384R000700130001-2.pdf [5]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iUUDAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=venezuela&f=false [6]: https://www.thetimes.com/tto/archive/page/1915-06-23/13.html#start%3D1915-06-23%26end%3D1915-06-24%26terms%3Dtimes%26back%3D/tto/archive/find/times/w:1915-06-23%7E1915-06-24/1%26next%3D/tto/archive/frame/goto/times/w:1915-06-23%7E1915-06-24/2 [7]: https://www.hbs.edu/businesshistory/Documents/maurer-article-mexican-oil.pdf [8]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/157250?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents [9]: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/6901/ [10]: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/6901/ [11]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61621 [12]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61621 [13]: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP82-00457R001400130002-4.pdf [14]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26419671_La_arquitectura_urbana_de_las_corporaciones_petroleras_Conformacion_de_Distritos_Petroleros_en_Caracas_durante_las_decadas_de_1940_y_1950 [15]: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-58647201 [16]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/exclusive-how-shell-and-bp-financed-britains-cold-war-propaganda-machine/ [17]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=7121 [18]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=7121 [19]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/one-hundred-years-of-british-interference-in-venezuela/ [20]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/one-hundred-years-of-british-interference-in-venezuela/

‘Why was she shot?’ Iraqi family’s quest for justice after UK raid [Riyaadh Kadhim Alateya, his son, Ali, and his wife, Sabeeha Rasheed Mashi (Supplied)] One August night, Riyaadh Kadhim Alateya and his family’s lives changed forever. The 54-year-old** **lived in the southern Iraqi city of Basra with his wife, Sabeeha Rasheed Mashi and his teenage son, Ali. He ran a livestock trading business, and when he wasn’t working, his preferred way to unwind was being out on his fishing boat. They had a comfortable life. Then it all changed suddenly. On the evening of 11 August 2007, Riyaadh said British military aircraft opened fire on the family’s home, amid accompanying gunfire. Ali, 17, was killed and Sabeeha was left in critical condition after sustaining a gunshot wound that caused severe internal bleeding and required urgent medical intervention. Riyaadh told *Declassified* that he couldn’t understand why the attack happened. But the consequences were catastrophic. “My house was completely burned down along with my belongings,” he said. Riyaadh’s testimony is corroborated by a consistent body of contemporaneous evidence, including medical reports, court documents, legal correspondence, a death certificate, and a formal complaint lodged with and acknowledged by Iraqi police and judicial authorities in 2007, all of which were seen by *Declassified*. He also shared a letter sent from the British government’s Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) in June 2015. The unit was set up to investigate allegations of abuse, torture and unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians by British armed forces between 2003 and 2009. In the letter, IHAT’s leader Mark Warwick expressed condolences for Ali’s death and promised to complete an investigation into what had happened in 2007, and acknowledged an involvement of British armed forces which was sufficient enough to trigger investigations. He noted it might take time for his team to get to Riyaadh’s complaint given the sheer number that had been filed. But Warwick assured Riyaadh that the unit “takes all allegations of misconduct and treatment very seriously”. Nearly 20 years later, Riyaadh said he is still waiting for answers. “Believe me, on that day, I wish I died rather than witness what happened to my family,” he said. ### RELATED [ ## Forgotten photos expose UK army abuses in Iraq ][1] [READ MORE **][2] ## **Unresolved crimes ** Riyaadh’s testimony adds to the extensive archive of the human cost of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Tony Blair, then UK prime minister who made the decision to back the invasion, has [since justified it][3], and faced zero accountability. He’s now joined US president Donald Trump’s controversial “Board of Peace” which is set to govern the future of Gaza, ostensibly free to persist with his ethically fraught legacy in the region. The British military, which has still not fully withdrawn from Iraq, developed a reputation for committing atrocities that were often left uninvestigated and unprosecuted. The practice of shooting unarmed civilians was rife, to the degree that it constituted legitimate rules of engagement, as testimonies of former soldiers have [revealed][4]. In Basra, British forces faced an armed uprising against their occupation in August 2007, with four soldiers [killed][5] in the week before the attack on Riyaadh’s home. However, *Declassified* was shown evidence indicating that he was not involved in any military activity, nor affiliated with any armed group that might have been used to justify the targeting of him or his family. The evidence includes a certificate from 2007 confirming his completion of a statistics course at a centre run by coalition forces in Dhi Qar governorate. Still, that palpably offered no protection or legitimacy for his family. “I do not know what pretext or justification there could be for opening fire on a residential home,” Riyaadh said. IHAT, which had previously informed Riyaadh it would pursue accountability and justice, was shut down in June 2017. [None][6] of IHAT’s investigations resulted in prosecutions in connection with unlawful killing or the ill-treatment of detainees. IHAT did refer one case of unlawful killing and one case of ill-treatment to the Director of Service Prosecutions who in both cases decided not to proceed. For Riyaadh, this sounds familiar. His son Ali’s case was among a group of cases taken up by Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), a UK-based law firm that brought thousands of claims to IHAT. In a follow-up letter dated November 2015, PIL explained to Riyaadh that the cases had been considered by UK authorities and referred to the High Court. However, the firm told Riyaadh, they were ultimately rejected, following a decision by the then UK defence secretary, on the basis that the cases were historic or further investigation was not necessary. ### RELATED [ ## Exclusive: British army sent unqualified investigators to Iraq where troops... ][7] [READ MORE **][8] ## Lingering harm Two decades later, Riyaadh and Sabeeha still suffer from the impact of that night. Sabeeha sustained life-changing injuries including spinal degeneration and liver damage during the attack which have left her with chronic pain and restricted mobility. Despite this, it took until 2017 for Iraq’s Ministry of Health to formally certify that she has a permanent disability. After their home was destroyed, they relocated to another home in Al Tannouma in east Basra. Riyaadh devoted his time to following up on his wife’s medical condition and pursuing all avenues of treatment. But he said the prevailing chaos and instability after the invasion meant the specialist treatment and urgent medical care required was unavailable. In 2019, they moved to Beirut through a United Nations asylum programme and Sabeeha underwent surgery for her liver. Sabeeha Rasheed Mashi undergoing treatment in Lebanon (Supplied) Still, she is in need of continuous treatment which Riyaadh said has been tough to secure. Seeing her reduced to a painful state has been an agonising ordeal. “What is her fault? Why is this her fate? We are a family that loves peace, we hold no hatred or resentment towards anyone,” he said. “My wife, she is the rock of my life, the pillar of my family. Now look – more than 20 years of suffering, and for what? What is her crime? Why was she shot?” He concluded long ago that the pursuit of justice was futile, but there are no other options. “Peace and tolerance must prevail. The rule of law protecting civilians and human rights must be applied equally,” he said. “Too many people with no responsibility for conflicts and wars have paid a fatal price, and greater efforts are needed to assist those affected.” The Ministry of Defence was asked to comment. The post [‘Why was she shot?’ Iraqi family’s quest for justice after UK raid][9] appeared first on [Declassified UK][10]. [1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61126 [2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=61126 [3]: https://www.politico.eu/article/tony-blair-i-regret-mistakes-but-iraq-war-was-justified/ [4]: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-british-army-permitted-shooting-civilians-iraq-and-afghanistan [5]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/11/iraq.military [6]: https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Juristische_Dokumente/ECCHR_Follow_Up_Communication_to_OTP_War_crimes_by_UK_forces_in_Iraq_July_2019.pdf [7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=606 [8]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=606 [9]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-was-she-shot-iraqi-familys-quest-for-justice-after-uk-raid/ [10]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-was-she-shot-iraqi-familys-quest-for-justice-after-uk-raid/

UK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts [Business secretary Peter Kyle and defence secretary John Healey. (Photo: Yui Mok / Alamy)] The Ministry of Defence is reportedly [set][1] to award a £2 billion contract to a consortium led by Raytheon UK despite major corruption and fraud violations recently levelled against its American parent company RTX. The contract, which aims to modernise the army’s training infrastructure using “advanced simulation”, will be awarded through a competitive process in which Raytheon UK seeks to displace a rival bid led by Israel’s Elbit Systems UK. RTX is already a major [supplier][2] to the UK Ministry of Defence, having completed integration trials for the Paveway precision-guided missile on the Typhoon aircraft in 2025. The company [says][3] it has a “decades-long partnership with the British army”, and holds licences to [export][4] F-35 fighter jet components which are used by Israel. Yet in 2024, RTX [faced][5] significant legal sanctions in the US relating to alleged bribery of foreign officials, defective pricing, and export control violations. The company settled several federal investigations with overall penalties exceeding $950 million. Crucially, Freedom of Information requests suggest that UK export-licensing authorities have taken no action in response to these developments. The Department for Business and Trade and the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) said in October 2025 they hold no internal correspondence, briefs, or risk assessments relating to the RTX enforcement actions. This is despite the UK’s [own guidelines][6] for military export licences explicitly requiring ongoing assessment of risk of diversion, misuse, and breach of international humanitarian law. The guidelines also direct authorities to consider exporter conduct and compliance history. ### RELATED [ ## Revealed: The secret Whitehall committee that holds ‘no records’ ][7] [READ MORE **][8] In response to further FOI requests, the Ministry of Defence also refused to clarify whether RTX’s enforcement actions abroad were internally discussed when deliberating the award of major contracts to the company. This apparent inaction raises fundamental questions about whether systemic reassessment of exporter behaviour takes place when serious misconduct comes to light. It also comes as the UK’s National Audit Office has found in [a new report][9] released last week that the defence ministry could “make significant savings” if it better managed losses from economic crimes, including procurement fraud. The business and trade department and defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment about whether they consider foreign corruption scandals when awarding export licences or training contracts to firms. Raytheon has been the [subject ][10]of past enforcement [controversies][11] in Britain, with the company refusing to explain its activities to the government’s committees on arms export control in 2019 while arming Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen. Its competitor for the army training contract, Elbit Systems, is also [facing][12] accusations of breaching business appointment rules while continuing to hold export licences granted by the ECJU. Campaign Against Arms Trade ([CAAT][13]) spokesperson Emily Apple told *Declassified*: “Time and again successive governments have lied, repeatedly telling us the UK has one of the most robust arms export control systems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth”. The business and trade department said: “The UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. “All export licensing decisions are made in line with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and our assessments take all information relevant to the risk of diversion or misuse into account”. ### RELATED [ ## Israeli fighter pilots training with UK equipment ][14] [READ MORE **][15] ## **Moog** The issue is not unique to RTX. Another defence contractor, Moog Inc., resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) administrative [order][16] in October 2024 involving bribery by its Indian subsidiary. The FCPA is a US federal law which makes it illegal for US persons or companies to bribe foreign government officials to gain a business advantage. However, the ECJU also holds “no information” about any discussions relating to that FCPA order, according to the FOI documents seen by *Declassified*. Together, the RTX and Moog cases represent the only publicly reported defence industry FCPA-related enforcement actions in 2024. Moog currently [holds][17] UK licenses to export components for trainer aircraft used by the Israeli air force, and contributes to the global F-35 programme. Public information raises further questions about how Moog’s compliance oversight function was structured during the period in which these violations allegedly occurred. According to a LinkedIn profile, Moog’s compliance manager has had oversight of both Moog UK and Moog India since before 2020 — the period during which the company’s Indian subsidiary was later found by US authorities to have engaged in bribery of state officials. “While the existence of a group-level compliance function does not itself imply wrongdoing, it underscores that Moog’s UK operations were not operating in isolation from wider corporate compliance arrangements at the time, and raises legitimate questions about how compliance risks were identified, escalated, and addressed across the group”, said Emily Apple from CAAT. Despite these questions, Moog Wolverhampton has not been subject to an ECJU compliance visit since 2022, according to further FOI requests issued in November. This is notable given that the site was inspected twice within a two-month period that year, a pattern potentially associated with follow-up or remedial reviews. Yet the company’s sites in Britain have apparently not been revisited in the three years since, including after Moog’s US parent company agreed a major FCPA settlement in 2024. Emily Apple added: “Whether it’s ignoring corruption scandals, or trampling over international law, it appears there are no limits to the steps the government is prepared to take to prioritise arms dealers’ profits. This is a system beyond reform. It is out of control, devoid of ethics and operating beyond the law”. Moog and RTX did not respond to requests for comment. The post [UK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts][18] appeared first on [Declassified UK][19]. [1]: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/israeli-firm-denied-army-training-contract-rn8qss0g8?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqeb1sHSc8oOI1JaS5__5bJVNt8NpV0daX1Pa-MfDLKIHBt1EdyoIxbV_J0gyRA%3D&gaa_ts=69788d39&gaa_sig=NgvMnKMX-pkHeFz4UYMz4sJZA_365nfAuZbci28SPlHVkzUpmmICq-M2xDMet7ksf77mkF5M3dQugaG-moGw4A%3D%3D [2]: https://caat.org.uk/data/companies/rtx/ [3]: https://www.raytheon.co.uk/news/2024/11/14/raytheon-uk-secures-two-year-extension-for-command-and-staff-training-with-british-army [4]: https://caat.org.uk/data/countries/israel/mapped-all-the-uk-companies-manufacturing-components-for-israels-f35-combat-aircraft/ [5]: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-171 [6]: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2021-12-08/hcws449 [7]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=1291 [8]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=1291 [9]: https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/smarter-approach-to-tackling-fraud-and-economic-crime-could-save-mod-millions/ [10]: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/mar/20/britain-arms-export-watchdog-in-danger-of-becoming-toothless [11]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/exclusive-british-government-breaks-inspection-rules-at-scottish-missile-factory-supplying-saudi-air-war-in-yemen-its-fourth-breach/ [12]: https://www.thenational.scot/news/25410239.former-british-soldier-broke-rules-meeting-israeli-arms-firm/ [13]: https://caat.org.uk/ [14]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=59833 [15]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/?post_type=post&p=59833 [16]: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-170 [17]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/israeli-fighter-pilots-training-with-uk-equipment/ [18]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/ [19]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/

Palestine Action protesters found not guilty of Elbit burglary [Palestine Action dismantle Elbit equipment, 6 August 2024. (Photo: Handout)] Six Palestine Action protesters have been found not guilty of aggravated burglary at an Elbit weapons site near Bristol. Zoe Rogers, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Jordan Devlin were also not convicted of any other charges by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court on Wednesday. The group were on trial for a break-in at an Israeli-owned arms factory on 6 August 2024 at the height of the genocide in Gaza. Keir Starmer’s Labour government only placed partial restrictions on arms exports to Israel the following month. The activists spent 18 months on remand before their trial began in November 2025. Jurors did not convict them of any charges despite the judge trying to limit defences available to the activists. A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said: “These verdicts are a huge blow to government ministers who have tried to portray Palestine Action as a violent group to justify banning it under badly drafted terrorism legislation. “Despite government efforts to prejudice this trial, citing the allegations of violence to justify treating Palestine Action as ‘terrorists’, as if they were already proved, the jury which heard the evidence has refused to find the defendants guilty of anything, not even criminal damage. “It shows how out of step this government is with public opinion, which is revulsed by the Government and Elbit’s complicity in genocide.” Around 40 family and friends of the defendants were gathered outside Woolwich Crown Court, hugging and crying. Inside bail hearings were ongoing for the six with rulings expected before 3pm. Friends said they hoped they would be coming out today. Moved to a patch of grass outside the court, several in the crowd shared a meal on paper plates and greeted an increasing number supporters who arrived by public transport. “I’m so happy,” one supporter shouted. A truck carrying prisoners passed by with an audible banging sound from inside. The crowd welped and started to cheer. One drummed. A supporter acknowledged the truck probably didn’t hold the defendants. “We’re just excited,” they said. The post [Palestine Action protesters found not guilty of Elbit burglary][1] appeared first on [Declassified UK][2]. [1]: https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-protesters-found-not-guilty-of-elbit-burglary/ [2]: https://www.declassifieduk.org https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-protesters-found-not-guilty-of-elbit-burglary/