Connect with us

Published

on

A Holocaust survivor has told Sky News that the language used by Home Secretary Suella Braverman to describe immigrants is “very, very similar” to that used in Nazi Germany against Jewish people.

Joan Salter, 83, had confronted Ms Braverman during a meeting in her Fareham constituency in Hampshire on Friday evening, to criticise her choice of language. While the home secretary said she “shared a huge amount of concern”, she refused to apologise for her words.

Ms Salter went further on Saturday, telling Sky News: “I feel very strongly that the Holocaust ended in the death camps but it started with words, with othering the Jewish people, blaming them for all the problems in Germany, and I am afraid that the actions and words of our home secretary is very, very similar.

Joan Salter confronted Suella Braverman during a constituency meeting in Hampshire
Image:
Joan Salter confronted Suella Braverman during a constituency meeting in Hampshire

“She needs to look into her humanity rather than dehumanising a group of people many of whom are absolutely desperate.”

Ms Salter, who has been recognised with an MBE for her work on Holocaust education, had claimed at the meeting that Ms Braverman’s rhetoric was similar to that used to justify murdering her family under the Third Reich.

Footage of the exchange, provided by the charity Freedom From Torture, shows Ms Salter saying: “I am a child survivor of the Holocaust.

“In 1943, I was forced to flee my birthplace in Belgium and went across war-torn Europe and dangerous seas until I finally was able to come to the UK in 1947.

More on Suella Braverman

“When I hear you using words against refugees like ‘swarms’ and an ‘invasion’, I am reminded of the language used to dehumanise and justify the murder of my family and millions of others.

“Why do you find the need to use that kind of language?”

‘I see my job as being honest’

Ms Braverman thanked Ms Salter for her question, and said she “shared a huge amount of concern and sympathy” over the “challenge” of illegal immigration, adding that her own parents were not born in Britain.

Speaking about her parents, Ms Braverman said: “They owe everything to this country and they have taught me a deep and profound love of Britain and British people. Their tolerance, their generosity, their decency, their fair play.

“That also means that we must not shy away from saying there is a problem. There is a huge problem that we have right now when it comes to illegal migration, the scale of which we have not known before.

“I won’t apologise for the language that I have used to demonstrate the scale of the problem.

“I see my job as being honest with the British people and honest for the British people.

“I’m not going to shy away from difficult truths nor am I going to conceal what is the reality that we are all watching.”

Ms Braverman added that she was “incredibly proud” of the UK’s recent immigration record but added that “we have a problem with people exploiting our generosity, breaking our laws and undermining our system”.

Ms Braverman’s answer was greeted with applause from the audience.

The Home Office response

Born Fanny Zimetbaum in Brussels in 1940 to Polish Jewish parents, Ms Salter was three months old when Belgium was invaded by the Nazis.

Following the invasion, she escaped to France with her mother and sister before being taken by the Red Cross to the US in 1943.

Ms Salter was in foster care in America until being reunited with her parents in 1947 in London, where she has lived ever since.

A statement from the Home Office said the footage of the exchange had been “heavily edited” and did not “reflect the full exchange”.

It added: “The home secretary listened carefully to the testimony. She thanked her for sharing her story.

“The home secretary also expressed her sympathy and set out why it is important to tackle illegal migration.

“Since the footage misrepresents the interaction about a sensitive area of policy, we have asked the organisation who posted the video to take it down.”

What language has Ms Braverman used?

Less than a week into her tenure as home secretary under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Ms Braverman referred to her job as being “about stopping the invasion on our southern coast”.

She has said that speaking about the issue is “not xenophobic or anti-immigration” but the “reality acknowledged and felt by the vast majority of the British public”.

Continue Reading

World

UAE says navigational error caused oil tankers to collide near Strait of Hormuz

Published

on

By

UAE says navigational error caused oil tankers to collide near Strait of Hormuz

A crash between two oil tankers on a major shipping route near the UAE was likely caused by a navigational misjudgement by one of the vessels, officials have said.

The Adalynn and Front Eagle tankers collided and caught on fire on Tuesday near the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.

Israel-Iran latest: Tehran warns US against intervention

In a statement issued today, the United Arab Emirates’ energy ministry did not draw any link between the crash and an upsurge in electronic interference amid the Israel-Iran conflict.

Interference has disrupted navigation systems near the strait since the two countries began firing missiles at each other last week.

The multinational US-led Combined Maritime Force’s Joint Maritime Information Centre said in an advisory this week that it had received reports of interference stemming from near Iran’s Port of Bandar Abbas and other areas in the Gulf region.

Tehran has not commented on the collision or reports of interference.

The UAE coastguard said it evacuated 24 people from the Adalynn, while personnel on Front Eagle were reported safe with no pollution visible after a fire on its deck.

Read more from Sky News:
Why Israel-Iran conflict poses cost of living threat
Who has been targeted in Israel’s strikes?

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

The Strait of Hormuz – which handles around a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil – links the Gulf to the northwest with the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea beyond.

The Adalynn, owned by a company based in India, had no cargo and was sailing towards the Suez Canal in Egypt, according to monitoring service TankerTrackers.com.

The Front Eagle was on its way to Zhoushan in China – and loaded with two million barrels of Iraqi crude oil, the tracker said.

TankerTrackers.com said on X that the Front Eagle was moving southbound at a speed of 13.1 knots when it “executed a starboard [right] turn, resulting in a collision” with the Adalynn.

The exact cause of the collision, which resulted in no injuries or spills, is still unclear.

Continue Reading

World

US President Donald Trump says he ‘may or may not’ strike Iran as Israel’s air war continues

Published

on

By

US President Donald Trump says he 'may or may not' strike Iran as Israel's air war continues

US President Donald Trump says he has yet to decide whether the US will join Israel militarily in its campaign against Iran.

Asked whether the US was getting closer to striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, Mr Trump said: “I may do it. I may not do it.”

Speaking outside the White House on Wednesday, he added: “Nobody knows what I’m going to do…Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate.

“And I said, ‘why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?'”

Mr Trump said Iran had reached out to Washington, a claim Tehran denied, with Iran’s mission to the UN responding: “No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House.”

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran would not surrender and warned “any US military intervention will undoubtedly cause irreparable damage” to US-Iranian relations.

Read more:
Why did Israel attack Iran?

More on Iran

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The families caught up in Iran-Israel attacks

Strikes continue

Hundreds have reportedly died since Iran and Israel began exchanging strikes last Friday, when Israel launched an air assault after saying it had concluded Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran denies.

Israel launched three waves of aerial attacks on Iran in the last 24 hours, military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin has said.

Israel deployed dozens of warplanes to strike over 60 targets in Tehran and western Iran, including missile launchers and missile-production sites, he said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Can Iran’s leadership be toppled?

“The aim of the operation is to eliminate the existential threat to the State of Israel, significantly damage Iran’s nuclear programme in all its components, and severely impact its missile array,” he said.

Early on Thursday Israel issued an evacuation warning to residents of the Iranian Arak region where Iran has heavy water reactor facilities. Heavy water is important in controlling chain reactions in the production of weapons grade plutonium.

Meanwhile Iran says it has arrested 18 people it describes as “enemy agents” who it says were building drones for the Israelis in the northern city of Mashhad.

Iran also launched small barrages of missiles at Israel on Wednesday with no reports of casualties. Israel has now eased some restrictions for its civilians.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Read more:
Trump’s words designed to stoke tension, confuse and apply intense pressure on Iran
MAGA civil war breaks out over Trump’s potential decision to join conflict with Iran

The US is working to evacuate its citizens from Israel by arranging flights and cruise ship departures, the US ambassador to the country has said.

In the UK, Sir Keir Starmer chaired a COBRA emergency meeting on the situation in the Middle East, with a Downing Street spokesperson saying: “Ministers were updated on efforts to support British nationals in region and protect regional security, as well as ongoing diplomatic efforts”.

Continue Reading

World

UK attorney general ‘has questions’ on legality of Israel’s actions in Iran

Published

on

By

UK attorney general 'has questions' on legality of Israel's actions in Iran

The UK government’s top legal adviser has raised questions over whether Israel’s actions in Iran are lawful, according to a source familiar with discussions inside the government.

The source suggested to Sky News that Attorney General Richard Hermer’s thinking, which has not been published, complicates the UK’s potential involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict.

If the attorney general deems Israel’s actions in Iran to be unlawful then the UK is restricted in its ability to help to defend Israel or support the United States in any planned attacks on Iran.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the attorney general’s concerns limit UK involvement in the conflict “unless our personnel are targeted”.

US President Donald Trump is currently weighing up his options for Iran and has repeatedly suggested the US could get involved militarily.

Members of the Israeli special forces check the remains of a suspected ballistic missile in northern Israel.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Members of the Israeli special forces check the remains of a suspected ballistic missile in northern Israel.
Pic: Reuters

This would likely involve the use of US B-2 bombers to drop bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran’s nuclear facility built deep into the side of a mountain at Fordow.

These B-2 bombers could be flown from the UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, strategically close to Iran.

More on Iran

The US could also choose to fly them the far greater distance from the US mainland.

Under a long-standing convention, the UK grants permission to the US for the base to be used for military operations.

The US military could also request the use of the UK military base in Cyprus, for refuelling planes.

Any refusal by the British could complicate US military action and, diplomatically, put pressure on the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Israel’s justification

Israel has justified its war by claiming that Iran poses an “imminent” and “existential” threat to Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited his country’s own undisclosed intelligence claiming Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Israeli government also claimed, without publishing evidence, that Iran was planning an imminent attack on Israel.

They also cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report which concluded that Iran had been “less than satisfactory” in “a number of respects” on its international compliance over its nuclear activities.

It is not clear what aspect of Israel’s justification for military action the attorney general has concerns over.

The Attorney General’s Office has told Sky News: “By long-standing convention, reflected in the ministerial code, whether the law officers have been asked to provide legal advice and the content of any advice is not routinely disclosed.

“The convention provides the fullest guarantee that government business will be conducted at all times in light of thorough and candid legal advice.”

The UK armed forces have previously rallied to help defend Israel from Iranian missile and drone strikes when the two sides engaged in direct confrontation last year.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Michael Clarke and Dominic Waghorn answer your questions about the Israel-Iran conflict

In April 2024, RAF typhoon jets shot down drones fired from Iran.

The UK military was also involved in efforts to defend Israel from a ballistic missile attack in October 2024.

But the UK has not been involved in the current conflict, which began when Israel targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and scientists as well as more definitive military targets such as missile launchers and commanders.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog has previously raised concerns about any attack against nuclear facilities because of the inherent danger but also the legality.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

A number of resolutions passed by the IAEA’s general conference has said “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”.

Israel believes that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military use, which makes it a legitimate target.

Read more:
US senator claims Iran is building missiles that can ‘murder Americans’
Moscow switches to crisis mode after Trump’s Iran threats

It believes the regime is aimed to enrich uranium to develop nuclear weapons.

Tehran, however, has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use.

The site of an Iranian missile attack on Israel. Pic: Reuters
Image:
The site of an Iranian missile attack on Israel. Pic: Reuters

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has also condemned Israel’s use of armed force against Iran as a violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter and international law.

Interpretations of International Law

Different countries adopt varying interpretations on the use of force in response to future attacks.

The first legal position is that nations can act preventatively to deflect threats.

The second is that they can act to deflect future armed attacks that are imminent.

The third is that states can only act to deflect attacks that have occurred.

Flames rise from an oil storage facility after it appeared to have been struck by an Israeli missile in Tehran. Pic: AP
Image:
An oil storage facility after it appeared to have been struck by an Israeli missile in Tehran. Pic: AP

That third position is generally considered to be too restrictive and the first as too broad.

The grey area lies with the second position, and it rests with the definition of “imminent”.

The concepts of “proportionality”, “necessity” and “imminence” are key considerations.

International law scholars have told Sky News that Israel may pass the “proportionality” test in its actions against Iran because its targets appear to have been military and nuclear.

But whether there was the “necessity” to attack Iran at this point is more questionable.

The attorney general would likely be considering the key legal test of the ‘imminence’ of the Iranian threat against Israel – and whether it is reasonable to conclude that an attack from Iran was “imminent” – as he weighs the legal advice issued to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

There is always nuance with legal advice, judgements rest on a variety of factors and advice can evolve.

In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, the US and UK justified their action by arguing that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction – a claim that turned out to be wrong.

The then-attorney general’s advice, which evolved, was central to Tony Blair’s decision to join President Bush in attacking Iraq.

Continue Reading

Trending