Asking Israel to reach a ceasefire with Hamas is “untenable”, the UK’s defence secretary has said, as the number of MPs calling for a cessation of hostilities grows.
Grant Shapps said Israel has “a right” to “go after” Hamas after its gunmen killed more than 1,400 Israelis on 7 October and abducted over 220 other people who are now being held hostage in Gaza.
Mr Shapps, who recently replaced Ben Wallace as defence secretary, took the same position as Rishi Sunak who said during Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday that the “first and most important principle is that Israel has the right to defend itself under law”.
However, Mr Sunak agreed that humanitarian aid had to get to civilians in Gaza and confirmed an RAF plane was on its way to the region with 21 tonnes of supplies, including medical equipment and water filters.
Image: An Israeli tank and military vehicles are seen near Israel’s border with the Gaza Strip, in southern Israel
The Hamas-run health ministry has said at least 6,546 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza.
Mr Shapps told the Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge that he agreed it was “very important that we can deliver that aid”.
More on Grant Shapps
Related Topics:
“The difference is we understand that Israel was attacked in a very brutal way by Hamas terrorists, butchering men, women and children ISIS-style,” he said.
“I think to then ask Israel not to respond – or what you would describe as a ceasefire – I think is untenable.
Advertisement
“They have a right to go after those terrorists but it is the international humanitarian situation that a pause could assist with.”
Mr Shapps went on to argue that if there had been a terrorist attack in the UK on the same scale that Israel had endured, “no one would expect us not to go after the perpetrators”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:03
Reality of Palestinians in Gaza City
“To call for a ceasefire is to essentially say to Israel, having gone through that absolutely horrific terrorist attack just over two weeks ago, don’t go after Hamas – and I don’t think anyone thinks that would be right,” he said.
“And so we can understand and appreciate under international law that Israel has the absolute right to do that.
“We also believe that it needs to be done in a proportionate way with international human rights law in place and that is very clear.”
In the past few days, a number of MPs from across the political divide have called for a ceasefire, arguing that there was a “human responsibility” to protect civilians in the Gaza Strip who have had their water and power limited by Israel following the 7 October attack.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:24
Grandmother on losing her grandson
Speaking at this week’s PMQs, the deputy leader of the SNP, Mhairi Black, pointed to warnings from the United Nations that some hospitals in Gaza City had less than 20 hours of fuel left and their electricity “runs out tonight”.
She was joined by the leader of Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic and Labour Party, Colum Eastwood, who asked: “As 1,400 Israelis and almost 6,000 Palestinians lay dying and dead, when will the prime minister say enough is enough? When will he call for a ceasefire?”
Labour shadow minister for equalities Yasmin Qureshi also echoed the calls for a truce and read out an email from one of her constituents with relatives in Gaza, which read: “My heart can’t handle this. We are being massacred, relentlessly bombed, homes are being destroyed [and there is] no water, no food, no electricity.”
In response to the calls from MPs, Mr Sunak urged people to remember that Israel had suffered “a shockinglybrutal terrorist attack”.
“Hamas is responsible for this conflict and Israel has the right to protect itself in line with international law as the UN charter makes clear.”
The Labour Party has also resisted calls for a ceasefire but has signalled its support for a humanitarian pause in order to protect civilians.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The stance is the same as that adopted by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who told the UN Security Council on Tuesday that a humanitarian pause meant Israel “must take all possible precautions to avoid harm to civilians.
“It means food, water, medicine, and other essential humanitarian assistance must be able to flow into Gaza and to the people who need them.”
Asked whether he believed a ground invasion would fall under Israel’s right to defend itself, Mr Shapps told Ridge: “As long as the people that they are going after are the Hamas terrorists, yes.
“The problem we have with Hamas is not just that they butchered and killed and raped those Israelis. It’s that they also use their own Palestinian population – who are no friends of Hamas – as human shields, and they hide themselves amongst them.
“And so we understand and appreciate that it’s a very difficult position for Israel to be in.”
The US Securities and Exchange Commission, under former chair Gary Gensler, used settlements to pressure founders of decentralized finance platforms from ever working in the industry again, according to venture capital firm Founders Fund partner Joey Krug.
“The thing people don’t really know about is that the government, in many cases, went to founders of DeFi protocols […] and basically told the founders you effectively have to do a settlement with us,” Krug said on stage at the ETHDenver conference on Feb. 27.
“In many cases, they said you also have to sign a thing that says you will never work in crypto again,” he added. “By the way, this agreement, you can’t really talk about it publicly because there’s a non-disparagement clause.”
Krug’s claim adds to a crypto industry rumor dubbed “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” that says the Biden administration tried to kill the local industry through regulators’ enforcement actions and by pressuring banks to cut off or limit services to crypto firms.
“These agencies would basically go to the founders, and they would say, ‘Hey, if you don’t agree to this, you’re just going to end up in jail.’”
Krug said such civil agencies would have to defer to the Department of Justice for it to file criminal charges, but “none of these matters have been referred to the DOJ yet.” He also claimed that “none of these founders actually broke the law.”
Krug said that at first, he “didn’t really believe” such settlements existed, but some founders — who he didn’t name — later showed him their agreements.
Joey Krug (left) on stage with Axios’ Brady Dale (right) at ETHDenver 2025. Source: Turner Wright/Cointelegraph
“Sure enough, there are clauses that say you can never work in crypto again [and] you can’t talk about this to anyone,” he said.
“It was just a crazy, crazy administrative state that got really out of control.”
The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Since 1972, the SEC has included a “gag rule” in its settlements that forbids defendants from criticizing the agency’s claims — a clause that Commissioner Hester Peirce has said “undermines regulatory integrity.”
Krug said the only way DeFi founders could comment on the settlements is if Congress asked them to testify. He added there are “a lot of founders who would love to talk about how the government basically really screwed them over if Congress asked them to testify.”
Earlier this month, the bank-regulating Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released nearly 800 pages of so-called “pause letters” that it sent banks and finance firms over their crypto services.
Both the US House and Senate held hearings on crypto debanking in early February that heard from crypto executives on their claimed torrid dealings with trying to access financial services under the Biden administration.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission says it does not view memecoins as securities but warned any fraudulent tokens could still be subject to enforcement actions by other regulators.
The agency’s Division of Corporation Finance said in a Feb. 27 statement that, in its view, memecoins “do not involve the offer and sale of securities under the federal securities laws” and “are akin to collectibles.”
“As such, persons who participate in the offer and sale of meme coins do not need to register their transactions with the Commission,” the SEC said.
It added that memecoin buyers and holders wouldn’t be protected by US securities laws but said the fraudulent offer and sale of memecoins “may be subject to enforcement action or prosecution by other federal or state agencies.”
The SEC added it shared its views “as part of an effort to provide greater clarity on the application of the federal securities laws to crypto assets.”
US President Donald Trump has moved to cull the SEC’s regulatory oversight of the crypto space, looking to make good on one of his campaign promises. The agency launched a Crypto Task Force last month to create a framework for digital assets.
Trump and first lady Melania Trump themselves had launched memecoins just days before they entered the White House on Jan. 20, which sparked criticism from many crypto commentators and some of Trump’s supporters.
Donald Trump’s memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP), is down nearly 83% from its peak, while Melania Trump’s token, Melania Meme (MELANIA), is down 93.5% from its high, accordingto CoinGecko.
The TRUMP memecoin hit a peak of $73.43 a day before Trump assumed office but is now trading at around $12.66. Source: CoinGecko
The SEC’s statement comes after ABC News reported the same day that US House Democrats are set to introduce a bill banning public officials, including presidents, from being able to issue, sponsor or endorse any security, commodity or digital asset, including memecoins.
In its statement, the SEC said that memecoins “typically have limited or no use or functionality” and “tend to experience significant market price volatility.”
It added a memecoin doesn’t fit with “any of the common financial instruments specifically enumerated in the definition of ‘security’” — such as stocks or bonds — as they don’t give a yield or rights to “future income, profits, or assets of a business.”
The SEC said a memecoin doesn’t fit under the definition of an “investment contract” under the securities-defining Howey test — defined as money invested in a common enterprise, such as a business, where investors have an expectation of profiting from the efforts of others.
“The offer and sale of meme coins does not involve an investment in an enterprise nor is it undertaken with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others,” the agency said.
“In other words, a meme coin is not itself a security.”
The SEC added that its statement doesn’t apply to memecoins inconsistent with its description of one, or any products labeled as a memecoin in a bid to hide from securities laws “by disguising a product that otherwise would constitute a security.”
“The Division will evaluate the economic realities of the particular transaction,” it said.
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who is leading the agency’s Crypto Task Force, said earlier this month that many memecoins “probably do not have a home in the SEC under our current set of regulations.”
Recent efforts to “debank” crypto firms in the US revealed a “staggering” level of corruption among government officials, and the problem is not yet resolved, one banking executive said in a Feb. 27 interview during Bitcoin Investor Week.
“The magnitude of skullduggery that is happening in Washington D.C. is really incredible… and it’s not over yet,” Caitlin Long, Custodia Bank’s founder and CEO, said during a panel at the event.
In 2023, the US Federal Reserve, which regulates banks, stymied Custodia’s efforts to service crypto firms by denying the bank access to a master account, citing Custodia’s involvement in “crypto-asset-related activities.”
A master account would allow the bank to custody assets directly with the central bank and access payment rails for inter-bank transfers. Custodia took legal action against the Fed in a bid to reverse the decision.
Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long speaks at Bitcoin Investor Week. Source: Cointelegraph
Industry outrage over alleged debanking reached a crescendo when a June 2024 lawsuit spearheaded by Coinbase resulted in the release of letters showing US banking regulators asked certain financial institutions to “pause” crypto banking activities.
US President Donald Trump, who started his term on Jan. 20, has criticized the prior administration’s approach to crypto-friendly banks and vowed to better integrate cryptocurrencies, including stablecoins, into the regulated financial system.
In a Jan. 23 executive order, Trump told agencies to prioritize “fair and open access to banking services” for digital asset firms.
Stablecoin scrum
However, the battle for regulatory clarity isn’t over, Long said. Instead, it has evolved into a multi-directional fight among different types of stablecoin issuers seeking preferential rules, she said.
There is an ongoing “scrum between the big banks… and the incumbent stablecoin issuers, and then there’s Tether,” which is not based in the US, Long said.
The result has been “this incredible flow of money that has gone from the banks and the crypto industry to people in [Washington] D.C., and they’re all going to fight,” Long said.
“I don’t know how it’s going to come out,” she added.