��������

LONDON: A resolution has been introduced by a group of Democratic senators in the US in a bid to get the White House to recognize a demilitarized Palestinian state.

The non-binding legislation proposed by Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley comes ahead of the UN General Assembly in New York on Sept. 23, where a number of states have indicated that they will recognize Palestine.

A similar piece of legislation has been proposed by California Democrat Ro Khanna in the House of Representatives.

Earlier this week, a UN commission said it believes there are reasonable grounds to suspect that Israel is responsible for genocide in Gaza.

The resolution calls on Hamas to lay down its arms and release all remaining hostages, while demanding that Israel halt its war in Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank.

Other signatories include Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Tina Smith of Minnesota, and Vermont’s Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders.

Merkley told the New York Times: “We need to have an immediate ceasefire, the hostages returned and an inundation of aid. But we also need a vision for where we go so that 30 years from now, there is a peaceful and prosperous Middle East where we’re not caught in the grip of this conflict.”

He added: “I grew up with the framework of the best path to peace is to always stand with Israel, because they will feel the confidence to reach an agreement, but Israel is no longer interested. They’re interested in taking the West Bank. They’re interested in taking Gaza.”

Van Hollen said recent Israeli activity in Gaza was a “campaign of ethnic cleansing,” adding: “The best viable way forward that provides both security and dignity and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians alike is a two-state solution.”

The proposal is unlikely to pass the Republican-led Senate, with no senators from the governing party backing it at this time.

CHEQUERS: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Thursday that Britain protects freedom of speech “jealously” and “fiercely” after US criticism and several cases have focused attention on British laws.
“Free speech, it’s one of the founding values of the United Kingdom, and we protect it jealously and fiercely and always will,” Starmer told a press conference with US President Donald Trump at the end of a state visit to the UK.
“We will bear down on any limits of free speech,” Starmer vowed, but warned that “I draw a limit between free speech and the speech of those that want to peddle paedophilia and suicide (on) social media to children.”
The British leader added the killing of US conservative influencer Charlie Kirk last week was “shocking ... to everybody who believes in free speech and in democracy.”
Free speech has recently hit the headlines in the UK over various cases, which have drawn criticism from US figures.
Debate also swirled around last year’s sentencing of a woman to 31 months in prison for writing on X “Set fire to all the... hotels (housing asylum seekers)... for all I care,” as anti-immigration, far-right riots spread across England.
US Vice President JD Vance has been particularly vocal about the issue, raising it with Starmer during a White House meeting in February.
Vance previously claimed free speech is “in retreat” across Europe, and doubled down on the remarks during Starmer’s visit, claiming that “infringements on free speech” had affected British people.
British politician and leader of the hard-right Reform party Nigel Farage asked before a US congressional committee: “At what point did we become North Korea?“
He was speaking after award-winning comedy writer Graham Linehan was arrested and charged earlier in September over three social media posts against a transgender person.
Tech billionaire and X owner Elon Musk has also accused Britain of being a “police state.”
When asked by a reporter whether the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show over the comedian’s comments about Kirk on Wednesday was a case of free speech being threatened, Trump replied: “Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings... so you can call that free speech, or not, he was fired for lack of talent.”