A UK foreign secretary resigns over the fomented case for war ...
... unfortunately not David Lammy 2025 on Iran but Robin Cook 2003 over Iraq - but the parallels are stunning
Summary
an analysis of the former UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s famous 2003 anti- Iraq war resignation speech
his words are stunning - not just with the historical context on Iraq proving him right - but also with Israel’s aggression on Iran today
Shortcut: Jump past contents to start reading main body of the article:👉 CLICK HERE
First published: 18 Jun 2025
Updated: 19 Jun 2025 (see version history)
Contents
End Papers
1. Introduction
Some years ago as part of an MBA, I was studying public communication in a class taken by of Obama’s speechwriters.
We each had to choose a favourite speech to write a research paper on.
I chose that by a fellow Scotsman - Robin Cook who served in the UK cabinet of Tony Blair from the historic New Labour victory of 1997.
Cook was the UK Foreign Secretary at the time of his speech on 17th March 2003 - when he resigned from the Government in protest at the decision to proceed with war in Iraq against his recommendations not to.
There was little supporting evidence of the stated threat of “weapons of mass destruction”, diplomacy was in progress and it was clearly a rush to war to suit an apparently staged US agenda1.
Sound familiar?
Cook’s words are stunning in today’s context with respect to Israel’s aggression on Iran.
Note: At the time of writing Wednesday 18th June 2025 Iran and Israel have been exchanging fire for almost 5 days straight. The US has not yet entered - but things are moving quick. It will be apparent soon what the outcome is - but regardless - the current rhetoric is a mirror of that used to justify the Iraq War. Cook’s words of warning are all the more prophetic.
2. Key quotes from Cook’s speech and current day parallels
The following are excerpts from Cook’s 2003 speech looking at parallels with contemporary events. Further context for the geopolitical events of the time are covered in Appendix A: Geopolitical historical context the full text of Cook’s 12 minute oratory reproduced in Appendix B: Full text of Cook’s speech.
2.1 International Law
Cook (2003): “The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council”
At the time - as with action in Afghanistan a UNSC resolution was required to take action on behalf of the UN in Iraq. This was not forthcoming.
Today - international law be damned.
The similarities are obvious - an aggression against a sovereign state without the due process of a United Nations Security Council resolution to address a global threat.
But the change in the attitudes to international law since then are stunning.
2.1.1 Russia
2013 Invasion of Crimea - international sanctions (including removal from the G8 nations now G7)
2022 Invasion of Ukraine - further international sanctions. The ICC issues arrest warrants for crimes against humanity for Putin’s alleged forced shipment of children from Ukraine to Russia.
2.1.2 Hamas
Israel is attacked and horrific war crimes are committed by Hamas on civilians. Justice is sought via the ICC - Hamas is not a state so international criminal law applies rather than laws applying to states.
Arrest warrants are issued for Hamas commanders - all of whom assassinated by Israel. Regardless - there will be other commanders and others identified for trial in the future.
2.1.3 Israel
2.1.3.1 Gaza
ICJ issued three provisional orders Jan - May 2024 for Israel to protect Gazan citizens as there was a plausible case for genocide in a later case, requiring urgent action.
IGNORED - with exponential deaths and with Trump administration coming in November 2024 Israel acting with further impunity - literally starving Gazans for months.
ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Galant for alleged crimes against humanity. This is after the ICC were investigating another case from a 2014 massacre in Gaza that only opened in 2021 (despite the Mossad director threatening the ICC Prosecutor).
IGNORED: The US deem the court to be unjust despite approving arrest warrants for Putin the previous year on lesser charges. The individual ICC judges are sanctioned. Netanyahu freely moves to certain ICC Statute signatory countries who are meant to facilitate his arrest - Mongolia being one.
2.1.3.2 The West Bank
ICJ responding to a request before October 7th - deemed Occupation in the West Bank to be illegal and a General Assembly motion (non-binding) indicated a huge consensus for this to happen.
IGNORED - Israel has in fact stepped up further their activities in the West Bank, with tanks rolling in for the first time.
2.1.3.3 Other Actions
Lebanon: pager explosions followed by carpet bombing of Beirut, killing the leader of Hezbollah.
Syria: invading further territory in the Golan Heights making an “expanded buffer zone” whilst the Syrian regime is toppled.
Iran: Israel conducts pre-emptive strikes on Iran citing “nuclear readiness” which it has been saying for 43 years. Netanyahu also talks about uncovering a plot amongst all Middle East countries without providing any evidence and also that Iran wants to assassinate Trump.
The real reason is executing a long-planned operation (like Lebanon, Syria) on fomented excuses since world opinion was changing on their Gazan genocide and the conversation had to be changed
2.2 Value for rules based order
Cook (2003): “Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.”
The United Nations?
In the face of horrific aggression - with the UN Charter preventing any action or intervention without the UNSC - the US continually uses its veto power to protect any criticism of Israel never mind intervention.
A (satirical) option is to put the children in charge of assessing vetoes. Perhaps not such a bad idea.2
2.3 Antisemitism is attempted to be framed as the new “unpatriotic”
Cook (2003): “It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk. Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.”
the obvious parallel here is "antisemitism” - it is NOT antisemitic to oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza neither in civil society nor in politics
yet a completely blind allegiance to Israel seems to be the litmus test for a political career
2.4 WMD Inspectors/atomic energy agencies see no imminent danger
Cook (2003): “Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.”
Parallel - there is no imminent nuclear capability for Israel and the IAEA have stated this to be the case clarifying the report in the previous week of non-compliance.
2.5 Israel: as example UN resolutions continually ignored
Cook (2003): “I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.”
Hypocrisy - the “one rule for Israel” that has been demonstrated so often over the last two years - but also historically
In particular focus with the inconsistent application of international law for Putin’s aggression in Russia vs. Netanyahu’s aggression in the Middle East.
2.6 Colonialism in the Middle East
Cook (2003): “I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.”
Nothing has changed here. Indeed there is a question on the “whiteness” of those supported by the International order from actions in Ukraine.
Zelensky even made a point of talking of “people looking Europeans like you” whilst appealing to the EU for assistance.
2.7 No interest in facts
Cook (2003): “Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.”
There is overwhelming evidence that the same excuse on nuclear readiness has been trotted out for years.
It is tragic and somewhat ironic that the last Trump administration cancelled the deal in place with Iran and that there is a more moderate President in place in Iran.
2.8 Destructive implications
Cook (2003): “None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.”
Cook was talking about the initial actions impact on civilians which was horrific. But the “long tail” of action was also horrendous.
With a broader conflict in the Middle East - this would be multiplied several times and who knows where it would end?
3. Shame counts for nothing
And so - Cook resigned and a coalition went into Iraq in a bloody war that killed thousands of civilians with an occupation lasting years.
Cook was completely right. No weapons of mass destruction were found and the justification was later found to be completely fabricated.
In 2003 US Commander Colin Powell as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff made a statement in the UN regarding Iraq’s fictional “weapons of mass destruction”3. This was a long statement including the presentation of detailed maps and diagrams which were completely false.
He later lamented “only having a week to study the information” and called his statement presenting false information “a blot” on his career that he took to his grave
An understatement if ever there was one with the terrible global consequences and hundreds of thousands of deaths from that framing of the justification.
4. Sleight of Hand
The current UK Foreign Secretary won’t be resigning and indeed had been extremely supportive of Israel (understandably since Lammy was amongst the 40% of Keir Starmer’s cabinet funded by the pro-Israel lobby in the UK4).
But on 20th May 2025 he finally spoke out strongly on Israel, suspending trade talks but stopping short of calling Israel’s actions in Gaza “a genocide”5.
A few weeks later he announced with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway co-ordinated sanctions on Israeli Government Ministers6.
The sanctions and increased rhetoric against Israel were literally three days before Israel decided to attack Iran.
As at today - Wednesday 18th June 2025 - Israel has attacked Iran unprovoked, citing an “imminent WMD risk” that it has been citing literally for 43 years. The timing has been just at the very point world opinion had been markedly changing on their genocidal actions in Gaza after 21 months of indiscriminate bombardment and blatant war crimes.
A terrible and obvious sleight of hand.
But I don’t see Israeli Government Ministers resigning - never mind US politicians - the main enablers for Israel - providing any criticism. Indeed the call is “Israel has the right to defend itself”.
Israel support has been falsely equated in the US as “patriotic” for political reasons - simply the influence that Israel has in the US Congress and indeed with the President himself. This too is transparent.
History has taught us nothing - and shame certainly counts for nothing.
International law be damned.
Israel’s actions against Iran are clearly inflammatory with the goal being to draw others into the regional conflict. Another aggressive regime leader did the same during the 1991 Gulf War.
Ironically this was firing unprovoked Scud missile barrages into Israel - and the aggressor was Saddam Hussein.
Epilogue: The death of Cook
Cook would never see the inevitability of the consequences of the Iraq war he warned against.
Two and a half years after his resignation in August 2005 Robin Cook was walking in his beloved Scottish Highlands with his wife when he had a sudden and severe heart attack. He could not be resuscitated and died later on arrival in hospital.
There was some conspiracy talk of a mystery figure who came to help the ailing Robin and his wife Gaynor on the hill but didn’t want publicity and wouldn’t leave his name - but I don’t buy that.
Cook was buried in the Grange Cemetery in Edinburgh with the epitaph on his headstone:
“I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war”
Appendix A: Geopolitical historical context
Robin Cook was a member of the UK Labour Party in the “New Labour” administration of Tony Blair after his 1997 landslide election victory. This was the second administration after Blair’s further win in the 2001 election.
After 9/11 the US had declared a “war on terror” and had formed a “coalition of the willing” to strike back at perceived targets in the Middle East with the stated mission of bringing the perpetrators to justice.
The US formed a “coalition of the willing” to take part in join military action - and even invoked Article 5 from the NATO Charter for the first time in the organisation’s history to call NATO members to assist another member who had been attacked. Which they did.
The first target was Afghanistan. The operation received full approval from the UN Security Council authorising the military action
The Taliban regime were ejected. The US occupied Afghanistan for almost 20 years and on leaving the Taliban walked back in within two days.
The second target was Iraq.
The US had been long-pushing for regime change in Iran - in particular after the 1991 first Gulf War where Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was pushed back in Operation Desert Storm.
In order to invade Iran the US needed a binding UN Security Council Resolution as with Afghanistan.
To do this compelling evidence had to be presented of a threat.
That threat was WMD - weapons of mass destruction.
The evidence was NOT compelling to say the least - appeared fomented, rushed and seeking an excuse for regime change. Multiple Governments, diplomats and politicians around the world were extremely sceptical.
Robin Cook was one of them.
No United Nations Security Council Resolution was in place due to this uncertainty - yet the decision was taken by the “coalition of the willing” to attack Iraq.
Robin Cook resigned and expressed his views in this statement to the house.
The Coalition invaded in 2003 - a long and bloody war with an occupation that lasted some 10 years.
The “evidence” was a blatant lie - with the real primary reason being regime change allowing access to oil markets - pursuing a US Policy for many years.
The information was proven to be a complete lie fabricated to justify the action.
In 2003 US Commander Colin Powell as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff made a statement in the UN regarding Iraq’s fictional “weapons of mass destruction”. This was a long statement including the presentation of detailed maps and diagrams which were completely false.
He later lamented “only having a week to study the information” and called his statement presenting false information “a blot” on his career that he took to his grave
An understatement if ever there was one with the terrible global consequences and hundreds of thousands of deaths from that framing of the justification.
Appendix B: Video and full text of Cook’s speech
The following is a video of Cook’s speech in the Commons (12 minutes):
The full text is below. Note that I have added section headings to break the original 12 minute speech into sections for ease of reading and added reference footnotes as appropriate.
B.1 Introduction
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.
I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
B.2 Backing Blair
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
B.3 French intransigence?
France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.
It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition7.
B.4 'Heavy price'
The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.
Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.
Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.
It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
B.5 Public doubts
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.
I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.
It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.
B.6 Threat questioned
For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
B.7 Israeli breaches
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories8.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.
I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
B.8 Conclusion
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops9.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.
It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now10. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
A wee favour…
✍️ I’m an independent writer on social justice issues. As an autistic person, I have high attention to detail and try to put this in my work and though it does take me a long time to produce I do hope it is useful. 😊
☕️ If you liked my original article then please consider buying me a coffee by clicking the button below. Thank you! 🙏☮️🏴
📚 Further Reading
Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 Substack Related Articles with article summaries.
Changing the conversation - the timing of Israel’s attacks on Iran (first published 13 Jun 2025)
The trigger for Israel’s attacks on Iran June 2025 (not the attacks themselves)
World events driving the timing
A stunning PR outcome
Other “optimally timed” attacks by Israel
UN Security Council radical new appeals chamber in the first UN restructure for decades (satire- first published Apr 9 2025):
Press releases and internal memos from the United Nations on the launch of a new appeals body “TIKES”.
This will have authority to adjudicate on vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions on referral by any member of the Security Council.
It is expected to have significant impact on the stalemates to date in the UN Security Council through political posturing by the P5.
The UN has implemented a radical approach to the composition of the new body.
🗄️ Version History - Article Updates
First published: 18 Jun 2025
Last Update: 19 Jun 2025
Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 articles are updated periodically to add latest information on the subject of the article for relevance
Updates
19 Jun 2025:
corrected grammatical mistakes in introduction & epilogue (ca’ canny!)
added final section on current UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy in 4. Sleight of hand’
added in video of Cook’s speech to Appendix B: Video and Full Text of Cook’s Speech
18 Jun 2025:
added internal URLs
reorganised made appendix main body of article, removed duplicate
END PAPERS
🙏 Attribution
Sleekit Scotsman 🏴☮️ articles are open source under Creative Commons license. 🙏 My only request is that you quote Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 as a reference if re-using information with either a link to this article or my landing page 🔗🌳👉 https://linktr.ee/sleekitscotsman
🔎 ⚠️‼️ Important: Ca’ canny
⚠️ Ca’ canny as we say in Scotland - we can’t always get everything right and as an autistic writer I do find I have certain challenges. If there are any inaccuracies in this article - please contact me to adjust accordingly.
Equally please contact me if there are any glaring omissions - which I will always fact check first and credit the source for (if you are comfortable).
📺 Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 Social Media
Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 also publishes on a number of social media channels - please also consider subscribing to these:
✍️ Substack SleekitScotsman: this publication
📸 Instagram: @sleekit.scotsman https://www.instagram.com/sleekit.scotsman/
🦋 Bluesky: @sleekitscotsman.bsky.social
👤 Facebook @sleekit.scotsman2 : https://www.facebook.com/sleekit.scotsman2
🎶 TikTok: @sleekit.scotsman https://www.tiktok.com/@sleekit.scotsman
📺 YouTube @SleekitScotsman : https://www.youtube.com/@SleekitScotsman
🆇 X (formerly Twitter) @SleekitScotsman : https://twitter.com/SleekitScotsman
👾 Discord @sleekitscotsman: https://discord.gg/q5RFEpaCQp
🧶 Threads @Sleekit.Scotsman: https://www.threads.net/@sleekit.scotsman
🆃 TruthSocial (a misnomer but an unfortunate necessity): @sleekitscotsman: https://truthsocial.com/@sleekitscotsman
Central landing page to all of the above: 🔗 https://linktr.ee/sleekitscotsman
ℹ️ About Sleekit Scotsman
I am an autistic Scottish writer passionate about human rights issues and exposing Government corruption. I have a high attention to detail and can often spot connections and patterns others cannot.
For more on my writing see here:
or listen to Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart’s take on their show “The Rest is Politics” whilst answering one of my questions:
📋 References
UK Parliament Hansard - 17 Mar 2003 - Col. 726 9.44pm - “Personal Statement Robin Cook (Livingston)“ - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030317/debtext/30317-33.htm
Sleekit Scotsman (first published Apr 9 2025) “UN Security Council: New appeals chamber announced (TIKES)“ -
https://sleekitscotsman.substack.com/p/un-security-council-new-appeals-chamber
US Department of State Archive 5 Feb 2003 “Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, Secretary Colin L. Powell“ - https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
Declassified UK 2 Nov 2023 - “TWO-FIFTHS OF KEIR STARMER’S CABINET HAVE BEEN FUNDED BY PRO-ISRAEL LOBBYISTS“ - https://www.declassifieduk.org/two-fifths-of-keir-starmers-cabinet-have-been-funded-by-pro-israel-lobbyists/
Sky News 20 May 2025 - “Shouts of 'genocide' in Commons as David Lammy denounces Israel's 'intolerable' actions in Gaza“ - https://news.sky.com/story/shouts-of-genocide-in-commons-as-david-lammy-denounces-israels-intolerable-actions-in-gaza-13371496
UK Government Foreign Office: International sanctions - Press Release 10 Jun 2025 “UK and partners unite to sanction ministers inciting West Bank violence” - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-partners-unite-to-sanction-ministers-inciting-west-bank-violence
US Department of State Archive 14 Jun 2002 “International Contributions to the War Against Terrorism“ - https://2001-2009.state.gov/coalition/cr/fs/12753.htm
UN Security Council Resolution 242 22 Nov 1967 - “Situation in the Middle East“ -https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/PDF/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
NPR: Nov 12 2018 “The Florida recount of 2000: A nightmare that goes on haunting“ - https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-haunting
BBC NEWS - “Did you MP support the rebels?” 19 Mar 2003 [essentially a vote on the Iraq War - the ‘rebels’ listed first are those that voted against the war via an amendment noting no moral case, the “Noes” are those voting for war - against the amendment). - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2862397.stm