Are Our Political Leaders Really so Ignorant about International Law?
And will they ever be brave enough to brand Israel a terrorist regime?
You’d think Western leaders dealing with foreign affairs would make sure they had a working knowledge of international law and a healthy respect for its importance. It’s based on common sense and is easy enough for politicians of average intelligence to understand. But they don’t seem to.
So it was refreshing to hear Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s representative at the United Nations, ticking off the US and Israel for trying to duck their legal responsibilities after the Security Council adopted Resolution 2728. This deals with Israel’s attempt to destroy Gaza and its people and “demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain”.
It also “emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip and reiterates its demand for the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale, in line with international humanitarian law as well as resolutions 2712 (2023) and 2720 (2023)”.
The US permanent representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield said in response: “We fully support some of the critical objectives of this non-binding Resolution”. White House national security communications adviser John Kirby also called it a non-binding resolution, “so there is no impact at all on Israel’s ability to continue to go after Hamas”.
Then Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Israel Katz, said Israel would not end its military operation until they had destroyed Hamas and secured the return of all of the hostages. He too seemed to think the resolution was non-binding.
Nebenzya wanted to know if the remarks by US officials meant that the US doesn’t consider Security Council resolutions to be binding on member states. “With the blessing of the United States Israel now, despite a direct demand from the Security Council, has complete carte-blanche and is not planning to stop until it razes Gaza to the ground.” He then quoted from the UN Charter, Chapter V: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter (Article 25).”
There is nothing about UNSC decisions being non-binding.
The UK Lawyers’ ‘Open Letter Concerning Gaza‘ of 26 October 2023, contains important lessons in international law (shown here in italics) which the UK Government in its statements and actions seems woefully ignorant of. Addressed to the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary it calls on the UK Government to act urgently “to fulfil its international legal obligations in relation to the ever-escalating conflict in the Middle East” and underlines simple international law principles:
⦁ Serious violations of international humanitarian law by one party do not justify the same by another party. This applies whatever the nature of the armed conflict, and “whatever the causes espoused by or attributed to the Parties” (Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I).
⦁ It also applies where a party seeks to invoke the right to self-defence. Hamas’s war crimes cannot be justified by reference to any prior war crimes by Israel. Neither do they justify further such crimes by Israel in response, which must comply with international law. As the UN Secretary-General made clear, the “abhorrent attacks” by Hamas in Israel “can never justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. International humanitarian law – including the Geneva Conventions – must be upheld”.
⦁ The UK is duty-bound to “respect and ensure respect” for international humanitarian law as set out in the Four Geneva Conventions in all circumstances (1949 Geneva Conventions, Common Art 1). That means the UK must not itself assist violations by others.
⦁ The UK Government must immediately halt the export of weapons from the UK to Israel, given the clear risk that they might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law and in breach of the UK’s domestic Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, including its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.
The UK Government in a statement last month to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Working Group said it “operates a robust and comprehensive arms export control regime…. We examine every application rigorously on a case-by-case basis against the UK’s Strategic Export Licensing Criteria. We carefully review Israel’s capability and commitment to IHL [international human rights law]. On concluding a review of extant licences to Israel on 18 December 2023, the UK’s Business and Trade Secretary decided not to suspend licencing, but to keep licences under continuing, careful review…. The Foreign Secretary has stated, in relation to the conflict in Gaza, that ‘if circumstances change and we reach a different view, we will advise [and act] accordingly’.
Anyone reading the UK’s 8 criteria will see that Israel fails to meet at least 5 of them, yet the Government still approves those arms licences.
Turning to the matter before the ICJ the Government continues: “We have stated that we have considerable concerns about this case, which is not helpful in the goal of achieving a sustainable ceasefire. Nevertheless, we respect the role and independence of the ICJ. Its ruling is binding on Israel.” As predicted, Israel hasn’t taken the slightest notice. Its atrocious ongoing crimes are surely enough to suspend all dealings with the Israeli regime. Business as usual, in the circumstances, amounts to a two-finger gesture to the rule of law and, one would have thought, an actionable offence by those Government individuals involved in such inexcusable decisions. Finally,
⦁ UK nationals responsible for aiding and abetting international crimes, as well as those committing them as primary perpetrators, are liable for prosecution in the UK pursuant to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
Links to the UK Lawyers’ follow-up letters and the Foreign Office’s evasive replies can be found here.
As if that weren’t enough warning, over 800 serving officials and civil servants in Western governments, including the UK, have cautioned that their governments’ policies on the Israel-Gaza war could amount to “grave violations of international law” and risk complicity in “one of the worst human catastrophes of this century”. They say that those who understand the region and the dynamics are not listened to and expert advice is being sidelined. A senior British official remarked: “We have heard ministers dismiss allegations against the Israeli Government seemingly without having received proper and well-evidenced legal advice”.
Who will uphold international law?
The enemies of international law and justice are many and varied. For example, shortly after Oct 7 the US’s Lloyd Austin arrived in Israel saying: “I am here in person to make something crystal-clear: America’s support for Israel is ironclad.” Then on Dec 2 he stated that “the United States will remain Israel’s closest friend in the world. Our support for Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” Evidently he approves of genocide and has no grasp of international law.
Austin was awarded the Silver Star (US’s top gong for valour) for his exploits during the criminal invasion of Iraq and seems to have had a lot to do with the Afghanistan fiasco. He was on the board of Raytheon Technologies just prior to being appointed Secretary of Defence so we know where he’s coming from. Plus his superglued attachment to Israel shows contempt for the rules-based international order.
And why does UK Government keep repeating that Israel has a right to defend itself when the UN says Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it belligerently occupies? What’s difficult to understand?
Indeed, why won’t UK Government accept that it’s the Palestinians who have a cast-iron right to defend themselves, using “armed struggle” if necessary, against Israel’s illegal military occupation, murderous oppression and cruel blockade of Gaza? (UN Resolutions 37/43 and 3246)
As most of us know Hamas’s action on Oct 7 wasn’t about committing alleged atrocities but a strike-back against Israel’s decades-long illegal and brutal military occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and its merciless 17-year blockade of Gaza together with frequent deadly assaults and “mowing the grass”.
It was also about the 10,651 Palestinians murdered by Israel in the 23 years up to Oct 7, including 2,270 children and 656 women (Israel’s B’Tselem figures). In that period Israel was slaughtering Palestinians at the rate of 8:1 and children at the rate of 16:1.
And let’s not forget that on Oct 6 Israel was holding 5,200 Palestinians captive including at least 170 children. Since Oct 7 Israel has snatched some 7,350 more. By comparison the 134 Israelis still held by Hamas are scarcely signiificant. So why do we never hear the UK Government expressing outrage and pressing for the Palestinian captives to be freed?
Lord Cameron, our Foreign Secretary, is a key offender. After 3 months of genocide in Gaza, he denied Israel had broken international law. He also said it was “nonsense” to suggest that Israel intended to commit genocide. Asked if he thought Israel had a case to answer in the ICJ, he said: “No, I absolutely don’t. I think the South African action is wrong, I think it is unhelpful, I think it shouldn’t be happening…. I take the view that Israel is acting in self-defence after the appalling attack on October 7. But even if you take a different view to my view, to look at Israel, a democracy, a country with the rule of law, a country with armed forces that are committed to obeying the rule of law, to say that that country, that leadership, that armed forces, that they have intent to commit genocide, I think that is nonsense, I think that is wrong.”
He talks as if he hasn’t bothered even to read the definition of genocide. When asked by the BBC whether the UK and its allies need to be firmer with Israel about its actions in Gaza he replied: “I think we have been incredibly firm. We are a friend and ally of Israel but we do not hold back.”
Those words “friend” and “ally” when talking about Israel are offensive to an increasing number of people. Who wants such a vile regime as a friend or ally? And to pretend we share the same values……
What Cameron says only makes sense when you realise he’s a self-declared zionist and a long-time admirer of Israel. He operates out of the unelected House of Lords and, by some ancient and ridiculous convention, cannot be held to account by our elected MPs in the House of Commons. That’s how twisted our democracy is. Lucky for Cameron otherwise George Galloway, now back in Parliament, would have had him for breakfast by now.
Andrew Mitchell, UK Minister of State for Development and Africa, acts as Cameron’s mouthpiece in the Commons and seems equally indifferent to international law. He says:
“The Government supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with International Humanitarian Law, against the horrific terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October 2023.”
Any suggestion that Israel is “in compliance with International Humanitarian Law” is simply untrue. And as China reminded everyone at the ICJ, “armed resistance against occupation is enshrined in international law and is not terrorism”.
It is now reported that the British government received advice from its own lawyers that Israel was breaching international humanitarian law in Gaza but has kept this from the public. Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Alicia Kearns, repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they had received. “I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment…. Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
And according to Mitchell: “our long-standing position remains that we will recognise a Palestinian State at a time that is most conducive to the peace process”.
UN Resolution 3246 calls for all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence for all peoples subjected to colonial and foreign domination. A large majority (around 140) of the world’s states have recognized Palestinian statehood. Spain has just announced it will too. Why isn’t the UK among them? Delaying recognition further is statehood (and justice) denied. Britain promised the Palestinian Arabs independence back in 1915 but immediately reneged. We quickly recognised Israel in 1949 even though it was carrying out massacres and committing other terrorist acts and has been doing so ever since. But we continue to dither over Palestine so that Israel can continue its planned annexation of Palestinian territory, carry on slaughtering as many as possible and expand its brutal control with impunity.
It has been said that international law alone won’t solve the problem. True. But it could go a long way towards preparing the ground for the international community to do what it should have done decades ago – that is, shut the door completely on Israel. In the end it’s up to civil society. They could, through collective action, force their governments to pull the plug on Israel on everything from arms supply to trade, co-operation, research and security tie-ups. And dual nationals; who wants them?
Many here are looking forward to the day when our own government and opposition leaders who have blocked ceasefire, shielded Israel and carried on supplying the genocidal regime with arms are hauled up in court for complicity in the genocide and its other war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I hear that a team of UK lawyers are building a case to do exactly that.
No comments:
Post a Comment