UK reverses plans to challenge ICC arrest warrant request against Netanyahu

Copyright ABIR SULTAN/ABIR SULTAN

By Euronews with AP

Published on 26/07/2024 -

The Prime Minister's office said the decision is "based on a strong belief in the separation of powers and the rule of law, both domestically and internationally."

The UK will not intervene in the International Criminal Court's request for an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the office of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Friday.

This announcement reverses the plans of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who was ousted earlier this month after Keir Starmer's Labour Party won a landslide victory over the Conservatives.

“This was a proposal by the previous government which was not submitted before the election, and which I can confirm the government will not be pursuing in line with our long-standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide,” a Starmer spokesperson said.

The ICC's prosecutor, Karim Khan, accused Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders — Yehya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh — of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip and Israel.

• World reacts to ICC prosecutor's request for arrest warrants for Hamas leaders, Netanyahu

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders condemned the move as disgraceful and antisemitic. US President Joe Biden also criticised the prosecutor and supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas — as did Sunak.

Khan sought warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in May over Israel’s war in Gaza in a symbolic blow that deepened Israel’s isolation over the war in Gaza.

Israel is not a member of the court. Even if warrants are issued, Netanyahu and Gallant do not face any immediate risk of prosecution. However, the threat of arrest could complicate their ability to travel.

Starmer’s decision puts the UK at odds with US, though his office on Friday described the decision as based in a strong belief in the separation of powers and the rule of law domestically and internationally.

A challenging issue for Starmer and his party

Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has faced pressure from his party to adopt a firmer stance on the Gaza crisis, especially as the death toll and number of injuries continue to rise.

London has also been the scene of huge protests decrying Israel’s actions intended to root out Hamas militants and has also reported record levels of antisemitic incidents.

Labour lost support and seats they were expected to win after Starmer initially declined to call for a ceasefire following Israel's retaliation for the October 7 attack by Hamas militants.

The party is still recovering from the fallout of a scandal involving antisemitism allegations against the leadership of Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.

UK government drops challenge to ICC over 

Israel arrest warrants


Saturday, July 27, 2024

by The Canary

The UK government will drop its challenge to arrest warrants sought by an ICC prosecutor for Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Downing Street confirmed on Friday 26 July.
UK government drops challenge to ICC over Israel

Former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government had told the International Criminal Court (ICC) it intended to submit a challenge to prosecutor Karim Khan’s request in May for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The UK had until 26 July to submit its questions to the court in The Hague, but the recently elected Labour Party government has confirmed it will not follow through with Sunak’s plan.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said:


This was a proposal by the previous government which was not submitted before the election, and which I can confirm the government will not be pursuing in line with our long standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide on.

I think you would note that the courts have already received a number of submissions on either side, so they are well seized of the arguments to make their independent determinations.

Of course, Israel’s top ally the US is still set to challenge the court’s authority to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu.

As well as Netanyahu and Gallant, Khan is also seeking warrants against top Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif, on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If granted by ICC judges, any of the 124 ICC member states would technically be obliged to arrest Netanyahu and others if they travelled there. However, the court has no mechanism to enforce its orders.


More to be done

The UK is still allowing arms to be sold to Israel. However, Middle East Eye reported on 25 July that the government was expected to place some restrictions on sales.

However, right-wing lobby group the British Board of Deputies hit back. It said:


We are concerned that the cumulative effect of these announcements, in quick succession, signal a significant shift in policy, away from Israel being a key UK ally. This would not only be a strategic error but a moral one.

Reacting to Labour’s ICC decision, director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ben Jamal said:

Ben Jamal, PSC Director said,

We welcome the Government’s decision to drop the intervention mounted by Rishi Sunak’s Government, designed to prevent any move by the ICC to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders including Benjamin Netanyahu.

This intervention was based on spurious legal arguments that amounted to suggesting that Israeli leaders could never be held to account by the ICC for any action in Gaza, no matter how monstrous.

We thank all of those who lobbied the Foreign Secretary and MPs on this issue, including thousands who signed PSC’s e-action. We welcome the Government’s statement that it intends to fully respect the independence of the international courts and the rule of law.

Going forward this needs to translate into full support for the rulings of the ICC and the ICJ including those which call upon all third-party states not to continue to act in any way which risks aiding or abetting crimes under the Genocide Convention or supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.

As immediate first steps this requires an arms embargo and ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements

UK ends challenge to ICC's jurisdiction over arrest warrant on Netanyahu

The British government has reversed its previous position and will no longer question the ICC's jurisdiction over war crimes cases involving Israeli officials.

Under the new leadership of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Britain has stopped challenging the ICC's jurisdiction in the case against Israeli PM Netanyahu

Britain's new government has said it was dropping its predecessor's query of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The ICC's chief prosecutor has requested warrants for Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, on suspicion of war crimes, infuriating Israel and irritating its closest ally, the United States. He requested similar warrants for three leaders of the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.

Britain, an ICC member state, had asked the court to be allowed to file legal observations on whether the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over Israelis "in circumstances where Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals (under) the Oslo Accords".

But since then, the centre-left Labour Party has taken power from the Conservatives in an election, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesperson told reporters on Friday the new government would drop the query "in line with our long-standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide on".

"The government believes very strongly in the rule of law, both internationally and domestically, and the separation of powers."

Respect for international law

While the Conservatives frequently chafed against supranational jurisdictions during their 14 years in power, not least the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, Starmer, a former lawyer, has struck a different tone.

Last week he told European leaders that his government would have a "profound respect for international law".

The ICC, which handles war crimes and crimes against humanity, has been investigating both sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians since 2021.

In that year, the ICC ruled that it did have jurisdiction after Palestinian authorities signed up to the court in 2015, having been made a United Nations observer state.

Some scholars and member states said that the decision left a ruling on the interpretation of the 1993 Oslo Accords regarding Palestinian jurisdiction over Israeli nationals for a later stage in the proceedings.

The UK's decision to drop the legal challenge is unlikely to speed up the ICC case as over 60 other states and interested parties have also been allowed to give their legal arguments to judges mulling the request for arrest warrants for senior Israeli and Hamas officials.

Israel hits out at Starmer for dropping Britain's challenge to international arrest warrant for Netanyahu

26 July 2024,

Israel has hit out at Britain's decision. Picture: Alamy

By Kit Heren

@yung_chuvak

Israel has criticised Britain for dropping its challenge to an international arrest warrant issued for Benjamin Netanyahu

A spokesperson for the Israeli government said that Labour had made a "fundamentally wrong decision" in deciding not to pursue the challenge at the International Criminal Court.

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in May requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Mr Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant over the war in Gaza.

Rishi Sunak's government had told the ICC it intended to submit arguments questioning whether the ICC had the right to order the arrest of Israeli nationals.

The Hague-based war crimes court gave the UK until Friday to decide whether it would do so.

Read more: Israel alleges Iran-backed plot to target athletes at Paris Olympics and equips delegation with armed security detail

Read more: Benjamin Netanyahu declares US and Israel 'must stand together' as he delivers speech to Congress

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (C) attends Opening Ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympics at Place du Trocadero on July 26, 2024. Picture: Alamy

A spokesperson for the new Labour government said on Friday that it would not submit an objection.

"This was a proposal by the previous government which was not submitted before the election, and which I can confirm the government will not be pursuing in line with our long standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide on," the spokesperson said.

They added that the government believes in the separation of powers and the rule of law - both in the UK and internationally.

"I think you would note that the courts have already received a number of submissions on either side, so they are well seized of the arguments to make their independent determinations," they said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Picture: Alamy

The war in Gaza has been a major issue for Labour, and its attitude in the early months of the conflict saw it lose support among some Muslim communities.

The party appears to have sought to remedy this in recent months, and also since winning the election.

Since entering government, Labour has restored funding to the United Nations' Palestine relief agency UNRWA, in a major shift from the stance of the previous government which had suspended funding in January.

Sir Keir has also stressed that a Palestinian state has an "undeniable right" to be recognised as part of a Middle East peace process.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK's chief executive, said: "This was a totally misguided intervention by the last government and we strongly welcome the decision to drop it.

"Instead of trying to thwart the ICC's much-needed Palestine investigation, the UK should be backing efforts to bring all perpetrators of war crimes and possible genocide to justice."

Hannah Bond, co-chief executive of ActionAid UK, said: "We're pleased to see the new government abandon the legal challenge to the International Criminal Court's case.

"The court must be free to pursue the course of justice unhindered and the UK government must support it in doing so, as well as respect and comply with whatever the ultimate outcome of the case may be."

But Labour Friends of Israel described the Government's move as "deeply disappointing".

In a statement on X, the group said "there is no reason to believe" that Israel's courts would not investigate this case and the ICC chief prosecutor "has chosen quite deliberately not to provide it (Israel) with that opportunity".

"The British Government's desire to defend international law is laudable but its decision today is deeply disappointing and will not advance that goal," the group added.

Palestine hails decision by UK to drop objection to ICC war-crime warrant for Netanyahu

Palestinian Foreign Ministry says decision by British government 'realization of justice'

Ahmed Asmar |26.07.2024 
RT / AA
ANKARA

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry on Friday welcomed the decision by the British government to withdraw its objection to the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

In a statement cited by the official Palestinian news agency Wafa, the ministry described the British government decision as a "realization of justice."

It also hailed the UK decision to uphold human rights and international law and a human rights-first foreign policy, affirming that such position will enhance cooperation between Palestine and the UK in the coming days.

The UK on Friday said that it would not proceed with efforts to question whether the ICC has jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, according to local media.

This decision came after the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced in May that he had requested arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over war crimes.

Court documents made public in June revealed that Britain, an ICC member state, had initially filed a request to provide written observations on whether the court could exercise jurisdiction over Israeli nationals, given that Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals under the Oslo Accords.

According to The Guardian newspaper, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson confirmed that the previous government had not submitted its proposal before the July 4 election.

"On the ICC submission… I can confirm the government will not be pursuing (the proposal) in line with our longstanding position that this is a matter for the court to decide on,” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson told reporters.

Israel, flouting a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire, has faced international condemnation amid its continued brutal offensive on Gaza since an Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.

Nearly 39,200 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children, and over 90,400 injured, according to local health authorities.

Over nine months into the Israeli onslaught, vast tracts of Gaza lie in ruins amid a crippling blockade of food, clean water, and medicine.

Israel is accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, which ordered it to immediately halt its military operation in the southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians had sought refuge from the war before it was invaded on May 6.

*Writing by Ahmed Asmar​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Labour must drop challenge over Netanyahu arrest warrant, says human rights chief

Geneva Abdul
Thu, 25 July 2024


The first pro-Palestine March in London after the election of the Labour government under Keir Starmer, 6 July.Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer

The new UK government must withdraw Rishi Sunak’s legal challenge to the international criminal court’s jurisdiction over alleged war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza, the UK director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said.

Yasmine Ahmed said that it is “absolutely critical” that the UK does not continue to challenge the right of the ICC to seek arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, and defence minister, Yoav Gallant, who the court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, believes could bear responsibility for crimes against humanity.

In May, Sunak criticised the ICC for seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant alongside Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and other Hamas operatives, stating there was no moral equivalence between the opposing sides.

Two weeks ago, the Guardian reported that the Labour government was expected to drop the legal challenge against the ICC, but this was later disputed by British diplomats who said the matter remained under review. The ICC has given the new Labour government until 26 July to decide whether to pursue the legal challenge.

“Will the UK government be principled and mature enough and adhere to its own statements of complying with and acting consistently with international law and supporting the rules-based order by withdrawing its application to intervene in the case of the ICC?” said Ahmed.

“It will be now for us to see where the rubber will hit the road.”

Ahmed said the new Labour government had come into power at a time of huge global crisis and uncertainty, with conflicts raging in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine.

After what she described as years of hostile policies by a Conservative administration that sought to undermine international human rights laws and institutions, she said the government must now actively pursue what the new foreign secretary David Lammy has called Labour’s “progressive realism” approach to human rights.

Ahmed said: “It is an incredibly complex world that they are addressing. We’re seeing a number of crises on a level I don’t know we’ve seen in decades.”

Related: Living in a tent with premature triplets: how fear and anxiety haunt Gaza’s new mothers

Ahmed said she welcomed the government’s decisions to resume funding to the UN Palestine relief agency Unrwa, and to scrap the controversial Rwandan deportation scheme. She also said there was a need to prioritise ending arms licences with Israel and called for urgent action to be taken to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

Domestically, she said there needed to be a legislative commitment to the protection of refugees and asylum seekers, and practical measures such as reinserting the duty to comply with international law in the ministerial code.

“We cannot promote and be seen to be, or in fact be, promoting a rules-based order in international law if we’re not also replicating that domestically,” said Ahmed. “We need to give [the government] an opportunity to live up to their rhetoric.”


Government ‘looking at’ Tories’ challenge to ICC over Netanyahu arrest warrant

Sophie Wingate, PA Deputy Political Editor
Thu, 25 July 2024 

Labour is “looking at” the previous Tory government’s objection to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) application for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, Downing Street has said.

No 10 did not confirm or deny reports that Sir Keir Starmer is expected to drop any legal challenge to the ICC’s pursuit of an arrest warrant against the Israeli premier for alleged war crimes against Palestinians by the end of the week.

But a No 10 spokeswoman reiterated the party’s emphasis on the independence of the Hague-based war crimes court and its chief prosecutor.

She also said “we reject the overall characterisation” in a New York Times article noting the UK would be edging away from its close ally the US on the conflict were it to ditch an appeal contesting the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli citizens.

The spokeswoman told reporters: “We reject the overall characterisation in that piece. The Government has been clear about Israel’s right to self-defence and its right to respond to a terror attack in line with international humanitarian law.

“We’ve been in lockstep with the US on this matter and also in our efforts with the US and other allies in terms of promoting regional stability.”

The newspaper’s report is titled “UK’s Policy on Israel, Long Aligned With America’s, Veers Away”, after the ICC’s efforts to seek arrest warrants against top Israeli leaders have been widely denounced in Washington.

Former MP Jonathan Ashworth was one of several Labour candidates defeated by Independents who made Gaza a major part of their General Election campaign (Lucy North/PA)

The Downing Street spokeswoman continued: “On the ICC, we’ve also spoken consistently about the importance of the independence of both the prosecutor and the court. It is for the prosecutor and the court to make a decision.

“Now, with regard to the previous government’s proposals around a submission, we are looking at that but I don’t have any further updates.”

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in May requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Mr Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant over Israel’s war in Gaza.

Rishi Sunak’s government had told the ICC it intended to submit arguments questioning whether the ICC had the right to order the arrest of Israeli nationals.

The ICC has given the Labour Government until Friday to decide whether to pursue the legal bid.

The conflict in Gaza has been a thorn in the Labour leader’s side, with his initial refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire costing the party votes and seats in the General Election despite its landslide.

Former MP Jonathan Ashworth was one of several Labour candidates defeated by Independents who made Gaza a major part of their campaign.

Since entering Government, Labour has restored funding to the United Nations’ Palestine relief agency UNRWA, in a major shift from the stance of the previous government which had suspended funding in January.

Sir Keir has also stressed that a Palestinian state has an “undeniable right” to be recognised as part of a Middle East peace process.

Nine-months into the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has left more than 39,000 dead in Gaza while dozens of Israeli hostages remain in Hamas captivity, Mr Netanyahu vowed to press on with the war until “total victory” in a speech in Washington on Wednesday.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “Instead of trying to thwart the ICC’s much-needed Palestine investigation, the UK should be backing efforts to bring all perpetrators of war crimes and possible genocide to justice.

“The UK should support the ICC in its role to investigate and then hold all perpetrators of war crimes and possible genocide to account.”


Benjamin Netanyahu arrest warrant row: 'Everyone accountable under law,' says UK Cabinet minister

Nicholas Cecil
Fri, 26 July 2024 


Benjamin Netanyahu arrest warrant row: 'Everyone accountable under law,' says UK Cabinet minister

Cabinet minister Wes Streeting said that “everyone has got to be held accountable under the law” as the new Government considers its stance on the International Criminal Court’s application for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Health Secretary stressed that the new administration in the UK “believe very strongly in the rule of law”.

His comments came after Downing Street confirmed that ministers are “looking at” the previous Tory government’s objection to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) application for an arrest warrant against Israel’s Prime Minister.

No 10 did not confirm or deny reports that Sir Keir Starmer is expected to drop any legal challenge to the ICC’s pursuit of an arrest warrant against the Israeli premier for alleged war crimes against Palestinians by the end of the week.

Mr Streeting told Sky News: “We believe very strongly in the rule of law, that’s not just domestically but internationally, and the separation of powers between judges and politicians.

“Everyone has got to be held accountable under the law”

“The second thing I would say in terms of this devastating conflict in Gaza, we have been very clear, we need an immediate ceasefire, the return of all hostages and a serious process to deliver lasting peace for the Israelis and the Palestinians, the two-state solution is the only solution.”

Mr Netanyahu met US president Joe Biden in Washington on Thursday, as well as vice president Kamala Harris, as America piles pressure on him to end the Gaza war.

Earlier, a No10 spokeswoman reiterated the Government’s emphasis on the independence of the Hague-based war crimes court and its chief prosecutor.

She also said “we reject the overall characterisation” in a New York Times article noting the UK would be edging away from its close ally the US on the conflict were it to ditch an appeal contesting the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli citizens.

The spokeswoman said: “We reject the overall characterisation in that piece. The Government has been clear about Israel’s right to self-defence and its right to respond to a terror attack in line with international humanitarian law.

“We’ve been in lockstep with the US on this matter and also in our efforts with the US and other allies in terms of promoting regional stability.”

The newspaper’s report is titled “UK’s Policy on Israel, Long Aligned With America’s, Veers Away”, after the ICC’s efforts to seek arrest warrants have been widely denounced in Washington.

The Downing Street spokeswoman continued: “On the ICC, we’ve also spoken consistently about the importance of the independence of both the prosecutor and the court. It is for the prosecutor and the court to make a decision.

“Now, with regard to the previous government’s proposals around a submission, we are looking at that but I don’t have any further updates.”

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in May requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu and Hamas's leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, over the latest conflict.

Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas's political leader Ismail Haniyeh, along with the group's military chief Mohammed Deif, are also wanted for arrest.

Rishi Sunak’s government had told the ICC it intended to submit arguments questioning whether the ICC had the right to order the arrests it was seeking.

The ICC has given the Labour Government until Friday to decide whether to pursue the legal bid.

 

UK expected to drop opposition to ICC Netanyahu arrest warrant case

Keir Starmer government set to announce it believes

International Criminal Court does have the power to make

decisions and judgements

By LEE HARPIN JEWISH NEWSJuly 25, 2024, 

Building of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague in 2019. (Wikipedia/Author OSeveno/ Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0))

The government is expected to announce it has dropped the previous government’s objections to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant proceedings against Benjamin Netanyahu.

Reports indicated that a  No 10 spokeswoman confirmed that the government was “looking” at the previous government’s stance after The New York Times reported that Britain would drop its objections by the end of the week.

The move, likley to be confirmed on Friday, on the advice of new attorney general Richard Hermer KC, will signal the Labour government’s view that the ICC should have the power to make decisions and judgements.

But it is unlikely to speed up any war crime case against Netanyahu, as other countries file arguments in the case from both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli perspectives.

It will though signify a tougher stance by the government against Israeli diplomatic efforts to secure support from the UK.

It also is likely to anger some of the main communal organisations in the UK.

David Lammy meets Benjamin Netanyahu

Keir Starmer has made it clear he wants the UK to play its part at the highest level in forging new peace efforts in the Middle East, but he and foreign secretary David Lammy believe the country’s image as an “honest broker” needs strengthening.

In May, Karim Khan, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, announced he was applying for arrest warrant  targeting Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister over the war in Gaza, along with Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh for the October 7 terrorist attacks.

The previous prime minister Rishi Sunak  issued a legal challenge questioning the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli citizens – a move that was supported by Israeli diplomats here.

But the deadline for the government to challenge the ICC case ends on Friday.And after seeeking the advice of Lord Hermer KC, the new attorney-general, Keir Starmer is expected to withdraw the UK’s objection.

The New York Times reported this was the expected decision citing”two people briefed on the government’s deliberations.”

New Attorney General Richard Hermer KC

Jewish News was told by a seperate source on Thursday that a decision had been taken to move away from the previous government’s stance.

But the source added:”Withdrawing the previous government’s objection to the ICC prosecutor’s request for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu over the war in Gaza is not a judgement on case for or against the Israeli PM. 

“It’s a sign the UK government recognises the Court’s power to make legal decisions”

A spokesperson for the Jewish Leadership Council told The Times: “The longstanding position of the UK is that the ICC does not have jurisdiction in this case. It would be a disappointing and regressive step if reports that the government is deciding to abandon the appeal come to fruition.”

In a column for the Jewish Chronicle, the Tory peer Danny Finklestein noted that a Starmer government could well take positions on Israel that do not meet the approval of all mainstream Jews.

“We will have to have a nuanced public debate within the community and with the government in which not all mainstream Jews take the same position and in which we accept that the government will criticise, or even act against, Israel without being opposed to its existence,” he wrote.

Watch out for sharks: The bizarre history of internet outages

Thomas Germain
BBC

JULY 26, 2024

(Credit: Getty Images)


In a world where a single point of failure can throw our machines into chaos, everything from sharks to authoritarian governments to old ladies have brought the web to its knees.


On Friday 19 July, 2024, the world woke up to what many have called the worst digital crisis of all time. A botched software update from cybersecurity giant CrowdStrike crashed some 8.5 million computers, smearing Microsoft's dreaded "blue screen of death" across the globe. Airlines cancelled over 46,000 flights in a single day, according to the FlightAware. Hospitals called off surgeries. 911 emergency services faced disruptions in the US. Film Forum, an arthouse cinema in New York, switched to cash payments as its credit card system went down. Microsoft and CrowdStrike issued a solution, but the outages continue almost a week later. It's a reminder, frustrated IT experts said, to never push updates out on a Friday.


As our infrastructure becomes ever more tangled with the internet, this won't be the last catastrophic online outage. But CrowdStrike wasn't the first, either. The history of computing is littered with examples of our digital fragility, and crashes of the past offer a glimpse of what it will feel like on the day the internet turns off.


"There's a price to pay for the convenience we enjoy," says Ritesh Kotak, a cybersecurity and technology analyst. "It will happen again, and from a technical standpoint, the fix for CrowdStrike was relatively easy. Next time, we might not be so lucky."

A glitch in the matrix


One of the earliest major outages came in 1997 thanks to a glitch at the company Network Solutions Inc., one of the main registrars that issues domain names for websites. According to the New York Times, a misconfigured database crashed every single website ending in .com or .net. It took down around one million sites, which at that point in history was a huge portion of the web. Some people didn't get their email. An untold number of web searches ended in frustration. Some businesses who couldn't reach clients and customers lost business around the 1997 crash, but overall, the problems were minimal.



Yet with the internet now touching nearly every part of our daily lives, anything close to the Network Solutions outage has far greater consequences. Twenty-one years later, for example, a malware attack on the Alaskan community of Matanuska-Susitna took an array of digital services offline. The internet blackout sent 100,000 people back in time.
On some level, the internet really is just a series of tubes


"The cyber-attack, God help us, just about stopped everything, you know," local Helen Munoz told the BBC in 2019. "In fact, the borough still [hasn't sorted out] their computers."


Employees were locked out of their workstations. Local libraries were ordered to turn off all their devices. In one government office, workers had to switch to typewriters to do their jobs. It was 10 weeks before the majority of the Matanuska-Susitna's systems came back online.

We're going to need a bigger cable


Sometimes the problems start in the physical world. For a while, the entire nation of Armenia's internet connectivity depended on a single fibre-optic cable running through Georgia. If that sounds precarious, you're right. In 2011, a 75-year-old woman took all 2.9 million Armenians offline when she sliced through that cable with a spade near the Georgian village of Ksani. The woman, who was scavenging for copper at the time, was arrested but reportedly let go soon after because of her advanced age. She later told reporters: "I have no idea what the internet is."


Forget human error: engineers have to take measures to protect undersea cables from shark attacks (Credit: Getty Images)


Others felt its absence more keenly. "You can feel it when you don't have access to the internet. You start going crazy," says Vahan Hovsepyan, senior community and public policy advisor at RIPE NCC, the regional internet registry for Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, who lives in Armenia. "There's no way to ensure stability when you have a cable that's thousands of kilometres long," Hovsepyan says, which highlights the importance of building redundancies into digital infrastructure.


It's proof positive that, on some level, the internet really is just a series of tubes. Pensioners aren't the only threat to those tubes, either. In 2017, all of Zimbabwe lost its internet access for half a day. Local newspapers reported that a tractor had torn through a cable in South Africa.


The fibre-optic cables in our backyards need protection from human beings, but the thousands of kilometres worth of cables draped across the ocean floor face their own dangers. Sharks have a mysterious fondness for biting undersea cables, which has caused outages in the past. There's a long history of teeth marks on these ocean cables, not just from sharks but other fish and barracudas. A tooth can penetrate the insulation and mix sea water to ground the power conductors. It's been causing problems for phone and telegraph cables since at least 1964, according to a report from the United Nations Environment Programme. Today, Google reportedly wraps its underwater cables in a Kevlar-like material, in part to stop sharks and other ocean dwellers from biting through the internet. Videos posted online have captured the web-hating sharks in action.

Digital fallout


A quarter of Canada's internet and phone service was knocked out in 2022 because of a failure at Rogers Communications, one of the country's biggest telecom providers. It gave 11 million people a preview of last week's CrowdStrike debacle. Emergency services couldn't accept phone calls, hospitals cancelled appointments and businesses across the country couldn't accept debit card transactions. Canadian R&B star the Weeknd was forced to postpone a concert.



Kotak, who lives in Toronto, says the Rogers outage didn't have a major impact on his life, but others weren't so lucky. "A friend of mine literally missed the bar exam," he says. "Her whole family were Rogers customers, and she couldn't get the exact address and room number for the test because she only had it written down in her email."


Legislators can prevent these kinds of problems by mandating safety measures in the technology and telecom industries, Kotak says. But sometimes, governments are responsible for internet shutdowns in the first place.

Singer the Weeknd had to cancel a concert after a failure at Rogers Communication left 11 million Canadians without phone or Internet service (Credit: Alamy)


Disabling the internet is also a go-to method for government censorship, both for authoritarian governments and stable democracies. "It's a pretty massive problem," says Zach Rosson, a data analyst at Access Now, a digital rights advocacy group. "By our definition, there have been over 1,500 internet shutdowns since 2016", by governments, militaries and police forces.


In fact, the CrowdStrike disaster shadowed an example that began the same day. For the last week, Bangladesh has faced near total internet blackout after a government shutdown in response to violent clashes between protesting students and police. The online cutoff has been accompanied by a curfew and reporters say the lack of internet access makes accurate information harder to come by. At least 150 people have been killed in the clashes, with some local media putting the figure much higher.



There's a growing push to understand internet access as a human right. "Think about all the things it gives you access to: employment, healthcare, education, communication, business and just understanding the world around you. We've found that internet shutdowns actually impede humanitarian delivery and prevent the documentation of atrocities," Rosson says.


India is probably the world leader in using internet shutdowns to quell unrest, but it's a widespread tactic that's been deployed in at least 83 countries including Iran, Russia, Algeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Cameroon and Venezuela, according to Access Now.

The big one


In places where the internet connection depends on one fibre-optic cable, it makes for a glaring Achilles heel. After decades of the internet worming its way into every corner of our lives through wires and WiFi connections, you might think there would be more built-in fail-safes to keep the world churning. But largely the opposite is true, according to Casey Oppenheim, chief executive at Disconnect, a cybersecurity company.


"To me this is the real lesson of the CrowdStrike event," Oppenheim says. CrowdStrike holds a massive market share in its corner of the security business, serving more than half the companies on the Fortune 500 list. "The less diversity you have in any ecosystem, the more vulnerable you become, and there's zero diversity at the top of the internet supply chain. You can pick any core area of the internet and you'll find a very short list of companies in control."


In other words, Oppenheim says, the potential for catastrophic internet failures is yet another consequence of "monopolistic forces" in the tech business. When so much depends on a single company, one wrong move can bring it all tumbling down. "As governments take on antitrust issues, it's something we may want to think about," he says.



More like this:


• The cyber-attack that sent an Alaskan community back in time

• Google just updated its algorithm. The internet will never be the same

• Why your internet habits are not as clean as you think


The most famous internet failure in history is one that didn't really happen. Twenty-five years ago, the public went into a frenzy over the Y2K Bug. Many predicted that the dawn of the new millennium in the year 2000 would come with a global computer failure. Thanks to short-sighted engineers, many computer programmes relied on calendars that used two digits for the year instead of four. That meant 2000 would be indistinguishable from 1900 on New Year's Day. Forecasts about the resulting computer crashes were nothing short of apocalyptic, with stories about failing governments, riots in the streets and total societal collapse. The world was just starting to comprehend the power of the tech industry, and for many, the Y2K bug was as terrifying as it was obscure. Some people stocked up on food, water and weapons.

The CrowdStrike Internet catastrophe affected millions of people. Experts say it's just the beginning (Credit: Getty Images)


There were indeed widespread glitches when the clock struck midnight on 31 December 1999. Most were trivial, such as train delays in Norway or misprinted jury summons in Oregon, US. Some reports were serious, but compared to the forecasts, the supposed Y2K disaster never materialised.



Elevators didn't stop running, as some building managers were reported to fear. Years of warnings about a collapse of the global financial system were for naught. Prison doors did not fling open and let convicts free, despite some warnings. And unlike the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, the recommended toilet paper stock piles weren't necessary. The problems could have been far more severe, though the most dramatic prophecies were always overblown.


CrowdStrike is the closest we've come to a full-blown internet shutdown. Even with its unprecedented scale, however, the consequences lasted just a few days. CrowdStrike was a taste of what's possible. Security experts are still bracing for the big one.


--


For timely, trusted tech news from global correspondents to your inbox, sign up to the Tech Decoded newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights twice a week.


For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and X.

AMERIKA

"It's not just about abortion": How the Chevron ruling could unravel reproductive rights

Experts weigh in on our destabilized Supreme Court and how more than environmental regulation is being threatened

By NICOLE KARLIS

Senior Writer

SALON
PUBLISHED JULY 26, 2024 

Reproductive rights activists demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2024.

 (JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)


In April the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized its Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations, after being criticized by conservative lawmakers and religious organizations. Part of the update included a clarification that accommodations, like a leave of absence, applied to abortion care. But now since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference, which made it possible for Congress to rely on federal expertise when implementing a wide range of policy measures, conservative judges in lower courts can seek to reverse expert policies for ideological reasons — and that applies to policies regarding reproductive care.


"They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement."
Advertisement:


As reported by Bloomberg Law this week, a coalition of 17 Republican attorneys general told a federal appeals court that the recent decision to overturn the Chevron deference should bring back their challenge to the EEOC’s pregnancy regulation. In other words, they’re trying to leverage the Chevron ruling to remove the EEOC’s approved leave of absence for abortion care. The move appears to be part of a more comprehensive anti-abortion plan to lean on the Chevron ruling to dismantle reproductive rights further.

“A Chevron ruling says that government regulations, or when the agency passes a rule, if it is not strictly required by the statute that Congress passed, then a court may invalidate the rule,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline's School of Law, explained to Salon. Previously, it was up to the agency to determine clarity in cases where there was “vague language from Congress.” But the ruling in the Chevron case says now it's up to the judges to answer that question. Depending on the judge, the decision could be made through an ideological lens.

Related
Trump vows to "NEVER" take away birth control — except he spent four years doing just that

That's not the only possible threat to reproductive health care. Cohen provided Salon with another example: under Obamacare, preventative medicine must be covered, which includes birth control.

“Now, the conservative federal judiciary might say birth control, under our reading of the statute is not preventive medicine, so the agency went too far in requiring birth control,” Cohen said. “It used to be that the agency got a lot of deference. Preventive medicine is broad, it’s vague, so it's up to the agency to determine what the rule is when you've got vague language from Congress.”

But now it’s up to the judges.

In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court voted along party lines in a historic decision against the government in a pair of cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The ruling set a precedent of gutting the power of regulatory agencies to protect the environment and consumers. Gautham Rao, a professor of legal history at American University, told Salon at the time that the case had "historic implications" as an attack "on what we call the administrative state." Reproductive rights advocates worry that the implications will extend beyond environmental protections.
Advertisement:

Leila Abolfazli, director of National Abortion Strategy at the National Women's Law Center Action Fund, told Salon she fully expects conservative justices to now start making claims that due to the decision in the Loper Bright case, some regulations related to reproductive rights can be revisited by the lower courts instead of federal agencies.

“But I will say that, with or without Loper Bright, the parties were making these claims, and some courts were open to them,” Abolfazli said. “But Loper Bright certainly gives them sights and saying, ‘No we get to decide what the law is, and it's XYZ, not what the administration said.’”

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal advocacy group that argued against the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and lost, filed an amicus brief for the Loper Bright case that outlined how a ruling to overturn the Chevron deference could unravel access to abortion care. In the amicus brief, ADF argues that “agencies are weaponizing federal healthcare laws to violate the right to life.” It specifically called out Title X, EMTALA covering life-saving abortion care, and the mail delivery of mifepristone. It also called out a range of agencies like the EEOC, for “forcing employers to pay for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and amputating healthy organs.”

“ADF definitely has a full, comprehensive plan on how it wants to take down abortion and other reproductive health care,” Abolfazli said.

In regards to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, that litigation will likely continue, Abolfazli said.

“But I think there's an overarching comment here on how destabilizing the Supreme Court is right now. They are making these grand, sweeping decisions, overturning precedent and then not providing the rules of engagement,” Abolfazli said.

Cohen said that leveraging the Chevron case to unravel reproductive rights is yet another example that the “anti-abortion movement is not stopping at abortion.”

“They are looking to do anything to restrict family planning, sexual health, reproductive health. It's not just about abortion,” Cohen said. “This is about anything related to sexual reproductive health and women's health too.”