I wrote this on Twitter yesterday in response to the International Court of Justice decision on Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian Territories:
It is not easy on occasion to hang on in quiet desperation, believing that there is a sane alternative to the madness through which we are living. Then something like this decision comes along to remind us that we are not alone in thinking that to be the case.
I heard some of this decision as it was read out.
Israel is an illegal occupying force.
It is imposing an apartheid regime.
It is acting in contravention to international law.
And then I had to remind my self that this is a non-binding decision, however persuasive it is.
Labour has to decide whether to comply.
In fairness to David Lammy as Foreign Secretary, he has decided to restart funding for UNRWA, which is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. This was established as a subsidiary organ of the United Nations General Assembly in 1949. It is one of the largest United Nations programmes and works to relieve poverty in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli allegations of its involvement in the 7 October attacks were some time ago found to be without evidential support, but the Tories denied finding, nonetheless.
Now Lammy has to go further. He has to withdraw the Tory objection made by the UK, acting as the US's stooge since it is not a member of the ICC, to oppose a warrant for war crimes issued by the International Court of Justice against Benjamin Netanyahu.
If that happens and the UK backs the ICC decision (because does it have a choice?) then we will know we are on a new path with Israel. If we do not do both then we, or rather Starmer, becomes as much a facilitator of apartheid as Thatcher ever was. It will be his choice.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If Starmer ignores it I imagine there’ll be protests, reminding us how prescient was his decision to clear criminals from jail conveniently making room for protestors. If my reading of the situation is indeed the case, he’s obviously expecting a lot of them. What else is coming at us he thinks will cause us such concern we’ll take to the streets in protest?
Will Scammer & Co kick this particular can down the road with another task force or commission to look into the matter as they’ve done with the two-child benefit cap? How many cans is Scammer likely to have running down the road at the end of his administration in order to avoid accountability?
There will be a lot of American pressure.
The House of Representatives voted this month to ban the State Dept. from quoting the Gaza health dept, figures of the number of casualties (probably using the excuse they are Hamas supplied although the WHO finds them reliable.) The figures could be too low as there are many bodies under the rubble. I think the real reason is that they are doing so is to try to row back from their role in supplying the weapons and try to protect Isreal’s reputation. A lost cause in my opinion.
The early claims about beheaded babies, repeated by Biden, has disappeared as they were not accurate but the US has not acknowledged they were in error.
I can only endorse what Rashida Tlaib says.
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/28/headlines/house_of_representatives_votes_269_144_to_ban_state_department_from_citing_gaza_death_toll
Lame-y has been a sell out for several years now.
He is Establishment flunky. He wouldn’t be anywhere near the cabinet if he wasn’t wholly compliant.
It is because of the British Empire that the illegal Apartheid Entity even had any access to The Palestine decades before it was ‘born’.
That Zionist now wholly recognised as Fascist Project which finally rejected the fantasy of the 2 State ‘solution’ must surely be seen as defunct?
Tottenham folk won’t be fooled any more by Lamey. Adele could defy him with a single concert.
In the meantime this new cabinet and the Great Knight are set on their course to lead the war inviting a petty dictator into the Cabinet.
Not. In. My. Name
the Balfour Declaration was indeed British but the creation of the mandate territory of Palestine was also approved by the League of Nations. As one of the main victors of the First World War (along with the French who took Syria and Lebanon) Britain had a dominant voice. But they probably needed other nations consent ( which is why many Arabs feel the West as a whole was against them. Even Turkey accepted the settlement ) The Allies felt the need to consult the United States and Congress agreed the Lodge-Fish resolution in 1922 to back the mandate. The State dept. argued against it as they did in 1948 when George Marshall was Secretary of State.
It was not popular in Britain as this extract from the wiki entry on the ‘Mandate for Palestine’ shows
In February 1923, after a change in government, Cavendish laid the foundation for a secret review of Palestine policy in a lengthy memorandum to the Cabinet:
It would be idle to pretend that the Zionist policy is other than an unpopular one. It has been bitterly attacked in Parliament and is still being fiercely assailed in certain sections of the press. The ostensible grounds of attack are threefold:(1) the alleged violation of the McMahon pledges; (2) the injustice of imposing upon a country a policy to which the great majority of its inhabitants are opposed; and (3) the financial burden upon the British taxpayer …[142]
But it went ahead regardless of the feeling of the Muslims and Christians, and some think ( see the Wiki entry) not because of the virtues of Zionism.
I think we can conclude that western racial and imperial views have sown an awful legacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine#Assignment_to_Britain
You write “acting as the US’s stooge since it is not a member of the ICJ”
I think you mean ICC.
The US is not a member of the International Criminal court but they do have a judge on the International court of Justice.
Correct
Apoligirs
no need to apologise, Richard.
Appreciate this post.
Thanks
As a lawyer it will be hard to dismiss this ruling…. but, as I understand it, this ruling is “advisory” (whatever that means). Does this give Starmer room to weasel out of taking a position?
As a lawyer he can wriggle
Politically, Israel is officially an apartheid state
Forget Zionism and anti- semitism, apartheid is now the key word
Just reading the BBC article on the decision, it writes: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the court had made a “decision of lies” [..] The court’s advisory opinion is not legally binding but still carries significant political weight. It marks the first time the ICJ has delivered a position on the legality of the 57-year occupation.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerjzxlpvdo
The BBC do not use the apartheid. The Guardian says: “In a historic, albeit non-binding, opinion, the court found multiple breaches of international law by Israel including activities that amounted to apartheid.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/19/israels-settlement-policies-break-international-law-court-finds
“This policy received a resounding endorsement in the early hours of Thursday morning when Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, voted to reject outright a Palestinian state.”
Let’s stop pussy-footing around faux-sensibilities. A two-State solution was never going to be a negotiated outcome. But a single State with equal rights isn’t going to happen either.
International action against Israel’s preferred police action to attack, torture, ostracise, falsely imprison without trial, segregate and forcibly “resettle” its Palestinian inhabitants needs “nem con”, no-one against. (Honest people call that policing policy “apartheid”.)
And so, Keir Starmer’s pledge to recognise a (negotiated) State of Palestine was resoundingly hollow.
Are we expected to believe that his Friends of Israel didn’t let him know the vote was coming? They’re paying most of the ministerial Cabinet as well as you. It’s always the money that pays the piper that calls the tune, Labour’s been played.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/icj-opinion-israels-occupation-upends-order-oppresses-palestinians
Craig Murray has laid out the slimey position being taken by Labour:
In its reaction to the International Court of Justice’s crystal clear ruling on occupied Palestine, the Labour government has disgracefully attempted to ignore the ruling and to continue the Tory policy of total support for Israel.
The UK statement says that:
“The Foreign Secretary was clear on his visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories earlier this week that the UK is strongly opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and rising settler violence.
But of course it is not the EXPANSION of Israel’s illegal settlements that is at issue. It is their EXISTENCE. [my caps]
New Labour’s position is that the 800,000 Israeli illegal settlers currently in the West Bank and East Jerusalem should stay in their illegal settlements. That is the opposite of what the International Court of Justice said in its Opinion, which is that Israel must undertake restitution.
It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements” is fundamentally different from Lammy/Starmer line that Israel must not further expand the illegal settlements.
This is extremely important. Maximum pressure must be brought on the Labour government to align with the ICJ. The official policy is that the UK does respect and follow ICJ judgments.
MPs need immediately to press ministers on this precise point. Does the UK accept the ICJ ruling that all illegal settlers must be removed from all settlements?
You can help by writing to your MP asking for their view on this specific question, pointing out the UK’s legal obligation to follow the rulings of the ICJ.”
He is right on this
The UN passed resolution 242 in 1967 demanding that Israel withdraw from all occupied territories. 57 years on, it still hasn’t happened.