This decision of the international criminal court to issue arrest warrants on Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant is, in my opinion, welcome.
The fact that the Court is quite explicit about the fact that they think these two have committed war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza is also welcome. For those of us who have argued that such crimes have been committed throughout the current Israeli government campaign in Gaza, this provides not just exoneration for our opinion, for which many of us have received abuse, but also the clearest indication that international opinion is moving in our direction.
By taking this action, the Court is also making it quite clear that the actions of this Israeli government can be viewed as being distinct from those of Israel as a Jewish state. The suggestions made by far too many people that criticisms of Netanyahu‘s actions are antisemitic should now cease. They are not. They have nothing to do with his being Jewish or Israel being a majority Jewish state. They have everything to do with his abuse of the people of Gaza, which is contrary to international law.
I should also add that the issue of a warrant against Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif was also welcome, but also largely symbolic now as it is widely assumed that Israel has already killed him.
All this being said, what is now required is a reaction from the UK government. The UK is a participant in the International Criminal Court, like a majority of the world's governments and a majority of the members of the United Nations, with Russia, Israel and the USA being notable exceptions. As a result, and because we are bound by the Court's decisions, if Netanyahu were to come to the UK, he should be arrested so that he might stand trial on the charges now laid against him. This would be the case even if he were on a plane that only touched down here whilst on its way to another destination, such as the USA.
So, what will the arch-Zionist Keir Starmer, do as a consequence? The statement issued by the UK government yesterday was less than forthcoming, saying:
We respect the independence of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.
This government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself, in accordance with international law.
There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas and Lebanese Hizballah, which are terrorist organisations.
We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire, to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza. “This is essential to protect civilians, ensure the release of hostages and to increase humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Make of that what you will. I call them weasel words.
The likelihood is that Starmer will, as is so typical of a politician of his type, suggest he cannot consider what he would describe as a hypothetical question as to the actions he would take if Netanyahu were to come to the UK. That, however, is absurd. If he wishes to uphold the rule of international law and remain within the rules-based system of international governance that this country helped create, he has no choice but to answer any such question that might be put to him.
As a lawyer, he must know that just as much as he must know that most of what lawyers do involves considering what he would describe as a 'hypothetical' question. He should, therefore, make it absolutely clear that the UK will act in accordance with the International Criminal Court's requirements and arrest Netanyahu if he comes to this country.
If he does not, we have to presume three things.
The first is that he supports the genocide in Israel.
The second is that he has abandoned all those commitments to human rights that he likes to claim were the foundation of his career.
Thirdly, he will be indicating that he is willing to put the UK outside the system of international law to support a country, the leader of a country which is committing genocide in that country‘s name.
He has to decide. Either he supports tyranny, or he doesn't. There is no point in between, and in this case, the evidence against Netanyahu is overwhelming. His actions have deliberately set out to harm the civilian population of Gaza. There can be no defence for what Netanyahu has done, and there can be no defence for those who are unwilling to take steps to end the genocide that he has put in place.
Starmer must make clear what he will do, or he faces the risk of being complicit in Netanyahu's war crimes. Even he should understand that.
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!
We have form. We did not arrest Pinochet in 1998. Blair enabled his safety from prosecution.
This international criminal court – where do the trials take place and what right does the defendant have. I presume they get to see the evidence against them, rather than assertions that you’ve been committing crimes since 8th October 2023 onwards as you mention here.
It’s going to get extremely messy is this.
Look it up
I am not here to substitute for Google
@Sinwar
Per Wikipedia:
The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. It is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states.
You are right,
he WAS asked the “will UK arrest him?” question.
He DID (via his spokesperson) use the “hypotheticals” excuse when asked about the arrest. “We are not going to get into hypotheticals”.
Many of today’s headlines falsely change his “respect for the independence of the court” into “backs the arrest of Netanyahu”, but the headlines are, as so often. LYING.
Yes, he is a disgrace and a moral coward.
Term terrorist is used to justify is deny the armed organisations of people in Gaza , West Bank and in Lebanon any credence in the West.
They-and much of the world-sees them as resistance organisations against Israeli colonialism. As they are ‘non-state’ actors’ it is easier to designate them as such. Their use of violence is part of that label. The use of violence against them is not reported in the same way by our politicians and media.
This is not to condone many of the actions we have seen.
However, Israel was founded by the actions of militias which the British Mandate authorities called terrorists. Shamir, later a Prime Minister of Israel, assassinated Folke Bernadotte, the Swedish UN peace envoy.
In our history of the empire we had people who fought against British rule. At some point we talked and then often they became the new government and came to London to have tea with the Queen.
By use the term terrorist we stop any discussion of the rights and wrongs of the situation. Palestinians surely have a right of self defence and do have a right not to be subject to the relentless and inhumane Israeli Campaign.
The British, indeed, the western public need to better hear the Palestinian case. If the US had refused further military aid and UN diplomatic support unless Israel stopped its policy of land appropriation in the West Bank, it is likely we would not be where we are today. The West has some responsibilty for the situation.
Don’t forget Mandela! Thatcher’s terrorist. Truly Starmer is a weasel. Who voted for siding with genocide? The British people? I now consider this country infiltrated by foreign powers and corporations to such an extent we are hanging on to democracy by a thread.
We , at least, did not join with the US in UN Security council when, this week, it vetoed a cease fire.
I didn’t want to make my post too long by adding the point you make. There is a very powerful pro-Isreal lobby in this country. In the last Parliament we are told 80% of Troy MPs were Conservative Friends of Israel. They are a lobby group for a foreign country but are largely invisible. Labour was 50%.
Alan Duncan writes how he was told he was to the Middle East minister at the FCO and arrived at Downing Street to be told by Boris Johnson that he was sorry but certain people didn’t think he was suitable. He is known for his sympathy for the Palestinians
This year he pointed out that some leading party members were too pro-Israel and appeared to reject the party policy on a two state solution in favour of one Israeli state. Within hours he was told he would be subject to disciplinary measures but several months later he was cleared.
Earlier this year the SNP on their day in the Commons planned to present a motion calling for an immediate ceasefire and it is alleged that Starmer threatened the Speaker to that Labour could present theirs first. He feared that too many of his back-benchers agreed.
Richards Sanders film, made with Al Jazeera ( there is a Youtube interview with Peter Oborne about its making ) cannot be shown on our main TV channels.
In a democracy we should have access to reasoned and sourced information. Attempts to manipulate the news should be exposed. IMHO
@ Ian Stevenson
Information about Alan Duncan pops up in a much earlier Al Jazeera “The Lobby-UK” 4 part documentary, about the covert activity of former Israeli embassy employee Shai Masot, helping to covertly channel Israeli money to pro-Israel groups in the main UK political parties. and incidentally, smear pro Palestinian individuals such as Alan Duncan.
My source is the always reliable Jewish Chronicle (cough cough). https://www.thejc.com/news/israeli-ambassador-apologises-after-aide-says-he-wants-to-take-down-foreign-office-minister-b0wz00q2 as well as a further smear attempt against Duncan this year, by his own Conservative Party,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/16/alan-duncan-attacks-tory-party-after-being-cleared-over-antisemitism-claims
and of course the 4 Al Jazeera documentaries on infiltration of UK politics themseves which I have archived, as they are not so easy to locate nowadays.
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/investigations/2017/1/10/the-lobby-young-friends-of-israel-part-1/ for the first two of 4.
This is from the one about “taking down” Duncan but sourced via the Electronic Intafada site
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/secret-video-reveals-israeli-plot-take-down-uk-minister
(whose editor Asa Winstanley is one of a slew of independent journalists & activists recently raided or arrested under the UKs new anti-terror laws.
Be careful…
I would’ve thought that UK (as the Hague Court signatory) would have to arrest Netanyahu without Starmer saying yes or no. Not arresting him would be against the law. Can someone who knows more about the law, write more on this because following what Starmer and Lammy are saying – they’re making this arrest a UK political decision, when it is a legal one – and that legal decision had already been made.
I agree with you
Yvette Cooper was dire on this on television this morning, claiming it was it a matter for the Home Secretary when age was representing the whole government.
The feeling that there is something very underhand going on here is hard to avoid.
Apparently Starmer said similar weasel words in May “… I believe in the international rule of law and I respect the independence of both the prosecutor and the court, but they’ve got a decision to make at some point in the future.”
Apparently there is a legal process to go through to recognise the internaitonal warrant for his arrest – not sure if or how the govt could interfere with this.
On his record since taking office – it would be expected he would not want him arrested in UK – so will probably have a quiet word – suggesting he doesnt actually come here.
But if Starmer continues spy flights from Cyprus over Gaza and supplying arms to Israel is he aiding and abetting a potential criminal? Again, on his record – he wont stop the arms or the flights – despite 80% of the country apparently thinking he should.
He will continue to implicate all of us in war crimes and genocide. if cutting off water, food and medicines to 2 million for month after month while massacring 44000 civilians by bombing , isnt a war crime/genocide – what is?
All very good questions
Pinochet was arrested in 1998 in London under such a warrant though later released on the grounds of his “ill health.”
All Starmer and his party are doing is taking the world as they find it.
We can forget about vision, or hope or change.
Starmer is in power believing that he has no power and just there to smooth the way forward for that which is already set (his funding was based on that remember?).
Is there anything else to say?
It is worth remembering that the UK and USA classified Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. They did everything possible to block the UN and support the apartheid regime in South Africa. It is the world’s good fortune that they were totally wrong and Mandela (and Tutu) turned out to be the real Statesmen. Nowadays is there anyone that thinks supporting the white supremacists in SA was sensible or rational? Just think where SA could be now if 40 years had not been wasted going down a blind alley!
And during that era, Israel was a good, supportive friend to the SA apartheid regime, as well as the Generals in Argentina.
When even the head of Shin Bet describes the actions of Israeli Jews in the West Bank as terrorism, it’s clear who the terrorists are. Or rather a terror state.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-22/ty-article/.premium/shin-bet-chief-warns-pm-and-ministers-jewish-terror-is-jeopardizing-israels-existence/00000191-7b9a-de04-af9b-7b9b38070000
Thank you and well said, Robin.
Richard and readers may not be aware that British, US and Australian police and other security forces train in Israel. Israeli personnel also train in these countries and even deploy there*.
The UK-Israeli agreement goes back to the days of Blair and was renewed when Patel and Wallace were Home and Defence secretaries.
*Someone I know who served in Whitehall and Washington has told me that Israeli personnel served in Northern Ireland initially and later on the mainland, including, it is long rumoured, the operation that led to Jean-Charles de Menezes being killed.
Readers may want to search online for Shomrim. Their instructors come from Israel, but the funding is from the Home Office.
Perhaps the question of arresting Netanyahu, should he arrive on UK soil is hypothetical, however, the enablement of Israel’s continued genocide and the supply of weapons is not. What is the UK’s legal position on this and what is Starmer’s response?
He appears to be in denial of there being a genocide
Indeed he is, but the ICC, to which the UK, and therefore his government, is subservient (if that’s the word) is not. He is required to accept the decision of the Court.
Governments are prone to ignore requirements
And he does not like the politics of this
I disagree about it being hypothetical. It’s a real siruation, and the UK has faced it (and fudged it) before, amidst much justifiable outrage, and predictable mendacious hypocrisy.
There have been a number of high profile examples of states having to deal with the reality of this situation.
In Britain Pinochet was arrested in 1998 on an international warrant, for extradition to Spain, but was later released (by Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw) on grounds of “ill health” (that form of reversible senile dementia that often afflicts elderly war criminals).
Mrs Thatcher invited him for tea that same year, she was a great fan of his vicious governent. In 2004 he was re-arrested in Chile, but died in 2006 before he could stand trial.
But will Netanyahu be arrested in Britain?
Absolutely not, at least under Starmer’s government.
See here for the legal fudge https://redress.org/news/2024-in-focus-holding-war-criminals-to-account-in-britain/
There was one war criminal, who was very effectively captured and covertly transported back for trial, 64 years ago. His name was Adolf Eichman and he was a WW2 Nazi, captured in 1960 in S America, and tried by Israel itself, & executed 1962. The Israeli state & population don’t seem quite so keen on arrest,trial & punishment of war criminals nowadays.
Netanyahu has visited this country recently and will do so again. If anyone tries a citizen’s arrest, almost certainly THEY will be arrested, while Netanyahu flies home safely.
There will now be a redoubled effort to smear the international court and all the individuals involved in the prosecution team. It’s already well under way.
Starmer’s spokesman refused to say if Netanyahu would be arrested because he wouldn’t “get into hypotheticals” but that’s exactly what he and Starmer have done, because they constantly refer to their support of Israel carrying out its war in accordance with international law, but that’s the biggest hypothetical of all.
From day one the war has been based on war crimes and genocide. It has never been in accordance with international law and never will be, and so commenting on supporting Israel carrying out its war in accordance with international law is commenting on something that doesn’t exist and is thus meaningless. It’s using a hypothetical as a way to avoid taking a position on what is actually happening, which is a war that has violated international law since the beginning.
If they really don’t want to comment on hypotheticals then they should make their position clear on what is actually happening: do they support or oppose Israel carrying out its war in a way that violates international law?
Starmer is reported to have said that he is a Zionist. It is one of very few things he has not back-tracked on in the run-up to, and since, his election success (if you could call that a success).
He will, I expect, avoid making any decisions on the issues involved in the current Israeli/ Palestine war (for ‘war’ read genocide) until circumstances make it impossible for him to duck the issue. In. the meantime we have markets to appease and those markets include weapons of (fairly) mass destruction. Very lucrative markets, no doubt, and jolly good for GDP figures.
GDP is a crass measure of economic health. It may once have been useful, but it no longer is.
Jack Straw was reportedly acquiescent to the refuelling of American planes en route to Guantanamo. We can expect no higher moral judgement from the current administration.
It would be useful if we challenged journalists and politicians every time they refer to Israel as a “democracy,” even as “the only democracy in the Middle East”
Surely a state cannot be democratic if it expels the bulk of a population, replacing them with a different set of people. Then holding elections which ,not surprisingly , always return different versions of the political movements that organised the original ethnic cleansing. This myth of Israeli “democracy” gets trotted out ,unchallenged, too often.
The attorney general (Starmer’s personal choice and a long-standing colleague of his) siad, according to the BBC:
“Last month Lord Hermer told the BBC he would not allow political considerations to influence his conclusions if the ICC were to issue an arrest warrant.
“My advice [on an arrest warrant for Mr Netanyahu] would be legal advice, based on analysis of the law,” he said.
“It’s not for the attorney to dictate what a government chooses to do. The role of the attorney is to provide fearless legal advice as to what the law requires, what the contents of the law is, and where the law takes you. And that’s what I’m going to do.”
So he implies there is. apparently, a political decision to be made. What happened to the separation of the judiciary and the executive? If there is a valid arrest warrant the alleged criminal is required to be arrested.
I agree with most of this.
But one point: at its heart this may be about international law, although there is some controversy regarding the ICC’s jurisdiction here, and in Russia, but on the matter of the UK’s legal obligation to arrest Netanyahu, the situation is crystal clear: the UK brought in the ‘ICC’ act in 2001 and is legally obliged to arrest Netanyahu should he set foot in UK. This is a matter of domestic law, and there is no discretion for the government in applying the law: they are bound by it. The only ‘way out’ for the government would be for parliament to repeal the ICC act, which, despite the whipping system, they might still refuse to do.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/17/contents See section 2 in particular.
Thanks
I believe that a UK judge would, first, have to confirm that the international arrest warrant is valid under UK law. But that is a legal opinion, not a political one.
IANAL but I agree with both your posts.
A UK court has to pronounce on this ICJ warrant, and hasn’t done so yet.
If UK court says the warrant is binding on UK, then it’s back to the politicians again.
And they can choose to ignore both INT & UK courts. hoping that no other countries take action against UK in international courts or UN, for their multiple failures (such as an arguable failure to prevent further genocide).
I presume that if a UK court says the arrest warrant IS binding and Netanyahu flies in and out of UK, and is NOT arrested, then someone could use the UK courts to say UK gov is acting unlawfully.
But that never worried Home Office or DWP, it’s happened loads of times.
IMHO, only UN could actually SANCTION UK, and we, and the USA could veto that? Do sanctions go through General Council (majority vote), or Security Council (can be vetoed by a permanent member – WW2 Victors’ nuclear club)?
Or maybe future diplomacy with indicted war criminals will be done over video link and we will continue to observe the reality that international courys and UN sanctions are only to be used against the little people?
I have no answers
All good questions
I am afraid I can see no relevant conflict of interest. Israel and a connection to Judaism, or being Jewish are NOT the same thing. Would you claim that a Christian Attorney General should not be involved in a matter relating to Spain, or any other Christian country?
Agreed
Starmer won’t do anything while Israel and Netanyahu continue to ‘enjoy’ unfettered support from the US. It would not go down well in Washington if the UK government took a contradictory approach to US policy in the Middle East. For a greater understanding of why this may well be the case I found this video helpful in providing an overview of recent US/UK foreign policy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhj-arTRJ2Q&ab_channel=A%2FPOLITICAL