Does any Sane Person Believe Israel Complies with International Law? | VT Foreign Policy
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel
$ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts
Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.
On 24 January Parliament produced a rare treat where an MP held a Government minister to account over support for Israelâs appalling behaviour in Gaza and the Governmentâs attempts to cover up their own collusion.
David Rutley MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) was being quizzed by Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab). The verbatim report in Hansard speaks for itself so Iâll simply let it run.
Zarah Sultana:
I would like to talk about the Governmentâs response to Israelâs violations of international law in Gaza and about revelations that I believe should be a major news storyâŠ. They relate to recently released court documents that reveal that, from very early on in the war, the Foreign Office had major doubts about Israelâs compliance with international law â a fact the Government have hidden.
The documents show that, on 10 November, just a month into the war, the Foreign Office had made an internal assessment of Israelâs compliance with international law and judged that âthe volume of strikes, total death toll as a proportion of those who are children, raise serious concerns.â
It went on to say that His Majestyâs Governmentâs âinability to come to a clear assessment on Israelâs record of compliance with IHL poses significant policy risks.â
However, those serious concerns were kept secret from Parliament and the public. Instead, Ministers continued to give reassurances about Israelâs commitment to international law. For example, just four days after that assessment was made, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield [Andrew Mitchell], in the main Chamber whether Israel had used British-made weapons for war crimes in Gaza. He replied that âthe President of IsraelâŠhas made it clear that his country will abide by international humanitarian lawâ. â[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 523.]
That was despite the fact that, as shown by these documents, his Department doubted the Israeli Presidentâs words. The documents reveal that another assessment was made by the Foreign Office on 8 December, expressing âconcerns regardingâ Israelâs âcommitment to comply with the obligation not to arbitrarily deny access to humanitarian assistanceâ and saying that it was âpossible Israelâs actionsâ in relation to the provision of humanitarian relief âwere a breach of International Humanitarian Lawâ.
Those damning judgments were, again, not made public. Instead, Government Ministers continued to reassure the public about Israelâs commitment to international law, and they continue to do that.
The documents show that, a few days after that assessment, the Foreign Secretary âdecided he was satisfied there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Lawâ. On that basis, he continued allowing arms sales to Israel, despite the fact that, according to our Governmentâs policy and international law, arms export licences should not be granted if there is a clear risk that they could be used in violation of international law. That recommendation was accepted by the Business Secretary on 18 December, and arms sales to Israel were allowed to continue.
When questioned about these matters at the Foreign Affairs Committee this month, the Foreign Secretary failed to disclose the fact that his Department had carried out a formal review of Israelâs compliance with international law, and he denied that he had made a ministerial decision about allowing arms sales to continue. Members will be unsurprised to learn that the Chair of that Committee is writing to the Foreign Secretary to ask him to clarify his comments.
What does this tell us? First, it tells us that, early on in the war, the Foreign Office had serious concerns about Israelâs breaches of international law. Secondly, it tells us that Ministers hid that fact, pretending in Parliament and in the media that they had confidence in Israelâs commitment to international law. Thirdly, it tells us that we should have absolutely no confidence in the Governmentâs arms export licensing regime, which Ministers boast consists of âthe toughest regulations anywhere in the worldâ [Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 565.] but which are clearly grossly inadequate.
To finish, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister.
⊠Why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal that their Department had serious concerns about Israelâs behaviour from as early as 10 November? Was that because they wanted to give Israel the green light for its bombardment of Gaza and they thought that revealing this assessment would simply make that too hard?
⊠Why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing with arms sales to Israel even though his Department had those concerns? Was it because this Government are too cowardly to stand up for international law, or is it because they do not care about international law when it does not suit them?
⊠Finally, will the Government comply with their own rules and with international law and the basic humanity at the heart of it and stop arming Israeli war crimes?
David Rutley:
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) raised important points. What I can say at this point â she will probably not be happy with the answer â is that Ministers review the advice they receive carefully and act consistently with that advice. We work hard and continue to call for international humanitarian law to be respected and for civilians to be protected. As the Foreign Secretary outlined, we assess that Israel has the capability and commitment to comply with international humanitarian law, but we are also deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza. Too many civilians have been killed.
Zarah Sultana:
If there are concerns in the Foreign Office, as per the internal assessment, why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing to allow arms sales to Israel? That goes against our current policy, which is that where there is a risk that human rights violations will take place, we should not continue selling arms licences to countries.
David Rutley:
The Foreign Secretary outlined on 8 January that he has not received advice that Israel has breached international humanitarian law. On export licences, the UK supports Israelâs legitimate right to defend itself and take action against terrorism, provided that it is within the bounds of international humanitarian law. All our export licences are kept under careful and continual review, and we can amend, suspend or revoke extant licences or refuse new licence applications where they are inconsistent with the UKâs strategic export licensing criteria. It is important to note that, as I think hon. Members are aware, the regime is among the most rigorous and transparent in the world.
On the topic of Israel and Gaza, a number of people talked about South Africaâs case at the International Court of Justice. The Government believe that this development is not helpful, and we do not support it. As previously stated, we recognise that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas, and we do not believe that calling that genocide is the right approach. Ultimately, it is for the courts, not states, to decide on matters of genocide, and of course we will respect the role and independence of the ICJ.
This encounter tells us at least four things.
Saying that âIsrael is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Lawâ is laughable given the apartheid stateâs 75-year record of not complying.
The Government still desperately clings to the belief that Israel has a right to defend itself against legitimate Palestinian armed resistance even after being told by the UN that âIsrael cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupiesâ.
If, after 3 months of hideous slaughter and devastation, the Foreign Secretary hadnât detected brazen violations of international and humanitarian law by Israel he ought to be sent on a crash course on the subject â along with the rest of his ignorant colleagues.
The British Government should hang their heads in shame for not supporting South Africa in bringing their case to the ICJ about Israelâs genocide in Gaza. After hearing the Courtâs verdict they look like a very sad bunch of âFriends of Genocidistsâ.
Stuart Littlewood
27 January 2024
After working on jet fighters in the RAF Stuart became an industrial marketing specialist with manufacturing companies and consultancy firms. He also âindulged himselfâ as a newspaper columnist. In politics, he served as a Cambridgeshire county councilor and member of the Police Authority. Now retired he campaigns on various issues and contributes to several online news & opinion sites. An Associate of the Royal Photographic Society, he has produced two photo-documentary books â Paperturn-view.com.
Also, check out Stuartâs book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper. It tells the plight of the Palestinians under brutal occupation and explains to me why the Zionists who control Israel should be brought before the International Criminal Court.
Stuartâs Very Latest Articles: 2023 â Present
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.
No comments:
Post a Comment