Much too little. And far too late. - 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" contractsSource: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.
So, 11 months into Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, the UK Government has finally made a token gesture by suspending some arms export licences to the apartheid regime. A more appropriate response would have been to pull the plug on all things Israeli until they learn how to behave with human decency.
But foreign minister David Lammy said, when announcing the Government would ban a mere 30 of around 350 arms export licences to Israel, that the UK continued to support Israel’s right to defend itself, and this did not amount to an arms embargo. It is very telling that he and other ministers persist in peddling the self-defence lie even after the UN itself has made it clear that “Israel cannot claim self-defence against a threat that emanates from the territory it occupies” and many law experts have said the same.
Although Israel withdrew its troops and squatters from Gaza in 2005 it still controls Gaza’s airspace, airwaves and territorial waters, and all land entry/exit points. It destroyed Gaza’s airport and the rebuilding of the sea port. Therefore, under international law, Israel is considered to still be the occupier with a duty of care for the wellbeing of Gaza’s citizens
On the other hand the Palestinians’ right to resist is confirmed in UN Resolution 3246 which calls for all States to recognize the right to self-determination and independence for all peoples subject to colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, and to assist them in their struggle. Furthermore 3246 reaffirms the Palestinians’ right to use “all available means, including armed struggle” in their fight for freedom.
After Lammy’s announcement the world’s paramount genocidal maniac, Netanyahu, immediately wrote on X: “This shameful decision will not change Israel’s determination to defeat Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that savagely murdered 1200 people on October 7, including 14 British citizens.”
He added: “Hamas is holding over 100 hostages, including 5 British citizens. Instead of standing with Israel, a fellow democracy defending itself against barbarism, Britain’s misguided decision will only embolden Hamas.”
Britain’s chief rabbi chimed in to criticise the Government for timing its decision only a few days after the killing of six Israeli hostages in Gaza. “It beggars belief that the British government, a close strategic ally of Israel, has announced a partial suspension of arms licences,” Ephraim Mirvis stated on X, saying it would give a boost to unfounded claims that Israel was in breach of international humanitarian law. “Sadly, this announcement will serve to encourage our shared enemies. It will not help to secure the release of the remaining 101 hostages, nor contribute to the peaceful future we wish and pray for, for all people in the region and beyond.”
Poor chap needs reminding that all this trouble started not on 7 October 2023, but on 9 April 1948 with the Deir Yassin massacre when Zionist paramilitaries attacked that village killing at least 110 Palestinian villagers, including women and children. The attack was carried out by the Irgun and Lehi supported by the Haganah and Palmach despite the village having agreed to a non-aggression pact. This vicious slaughter was followed by many more massacres by Jewish militia.
And he needs to be careful when talking about a “peaceful future” for everyone in the region. Every Israeli government since 1948 has been driven by the Zionists’ Plan Dalet, their murderous game-plan for the violent and bloody takeover of the Palestinian homeland drawn up in early 1948 by the Jewish underground militia, the Haganah, at the behest of David Ben-Gurion, then boss of the Jewish Agency. It relied on terror, massacres and ethnic cleansing.
Mirvis, writing in the Sunday Telegraph in January, denied that Israel was committing genocide. He said: “It should be obvious that if Israel’s objectives were genocidal, it could have used its military strength to level Gaza in a matter of days.” Instead, we’ve seen how Israel has taken an agonising 11 months (with no sign of stopping) to do exactly that – flatten Gaza and exterminate swathes of the population.
Warning signs of genocide the UK was determined not to see
Israel’s illegal control over the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza has for decades prevented the Palestinian people from exercising their right of self-determination and full and effective self-governance.
Israel’s military aggression, ethnic cleansing, restrictions on movement of goods and people, dispossession of prime lands, theft of Palestine’s key resources and destruction of its economy have bordered on slow-motion genocide. And the International Court of Justicehas clarified that “a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent, it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit”.
TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
The many means available to the British Government include sanctions – which it readily applies to other delinquent nations – and withdrawal of favored-nation privileges, trade deals, and scientific collaboration.
So let’s go back to Month 1 when the UK Lawyers’ Open Letter Concerning Gaza of 26 October 2023 arrived at the UK Government with important warnings regarding breaches of international law — for example:
⦁ 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.
Just how ‘strict’ and ‘rigorous’ is our assessment of arms export licences?
Despite sensible warnings the Department for Business and Trade dismissed a petition calling for all licences for arms to Israel to be revoked. Their excuse was that “we rigorously assess every application on a case-by-case basis against strict assessment criteria, the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria (the SELC)…. The SELC provide a thorough risk assessment framework for export licence applications and require us to think hard about the impact of providing equipment and its capabilities. We will not license the export of equipment where to do so would be inconsistent with the SELC.”
But they didn’t explain how Israel managed to satisfy those “strict assessment criteria” and survive such a “rigorous” process. We were supposed to take it on trust.
So, what does the SELC say?
There are 8 criteria and, on reading them, you might well conclude that Israel fails to satisfy at least 5.
CRITERION 1 stresses the UK Government’s commitment to its UN and other international obligations and how it must refuse an export licence if inconsistent with these.
CRITERION 2 is about respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination as well as respect shown by that country for international humanitarian law. The Government will not grant a licence if “there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate internal repression”. That includes torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary detentions and other serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. As the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are deemed to be occupied by military force, Israel’s responsibilities towards, and treatment of, the Palestinians under their control is presumably included in this.
Under CRITERION 3 the Government is supposed to take into account whether granting a licence would provoke or prolong armed conflict; whether the items are likely to be used other than for legitimate national security or defence; and whether the items might be used for serious acts of violence against women or children. The answers are obvious.
CRITERION 4 worries about whether “the [exported] items would be used in the territory of another country other than for legitimate purposes”. Eleven months of genocide, human misery and almost total devastation in Gaza surely answers that one. 75 years of illegal occupation and terror using brutal military force clinches it.
CRITERION 6 requires “commitment to non-proliferation and other areas of arms control and disarmament”, but how safe is anyone under the threat of Israel’s 200 (or is it 400?) nukes? Israel is the only state in the region not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention either. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, similarly the Chemical Weapons Convention.
You’d think that all this would put the need for an arms embargo beyond doubt. But no.
The Government’s latest word on the matter is that whilst all of the Criteria have been carefully considered, in relation to Israel, the most significant Criterion since 7 October 2023 has been Criterion 2(c), because, as a result of Israel’s participation in armed conflict in Gaza since that date, international humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of rules which is most likely to be engaged by the use of items being exported. Criterion 2(c) states:
“Having assessed the recipient country’s attitude towards relevant principles established by instruments of international humanitarian law, the Government will: (c) Not grant a licence if it determines there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
“Having considered the most recent assessment, the Government has determined that there is a clear risk that certain items, if exported, might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL.”
Of course, as we saw a few paragraphs earlier, that is not all Criterion 2 says. And what about all the other Criteria?
Advice to Government suppressed
When Lord Cameron, with his shed-load of pro-Israel baggage, was parachuted into the Foreign Office as Secretary of State in November he was soon telling everyone that there can be no resolution to the conflict in the Middle East if Hamas is still “armed to the teeth” and capable of attacking Israel. And he defended the UK’s decision to abstain on the UN vote for a Gaza ceasefire on the grounds that the UN was calling for an immediate armistice plus a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, and “those two things don’t go together…. If you have an immediate ceasefire but Hamas [is] still armed to the teeth, launching rockets into Israel, wanting to repeat 7 October, you’ll never have a two-state solution.
“Long-term security I think requires there to be a state for Palestine as well,” he said, sounding wonderfully generous, adding that he did not agree with “disappointing” comments made by the Israeli ambassador to the UK that Israel would not back a two-state solution. Had he been paying attention Cameron would have known that the apartheid regime, from its very inception in 1948, has refused to contemplate the existence of a Palestinian state. Such a thing would thwart Israel’s unlawful ambition to establish sovereignty over the entire territory “from the river to the sea”, which is the express aim of Netanyahu’s vile party, Likud.
In May Cameron was telling the BBC they must call Hamas “terrorists”. This raises the question why the Government proscribed Hamas’ political wing as a terrorist organisation when anyone else can see that the definition of terrorism so perfectly fits Israel which has behaved that way ferociously ever since it declared statehood in 1948. It was Priti Patel, known for her strong pro-Israel stance and her hostility to Palestine, who engineered it. In 2016, as Secretary of State for International Development, she froze aid to Palestine and resumed it only in restricted form.
So besotted was she with the apartheid regime that, in 2017, she (reportedly) had 14 meetings with Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and his security minister, during a family holiday in Israel without telling the Foreign Office, her civil servants, or her boss Theresa May, and without government officials present. This was not only a major violation of the Ministerial Code but a gross breach of security.
She even wanted British aid money diverted into an Israeli army hospital project in the Golan Heights which, of course, belong to Syria and have been illegally occupied since 1967. She was sacked for her stupidity but later rewarded with promotion to Home Secretary. That’s how our crooked system works. She’s now a contender in the leadership race for the Conservative Party — along with a bunch of other Israel stooges.
It was indeed a clever wheeze to proscribe Hamas a terrorist organisation because it makes it so easy for Government ministers to avoid having to admit to Israel’s much worse war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The tragedy of not halting arms exports in February
The Guardian has just reported that Cameron was given advice back in February from Foreign Office officials in Israel and London that there was clear evidence of breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza for which the UK risked being complicit. But he sat on it. Worse than that, he wouldn’t allow the advice to be published when repeatedly asked.
Another minister, Mel Stride, said the advice would not be published due to “long-standing convention”. He told Sky News: “Israel is a very important democratic country that abides by the rule of law, that we should be supporting, particularly in their hour of need and what has happened. However, that is not an unconditional support.”
And Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden suggested that Israel was being held to an “incredibly high standard” compared with other nations.
A source involved in drafting the reports said the advice on which the partial arms ban is based “is similar to what was being sent to the government from at least February onwards in various drafts by Foreign Office advisers, much of it linked to the deteriorating humanitarian position in Gaza. The advice being sent through to the Foreign Office was clear that the breaches of IHL by Israel as the occupying power were so obvious that there was a danger of UK complicity if the licences were not withdrawn.
“The tragedy has to be considered: how many lives might have been saved if the arms export licences had been stopped then and not in September, and what the potential ripple effect might have been on how other countries would have reacted in ceasing trade.”
Stuart Littlewood
4 September 2024
After working on jet fighters in the RAF Stuart became an industrial marketing specialist with manufacturing companies and consultancy firms. He also “indulged himself” as a newspaper columnist. In politics, he served as a Cambridgeshire county councillor 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 – Paperturn-view.com.
Also, check out Stuart’s book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under brutal occupation.
Stuart’s Very Latest Articles: 2023 – 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