Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

No better from Yvette Cooper. They are likely waiting to take their cue from Washington:



and Biden's response to the arrest warrants is fairly predictable:



TBF the answer from a Labour party MP doesn't surprise me.

It's the line they have been taking. Not following US but trying for a centre ground approach.

Of course when it comes to Ukraine that's different


Starmer on Putin arrest warrant,



He applauded arrest warrant for Putin.
 
I mean what Netanyahu and Gallant have been doing has been live streamed across the world.

You don't have to be trained legal mind to see after a year of this there is a case to answer.

Unless your Labour government
 
Prime Minister, given the developments with the genocide arrest warrant against Netanyahu, and your providing intelligence and weapons for this genocide, what are your plans to preserve your own personal safety when justice comes for you?
 
"Defense Minister Katz has informed the Shin Bet that he will stop approving administrative detention orders for Jews in the west bank: 'it's inappropriate for Israel to take such severe measures against the settlers'"

 
TBF the answer from a Labour party MP doesn't surprise me.

It's the line they have been taking. Not following US but trying for a centre ground approach.

Of course when it comes to Ukraine that's different


Starmer on Putin arrest warrant,



He applauded arrest warrant for Putin.

Yeh but it's different when it's his mates they're coming after
 
TBF the answer from a Labour party MP doesn't surprise me.

It's the line they have been taking. Not following US but trying for a centre ground approach.

Of course when it comes to Ukraine that's different


Starmer on Putin arrest warrant,



He applauded arrest warrant for Putin.

The whole world sees these double-standards.

The last mainstream politician in power in Britain who I can think of that had even a tiny bit of credibility was Robin Cook. People scoffed when he spoke about an ethical foreign policy, but the intention was genuine. And he had time for this spat with Netanyahu back in 1998. British Foreign Secretaries have not always been as supine as Lammy.

Netanyahu Angrily Cancels Dinner With Visiting Briton (Published 1998)

But since Cook? A continuous stream of absolute shits.
 
The whole world sees these double-standards.

The last mainstream politician in power in Britain who I can think of that had even a tiny bit of credibility was Robin Cook. People scoffed when he spoke about an ethical foreign policy, but the intention was genuine. And he had time for this spat with Netanyahu back in 1998. British Foreign Secretaries have not always been as supine as Lammy.

Netanyahu Angrily Cancels Dinner With Visiting Briton (Published 1998)

But since Cook? A continuous stream of absolute shits.
But let's not forget what happened with new labour the last time a fascist former leader was arrested in the UK
 
But let's not forget what happened with new labour the last time a fascist former leader was arrested in the UK
That Pinochet was arrested was a major credit to the Blair government. That he was released was a discredit. The effect in Chile was positive, in that it acted to lessen the fear of bringing murderers and torturers and rapists to justice.
 
Israel is not an ICC member state, and so is not under their agreement. Gaza, however, is, which is where it is tricky for Israel.

Good point.

This is where International law gets political.

I need to read more but one argument is about ICC jurisdiction.

Palestine is not a state.

But its now accepted that ICC does have jurisdiction due to acts taking place in the occupied territories.

I read Noura Erakat book recently on international law and Palestine.

Unlike crimes that take place in a nation state by an individual where the state is the supreme authority a lot of international agreements on lawful war etc there is no supreme authority to enforce them. If say I murder someone in my own county the State will put me on trial etc.

With a lot of international law there is no world government to enforce law. So its up to individual states to work individually or together to make say the convention on Genocide actually mean something. Or the ICC warrants to be put into practise and not just be well meaning decisions.

So she makes a distinction between rule of law within a state and the international arena.

In some ways the international arena is where law is political. Not in a cynical sense but one where as she puts it legal work on both sides and strategic use of law is how it works

Why its infuriating that our present government , who have people in leading positions who are well versed in law, taking position that its not up to us. We will take a neutral position.

That's not only a cop out its knowingly not being active to support international agreements this country has signed up to. And unless the politicians who run this country are idiots they now full well this is the case. And its what they should be dong.

As Erakat points points out its in the area of international law on war and genocide that this is exactly what a country should not do. It should not sit there and say no comment. As our Labour government is doing. It should be pro active. Saying what it will do to back up ICC

UK should be taking a pro active position

A prime example of a country taking a pro active position is South Africa.

Its looking at international agreements and law and saying yes lets try and make this work.

A rules based order only works if individual states back it up.

USA and UK aren't dong that in their own different ways.

In fact Id say they are opposing it.

Thus imo they are facilitating genocide by inaction
 
Last edited:
Israel are also occupying the west bank, which is in the state of Palestine. The US is not in the ICC either, which is probably so they cant be prosecuted. The UN is in New York.
 
As of June 2024, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 146 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members. It has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations General Assembly since November 2012.
 
As of June 2024, the State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 146 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members. It has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations General Assembly since November 2012.
The definition of a state does not depend on recognition by other states. When I was a child, the People's Republic of China was not recognised by many states, including the UK and the USA, and was not allowed to be a member of the United Nations.
 
The definition of a state does not depend on recognition by other states. When I was a child, the People's Republic of China was not recognised by many states, including the UK and the USA, and was not allowed to be a member of the United Nations.
The stats say its recognised by 146 of the 193 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members.
 
The stats say its recognised by 146 of the 193 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members.
That does not change the fact that Palestine is not a state. It does not have any agreed borders, does not have an army, and is not sovereign on any land.
 
And the other thing about the arrest warrants and anti semitism.

An argument goes even if one is not openly anti Semitic a sign of it is picking out Israel in particular

Leading legal minds have now agreed to arrest warrants for two leading members of the Israel state and one ( who may or not be dead ) Hamas leading member,

So imo Israel is being treated just the same as say Putin in Russia.

Its not that Israel is being unfairly picked on.
 
TBF the answer from a Labour party MP doesn't surprise me.

It's the line they have been taking. Not following US but trying for a centre ground approach.

Of course when it comes to Ukraine that's different


Starmer on Putin arrest warrant,



He applauded arrest warrant for Putin.

She's the Home Secretary , a post of which I got the impression was responsible for law enforcement
 
And the other thing about the arrest warrants and anti semitism.

An argument goes even if one is not openly anti Semitic a sign of it is picking out Israel in particular

Leading legal minds have now agreed to arrest warrants for two leading members of the Israel state and one ( who may or not be dead ) Hamas leading member,

So imo Israel is being treated just the same as say Putin in Russia.

Its not that Israel is being unfairly picked on.
There has been a claim that the ICC is racist, because the people it took action against had all been from states in Africa. To act against the State of Israel would go some way to rebutting this accusation.
 
There has been a claim that the ICC is racist, because the people it took action against had all been from states in Africa. To act against the State of Israel would go some way to rebutting this accusation.
Fair point although as some posters have indicated on the Ukraine threads the opinions of countries that aren't 'The West' dont really count.
 
Back
Top Bottom