Activating the Genocide Convention 335

There are 149 states party to the Genocide Convention. Every one of them has the right to call out the genocide in progress in Gaza and report it to the United Nations. In the event that another state party disputes the claim of genocide – and Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom are all states party – then the International Court of Justice is required to adjudicate on “the responsibility of a State for genocide”.

These are the relevant articles of the genocide convention:

Article VIII
Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Article IX
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

Note that here “parties to the dispute” means the states disputing the facts of genocide, not the parties to the genocide/conflict. Any single state party is able to invoke the Convention.

There is no doubt that Israel’s actions amount to genocide. Numerous international law experts have said so and genocidal intent has been directly expressed by numerous Israeli ministers, generals and public officials.

This is the definition of genocide in international law, from the Genocide Convention:

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I can see no room to doubt whatsoever that Israel’s current campaign of bombing of civilians and of the deprivation of food, water and other necessities of life to Palestinians amounts to genocide under articles II a), b) and c).

It is also worth considering Articles III and IV:

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

There is, at the very least, a strong prima facie case that the actions of the United States and United Kingdom and others, in openly providing direct military support to be used in genocide, are complicity in genocide. The point of Article IV is that individuals are responsible, not just states. So Netanyahu, Biden and Sunak bear individual responsibility. So, indeed, do all those who have been calling for the destruction of the Palestinians.

It is very definitely worth activating the Genocide Convention. A judgement of the International Court of Justice that Israel is guilty of genocide would have an extraordinary diplomatic effect and would cause domestic difficulties in the UK and even in the US in continuing to subsidise and arm Israel. The International Court of Justice is the most respected of international institutions; while the United States has repudiated its compulsory jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has not and the EU positively accepts it.

If the International Court of Justice makes a determination of genocide, then the International Criminal Court does not have to determine that genocide has happened. This is important because unlike the august and independent ICJ, the ICC is very much a western government puppet institution which will wiggle out of action if it can. But a determination of the ICJ of genocide and of complicity in genocide would reduce the ICC’s task to determining which individuals bear the responsibility. That is a prospect which can indeed alter the calculations of politicians.

It is also the fact that a reference for genocide would force the western media to address the issue and use the term, rather than just pump out propaganda about Hamas fighting bases in hospitals. Furthermore a judgement from the ICJ would automatically trigger a reference to the United Nations General Assembly – crucially not to the western-vetoed Security Council.

All this begs the question of why no state has yet invoked the Genocide Convention. This is especially remarkable as Palestine is one of the 149 states party to the Genocide Convention, and for this purpose would have standing before both the UN and the ICJ.

I am afraid the question of why Palestine has not invoked the Genocide Convention takes us somewhere very dark. Anyone who, like George Galloway and myself, cut their political teeth in left-wing politics of Dundee of the 1970s has (long story) their experience and contacts with Fatah, and my sympathies have always very much lain with Fatah rather than Hamas. They still do, with the aspiration for a democratic, secular Palestine. It is Fatah who occupy the Palestinian seat at the United Nations, and the decision for Palestine to call into play the Genocide Convention lies with Mahmoud Abbas.

It is more and more difficult daily to support Abbas. He seems extraordinarily passive, and the suspicion that he is more concerned with refighting the Palestinian civil war than with resisting the genocide is impossible to shake. By invoking the Genocide Convention he could put himself and Fatah back at the centre of the narrative. But he does nothing. I do not want to believe that corruption and a Blinken promise of inheriting Gaza are Mahmoud’s motivators. But at the moment, I cannot grab on to any other explanation to believe in.

Any one of the 139 states party could invoke the Genocide Convention against Israel and its co-conspirators. Those states include Iran, Russia, Libya, Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Afghanistan, Cuba, Ireland, Iceland, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and Qatar. But not one of these states has called out the genocide. Why?

It is not because the Genocide Convention is a dead letter. It is not. It was invoked against Serbia by Bosnia and Herzegovina and the ICJ ruled against Serbia with regard to the massacre at Srebrenica. This fed directly through to ICC prosecutions.

Some states may simply not have thought of it. For Arab states in particular, the fact that Palestine itself has not invoked the Genocide Convention may provide an excuse. EU states can hide behind bloc unanimity.

But I am afraid that the truth is that no state cares sufficiently about the thousands of Palestinian children already killed and thousands more who will shortly be killed, to introduce another factor of hostility in their relationship with the United States. Just as at this weekend’s summit in Saudi Arabia, where Islamic countries could not agree an oil and gas boycott of Israel, the truth is that those in power really do not care about a genocide in Gaza. They care about their own interests.

It just needs one state to invoke the Genocide Convention and change the narrative and the international dynamic. That will only happen through the power of the people in pressing the idea on their governments. This is where everybody can do a little something to add to the pressure. Please do what you can.

Hat tip to the indefatigable Sam Husseini who has been pressing the Genocide Convention on the White House.


Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a



Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

335 thoughts on “Activating the Genocide Convention

1 2 3
  • Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett

    ” All this begs the question of why no state has yet invoked the Genocide Convention. This is especially remarkable as Palestine is one of the 149 states party to the Genocide Convention, and for this purpose would have standing before both the UN and the ICJ.”

    So, only one country needs to trigger and invoke.

  • Robert Dyson

    I did not know the detail you give but hard to believe that governments do not. Maybe Mahmoud Abbas has got a hint that his life will be short if he invokes the Convention. I had a more benign view of most governments until a few years ago, now I know how ruthless the big players are.

  • no-one important

    A genuine question for which I would be grateful for any guidance – why don’t neighbouring Arab countries take in Palestinian refugees? Especially the women and children. It just seems so particularly heartless to deny them a safe space while Israel busies itself flattening Gaza. I am admittedly not widely read on ME politics but this is a genuine puzzle for me.

    • Laguerre

      You evidently approve of the ethnic cleansing/genocide operation. Concentrating on blaming the victims (in this case the Arab states who will have to pay the price for Israeli brutality) rather than calling for Israel to stop its horrifying and deliberate operations is not a good look.

      • no-one important

        I would be most grateful if you could refrain from telling me what I think; “evidently approve”, for heaven’s sake.

        For the record I deplore what is going on in Gaza.

        • Laguerre

          It’s a necessary conclusion that you do think that. It’s not a matter of putting thoughts into your mouth. If your thinking is also to deplore what is going on in Gaza, then you need to do something about the inconsistencies of your thoughts.

      • Aguirre


        You’re an expert on the Middle East (according to yourself, at least).

        Why don’t you apply your expertise to trying to answer no-one important’s question rather than immediately replying (within the hour) with a comment that is nothing other than a procès d’intention against the questioner.

        There are probably a number of reasons which could be evoked – reasons which could be examined and if necessary contested. Why don’t you give any of them?

        • will moon

          “You’re an expert on the Middle East”

          Maybe your new in these parts, so I’ll give you the lowdown.

          I have been reading Laguerre post’s for many years. There is one thing I can say, this poster has demonstrated a strong grasp of the subject matter. I no longer check when they make a statement. I might if the statement was an obvious possible untruth eg “Ben Netanyhu is a human animal” but this contingency has never arisen because this poster weighs their words and avoids hyperbole. I have read many thousands of comments by this poster. Even if I don’t agree with them, they exhibit a consistent, knowledgeable view point which I value.

          If the education of others was dear to your heart, you would have ignored Laguerre’s comments and answered the question that no one important was asking in their search for enlightenment, wouldn’t you?

          • Aguirre

            I didn’t answer no one important’s question because I didn’t have an answer.

            But I’m happy to see that others have bothered to provide cogent answers.

            It was surprising and disappointing to read Laguerre’s post which, instead of giving his (expert) opinion, cast doubt on no one important’s motives for asking a perfectly respectable question.

            In reply to a question about why neighbouring Arab countries don’t take in refugees (they do, in fact), Laguerre , within the hour, accuses no one important of “evidently approving the ethnic cleansing/genocide operation”.

            What sort of a reply is that?

            It is interesting that you appear to use a similar sort of tactic to attack me (cf your last paragraph).

            By the way, I’m puzzled by your combination of the singular and the plural, as in “this poster / they” and “this poster / their (words)”. Care to explain?

      • Hard Times


        What an utterly uncalled for, ridiculous response, to a perfectly acceptable, compassionate comment.

        “not a good look”. ?? Indeed. Try looking in your OWN mirror.

        • will moon

          “Try looking in your OWN mirror”

          Do you think the Israeli “No-one is innocent in Gaza” Government might follow your advice? After all, the collective punishment of millions, with the attendant slaughter of !0,000’s of innocents is a definite crime while you slate Laguerre for expressing an opinion?

          • Aguirre

            “Hard Times” is not slating Laguerre for expressing an opinion. He’s slating Laguerre for having, in effect, slandered the original questioner (“no one important”) by suggesting that the original questioner approves of ethnic cleansing/genocide.

            An apology from you (and even more from Laguerre) would be in order, I think.

          • Laguerre

            I see that your remarks too are ethnic-cleansing tolerant, very common among people here who like Israel for some reason.

          • Aguirre


            If you “see” that, I suggest you need a new pair of specs urgently.

            Please spell out in detail in which way my remarks are(1) “ethnic cleansing tolerant” and (2) demonstrate a “liking” for Israel.

      • Goose

        Not only that they’ve already taken in lots of refugees. Jordan alone has 3,240,000 already.

        The countries outside the Palestinian territories with significant Palestinian populations are:

        • Jordan 3,240,000
        • Israel 1,650,000
        • Syria 630,000
        • Chile 500,000 (largest Palestinian community outside the Middle East).
        • Lebanon 402,582
        • Saudi Arabia 280,245
        • Egypt 270,245
        • United States 255,000 (the largest concentrations in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles).
        • Honduras 250,000
        • Guatemala est. 200,000
        • Mexico 120,000
        • Qatar 100,000
        • Germany 80,000
        • Kuwait 80,000
        • El Salvador 70,000
        • Brazil 59,000
        • Iraq 57,000
        • Yemen 55,000
        • Canada 50,975
        • Australia 45,000
        • Libya 44,000
        • Puerto Rico est. 30,000
        • Greece est. 30,000
        • United Kingdom 20,000
        • Peru 19,000
        • Denmark 15,000
        • Colombia 12,000
        • Japan est. 10,000
        • Paraguay 10,000
        • Netherlands 9,000
        • Sweden 7,000
        • Algeria 4,030
        • Austria 4,010
        • Norway 3,825

        This is why the idea of a right of return for Palestinians terrifies Israel. And why successive Israeli govts have welcomed Jews under their own quite outrageous, Law of Return – which allows those awful settlers, with highly tenuous or no connections to the region, Israeli citizenship. Unlike Palestinians, with their direct ancestry linking them to the region.

        • Aguirre

          These figures presumably refer to those of Palestinian ethnicity and therefore cover several generations, not just the original dispossessed of 1948/49. In other words, you’re talking about the Palestinian diaspora.

          Is that correct?

          • Hans Adler

            I also think that this is mostly the Palestinian diaspora. The number of Palestinians in Jordan is impressively high; a bit over 2 million of these are refugees, and a small proportion of these refugees live in camps. But mostly they have become part of Jordanian society. Many but not all of them have become Jordanian citizens. It’s probably not an accident that the Jordanian king married a Palestinian woman. But Jordan really can’t accept a lot more refugees.

            Lebanon has its own problems between diverse groups. An influx of Palestinians would no doubt upset things to the point they could end up with another civil war.

            No doubt a lot of Israel’s neighbors are in fear that if the country manages to annex the Palestinian territories and expel the Palestinians, it will use this as a basis for further expansion to all territories that are 1) strategically important (such as the annexation of the Golan heights from Syria), or 2) of religious relevance, such as the Sinai. Once an occupier has essentially exterminated the local population, like the US, Canada or Australia did, they can be as hypocritical as they want without getting any pushback. Israel’s neighbors don’t want Israel to reach this stage.

            I sympathize with your question. We in the West today are part of highly individualized societies. To many of us, preventing death and individual suffering is more important than abstractions such as peoples and nations. In this logic, ‘genocide’ is a foreign concept; it’s a weird way of referring to many individual fates.

            But there is another, collectivist, logic, and a lot of people follow it especially in the Middle East. Under this other logic, all humans are organs of a larger body such as a tribe or a nation. The individuals have an obligation to further the interests of this body, including through who they marry, how many children they have, and possibly through suicidal military operations.

            Both logics exist everywhere, and we are able to switch between them based on external factors, as happened very impressively in Europe at the beginning of the First World War. In the Middle East, the collectivist logic is traditionally stronger, and there is a lot of unrest there which nudges their societies further in this direction.

            From the collectivist point of view, it’s not about helping Palestinian individuals by accepting them as refugees; rather, it’s about ensuring that Palestinians are preserved as a nation. The irony of this is that the existence of a separate Palestinian nation was arguable when Palestine was just a region in large Muslim empires; it’s the common fate of oppression by the state of Israel that has turned Palestinians into a well-defined nation with a strong identity. From the collectivist point of view, which is recognized by international conventions including by the prohibition of genocide, this nation has a strong claim to existence. Remove the Palestinians from Palestine, and this nation will either disappear or will have to completely reinvent itself as diaspora nation like the Jews did in the 1st century after Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. Either way it’s genocide.

            Therefore from the collectivist point of view, one must prevent Palestinians from leaving Palestine en masse. As an individualist myself, I have my problems with this, too. But even from the individualist point of view it’s clearly a crime to force them to leave their homeland.

          • Goose


            And I’m not claiming all would desire to return, or even seek dual nationality. Were it available in a future State of Palestine.

            But I do think Western govts and politicians are being wholly disingenuous when they say they want a ‘two-state’ solution. Most won’t even condemn Israel’s ‘Law of Return’. Under that law, Jews from all over the world are flooding into the occupied West Bank, stealing land and destroying all hopes for a future Palestinian state.
            The US, UK and EU are complicit in this, as they know exactly what’s happening and what the Israeli govt is up to. While pretending they can’t do anything about it, and banning criticism of Israel plus banning pro-Palestinian protests.

          • Aguirre


            Thank you for that. Just a couple of thoughts:

            1/. Except for those in neighbouring Arab countries, I should think that very few of the diaspora would wish to return (at least permanently). As is the case with most diasporas, I imagine.

            2/. There is nothing wrong with the law of return per se. After all, Israel was UN-mandated as a Jewish homeland. The problem is that the returnees are actively encouraged, through financial and other inducements, to settle in land which doesn’t belong to Israel at the expenses of the rightful inhabitants.

            3/. Certainly the US, UK and EU are complicit in this. To their greater shame. I still find it difficult to understand entirely what’s in it for them, though. I understand some of the pressures, but find the total nature of (at least public)the governmental support puzzling.

        • Blissex

          «Not only that they’ve already taken in lots of refugees. Jordan alone has 3,240,000 already. […] • Jordan 3,240,000 • Israel 1,650,000 • Syria 630,000»

          According to many israelis and zionists in the “two state solution” the palestinian state should be Jordan (Transjordan, not Cisjordan) “from the river to the desert”, not Israel “from the river to the sea”. The king and many people in Jordan sort of object (the king is a descendant of the Hejaz royal family displaced by al-Saud, and Jordan is to some extent the northen-most reach of the Hejaz area of influence).

          Note: in the UK apparently now saying “from the river to the sea” is now a hate crime, but that is something that many israelis and zionists say often with reference to Eretz Israel 🙂

      • damien

        Israel’s assault on Gaza has as its aim the ethnic cleansing of the region, in which Palestinians who survive bombing, starvation and dehydration will be permanently expelled from their land. That is the official position of senior Israeli Ministers.

        In an interview on Saturday, Israeli security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter, a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, declared, “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba.” The Nakba, meaning “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the ethnic cleansing of about 700,000 Palestinian Arabs resulting from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the establishment of Israel.

        Dichter, a former director of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, declared, “Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.”

        Bezalel Smotrich, Minister of Finance since 2022 and leader of the Religious Zionist Party, proposed his “Decisive Plan” six years ago. Palestinians would have a choice: to renounce their national aspirations and continue living on their land in an inferior status, or to emigrate. Those who refused — men, women or children — would be regarded as terrorists and killed. He also called for the Israeli annexation of the West Bank. “Gaza Nakba 2023” is another name for the “Smotrich Doctrine,” that Palestinians should emigrate or die.

      • Colm Herron


        You wrote: “There is nothing wrong with the law of return per se. After all, Israel was UN-mandated as a Jewish homeland. The problem is that the returnees are actively encouraged, through financial and other inducements, to settle in land which doesn’t belong to Israel at the expenses of the rightful inhabitants.

        “Certainly the US, UK and EU are complicit in this. To their greater shame. I still find it difficult to understand entirely what’s in it for them, though”

        And why are the US, UK and EU complicit in this? I think the answers are clear.
        The US are because they seek to control the narrative. They have a symbiotic relationship with Israel. Israel keeps her local middle east neighbours in line for the US’s benefit, risking their own physical and mental welfare in the process, while the US, as is its custom, shits on others’ doorsteps while seeking to keep theirs as shit-free as possible. The US also keeps Israel supplied with murder weapons, upkeep of their nuclear bombs and all the billions of dollars they need to keep control and enrich themselves.

        As for the UK, they are nothing but the US’s bumboy.

        And the EU? They’re shit-scared of the US. I cite their pandering relationship with Big Brother Sam.

    • Sam

      You asked sincerely, so I am going to answer.

      First, neighboring Arab countries already HAVE taken in Palestinian refugees. Right now, there are officially* 5.9 million Palestinian refugees, 99% of whom are living in Arab countries.

      Two, there is a UN agency that does nothing BUT provide assistance to Palestinian refugees called the UNRWA. You can visit their website for more info on this.

      Three, the vast majority of the existing 6 million Palestinian refugees have been refugees since 1948 when they were expelled/fled from Israel in an event called the Naqba/Nakba. Therefore, multiple generations of refugees have now grown up and spent their entire lives as refugees, unlike many other situations where people are refugees for a short(er) period of time.

      Four, taking in millions MORE refugees would be a huge burden to the host countries, especially because there is a realistic possibility that they are going to stay 70+ years. The UNRWA and a few other agencies only provide a faction of these people’s needs (and the USA and other UN donors play games with how much money they give the UNRWA). So who provides the refugees with shelter, healthcare, and education? How do you integrate them into your economy and local culture? What about the right to vote in local elections? Etc.

      These are extremely difficult questions. Already, the vast number of Palestinian refugees has destabilized the situation in Lebanon and Jordan, especially because if you have ENOUGH refugees, it turns into a political issue. Right now, there are more Palestinian refugees in Jordan than there are Jordanian citizens, and it’s borderline miraculous that Jordan has been able to hold itself together all these years (it also took a lot of violence).

      Lastly, to put it bluntly, why should Arab countries take in millions MORE Palestinian refugees? Not only would this be extremely expensive on all levels (again, including politically), but it would just enable Israel to create even MORE refugees. After all, the Palestinians in Gaza are only part of the Palestinian population in Israel. Add in the West Bank and all the other areas and we’re talking about truly massive numbers of refugees beyond anything ever seen in history.

      PS – You asked “at least not why the children and women?” as if separating families was somehow a better option. Remember, there is no such thing as a “temporary” Palestinian refugee. Once you’re exiled from your homeland, Israel will never, ever, ever let you back. Also, the majority of Palestinians ARE women and children, so excluding the men would barely reduce the scale of the problem.

      * An “official” Palestinian refugee is one registered with the UNRWA as a refugee. Obviously, there are some exiled Palestinians around the world who are not classified as refugees yet still cannot return to their homeland.

      • no-one important

        Thank you, Sam. You have explained things very well and I am appalled at my previous lack of awareness. I am over seventy years old now and have seen much and read much, and every day I find that there is more to learn; often sadly about the depth to which humanity is prepared to go – especially where religion is concerned.

    • AG

      no-one important:

      may be also of interest, some background as to the legal framework regarding non-Jewish Arabs. Since the term Apartheid is constantly popping up but the substance of it is, as I find, hardly known, lest written about in the press (our press naturally).

      1) “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid”
      by B´Tselem

      “Any Jew in the world and his or her children, grandchildren and spouses are entitled to immigrate to Israel at any time and receive Israeli citizenship, with all of its associated rights. They receive this status even if they choose to live in a West Bank settlement not formally annexed to Israel’s sovereign territory.

      In contrast, non-Jews have no right to legal status in Israeli-controlled areas. Granting status is at the almost complete discretion of officials – the Minister of the Interior (within sovereign Israel) or the military commander (in the Occupied Territories). Despite this official distinction, the organizing principle remains the same: Palestinians living in other countries cannot immigrate to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, even if they, their parents or their grandparents were born and lived there. The only way Palestinians can immigrate to areas controlled by Israel is by marrying a Palestinian who already lives there – as citizen, resident or subject – as well as meeting a series of conditions and receiving Israeli approval..”

      2) The legal basis from 2018 – the much disputed but eventually passed law on the “Jewish Nation-State”:
      German law site but English text, by Knesset man Hassan Jabareen

      3) This one I have only recently found so I don´t know it but looks interesting, a 90 min. video-Zoom-meeting with 4 experts, from 2021
      “Israel-Palestine at the International Criminal Court: What Next?”

      Featuring Katherine Gallagher (Center for Constitutional Rights), Hassan Jabareen (Adalah), Michael Kearney (Al-Haq) and Yael Stein (B’Tselem) in conversation with Lara Friedman (FMEP).

      p.s. of course there is the issue with Jews/Israelis(?) not allowed to travel to other Arab countries or only sanctioned, which I hardly know anything about. An American excavator specialized on Egypt told me she could not visit the sites there for this reason which is absurd of course – may be someone here knows more on that half.

      • no-one important

        Thank you AG – I have learnt more this morning than I would have thought possible. There really doesn’t seem to be an answer in the near to medium term, does there?

    • Jen

      “… why don’t neighbouring Arab countries take in Palestinian refugees? ,,,”

      This is exactly what Israel was pushing Egypt to do. Had Egypt agreed, it would have become complicit in ethnic cleansing. Ditto for Jordan and Lebanon.

      All of Israel’s neighbours have issues of their own already hosting large communities of Palestinian refugees, without having to take in more.

      If the neighbours did take in refugees, that would embolden Israel in the future to try to snatch more land – land belonging to Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon – and expecting those countries to move populations out of the way of the IDF. Israel has long had designs on the Litani River and the Bekaa Valley district in southern Lebanon for the water resources and the agricultural bounty that district produces. Just as it desires to clear out everyone from Gaza because the maritime territory of the Gaza strip happens to have large natural gas deposits.

      It is not up to Egypt and other Arab countries to do as Israel expects. It is up to Israel to do the decent thing, stop the bombing and negotiate with Hamas if it wants the hostages back. But as some of us commenters already know, Israel does not really care about the well-being of its citizens – even when they are IDF soldiers – who might be held as hostages or POWs by Hamas.

    • Tom Welsh

      Ever since the 19th century Zionists have been acutely aware of the millions of indigenous Palestinians – “Arabs” as the Jews call them.

      The Israeli government insists that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state”. But if it is democratic, in the true meaning of allowing all its citizens to vote, then there is the serious risk that the “Arabs” will have a majority – now or eventually. The more so as they are currently having more children than Jewish Israelis.

      That is why the Israeli government is dead set against any form of “single state solution”. That would inevitably lead to a voting contest in which the “Arabs” might win and be able to set policies and even make laws. To the Zionists, that would be the worst outcome imaginable.

      Back in the 1880s, Zionist planners already understood clearly that the alternative was to get rid of the “surplus” Palestinians – if possible, all of them. They killed many thousands in 1947 and its aftermath, but their most murderous efforts made little impact on the overall population. Especially as all humans react to war and death by having more children – for instance the post-WW2 “baby boom”.

      So the only really plausible long-term solution, as the Zionists see it, is to move all the Palestinians out of Palestine into other countries. If, as you propose, “neighbouring Arab countries” were to “take in Palestinian refugees”, the Zionists would get their wish of a purely Jewish country entirely purged of Gentiles.

      If, as you humanely suggest, women and children were to be preferentially evacuated to other countries, the Zionists would rub their hands excitedly. It is precisely the women and children that they are most eager to see the back of, as they are the seeds of future population growth.

      You may argue that it is very callous to allow mere political considerations to crowd out the immediately pressing humanitarian need to save lives. But it’s not my choice, nor that of anyone outside the Palestinian community. It is their decision to hold on to their homeland, no matter what the cost.

      Any Palestinian who leaves the territory of Palestine for any reason whatsoever will never be allowed to return. “Ethnic cleansing” is not as horrible and inhuman as genocide, but as far as the Zionists are concerned one is just as good as the other. It doesn’t matter how or where the Palestinians go, just so long as they go.

      • no-one important

        Thank you Tom. Yet another indicator of just how little I knew of the background to all of this. It is a sobering thought that I know perhaps a little more than the average joe but am still saddened by my previous state of ignorance.

        • Jen

          No need to be hard on yourself for not knowing the full context behind Egypt and other countries’ refusal to take in Palestinian refugees and Israel’s expectation and insistence that they do so.

          At least you are humble and open-minded enough to ask for other opinions and viewpoints, and that in itself is much more than most people – and certainly our politicians, our news media and all the so-called academic and private think-tank experts – would do.

          Certainly you risked criticism and being called a genocide supporter by broaching the question but that did take courage on your part.

          You now know more and now when other people around you criticise Egypt for not accepting refugees, you can now argue back and say that, among everything else that has been said in reply to your question, Egypt has the right to refuse Israeli demands to accept Palestinian refugees on the basis that acceptance makes Egypt complicit in Israel’s war crimes.

        • will moon

          no-one important

          You might also consider the issue of trust. Since the moment the stewards of the British Empire gave the go-ahead for the Zionist project in Palestine in 1917 the locals have been told that they would be unaffected and their rights respected. Fast forward a 100 years and Israel’s official policy is to destroy the holiest Moslem site in Palestine, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and give the site to religious fanatics to enact the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy. The fanatics are about as crazy as fanatics get. They have recently given the right to spit on Christian’s in Jerusalem, as unbelievable as that sounds.

          • Aguirre

            Presumably you meant to write “The have recently BEEN given the right to spit on Christians in Jerusalem…”?

            Spitting on people is deplorable – even if the spitting that some Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem indulge in is actually spitting on the ground and not on Christian pilgrims.

            But I’m curious to know more about the “have been given the right” bit. Given the right by whom? Some rabbis? The government? Can you tell us more?

          • Blissex

            «Since the moment the stewards of the British Empire gave the go-ahead for the Zionist project in Palestine in 1917 the locals have been told that they would be unaffected and their rights respected.»

            Only their “civil and religious rights”, but not the political rights the Balfour declaration was pretty clear on this point:

            it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

            Note: under the ottoman empire and the subsequent mandate those “existing non-Jewis communities” had almost no real political right anyhow.

            The palestinians did not accept that, I would guess because without political rights they could not vote to remove citizenship or the right to residence from “the jews” even if they were a majority, as the israeli government has done to them. Any fantasy of a “one state” solution must have elements of the lebanese situation, rather than one-person-one-vote. It is fairly rare that like in Eire those who have been oppressed for centuries accept their former enemies without revenge to live with them.

          • will moon

            I have watched several videos of these disgusting fanatics spitting on nuns amongst other people. Ben-Givr ruled it not a problem. He gave his ruling a week or so before al-Aqsa Flood. Ben-Givr is the Israeli Minister of Internal Security and a loathsome religious terrorist himself. A promoter of ethnic and religious conflict as Security Minister helps explain all the many thousands of dead civilians

            “Only their “civil and religious rights””

            Israel state policy is to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque and build something in line with the hateful religious prophecy of a gang of deluded fanatics, That is not respecting “.religious rights”. This is promoting religious war and making Israel the aggressor – a terrorist state.

    • John Main

      It’s a genuine question. I’ll tell you why I believe nobody wants to answer it.

      It’s because if this war goes the way the Iranian axis wants it to, there will be 9+ million Jewish refugees to rehome instead.

      No country wants to risk being hoist by their own petard – if they make a great show about supporting the rehoming of Palestinian refugees now, the far greater task of rehoming Israeli refugees won’t be so easy to wriggle out of, if it ever comes to that.

        • John Main

          Yes, nice answer, and beyond your competence to deal with. I’ll summarise it again for you.

          Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran all are sworn to elimination of the Jewish state. If they get their way, most of the 9.5 million Israelis will become refugees.

          Where are they going to go?

          Feel free to ignore, or provide a flippant reply. The inference is obvious in both cases.

          • Aguirre


            I’ll neither ignore nor provide a “flippant” reply (thanks for the little smear, by the way! ).

            I’ll provide a reply which will confound even the most practised hasbara merchant (I don’t mean you, of course).

            Even if “Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran are sworn to elimination of the Jewish state” – you’d need to source that for us, of course (and no monkeying around with texts and translations, please) – does that mean that the Jewish population of Israel will become refugees?

            When Poland was dissolved as a political entity at the end of the 18th century, did the Poles suddenly move away? Were they forced to move away? Did they suddenly disappear? I think the answer is no.

            Kurds are concentrated in four countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. There is, despite the best endeavours of some, no political entity called “Kurdistan”. Despite that absence, the great majority of Kurds remain where they are.

            If Israel is the Jewish homeland, does that imply that Jews world wide should leave where they live at the moment (or be made to leave where they live at the moment) and go to Israel? Especially since Israel is widely touted by Zionists as the only place where Jews are really safe? Of course it doesn’t.

            Certainly, if Israel were to disappear as a political entity, some Jews would want to leave. Perhaps Bibi and Messrs Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, some of the more fascistic settlers.

            I recommend you think a little more carefully at the connection between political entities and population movements. Perhaps Hasbara 101 (Refresher) would help.

          • Lorna MacKay

            John, elimination of “the Jewish state” is NOT the same as the elimination of the Jewish people. Jews and Muslims and Christians lived together in the lands of Palestine for hundreds of years in relative peace. Jews still live in Iran and are protected as citizens of that country. It is only the Zionist Jews who are unable to live in peace with either the Muslim or Christian inhabitants of Palestine.

  • Antonym

    10,000 out of >2,000,000 is 0.5% of Gaza: that is NOT genocide. As 70% of Gaza is aged below 30 of course there will be many children victims, but they already were Hamas indoctrination victims from day 1.

    For a real genocide look ~ 100 years back to Islamisation of Armenians in the dying Ottoman empire where the deaths numbered around 1,000,000 out of 2,100,000, so ~ 47% of that population.

      • Antonym

        Gaza mass produced children exactly for woke characters like you. 70% of their population is under 30, a world record, achieved while being in a “Holocaustic camp’ (with a 10 mile exit towards Egypt) under decades of Israeli “Nazi” rule. A huge population growth in the “Gaza Warshaw ghetto”.
        Biased hypocrites pop up every day in the spoiled Anglo middle classes: a fancy formal education but zero use of own brain and discernment. Stop hating yourself and wake up.

        • Anthony

          How many kids will need to be murdered to satisfy this unbiased, anti-woke freethinking mind of yours? Is there any actual limit to your depravity?

        • Aguirre


          Children were born even in the Nazi concentration camps, you fool. And in the Soviet gulag.

          And don’t try to turn the discussion into one about the “Anglo middle classes” – that’s hasbara tactics and fools no one on here (and increasingly few people outside, for that matter).

          • Antonym

            Nazi concentration camps separated men from women you fool. The few born were conceived before arrival. The population of those real camps dwindled fast, no explosive population growth like Gaza. Nothing like wired comms too like Gaza’s internet. No hospitals of course.

          • glenn_nl

            Antonym: “Nothing like wired comms too like Gaza’s internet. No hospitals of course. “

            What Internet? Israel is doing its best to impose a blackout. It certainly isn’t because Israel might be ashamed of their activities being seen by the rest of the world. Surely everyone ought to see how wondrous their humanity is, wouldn’t you say? Modesty is the only explanation.

            What hospitals? Those that aren’t rubble at this point exist in name only. The IDF has been using them as target practice, a clear violation of International Law.

            But I guess that’s OK when Israel does it, most particularly when Amerikkka gives it the thumbs up. It’s unclear to me why you even bother to come here to defend the clearly indefensible. Might is right, after all. There’s no real reason for you to highlight that fact.

          • Aguirre


            It is refreshing to see that hasbara merchants can be fools just like the rest of us. I suggest you learn the difference between concentration camps and extermination camps (AG has written on this) and read a few of the better memoirs of concentration camp life.

        • Drew Anderson

          @ Antonym,

          “Woke”, in this context,: an adjective derived from African American vernacular, meaning “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination”; more recently expanded to encompass alertness to other forms of prejudice and discrimination, in areas like religion (or lack of) and gender.

          Are you, perhaps, not aware of prejudice and discrimination? Or, are you just using as a lazy label, without appreciating its meaning?

          Either way, being proudly non-woke means you have a difficult position to defend.

          • Pigeon English


            On rare occasion Right wing people were asked to define Woke.
            They never do or have a clue.

          • glenn_nl

            N: “mass produced children

            Isn’t that precisely what the far-right Christianists promote all the time?

            Perhaps Antonym ought to take up that complaint with them. If he has any consistency, or even a scrap of courage, and wasn’t an utter hypocrite, of course.

          • Pigeon English

            ¨Please go find a quiet corner and face the wall¨

            Pun intended or pun not intended?😀

    • Ronny

      You haven’t read the definition of genocide in Article 2 of the Convention – Craig quotes it in his article. It does not set a threshold of a certain proportion of a population to be murdered – that’s something you have invented.

    • Townsman

      10,000 out of >2,000,000 is 0.5% of Gaza

      1: It isn’t over yet. Israel is bombing fleeing refugees right now.
      2: “10,000” was the number of deaths known to the Gaza authorities several days ago. Given conditions in the Gaza strip, it’s impossible for all deaths to be reported promptly. Independent estimates ranged from 20,000 to 50,000 – a few days ago.
      3: The number of injured exceeds the number of dead, and given that Israel has bombed most of the hospitals and deprived the one remaining one of electricity and clean water, many of them are dying.
      4: Israel controls the drinking-water supply – and has cut it off. Without any water, a human being dies in about two days. So people are drinking what water there is. That means there will be an outbreak of disease which will kill more people.

      We are witnessing a genocide in progress.

    • AG


      When I first heard the allegation “genocide” re: Ukraine I reacted like you do now (I don´t mean to know your view on THAT but that´s not my point here) – now in Gaza, where by UN standard it does apply – as a German citizen, but not an intern. lawyer, I had to learn that the term “genocide” is explicitely not about numbers. It´s about the racist “intent” behind it. Which, as Craig Mokhiber again stressed, and every human rights lawyer will tell you, is so difficult to prove.

      I assume one must thus distinguish between “extermination” (where my German informed think was located) and “genocide”.

      So the cases of Guatemala, East-Timor, Ruanda, Cambodia etc. with Hundreds of Thousands killed were cases of extermination I assume not genocide.
      At least I guess that there ought to be a difference between 2 Mio., 200,000 killed, or 20,000 or 2000.
      Or I am wrong?

      May be someone can provide some essentials on “genocide” vs. “extermination”.

      p.s. the Finkelstein analogy re: Gaza, “concentration camp”, which he adopted from a famous Israeli sociologist, is similiar, but that I can judge:
      The concentration camp is not by design an extermination camp (which many believe and thus are upset.). Those two were initially and throughout the war often two different things. The former being much older and used not only be Germans before.

    • Mark Sharkey

      Assuming 12000 dead, likely to be far more already, the same % of the UK population is about 350,000 people.

      I always find it interesting to relate it to my own country and think what affect it would have here.

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      Whilst I appreciate you being game enough to come on here, Antonym – especially since if there’s one thing that unites our warring tribes, it’s (mostly well-deserved) antipathy towards Israel – I think you really are going to have to up your game*. The Holocaust, a well-known example of genocide, didn’t happen over the course of a single month. If the figures from the Gazan Health Ministry are accurate, percentage-wise, the Gazan population is currently being attritted at a similar overall rate to that of the Jewish people in WWII. I can run you through the figures should you wish.

      * as Useless Eater used to instruct your scribe, usually after I’d made him or her look quite silly. Some people really can’t take an L, as the young people say.

    • Bayard

      “10,000 out of >2,000,000 is 0.5% of Gaza: that is NOT genocide.”

      Did you actually read the article? What part of “in part” are you struggling with in the following definition?

      Article II
      In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
      (a) Killing members of the group;
      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
      (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

      • craig Post author

        You are right Bayard and Antonym is making a silly error. Genocide is killing people because of their type. It is not killing a majority or any fixed percentage of that type. The ICJ found Srebrenica to be a genocidal act. It did not kill a large percentage of Bosinians.

        • Antonym

          Disregarding population/victim percentages? In that case Hamas’ killing, maiming and kidnapping of hundreds of Israelis on October 7th 2023 was than also an act of genocide according to Article II of the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (pdf, 4 pages) approved by the UN in 1948.
          Disregarding numbers will make even the killing of 2 people purely because of ethnicity already “genocide”.

        • Blissex

          «Genocide is killing people because of their type. It is not killing a majority or any fixed percentage of that type»

          It is not even about killing, it can be just causing “mental harm to members of the group”, such as feeling anxiety, stress, worry, etc.

          Put another way the international convention is used to redefine the meaning of “genocide” so that it can be easily applied to some important special cases.

          For example under the convention’s definition Jeremy Corbyn arguably is a “genocidaire” because some members of an ethnic or national group claimed that he was causing them to feel “mental harm”. And what about HAMAS? What was the intent of their many years of missile showers against israeli civilians? They did not cause many killings, but much “mental harm”. 🙂

    • glenn_nl

      Antonym: “10,000 out of >2,000,000 is 0.5% of Gaza: that is NOT genocide.

      … so 1400 out of the entire population of Israel is hardly worth bothering to even mention, then?

      Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Anthony

    Notwithstanding the vast protest on Saturday I doubt politicians here are ever going to feel under pressure on the Gaza genocide. I was there and it was uplifting to see so many people pained by mass slaughter of human beings and disgusted by our politicians and media. Less heartening however was the small proportion of non-Muslim attendees, tiny compared with the Iraq march of 2003. Hacks are reporting that new New Labour think they can win power without the Muslim vote. Is there any country where trying to stop the genocide is critical to achieving or retaining power? What would it cost China or Russia or Iran to invoke the Genocide Convention?

    • Casual Observer

      If thats what the ‘New Labour Think Tank’ do actually think, then I’d suggest they’re away with the fairies ? Things would have been extremely difficult without the vote in Scotland that the SNP will take, rule out the Muslim vote, and they have no chance of a majority.

      • Anthony

        The mantra is that Blair won in 2005 without the Muslim vote and they’re betting the Tory vote will be even smaller next year than it was in 2005.

        • Casual Observer

          It was the 2005 GE in which our host stood in Blackburn against Jack Straw, and described in the Samarkand book how Straw was treating potential Muslim voters with a free curry luncheon.

          I’d surmise that the Muslim vote was fairly important even in 2005 ?

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            At the 2005 general election, CO, only around 4000 voters switched from Labour to the Lib Dems in Bradford West (then Britain’s most Muslim constituency – not sure if it still is). So plenty of Muslims will have still backed Labour in 2005.

          • Blissex

            «It was the 2005 GE in which our host stood in Blackburn against Jack Straw, and described in the Samarkand book how Straw was treating potential Muslim voters with a free curry luncheon.»

            Sent to every potential muslim voter as a bribe or as free food at campaign events for those who turned up?

            In any case he paid dearly for courting the muslim vote:

            William Rees-Mogg “The Times” August 7th, 2006
            “When Jack Straw was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced.
            I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran.”

            Note: he had more precisely said that it would have been “nuts” to *nuclear bomb* Iran, he was not so nauive to object to some of the usual conventional “bomb bomb bomb Iran” calls.

            “The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon. … The alternative explanation was more recently given by Irwin Stelzer in The Spectator; he has remarkably good Washington contacts and is probably right. His account is that Mr Straw was indeed dismissed because of American anxieties, but that Dr Rice herself had become worried, on her visit to Blackburn, by Mr Straw’s dependence on Muslim votes. About 20 per cent of the voters in Blackburn are Islamic; Mr Straw was dismissed only four weeks after Dr Rice’s visit to his constituency.
            It may be that both explanations are correct. The first complaint may have been made by Mr Rumsfeld because of Iran; Dr Rice may have withdrawn her support after seeing the Islamic pressures in Blackburn.
            At any rate, Irwin Stelzer’s account confirms that Mr Straw was fired because of American pressure.”

            That is how “sovereign and independent” England has become after being defeated and accepting “deditio” in WW2. The english are now Dediticii of the USA empire

          • Casual Observer

            Hmmmmm, I think you credit voters with an agility of thinking that may not be reflected in real life ?

            Even if the SNP stay as they are in their current clart, it would take several cycles for labour to gather in the spoils. I’d expect the SNP to work at getting out of the hole that wee Munchy et al has dug ? So maybe a Labour resurgence in Scotland is on the hopium side of things.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply CO. I’m not crediting the voters with anything – it’s just what ElectionMaps’ model predicts based on current polling. The models are generally pretty good these days but, if anything, they underestimated the swings to Labour in the recent by-elections in Mid Beds and Tamworth. Of course, a week is a long time in politics – and a year is a lot longer.

      • Aguirre

        The problem is, however, the following: if Muslims (in their majority) were to decide they won’t vote Labour, where would they go?

        Not to the Tories and even less to some of these new dubious parties.

        Perhaps they should set up a Muslim Party with a charter made watertight against any attempt to denigrate it as anti-semitic, etc., etc.

        After all, there are “Arab” political parties in Israel.

        It would, in my opinion, tax even the ingenuity of the British state to outlaw the creation of such a party.

        • Bayard

          ” if Muslims (in their majority) were to decide they won’t vote Labour, where would they go?”

          Probably, like many, I suspect, either just not vote or possibly put up an independent if there are enough of them in the constituency.

        • Townsman

          if Muslims (in their majority) were to decide they won’t vote Labour, where would they go?

          The Lib Dems. The Lib Dems are calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Puts them ahead of Tories and Labour. I’d consider voting for them myself.

          Don’t bother explaining to me why the LibDems are rubbish; I already know. But they seem to be better than either Tories or Labour.

    • On the train

      I suppose both Russia and China, were they to invoke the Genocide Convention, would be accused, rightly or wrongly of hypocrisy.

      • will moon

        I suppose if America do or do not invoke the Genocide Convention, they will be accused, rightly of hypocrisy – as the genocide is being done with weapons made in America and kept running by logistical chains which stretch back to………America!

  • DavidH

    Just my 2 cents worth, but a reason no countries will invoke the genocide convention in support of the Palestinians may also be that they see no workable solution coming from that. The reason also that the conflict has dragged on so interminably.

    In the Yugoslavia situation, a workable solution was just about possible, with new borders, a UN administration, and a UN force that, despite well-publicised failings, had enough of a mandate and international support to get it done.

    But as Craig Mokhiber so clearly proposes in his resignation letter a few articles below, the other solution to the Palestinian situation (other than Israel annihilates the Palestinians or they keep fighting forever) is that Israel is dissolved and a new one-state-solution put in place incorporating the right to return and democracy for all. Sounds fair enough, really it does, until you consider who exactly is going to enforce this and how Israel is ever going to take it. Not to mention that the results of democratic nation building in the Middle East recently have not been inspiring.

    So, much as I hate to deploy a “these people can’t govern themselves” argument, I will say to anybody who thinks that the one-state-solution is the end that justifies the means: “you and whose army, mate?” Because all the currently available armies are employed furthering their own various interests that don’t include this.

    I suppose that does get back to Craig’s rather depressing point – that nobody really cares enough.

    • Townsman

      It would be worthwhile simply to get people like Sunak before a court; it would set a precedent that future politicians would have to bear in mind before supporting genocide.

    • Blissex

      «In the Yugoslavia situation, a workable solution was just about possible, with new borders, a UN administration, and a UN force that, despite well-publicised failings, had enough of a mandate and international support to get it done.»

      In that situation the yugoslav government accepted it because of a long war of aggression by NATO (not some UN force), the heads of the other parts were gifted their own little NATO protectorates as “comprador” elites.

      «the other solution to the Palestinian situation (other than Israel annihilates the Palestinians or they keep fighting forever) is that Israel is dissolved and a new one-state-solution put in place incorporating the right to return and democracy for all.»

      There are some other somewhat more practical solutions:

      * The palestinians all go into diaspora like half of them have done as the jews did in the 1st century AC, and keep repeating “next year we will meet in Jerusalem” like the jews in diaspora did for nearly 2,000 years.
      * The palestinians accept second or third class status as a vanquished group (“vae victis”) like the germans, italians, japanese, english, and their allies did after WW2, instead of hoping for a new Saladin to defeat the new “crusaders” for them in the next 100-200 years or 1,000-2,000 years.
      * The “two state” solution means that Jordan “from the river to the desert” (Transjordan) becomes the national state of palestinians, and Israel “from the river to the sea” is the national state of jews (this is the theoretically preferred solution by some “progressive” israelis). If the UN could gift Palestine to the zionists, and NATO could gift chunks of Serbia to the albanians, I guess either could gift Jordan to the palestinians (after gifting it earlier as a consolation prize to the defeated hashemite branch of the Hejaz royal family).

      «Sounds fair enough, really it does, until you consider who exactly is going to enforce this and how Israel is ever going to take it.»

      The real question is why ever the palestinians, who would be the majority, would take it, knowing they could do at least in part what the algerians did to the pied-noirs. Are the palestinians saints or have they been raised on generations of yearning for revenge?

  • Squeeth

    The way that states are behaving in this is why I’m an anarchist. The only difference between them is the lies they tell about the people that they murder.

  • Vinnie the Pooh

    I think the problem is the intent – apart from a few mutterings by a minister here and there there is nothing to prove it, and everyone knows it. And given the hell everyone is going to get if they tried, called antisemites and all that, there are not takers.

    As for FATAH – I don’t know where your sympathies for them come from at all. They are a bunch of moochers who exploit the suffering of their people to attach themselves to aid flows like a pack of limpets. And I am being generous here comparing them to fish. Not even going into the clan politics of Palestinians, which are the real meat of the issue – FATAH and HAMAS are really mostly brands to present things to the outside world, what’s really happening is defined by family and clan relations.

  • Jack

    Mahmoud Abbas is the problem. He is a corrupt puppet as much as any other corrupt western-backed arab leader in the region. Any sensible palestinian leader would of course cut ties with the US and Israel by now after their genocidal war in Gaza – this is like the 6th war on Gaza – when is enough enough for Abbas? No, instead Abbas have multiple meetings and make tacit agreements with the same same warcriminals – have he ever sent any support to Hamas at all during this time?! He is a corrupt scum that have done nothing for the palestinian cause.

    Remember also that when Israel invaded Gaza in 2009 and the following UN investigational report came to the conclusion that Israel had commited warcrimes Abbas rejected the report:
    Abbas opposed Israeli war crimes report in private, according to leaks

    In 2014, a source within ICC said there was no real interest from the PA to proceed with an ICC investigation of Israel
    Is the PA stalling Gaza war crimes probe? There has been no international investigation into war crimes in Gaza so far. Leaked document may hold clues as to why.
    Why? Because he is a western/israeli lackey that only cares about is his own standing, his own salary, his own power.

    Since taking office in 2005 his popularity has been steadily in decline, reaching a tipping point in April 2021 when he called off the first Palestinian elections in 15 years. The polls that soon followed saw 80% of Palestinians wanting him to step down.
    90% of Palestinians believe that the PA is a corrupt institution and benefits only an elite few.

  • Neil

    Worth mentioning that Helena Cobban has recently been exploring, in a series of essays, possible ways forward to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict. Worth considering in conjunction with Craig’s excellent work. I’ve mentioned her work before on this blog.

  • terence callachan

    I believe the reason none of the 149 countries has invoked the genocide convention is very simple , the USA threatened every single one of those 149 countries when it sent USA warships to the coast of Israel and Gaza by saying that other countries should not interfere in this war and if they do interfere they will suffer severe sanctions by the USA , that message was not just about warning other countries to refrain from sending warships or rescue ships or food water and medical supplies to help Palestinian people it was a veiled threat that other countries helping Palestine in any way at all would attract sanctions by USA and its helpers.

    That is how far down the road of dirty politics we have come where one country USA , can threaten every other country if they seek justice or try to stop a war that USA has initiated and let’s remember this , Israel would not be attacking Palestinians in this way if it did not have the support of USA furthermore U.K. and EU and Canada Australia would not be backing Israel in the way they are without pressure from USA to do so.

    So the short answer is USA are threatening every country in the world to prevent them invoking the genocide convention.

    • John Main

      “So the short answer is USA are threatening every country in the world”

      That sentence deserves repetition. In fact it needs to be posted in some sort of humongous bold font, in neon, with Gothic traceries around it. Something Monty Pythonesque.

      Only then could its all-encompassing idiocy be fully appreciated by a wondering world.

  • Stevie Boy

    Don’t want to be fatalistic but, IMO, it’s pointless trying to pressurise western governments to declare genocide. They are totally aware of what is happening and are totally in agreement with it, ie. the genocide. Recall 500 of the 650 MPs in parliament voted AGAINST a ceasefire. The western governments are complicit; they are not going to put themselves at risk. We are governed by fascists, peaceful protest and rational argument won’t change that.

  • An Edinburgh Jew

    Hamas is not a state and therefore falls outwith the Genocide Convention. However, Hamas rules Gaza and invaded Israel from there on October 7th. Palestine has therefore committed genocide although in your first post after the invasion you wrote “I cannot condemn Hamas” which of course proudly boasts its aim is to destroy Israel and kill Jews. You frequently protest you are neither anti-semitic or a supporter of terrorism.

    You have written in this post “It is more and more difficult to support Mahmoud Abbas.” Destroying Hamas and restoring a moderate Palestinian Authority is the only long term solution and almost certainly what most of the Arab world would (secretly) like to see. In the immediate term there should be no ceasefire until Hamas release all the hostages.

    On the subject of genocide, do you agree that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine ?

    • Jack

      An Edinburgh Jew

      Craig did not claim that Hamas “is a state”, he said:
      . This is especially remarkable as Palestine is one of the 149 states party to the Genocide Convention,

      Hamas is a direct product of a racist colonial regime, if there was no occupation, land theft and these heinous carnage that you support = there would be no Hamas. It is quite a chutzpah to claim as Israel do and it supporters do that they are the victim in this conflict, not to mention that Israel supported Hamas:
      Netanyahu told his faction that whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the West Bank, controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and Gaza, controlled by Hamas, helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, according to the Jerusalem Post.

      As far as Ukraine/Russia, right now some 6000 kids have been killed by Israel. In Ukraine it is about 500 kids that have been killed. I think that says it all who is commiting a genocide and who is not. Matter of fact the civilian toll in Ukraine is about 9500, will Israel break that number too? Considering also that Israel have already dropped more missiles in 1 month than Russia did in 2 years, the answer is most likely yes.

    • zoot

      “there should be no ceasefire until Hamas release all the hostages”

      genocide supporters need to be challenged every time they issue this line.

      they know very well that Hamas offered to free all hostages in exchange for a 5-day ceasefire and the release of all Palestinian women and children from Israeli jails. Netanyahu said no and has ceaselessly bombed the hostages ever since. genocide supporters do not want the hostages any more than they want moderate/compliant Palestinian interlocutors. their dream is to empty Gaza as a staging post to the complete eradication of historic Palestine and the Palestinians.

        • zoot

          they don’t want the hostages back. they’ve already killed dozens of them and for all they know or care have killed them all. their aim is genocide and dispossession not getting hostages back. the Palestinians by contrast do actually want their imprisoned women and children back.

        • nevermind

          The rogue gang does not care about the hostages, and they might die of Us/ Uk supplied bombs anyway, not that the fraudster bibi cares much, more gist to his Endloesung.

        • Bayard

          “Hamas shouldn’t be holding them in the first place.”

          Naughty Hamas! And naughty Israel for killing Palestinian children! That’s really achieved something, hasn’t it?

    • terence callachan

      Hello An Edinburgh Jew , frankly what you say is absolute nonsense. There is no way whatsoever that Palestinians could ever destroy Israel, perhaps some Palestinians would like to see Israel destroyed but they do not have the power to carry it out.
      As for Palestine committing genocide, it is wholly unreasonable to make such a claim. Palestinians are not even capable of doing this they do not have the weaponry or numbers.

      Russia is not committing genocide either. It is intent on destroying Ukrainian infrastructure, but of course Ukraine is fighting this and there are certainly losses of life on both sides. Russia has no intention of expanding into Ukraine; it has enough land mass to cope with already.

      • David Warriston

        ‘Russia has no intention of expanding into Ukraine; it has enough land mass to cope with already.’

        In fact the reverse would be more true. Ethnic cleansing was a feature of the Ukrainian state from at least 2014. Around one million citizens mostly from eastern Ukraine left for Russia to avoid a conflict which cost 14,000 lives. President Zelensky praised the Israeli apartheid regime during a speech made in their parliament in 2022 and suggested that he viewed a victorious Ukraine as the Israel of Europe. He later boasted that his armed forces would kick the Russians out of Crimea, an area that overwhelmingly sees itself as affiliated to the Russian Federation.

        This explains why Zelensky identifies with Israel rather than Palestine, which has puzzled a number of people who assumed his sympathies would lie with the underdog.

    • Jen

      “… On the subject of genocide, do you agree that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine?”

      More likely that Zelensky himself, through his demands that Ukraine defend certain towns like Avdeyevka and Artyemovsk (Bakhmut to the Ukrainians the West) and recover territory in the Donbass and even Crimea itself, is driving genocide of a very specific, systematic and thorough sort – through roping in more conscripts across more categories of people – in Ukraine. And since Zelensky is following orders from NATO and the EU, it would follow that ultimately responsibility for genocide in Ukraine must be shifted home to Western governments, in particular the US and the UK, and to the heads of NATO and the EU (Jens Stoltenberg and Ursula von der Leyen respectively).

      • Urban Fox

        Indeed, you can’t accuse someone of genocide if you’re the one going “full Paraguay” by conscripting everyone to fight a war that was hopeless from the beginning.

        A war that you principally helped instigate due to ideological mania, envy and blind bigotry, against a much larger and stronger neighbour. All aided and abetted by NATO.

        Furthermore given the atrocious rate of Ukraine’s population decline since 1991 (from 52 million), you could lay a case that every Ukrainian government is guilty of the genocide of Ukrainians (of any ethnicity).

    • Aguirre

      @ Edinburgh Jew

      I thought the Palestinian Authority, nominally in power in the West Bank, WAS the moderate voice of the Palestinians?

      What has Israel been doing in the West Bank (and re Gaza) over the last 20 years or so to boost the credentials of the PA and reduce the attractivity of Hamas?

      BTW – was Armenia an internationally recognised state in 1915?

      BTW 2 – if 10,000 Gazans have been killed so far, and we gross that up to take account of the relative populations of Gaza (2 million) and Ukraine (36 million), the Russians would need to have killed 180,000 Gazans. If we then gross that number up to reflect the fact that Israel has been “at war” with Hamas for a little over a month and Russia and Ukraine have been at war for one and a half years, what figure do we get to?

    • John Main

      As a gentile, I am broadly in agreement with your post.

      I am of the view that the realpolitik solution is a compromise ceasefire on both sides, in which neither side will get what they want – the wiping of the other side from the face of the Earth. As part of that realpolitik solution, I expect that Israel will first demand the release of all hostages, dead or alive. I base that on my personal opinion that if one of mine was being held hostage in these circumstances, I would expect my government to do whatever it takes to get them back.

      Regarding your comparison with Ukraine, I see no comparison. Israel and Hamas are, as I wrote, vowed to eradicate each other. Putin invaded Ukraine whilst telling the world the Russians and the Ukrainians were the same people.

      Russia’s behaviour towards its so-called brothers and sisters in Ukraine is an order of magnitude worse.

    • Pigeon English

      Before the Israeli Vengeance I did not hear this Hostages BS.
      What I mean is ultimatum/ warning
      If you don´t release hostages within the next 48 hours we will launch a full-scale destruction of Gaza!

  • AG

    Since German Berliner Zeitung is reporting it but no one here really cares – was Braverman fired to weaken her in terms of possible upcoming power struggles among Tories? The German paper first argues it had to do with her anti-Palestine comments, but then shifts to the more realistic aspect of power politics, elections and party leadership – (Braverman establishing herself as farther right by being pro-police and pro-crackdown opposite Sunak as potential new leader).

    German link would be here:

    So what’s going on there?

    • zoot

      she will be replaced by another pro genocide right-wing politician who won’t publicly criticise the police. that’s all it will amount to.

      • Casual Observer

        Whoever replaces her won’t in all likelihood be married to an Israeli (her words according to wonkypedia), and almost certainly wont be boasting of having ‘Close relatives’ in the IDF. So we may hope that her replacement. Cleverly, wont be confused over whether he sits for the Knesset, or the Mother of Parliaments.

        Lot of people laughing about ‘Call me Dave’s’ return, but he goes down well with the Conservative faithful. And makes me think about the comment attributed to Juan Peron upon his return from exile that went something to the effect of saying that it was not that his previous government was so good, but that those who came after were so awful.

    • Aguirre


      Braverman’s sacking serves as cover for the government to introduce further restrictions on the right to protest and make it almost impossible to publicly advocate an anti-Zionist position.

      It’s an old trick – sack the bad cop and hello the new good cop!

  • Republicofscotland

    Spot on Craig, however I don’t see Karim Khan at the ICC actually prosecuting any of the players who have contributed to this ongoing genocide.

    Oh don’t get me wrong Khan has made statements saying the ICC will gather info on Israel and Hamas and if war crimes have been proven then prosecutions will take place.

    If this were really the case Tony Blair and George W. Bush would have been prosecuted by the ICC years ago.

    In my opinion the ICC isn’t fit for purpose.

    • Jack

      Earlier this summer major figures in academia, foreign policy circles published an open letter to the ICC/Khan questioning why he do not act on Israel.

      “Many of us had hoped that the ICC investigation, started under your predecessor, would continue under your leadership. However, despite mounting evidence of crimes committed by the Israeli regime, your office has apparently taken no further action,” said the signatories. “Since you assumed the position as the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, no one has heard anything from you on the Palestinian case, while your office announced speedy investigations into the alleged war crimes committed by Russia during its ongoing war against Ukraine, and issued an arrest warrant for President of Russia Vladimir Putin.”

      Rest assured the western-led ICC will sooner or later act but they will only act against the palestinians.

      • John Main

        Why do you expect the ICC to act against the Palestinians?

        Isn’t everybody going to great lengths to treat Hamas and the Palestinians as separate entities?

        It knocks out the props under a lot of the criticism of Israel for overreach if you start to say that Hamas and the Palestinians are one and the same thing!

        Reading the quote you provide, I believe that phrases such as “mounting evidence of crimes committed by the Israeli regime” and “alleged war crimes committed by Russia” provide clues, in their obvious lack of impartiality, to why the ICC has ignored that letter.

        • Johnny Conspiranoid

          “in their obvious lack of impartiality, to why the ICC has ignored that letter.”
          It could really be the case that one is supported by evidence while the other is only supported by allegations.

  • ET

    Craig, what credibility do you give to statements by Micheal Martin that there is already an ongoing ICC investigation initiated in 2014? Apart from being with the ICC rather than the ICJ is it remotely possible anything will come of it?

    Also at MSN:

    “The investigation covers all crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, alleged to have been committed since 2014.”

    • craig Post author

      Yes that is the one that Boris Johnson wrote as PM assuring that the UK was doing everything in its power to block the investigation. I don’t think anything is happening. Hence the need to force it by invoking the genocide convention.

    • AG


      I still would recommend this conversation with human rights lawyer Sarah Leah Whitson from the NGO DAWN (founded by Jamal Khashoggi)
      It´s from Oct. 17th and she basically predicted everything.

      She is frank. On the other hand cautious with certain aspects (her comments on Hamas) since she is a public representative and co-director of the NGO.

      She mentions the ICC investigation beginning TC 7:00.
      But I suggest to listen to all of the 65 min.
      Don´t pay too much attention to the interviewer.

      p.s. she stated that the term is not “ethnic cleansing” but “enforced relocation” as intern. law goes, but I assume it doesn´t matter what name you give it eventually. + reminding that Lemkin coined the term “genocide” based on the Armenian genocide 1915, as history of the term goes.

      p.p.s. she also mentions the Lemkin Institute For Genocide Prevention which I never seriously checked as a source though:

  • Robert

    The approaching 75th anniversary of the Convention’s approval by the UN (9 December 1948) will surely call more attention to the treaty and the crime of genocide.
    I, for one, am surprised that the Spanish centre-left government, which is typically less swayed by Anglo-American propaganda than many, hasn’t taken this step.

    • AG

      So far Latin America was the most critical, however there are only verbal condemnations in essence so far.
      Not sure what they are waiting for. But they would be a candidate to call out.

      Jacobin with a short text on the background
      “Latin America Is Leading the Way in Standing Up to Israel”

      “sympathy for the Palestinian cause in Latin America can be explained by two fundamental reasons: a historical sympathy for oppressed and colonized peoples, along with Israel’s own history in the region as a proxy for US interests.

      Israel has supported a laundry list of the worst names in recent Latin American history, including Rafael Trujillo, Augusto Pinochet, Luis García Meza, Efraín Ríos Montt, Anastasio Somoza, and Jorge Rafael Videla. In effect, it has acted as a convenient wrap-around for inconvenient restrictions, as when it trained, armed, and provided intelligence to the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile — in the process, becoming its largest arms supplier — during a time of US embargo. It also kept the arms flowing to Nicaragua and El Salvador during similar embargoes there, and in the case of Honduras during the military regimes of the ’70s, provided advanced American weaponry despite US laws banning third-country transfers of military equipment.
      Meanwhile, with the UK debating whether the waving of a Palestinian flag is a criminal offense, the French Senate considering a bill to make insulting the state of Israel a crime punishable by hefty fines, and pro-Palestinian protests being criminalized and broken up across the continent, Latin American countries would be all the more justified in asking their neighbors to the north and east to spare them any lectures resulting their principled stances on Palestine.

      For at a critical moment in the history of this century, it is Latin America — and not the United Nations, European Union, or any other international organization that purports to act in the interests of peace — that is taking the humanitarian lead on the world stage.

      I wonder what would have to happen on this planet for the German or British government to in fact acknowledge what is obvious for everyone to see by now. 30,000 killed, 50,000? The Security Council will never reach an agreement. I believe in the entire history there was one single case when the US did not veto a resolution critical of Israel since the 1970s, that is after resolution 242.

    • Jack

      The approaching 75th anniversary of the Convention’s approval by the UN (9 December 1948) will surely call more attention to the treaty and the crime of genocide.
      I assume the west will use this day to propagate that Hamas needs to be sent to the ICC for genocide and the ICC will start a case on the same day.

      Spanish socialists, just yesterday condemned Hamas and declared their support for Israel

      There is no difference between left-right on Israel anymore, the socialists/left have really swallowed all talking-points from the right-wing on Israel. After senseless bombardments past days of hospital, this is what the EU say:
      EU nations condemn Hamas for what they describe as use of hospitals, civilians as ‘human shields’

      This is the same EU that insinuate that Russia commit genocide in Ukraine. If Russia commit genocide when they kill 10000 civilians in Ukraine with a population of 43 million what is it to be called in Gaza where some 8000 civilians have been killed with a population of some 2 million?

  • Goose

    Abbas is 88 this Wednesday,15th November. Interesting times ahead.

    The PA is widely viewed as a corrupt Vichy-type collaborationist government that effectively polices Israel’s occupation. Will the US and EU allow an alternative though? As always, the hypocritical West talk a good game on democracy, then invariably throw their toys out of the pram when it delivers a result our leaders don’t like.

    • Aguirre

      Well, Kim Jong Un is a bit of a bastard for sure, but on the other hand so was the President (aka dictator) of South Korea from 1948 to 1960.

      Rather difficult to draw up a deaths scoreboard (the Korean war excepted) between, North and South Korea since WW2.

    • Aguirre

      As an addendum to my post just below, I understand why the US should unstintingly support Israel – there are many reasons. Many of them deplorable, but there you are.

      I can even understand why the Germans and the French are heavily biassed in favour of Israel (the reasons are different, of course).

      But why the UK ?

        • Aguirre

          Not very convincing, Bayard. The number concerned must be pretty small (compared to a UK population of 60+ million).

          But if I’ve missed something, please develop your idea a little.

      • SA

        Why the U.K.?
        Britain was the colonial power that made it possible for Israel to exist. The reasons for support are very complex but have their root in the fact that Britain had developed the model for settler colonialism which led to the Anglo-Saxon empire, which ended in settler colonies in US, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, with genocide of all the local populations. They tried this model also in Kenya and South Africa but these failed. Britain supported apartheid South Africa until this support became untenable. The difference from all of these is that this happened in the twentieth century and in full view of the world, and so a different twist had to be made. A book that talks about this is Friends of Israel, which explains this support until the US took over after the war.

        • John Main

          “Britain had developed the model for settler colonialism”

          Sure, in all of human history, nobody had ever tried anything like that before Britain came along.

        • Aguirre

          With great respect, SA, that is a totally unsatisfactory answer to my question. The UK in 2023 is so supportive of Israel because the UK, centuries ago, originated the idea of settler colonialism? You’ve lost me there, perhaps it’s too early in the morning….

  • Aguirre

    A good article, but the reply is simple.

    States work on the basis of “what’s in it for me” / “would this or that action or position harm me”. In other words self-interest.

    That’s why international law is so important – and why it is so often flouted without repercussion.

    On those lines, I really wish someone could make out a convincing case why, in 2023, the UK – or the entire EU for that matter – owes Israel anything and what is Israel doing, in general, which is of concrete benefit to the UK / EU.

    These are questions which the Israel-firsters seem incapable of answering.

    • Bayard

      “That’s why international law is so important – and why it is so often flouted without repercussion.”

      “International law” is so often flouted without repercussion because it is just that, international, i.e. between nations. As soon as one nation decides it no longer wants to abide by it, it is no longer bound by it as it is no longer one of the nations that the law is between. The mistake is thinking that international law is supranational law, i.e. law that binds all nations whether they want to be bound by it or not.

      • AG

        No physical force behind the law makes any law merely good will.
        The ideas of Braverman or of the French government to introduce astronomical fines on Israel criticism would be meaningless were it not for the presence of police force to “enforce” those laws.

        If you were to resist payment of the fine you would either be put to prison or there would be steps of escalation, after you execute resistance.
        Beyond this level, questions of the law become truly interesting since they touch elementary questions of political philosophy.
        And which eventually led Hamas to do what they did.

        Palestinians have a lot of experience in all these areas I guess also having practiced various forms including peaceful resistance as late as 2019, when hundreds were killed and wounded for simply protesting.

        I am always surprised that International Law does not take into account the genesis of a conflict.
        That’s a mistake.

      • Aguirre

        Not sure if I agree with you there.

        Incorrect to say that if a country decides it no longer wants to abide by some provision of international law, it is no longer bound by it. The only legal way of not being bound by that particular provision is to withdraw from the international agreement which contains it. You may be confusing international law per se with enforcement of that law?

        Re supranational law and taking the EU as a prime example of such law, you’d have been right if you were writing before the passing of the Lisbon Treaty ……. which provided for the possibility of leaving the EU.

        • Bayard

          Exactly, the EU was a good example of supranational law, which “international law” isn’t as there is no means of enforcing against those who do not wish to be bound by it apart from military force. Since there is no international military force, “international law” simply becomes the law of the enforcing military, as we observe with it always being enforced against the enemies of the US and never against the US itself.

  • Prof M.A.Siddique

    I suspect one of the reasons why the Arabs haven’t shown any enthusiasm about activating the genocide convention may be the fact that the ICJ’s ruling a few years ago that Israel had committed war crimes against Palestinians was discarded. If I remember correctly Judge Goldstein relinquished his position as the main Judge after he came under a barrage of criticism by Israel and its supporters in all the Western governments even indirectly accusing him of anti-semitism rather paradoxically. The Arabs perhaps believe that the US will not let a trial against Israel convict its leaders and others who supported that country.

  • AG

    2 questions to military response:

    If I follow Marjorie Cohn´s verdict that Hamas did commit war crimes but as well according to Craig citing the 2004 ruling of the ICJ, there is no case of inter-state conflict and thus no right of self-defense, what military response would leave that for Israel? If any? Since retaliation et al. are neither eligible. Should it then be regarded as domestic case of terrorism? (What did the Indian government do after the Mumbai attacks?)

    2) Are there legally accepted grounds to argue that Hamas´ actions were no war crimes and justified? A case which would prohibit Israel any violent response???

    • Bayard

      “2) Are there legally accepted grounds to argue that Hamas´ actions were no war crimes and justified? A case which would prohibit Israel any violent response?”

      Tricky and probably pointless, as for now we only have Israel’s word what Hamas’s actions actually were.

    • SA

      You hit on a very relevant point. By the nature of the fact that Gaza is an Israeli colony, despite its autonomous administration by Hamas, any armed activity which is labelled as terrorism would normally be a police action and not a vast military response. Imagine if ‘terrorists’ took over Munich central station. Would the German state bomb this station to fight them? I doubt it. These military responses even take place on the West Bank despite the pliant suppressive activities of the PA.
      Israel has perfected the control of its colonies by a process of oppressive creation of ghettos which can be controlled and bombed at will without damage to its own settler population.

      • Jack


        Indeed. The whole premise that Israel is allowed to strike this or that Palestinian if they are in this or that building with other people/civilians is totally absurd.
        What if Palestinians said the same? ‘Oh this Israeli general was in the mall in Tel Aviv, therefore we blew up the whole mall.’

        Of course no one would accept that, but when it comes to Israel they have a free-pass for everything apparently.

      • John Main

        I guess if terrorists holding Munich central station have assault rifles and RPGs, copious ammo, maybes suicide vests, and certainly an extensive network of secret, booby trapped tunnels, bombing the station may well be a proportionate response.

        I try to think of the likely reaction of soldiers/police if told to go into the station in that scenario, but to carry only knives and clubs, so that no innocents get hurt – what’s German for blowing a raspberry and “feck that for a plan”?

        • glenn_nl

          As is sadly predictable, you change the entire scenario to suit a ludicrous straw man to knock over. Ignoring the serious points to make silly ones.

          Try to get back to reality for a moment. No government blows up hospitals, schools and refugee centres because they claim some terrorists are in there somewhere. Apart from…. help me out here, what would you call such regimes? Heroic defenders of freedom and liberty?

          Do you seriously propose that the IDF would start bombing Tel Aviv – including hospitals and schools – if they thought some Hamas fighters might be there?

          How would ‘terrorists’ have produced extensive tunnels without being there for a substantial time (eg, imprisoned there – which is when people become desperate enough to start making tunnels)?

          I find it hard to believe you believe half of what you write. It is sickening apologia for genocide.

          I doubt you could even acknowledge that Hamas had been promoted and facilitated by Israel.

          • AG

            “which is when people become desperate enough to start making tunnels”
            – (if I knew how to do here “2 thumbs up” I´d do just that, thx.)

          • John Main

            Not a strawman though, is it?

            Heavy fighting continuing around these hospitals tonight. So just who are the IDF fighting – themselves?

            Are you denying the tunnels exist now? Even Al Jazeera puts the network at 500 km, acknowledges clearing them will take months, and accepts that because their power supplies are so integrated into the civilian grid, the only way to flush them out is to turn off all the power.

            Want to name the hospital that has been “blown up”? You can’t because no hospital has been blown up.

            Yeah sure, Israel armed and trained Hamas because Israel want to attack Israel.

            You need to get a grip.

            I believe everything I write. I don’t post untruths.

            I call for both sides to stop the fighting, for Hamas to release all the hostages, dead or alive, and for Israel to allow unrestricted supply of all essentials to the non-combatants.

            That’s a compromise that will require both belligerents to swallow a bitter pill. I’m betting that’s a compromise that will be ridiculed by the pro-Palestinian faction. So you best get started, eh?

        • Jack

          John Main

          No, you are not allowed to threat or strike a public place with thousands of civilians (Munich central station have some 25k passengers daily) that is terrorism and that is what Israel is doing.

          Israeli hospital attacks ‘should be investigated as war crimes’: HRW
          The organisation urged the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the International Criminal Court to investigate.
          “Despite the Israeli military’s claims on November 5, 2023, of ‘Hamas’s cynical use of hospitals,’ no evidence put forward would justify depriving hospitals and ambulances of their protected status under international humanitarian law,” it said.

          • John Main

            Al Jazeera published the other day the section of the Geneva Conventions that allows military action to be taken against civilian facilities, such as hospitals, that are being used to further the war efforts of another military force.

            The head of MSF in Palestine on Radio 4 tonight, stating he could neither confirm or deny the existence of tunnel complexes under the hospitals.

            He did confirm heavy fighting around the hospitals.

            Which raises the question nobody will ask: If there’s no tunnels, and no Hamas, who’s fighting back against the IDF?

        • Ian

          What an entirely irrelevant and misleading analogy that is – pure fiction which has no bearing on the genocide that Israel is committing now. Not to mention the complete lack of evidence for the Bond-like secret HQ under the hospital. As Frankie Boyle notes: If I were Hamas of course I would create my top secret HQ under a hospital because it is well known that Israel is too humane to attack a hospital and kill the doctors.

  • Republicofscotland

    So basically every country that’s a member is far too afraid of US sanctions to invoke the Genocide Convention, and those that represent the Palestinians such as Mahmoud Abbas, are already bought and paid for, so in reality – and it’s a bloody stark one – no country, not even those who supposedly have the Palestinians’ interests at heart, cares enough about them to intervene and stop the genocide.

    139 spineless and gutless leaders can even do the right thing; humanity has fallen into a deep dark place.

    • John Main

      Maybes you should take time to find out something about the hostages.

      There is a remarkable range of nationalities represented amongst them.

      Maybes that means there is a remarkable number of governments with populaces who would really like their governments to get their fellow citizens back.

      To do “whatever it takes”, maybes even.

      I know you’re a paragon of virtue RoS, and even if your nearest and dearest was holed away somewhere, you would still be cheering on the Palestinians. Fair play to you for that.

      But others think differently.

      • will moon

        Yes they think the hostages should be killed by bombing, tank shells and attack helicopters, as Israel has been doing since the start of al-Aqsa Flood.

        When the families of Israeli hostages began demonstrating out of concern for their loved ones, they were attacked by other Israeli citizens and accused of helping the enemy. I watched a video of this first encounter and the behaviour of the right wing thugs was deplorable and inhuman. It was a scene from Nazi Germany. Vile street thugs harassing a group of helpless, grieving Jews.

  • AG

    Were this the other way around and Gaza an ally of the US, the US could have well just started a war like 20 years ago.

    If Israel claims this to be an inter-state conflict, shouldn´t the intern. community then have the right to treat it as such and discuss armed intervention

    Or to use Javier Solana´s vocabulary: “Humanitarian Intervention”. Since it´s about saving human lives.

    Here you see that something was wrong with Intern. Law from the outset.
    Because in fact this is a crystal-clear case where other countries would have the right if not the obligation to legally intervene. Since obviously the perpetrator is not willing to talk. Well then bombing might help.

    (I am playing devil´s advocate here but its pretty absurd)

  • AlexT

    Some interesting points you are raising about the Genocide Convention and the ICJ. What makes you thing that the UK has any interest in what the court has to say?

    Indeed fairly despicable not to see Palestine, aka FATAH (if no one else), at least trying something along those lines!

    PS: any news about your Twitter/X account? I guess Matt Huang would welcome his back 🙂

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      Matt Huang still has his account Alex. The hackers changed our host’s account to @matthuag (no N), copied Matt Huang’s profile pic, and re-tweeted a few of his tweets. Not sure why.

  • Lapsed Agnostic

    Just imagine….spending decades and tens of millions of dollars on various elaborate honeytrap schemes in order to get scores of prominent politicians, business-people & celebs on side, and then employing people like this dipshit to head-up your PR department:

    Anyway, as it’s after the watershed, to celebrate Baron Cameron of Somewhere-or-Other’s return to frontline British politics, let’s remind ourselves of what he will always be most remembered for (with a bit of help from Cassetteboy & Will Smith). Big Willy style!

    (WARNING: Contains puerile humour from the start)

    • nevermind

      Mr. ‘Greensill’ comes back to the front, whilst cigar-smoking T.Coffey gets rinsed with her pal Sooella. Get ready for a genocide election of the likely lads. What a shit show.

      • Lapsed Agnostic

        Thanks for your reply, nevermind. I see that a picture of Mademoiselle Coffey during what will probably be her final trip to No 10 has made it to her Wiki page – featuring a cameo appearance by Larry the Cat, who’d obviously taken pity on her and allowed her to at least stroke something vaguely masculine (if probably neutered). He’s a good lad – though he’s getting on a bit now.érèse_Coffey#/media/File:The_Prime_Minister_reshuffles_his_cabinet_(53329850453).jpg

        But **** me, look at those ankles. She’s only eight years older than your scribe. There’s women in the less touristy parts of Leeds etc that have been shooting crack into their femoral veins for the best part of 20 years* with more shapely pins than her. Really needs to get on the horse chestnut extract pronto before she’s in a wheelchair:

        * Don’t try that at home, kids – or anywhere else for that matter.

    • douglas leighton

      It’s all a bit above my head. No idea who Eylon Levy is, but your opinion of him is obviously not complimentary.
      Yesterday on ‘World at One’ (BBC R4) Sarah Montague interviewed an Israeli ‘Intelligence operative’. The Israeli woman was deranged, and Sarah Montague was clearly embarrassed by the loss of control, both hers and the interviewee’s. I was amazed that the BBC permits such a performance. Do they not conduct some preliminary editorial checks before allowing a lunatic access to the air waves?
      It appears we are witnessing another collapse of BBC journalism akin to the 2003 Greg Dyke /David Kelly/Alistair Campbell/Andrew Gilligan episode, when the BBC obviously caved in to political pressure.

      • Lapsed Agnostic

        Thanks for your reply Douglas. Surely CassetteBoy can’t go over your head? – it’s pretty puerile stuff, but still makes me laugh like a hyena on the nitrous. Eylon Levy is the Israeli government’s Chief Spokesman and former International Media Advisor to the President of Israel. I haven’t heard the interview on the World at One, but can well believe that Team Israel is beginning to lose its shit.

  • DunGroanin

    Do what you must CM
    It is genocide
    Pardon me for copy pasting my comment from MoA directly
    I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed at this very moment.

    Well I can’t sleep again.
    Not after seeing this.
    There is NO WALKING BACK from THIS.
    YO!! Hasbara! Yo 77th! There’s been a few more of you here, now I see why.
    Yo! Blair. Yo! Cameron , I see why you back.
    Yo spawn Sunak , Starmer … your tribe.
    Yo! Listen up.
    All you effing evil psychopath natzios supporters here – bring your best do your worst.

    You will never never never be able to justify THIS.
    How can you sleep trying to?
    I hope you don’t have kids or grand kids or ever expect to.
    They would be stained by you.

    First the big lie falling to pieces about killed Israeli babies :
    ‘ Sulaiman Ahmed

    Second the reality of Palestinian children as IT IS happening:

    ‘ After the israeli bombing of Jabalya, treating “surviving” children, so they can survive.. begins: israelis are barbarians ’

    Read the sentiment- Don’t watch – if you want to sleep. SERIOUSLY.
    Our Collective Wastes Owners have chosen to go out with a bang.
    Is Gayá intervening ? Iceland? Etna? Is she as angry as we are?
    Can she no longer sleep either?
    Sorry barflies.
    I’ll try to sleep and great the world afresh in the morning.
    It is going to be hard.
    Posted by: DunGroanin | Nov 14 2023 4:54 utc | 273

  • Lakshman Gunasekara

    very useful information regarding the details of the international instruments and their enforcibility. Thank you. Wish this blog well. Invaluable contribution to the cause for justice. Sorry that I do not have economic capacity to fund.

  • Greg Park

    Maybe not the UK government but one of the giants of our political establishment – one of the great moral voices – IS calling for indictments by the ICC.

    Gordon Brown has thundered:
    “Hamas terrorists, who in their rampage maimed, killed and kidnapped innocent children, should now be subject to arrest and prosecution by the international criminal court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

    Gordon is revered in liberal circles as the exemplar of serious stability and moral heft juxtaposed with people like Liz Truss and Suella Braverman. So too his fellow Jewish National Fund patron Sir Tony Blair, identified by Binyamin Netanyahu as an ideal Governor General for post Holocaust Gaza.

    The Sensibles have also nodded sage approval at the recall of another giant of pre-2016 Stability as Foreign Secretary, David Cameron. The Baron’s reduction of Libya to Mad Max dystopia is no obstacle to him being seen as the perfect candidate in their eyes. Nor at this current moment is the fact he too was a patron of the JNF, the main institutional vehicle for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. He has the imprimatur of the UK political and media class, that is all that matters.

    • Johnny Conspiranoid

      “Gordon is revered in liberal circles”
      Why would revering Gordon Brown make someone a liberal? I understand he is promoted as such by the media, along with Bliar etc., but how much of this is a propaganda construct? Is there no genuine body of liberal opinion which would support an ICC indictment of Israel and spurn the support of Brown and Bliar? Wouldn’t that position be the mark of a real liberal?

      • Greg Park

        Who knows if there is such a body? I mean ‘liberal’ as it’s commonly understood in British political discourse: a byword for Sensible establishment centrist. That is, Labour Right/centre; Lib Dems; centrist Tories. Anti-socialist in essence; 2nd referendum/ AS ‘crisis’ scammers; Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv right or wrongers. Anybody who in 21st-century Britain wants to identify as a liberal must know and accept that those are the people and ideas you will automatically be associated with. Brown, Blair, Mandleson, Starmer, Watson, Balls, Clegg, Osborne. The liberal wing of the British establishment.

1 2 3