Has International Law Survived, or Has the Western Political Class Killed It? 453

In finding there is a plausible case against Israel, the International Court of Justice treated with contempt the argument from Israel that the case should be dismissed as it is exercising its right of self-defence. This argument took up over half of Israel’s pleadings. Not only did the court find there is a plausible case of genocide, the court only mentioned self-defence once in its interim ruling – and that was merely to note that Israel had claimed it. Para 41:

That the ICJ has not affirmed Israel’s right to self-defence is perhaps the most important point in this interim order. It is the dog that did not bark. The argument which every western leader has been using is spurned by the ICJ.

Now the ICJ did not repeat that an occupying power has no right of self-defence. It did not need to. It simply ignored Israel’s specious assertion.

It could do that because what it went on to iterate went way beyond any plausible assertion of self-defence. What struck me most about the ICJ ruling was that the Order went into far more detail about the evidence of genocide than it needed to. Its description was stark.

Here Para 46 is crucial

The reason this is so crucial, is that the Court is not saying that South Africa asserts this. The Court is saying these are the facts. It is a finding of fact by the Court. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of that description by the court of the state of affairs in Gaza.

The Court then goes on to detail accounts by the United Nations of the factual situation, quoting three different senior officials at length, including Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner General of UNRWA:

This of course explains why the immediate response to the ICJ ruling was a coordinated attack by Israel and the combined imperialist powers on UNRWA, designed to accelerate the genocide by stopping aid, to provide a propaganda counter-narrative to the ICJ judgment, and to reduce the credibility of UNRWA’s evidence before the court.

The Court works very closely with the UN and is very much an entrenched part of the UN system. It has a particularly close relationship with the UN General Assembly – many of the Court’s cases are based on requests from the UN General Assembly. In a fortnight’s time the Court will be starting its substantive hearings on the legal position in the Occupied Territories of Palestine, at the request of the UNGA. There are five specific references to the UNGA in the Order.

The Court spent a great deal of time outlining the facts of the unfolding genocide in the Gaza Strip. It did not have to do so in nearly so much detail, and far too little attention has been paid to this. I was equally surprised by how much detail the court gave on the evidence of genocidal intent by Israel.

It is especially humiliating for Israel that the Court quoted the Israeli Head of State, the President of Israel himself, as giving clear evidence of genocidal intent, along with two other government ministers.

Again, this is not the Court saying that South Africa has alleged this. It is a finding of fact by the Court. The ICJ has already found to be untrue Israel’s denial in court of incitement to genocide.

Now think of this: the very next day after President Herzog made a genocidal statement, as determined by the International Court of Justice, he was met and offered “full support” by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission and Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament.

When you take the detail of what the Court has found to be the actual facts of the case, in death and destruction and in intent, I have no doubt that this is a court which is currently minded to find Israel guilty of genocide once the substantive case comes before the Court.

All of Israel’s arguments were lost. Every one. The substantial effort Israel put into having the case dismissed on procedural grounds was brushed aside. So was self-defence. And in its findings of the facts, the Court plainly found to be untrue the Israeli lies about avoidance of civilian casualties, the responsibility of Hamas for the damage to infrastructure, and the access of relief aid to Gaza.

Those are the facts of what happened.

Do not be confused by the absence of the word “ceasefire” from the Court order. What the Court has ordered is very close to that. It has explicitly ordered the Israeli military to stop killing Palestinians.

That is absolutely clear. And while I accept it is tautologous, in the sense it is ordering Israel to obey a Convention which Israel is already bound to follow, there could be no clearer indication that the Court believes that Israel is not currently obeying it.

So what happens now?

Well, Israel has responded by killing over 180 Palestinian civilians since the Order was given from the International Court of Justice. If that continues, South Africa may return to the Court for more urgent measures even before the ordered monthly report from Israel is due. Algeria has announced it will take the Order to the UN Security Council for enforcement.

I doubt the United States will veto. There has been a schizophrenic reaction from Israel and its supporters to the ICJ Order. On the one hand, the ICJ has been denounced as antisemitic. On the other hand the official narrative has been (incredibly) to claim Israel actually won the case, while minimising the coverage in mainstream media. This has been reinforced by the massive and coordinated attack on UNRWA, to create alternative headlines.

It is difficult to both claim that Israel somehow won, and at the same time seek to block UNSC enforcement of the Order. My suspicion is that there will be a continuing dual track: pretending that there is no genocide and Israel is obeying the “unnecessary” order, while at the same time attacking and ridiculing the ICJ and the wider UN.

No matter what the ICJ said, Israel would not have stopped the genocide; that is the simple truth. The immediate reaction of the US and allies to the Order has been to try to accelerate the genocide by crippling the UN’s aid relief work. I confess I did not expect anything quite that vicious and blatant.

The wheels of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small. The ICJ having flagged up a potential genocide so strongly, it may well fall to judges in individual nations to restrain international support for the genocide. As I explained in detail, the Genocide Convention has been incorporated into UK law by the International Criminal Court Act of 2001.

There will, beyond any doubt, have been minutes issued by FCDO legal advisers warning of ministers being at risk of personal liability in UK law for complicity in genocide now, should arms shipments and other military and intelligence cooperation with the Israeli genocide continue. In the US, hearings started already in California on a genocide complicity suit brought against Joe Biden.

Of course I wish this would all work faster. It will not. The UN General Assembly may suspend Israel from the UN. There are other useful actions to be taken. But this is a long slog, not a quick fix, and people like you and I continue to have a vital role, as everybody does, in using the power of the people to wrest control from a vicious political class of killers.

This was a good win. I am pleased that this course for which I advocated and lobbied has worked and increased pressure on the Zionists, and that my judgment that the International Court of Justice is not just a NATO tool like the corrupt International Criminal Court, has been vindicated.

It cannot help the infants killed and maimed last night or those to die in the coming few days. But it is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.


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 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.

453 thoughts on “Has International Law Survived, or Has the Western Political Class Killed It?

1 2 3 4
  • Carolyn Stephens

    Thank you Craig for your amazing work and dedication to the Palestinians, to all of us who cannot stand by and watch these appalling massacres, atrocities, tortures and lies. Words just run out about the total horror of what is happening and betrayal of so-called Western democracies. We, the ordinary kind decent people know what is right. God bless and thank you.

  • Philip Espin

    Great analysis Craig. I had been wondering about the best way to support the Palestinians victims of genocide and I guess the answer is now to donate to UNRWA. Is there any UK body to whom you would recommend a donation be made to maximise the chances of a public or private prosecution of UK residents complicit in genocide? I have in mind prominent politicians and ordinary folk who have gone over to Israel to murder Palestinian civilians. I am against U.K. citizens having their citizenship withdrawn for crimes of supporting genocide or committing genocide for Israel (or ISIS), unless convicted in a British court first.

    The thought that murderers of innocent Gazans and supporters of genocide are walking our streets and purporting to represent the people sickens me.

  • Malcolm Frame

    Israel justifies the barrier separating its territory from that of Gaza because of a threat emanating from occupied Palestinian territory over which Israel itself exercises control. This is the justification for Israel’s claim that it invokes its right of self-defence in accordance with article 51 of the UN convention. Notwithstanding the fact that The United Nations, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs continues to consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, when that barrier was breached Israel protected its citizens by repulsing the attack by Hamas militants. An attack was met with a defence and that defence was successful, and there the matter should have rested. No further military action was necessary, and the repair of the barrier would have restored the status quo. Nevertheless, Israel continues to invoke its right of self-defence, a proposition which is endlessly parroted by its supporters to justify what is an attack on a territory and a people which are no longer a threat. In this situation the right of Hamas to defend itself is incontestable.

    • Philip Maughan

      It increasingly looks to me like the entire events from 7/10 onwards have been planned in advance. I find it highly implausible for instance that Israel was asleep at the wheel when Hamas broke through the fence and attacked the nearby military bases. They’d had advance warning from Egypt that some sort of attack was imminent and given their highly sophisticated surveillance network, plus access to the USA’s satellite observation network, my view is that they were well aware of the situation and allowed the attack to take place as the rationale for the current offensive.
      There have even been questions raised regarding the relocation of the Super Nova music festival at such short notice. Could it be that it was moved deliberately, so that it lay directly in the path of the Hamas attack in order to create the conditions that ensued and thus enable Israel to claim a ‘second Holocaust’? Has any reason been given or analysis carried out regarding the music festival’s change of venue at such short notice?

        • Philip Maughan

          Yet in this case there is a precedent: the dodgy dossier about WMD that was concocted to justify invading Iraq. However, I concede that if Israel similarly manipulated 7/10, it would be even more horrific, as they would have deliberately placed their own citizens in harm’s way.

          • hugo dufourcq

            Considering the fact that zionists seem to be at war with humanity at large, I find this easy to believe. Remember that Isntrael (as we like to call it on hexbear.org, heh) is the nation that came up with the infamous and deeply unserious “Hannibal directive”, systematic execution of hostages in order to deny “terrorists” any leverage.

      • Robin Banks

        In Israel it is being openly talked about in the media how most of the victims of Oct. 7th were killed by the IDF, presumably in order to exaggerate the scale of the “atrocity” which they allowed to unfold.

      • Franc

        I suggest you take a look at Jonathan Cook’s Blog.
        “Why is the real story of October 7th off limits to western, but not Israeli, media?” – link
        18th Jan 2024
        “Why the Guardian’s, ‘Hamas mass rape’ doesn’t pass the sniff test” – link
        19th Jan 2024
        And more…..

  • Ian

    Well done, Craig. You are doing very important work here, since there is no such detailed and conscientious analysis in any mainstream news media. The facts speak for themselves, and only serve to reinforce how corrupted our sources of debate and information have become. I do find it incredible that virtually no news organisation feels it necessary or incumbent on them to report without editorialising these rulings, but instead eagerly and disproportionately recycles the latest Israeli propagandistic deceit which, in contrast, has no evidence or factual basis, but is the product of torture and forced ‘confessions’.

    It is sufficient evidence of their bias, laziness, dishonest irresponsibility and poisonous attitude that they haven’t bothered reading it, think nobody should, or that they should inform citizens what it says. But they will devote acres of space to Israeli bilge, misdirection and grotesque justifications for the utterly inhumane slaughter of tens of thousands innocent human beings and the annihilation of all of their means of survival.

    That should, of course, be indefensible but it passes without comment as if the revulsion expressed at past human atrocities were now a matter of indifference.
    Why should we ever have cared about the great crimes against humanity in the past if we don’t care about current ones but instead, in the West, actively support them? Why did we pretend we cared?

    Thank you for this, and shame on all those ‘journalists’ who, despite their six figure salaries, or more likely because of them, meekly toe the line, and are exposed as incompetent facilitators of massacre, while a self-funded individual reliant on his own resources and public contributions can inform and educate citizens by judicious consideration of the facts and the radical expedient of reading and reporting the judgement. Who would have thought to do that if you are working in a million dollar newsroom with 24 hour support, eh?

    • Bayard

      “It is sufficient evidence of their bias, laziness, dishonest irresponsibility and poisonous attitude that they haven’t bothered reading it, ”

      It is a mistake to think that the purpose of private media organisations is to inform or educate the public. It is not. Their purpose, like that of any other private organisation, is to make money. How they choose to do that is up to them. You do not have to consume their product if you don’t like it.

  • joel

    “The immediate reaction of the US and allies to the Order has been to try to accelerate the genocide by crippling the UN’s aid relief work. I confess I did not expect anything quite that vicious and blatant”

    It should be noted that we cannot pin this degeneracy on George W Bush, Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Putin, Tommy Robinson et al.

    It is entirely the work of respectable moderate liberals. The kind of people we are supposed to want running our societies and the world order: the Biden administration/ Democratic party, the centrist liberal rulers of the EU, Germany, France, Canada and Australia.

    This savage, genocidal liberal racism is far beyond anything they can accuse Trump or Putin of.

    Are we going to pretend it isnt?

    • joel

      Even UK participation is led not by some scare figure like Suella Braverman but by Lord Cameron, someone represented by the commentariat as a sensible moderate. A big society, hug a hoodie centrist liberal. The Conservatives’ participation in genocide is also fully endorsed by Britain’s centrist liberal opposition and its media.

      • joel

        Shadow Minister Lisa Nandy has unequivocally backed the Tory move to suspend UK funding for UN humanitarian aid to Palestine – in the middle of a British-sponsored genocide and famine.

        “Allegations this serious demand a serious response”, she said, adding that the UK was right to ensure “our aid is never used to support terrorism”.

        Moderate. Responsible. Sensible. Respectable. Liberal.

        • Nota Tory Fanboy

          Anyone here who supported Corbyn’s stance on Palestine will not for a moment consider the current British Government or the Opposition to be remotely moderate, responsible, sensible, respectable, or liberal…

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            The irony is that whilst finally getting it on Palestine and this incredibly transparent attempt to traduce the UNRWA (and by extension other UN bodies, including the ICJ), O’Brien still traduces Corbyn’s consistent and vindicated position (along with that of his supporters) on the issue by conflating it with one anti-Semitic caller and still refuses to acknowledge the concerted State and MSM campaign against him that he was anti-Semitic.

    • Nota Tory Fanboy

      The only sort of liberal that the Tories are is neo-liberal and they are absolutely of Bannon, Trump and Yaxley-Lennon’s type… If you don’t believe that Braverman, Patel, Mogg, May et al. are their standard bearers then you haven’t been paying attention.
      Yes, the US absolutely holds a huge degree of sway* but don’t forget that Palestine was a British protectorate, not an American one, so the British Government are also incredibly influential* here.

      *or are themselves “swayed” and “influenced”

    • Andrew Paul Booth

      “… entirely the work of respectable moderate liberals…”

      Yes. As are the continuing preparations and now attempted mobilisations for the invasion, in the absence of “regime change”, of the Russian Federation.

    • Bayard

      “… entirely the work of respectable moderate liberals…”

      I.e. the supporters of the oligarchical system that has ruled the UK since the Civil War and probably before that, too. That’s what “respectable”, “moderate” and “liberal” mean.

  • Stubbs

    Thanks for all your work Craig.
    In answer to your question. No. International Law was over in 2003 when two members of UNSC went outside the UN to attack another UN member country.

    • Bayard

      You appear to be confusing “international law” with “supranational law”. International law is law agreed between countries and is binding on those countries only so long as those countries agree to be bound by it. When they stop agreeing to be bound by it – as happened in 2003 – it is not “over”, it simply no longer applies to the countries that no longer agree to be bound by it. Supranational law, OTOH, would apply whether countries agree to be bound by it or not – but then such law would need an enforcer with access to military or financial power. The only supranational law that exists is that of the US, which uses its military and financial power to enforce it on other states.

    • Yeah, Right

      Your domestic criminal law is not “over” because someone commits bank robbery.
      Your domestic criminal law is not “over” because someone commits bank robbery and are never brought to justice.

      Criminal law exists to create the very notion of “criminal acts”, which has the unavoidable corollary that crimes do get committed.

      The same is true of International Law: it isn’t “over” because two permanent members of the UN Security Council invaded another UN member state on spurious grounds. That invasion was indeed a crime, in fact and in law, and that remains true even if the criminals behind it (Bush Jnr and Blair) were never subjected to punishment.

      There is International Law, and sometimes it is violated. Color me shocked. That possibility never occurred to me.

      • Nota Tory Fanboy

        Don’t forget that the only reason Blair wasn’t tried was because of the one get-out clause that Mr. Murray explained at the time: if the ICC judge believes that the offending state is marking its own homework seriously then the judge can’t carry the case forward. Supposedly she believed that the UK Government was taking that role seriously and thus she closed the case.

        • Yeah, Right

          Not the ICJ. It isn’t a criminal court. Did you mean the ICC?

          Rather pointless if you did, since that court is nothing more than Washington’s gimp that it brings out of the basement every time they need to hang some Brown People.


          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            I didn’t say the ICJ, I said the ICC – and yes, clearly (as Mr. Murray explained in his article of the time).

  • Republicofscotland

    Thanks Craig for this article and your endeavours in attending at the ICJ.

    As you say the UK and the US has suspended further aid to UNRWA, and now Australia has done so as well. It’s utterly disgraceful that EU bodies are backing the Zionists and, in turn, the genocide of the oppressed Palestinian people.

    As far as I’m aware the UK is still allowing UK/US military flights from their Cyprus bases to Israel, whilst the vile dictatorship in Bahrain that has close ties to the UK is allowing ships to dock with supplies for Israel, which are then trucked across Saudi Arabia.

    I sincerely hope that Western leaders who back this ethnic cleansing in Gaza find themselves standing on trial for aiding and abetting.

    One does wonder though if the Zionists will be made to stop their cleansing of Gaza or will, as you say, the wheels of justice be too late in taking action against the Zionists and they’ll achieve their evil goal.

    • Republicofscotland

      Re my above comment I should’ve added that both Italy and Canada have also suspended their UNRWA aid as well.

      The United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the highest investigative authority in the UN system is looking into the suspensions.

  • Yeah, Right

    The corresponding US Act of Congress is, I believe, “S.1851 – Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987”

    And, ironies of ironies, the Senator who sponsored S.1851 was good ol’ Genocide Joe himself.

      • Yeah, Right

        No, that doesn’t wash. The criminal offense would be “complicity in genocide”, and that act of complicity does fall within the plain meaning of S.1851

        1) That complicitous act is taking place within the USA, specifically, it is taking place in the Oval Office of the White House
        2) The person who is complicit in this genocide is a national of the USA: Joe Biden.

        Both conditions are met.

        Can a POTUS even sign an Executive Order when he is outside the borders of the United States of America?
        I don’t know the answer to that, does anyone else?

        If the answer is “no” then POTUS can’t avoid S.1851

  • Colin Davis

    Today is very depressing though, the papers full of nothing but the Israeli assault on UNRWA – on the basis of evidence provided by Israel alone and not shared publicly. The 11 living accused sacked, we are told: since when are people sacked on receipt of unverified accusations from another interested party? (Well, I find it deeply depressing.)

  • Odessa

    I am so immensely grateful for your coverage, the cold nights and the personal discomfort; I don’t need to go on and on. Real journalism. Reminds me of those brave journalists who risked being kill while reporting on the Vietnam war. I am very, very grateful. Let’s hope the wheels grind very, very small. These things are generational. Short of revolution, it will take 20–30 years for the generation of Ursula and the Chief Gardener Josep to go. It starts from family, school, university, selection process… you know better than I do. There is no sign this has even started. Recall it took over 45 years for Thatcherite policies to impoverish Britain. And there is still no groundswell for change. Brits preferred the lazy, lying clown Bojo to a decent man like Corbyn. Then the shallow, very ordinary, inept Truss. Then the shallow, very ordinary multimillionaire, green card holder, Sunak. Of course there is always the ‘black swan’ moment, or the ‘swiss cheese’ moment. Let’s hope. I read somewhere that the policy of Palestinian genocide is supported by 80% of people in Israel. Is that true? Gallup finds 65% if Israelis do not support a two-state solution.

  • David Brown

    Thank you Craig, lots here that never made the mainstream media. Even I in my innocence had spotted that the UNRWA allegations are a massive distraction effort. It is shameful that our governments piled in as if the procedure had been agreed and rehearsed in advance. It is becoming clearer by the day to everyone that there is no morality in the games the powerful play.

  • A C Bruce

    Thanks for this. I’m raging and heartbroken at the same time.

    Cutting off aid is pure evil. These fn bastards need their come-uppance sooner rather than later. May they rot in hell.

  • El Dee

    I saw interviews on BBC News on their 24 hr coverage. The interview was with a UN Watch member. I may have missed it but I don’t recall the BBC giving the context of who UN Watch are, their stated purpose or who funds them. The interviewer was otherwise quite able but without context it seemed like an important ‘official body’ of the UN was stating UNRWA to be, essentially, a terrorist organization. It gave the statement gravitas that it did not deserve..

    • Laguerre

      “UN Watch is a non-profit organization dedicated to holding the United Nations accountable to its founding principles. Through its regular monitoring, UN Watch is a key resource for information and analysis about the UN.
      UN Watch is a leading voice combating antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the UN engaging in advocacy at the highest levels of government and countering misinformation in the media.”

      It is evidently an Israel-funded organisation intended to de-legitimise the UN.

      • AG

        “UN Watch” is a “U-Boot”. They were e.g. leading on during the smearing campaign aginst Richard Falk who was United Nations Special Rapporteur 15 years ago.
        Very bad people. Which shows you how meaningless names are. They even had dedicated an entire homepage especially targetting Falk.

  • Courtenay Francis Raymond Barnett

    There is an irony here.

    The Judges on the ICJ from the wealthier Western countries were anticipated by some to decide against South Africa (but they did not).

    However, move forward a bit, and some of those same countries are suspending urgently needed humanitarian funding to UNRWA.

    The result is that on one hand Israel is told on the legal side to act humanely and lawfully; on the other hand the Palestinians are to be deprived the practical financial means to make UNRWA effective and function in being able to deliver humanitarian assistance.

    As a singular allegation emanating (undisclosed to the world) from Israel about supposed transgressions of less than 1 % of a group of UN over 30,000 UN workers – what truthfully has transpired here?

    Does/can this response stand up to honest assessment/scrutiny?

  • Ewan2

    Looking at Ursula von der Leyen’s wiki page, her family took part in both the cotton and slave trade. Her family were big in the US, providing 5 governors for Carolina and 1 for Pennsylvania as well as a Lt-Governor of South Carolina. She’s also an Albrecht, which is in English: Albright.
    Perhaps that explains her ability to ignore the murder of innocents.

    • DunGroanin

      I have also seen a photo reputedly of her granmama being very smiley-happy with Hitler!
      Zionism, Fascism and Nazism are joined at the hip. Always have been.

  • Ian

    When proof of genocide is forthcoming, through the South African dossier and the judgement of the ICJ, it is ignored and traduced. On the other hand when no evidence or proof is supplied of the actions of a miniscule number of UNRWA employees, acres of coverage and denunciation are instantly cobbled together and amplified. It is so pitiful and deceitful that it is surely the death knell for any independent, fair-minded dissemination of information or open debate in our laughably-called ‘democracies’. There is no democracy without access to accountable, verifiable and responsible information, reporting and debate. However partial it was a few decades ago, it is now an utter travesty of any open society, one which has crept up on us with barely a murmur of recognition. And yet on we go, as they close down and control what little channels we have left. The integration of modern surveillance with big tech, unaccountable billionaires, right wing governments and the shadowy secret services, proceeds apace. Orwell didn’t realise the half of it.

  • Peter Mo

    Stay on the case. This whole UNRWA situation is weird to say the least. I am looking at several international social media comments outlets and its clear there is a large-scale coordinated anti-UNRWA posting campaign under way. To cut funding because a few employees may be Hamas members is just beyond belief. Why so quickly and in such a coordinated way amongst the Western countries. This is a conspiracy plain and simple that has to be investigated all the way through. Just who is actually driving it? Looks like it is well funded. Along the way many gullible players get sucked in.

  • DunGroanin

    The Implacable supremacists have NO reverse gear.
    A zombie empire is crumbling like the putrid body it is.

    The solution is simple: South Africa with a coalition of the willing – Malaysia, Indonesia… China! – puts a R2P military force on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank to insure that relief, food and medicine is delivered. They can take control of the policing and ensure that no attacks will be launched on the khazars, whilst making sure that they retreat back to their original mandate space. Then the World can decide if that illegal colonial occupation can remain or, like all such colonies, is returned to its native populations.

    We can not sit back and watch this C21st Guernica parlay into the full Fascist war that atrocity did. Or if it has to, then let it be sooner and swifter than that one took.

    P.S. that photo is about as Nazi an image as one can recall from prewar, when the Mitfords, and Windsor’s and various black-shirted fascists gambolled with Mussolini and Hitler!
    Could the EU leadership be any more Fascists under their posturing? They have even forgotten that it was the Red Army arriving that stopped the concentration camp exterminations and liberated the survivors! Here is an apt satire of the nauseous Frau:

  • Ebenezer Scroggie

    In his interview with Judge Napolitano, Craig Murray said something to the effect of “Here in the UK the Genocide Convention is incorporated into domestic law”.

    Does that mean that he’s back in the UK? Or was it just a slip the tongue?

    Could a private prosecution be used to indict Dave Cameron and other UK government ministers for their complicity in the genocide which the ICJ has so clearly declared to be taking place? I’m sure that the Qatari and/or Iranian governments could make funds available to pay the financial costs of such a prosecution.

    • harry law

      Private Prosecution of International Criminal Offences, The ICC Act 2001 does require the permission of the Attorney General; however, a private prosecution could succeed – although generally speaking, the consent of the Attorney General is required in relation to offences/allegations that raise issues of public policy, national security or relations with other States. International criminal offences and their prosecution are highly likely to give rise to political issues and matters of international comity.
      It must be pointed out that an Iraqi General failed in his private prosecution against Tony Blair because the High Court said there is no such crime of ‘Aggression’ in English Law. Obviously if this route was taken, an iron-clad case would need to be put together. See the link from top lawyers on this, here:

  • ronny

    Stay safe, Craig. If you become too annoying, or if they join the dots and see you played some part in this reaching the ICJ, the Israelis may take a pop at you.

  • Squeeth

    Thank you for your efforts Craig, Our Man at Den Haag. Have you considered offering your sleeping bag and accoutrements to the Tate Gallery, to raise funds for Palestine? If Tracy Emin can get away with it, anyone can. It’s a pity that Brian Sewell is dead, he could do a review. ;O)

  • Republicofscotland

    The crux of the matter, I think:

    “It is hard to see how these provisional measures can be achieved if the carnage in Gaza continues.

    “Without a ceasefire, the order doesn’t actually work,” Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s minister of international relations, stated bluntly after the ruling.

    Time is not on the side of the Palestinians.”

    “The Biden administration will undoubtedly veto the resolution at the Security Council demanding Israel implement the provisional measures.

    The General Assembly, if the Security Council does not endorse the measures, can vote again calling for a ceasefire, but has no power to enforce it. ”


  • napier

    What is the process by which the court works? Do the judges have clerks who do research for fact finding? Do all the judges meet in congress to discuss come to a majority opinion? Does anyone know the actual mechanics of the court?

    Thanks Craig, I have been waiting on your take ever since the ruling. It is excellent as always. Please keep up the good work. You did have a part to play in getting it to this stage.

    • Nota Tory Fanboy

      I would also like to know the mechanics of how the court works – it all helps piece together the context for those of us who don’t know better, as has been the case with so much of Murray’s admirable journalism.

      • terence callachan

        This court has been ignored in the past by UK and USA – Chagos islands – and it is being ignored by them again.
        What we are seeing at present is the start of the REAL division of the world into two sides one that consists of the USA, UK, EU and their collaborators on one side and on the other side China, Russia, Africa and those others brave enough to stand up to the aukus-eu English speakers.

        The next danger an even bigger contest is NATO v Russia, NATO being headed by USA with its hangers on UK and EU tagging along.

        Most notable here is that USA fund and lead the aggression in all these fights; every one of them is about trade and control of resources. The USA have been challenged by China, who in recent years did too much trade with the EU on Amazon for their liking; then Russia became too friendly with the EU, providing cheap consistent supplies of gas to them.
        Brexit and persuading Ukraine to wage war with Russia have stopped China and Russia having friendlier, more efficient, trade with Europe – all for the benefit of maintaining USA as world leader in trade.

        UK and EU would have been sanctioned had they not complied with orders from USA.

        USA will start a third world war without flinching because they will use NATO to fight it in Europe and use Australasia as the fighting ground against China – both fighting grounds thousands of miles away from USA.
        WWII set USA ahead of the rest of the world in trade.
        USA want to repeat this.

        Those in UK and EU government will do what their ancestors did and clear out before war starts. They will head off to USA, and are probably moving their investments and other wealth to the USA as we speak.

        • Bayard

          “– all for the benefit of maintaining USA as world leader in trade.”

          However, “trade”, for the US, increasingly means having foreigners do the actual work and Americans reap the profits. War with China would mean cutting itself off from a big chunk of its manufacturing base.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            No, Bayard, of course not – I was simply correcting the assertion that Russia was not part of the international rule breaking club…

          • Bayard

            So if the US, the UK and Russia have all disregarded ICJ rulings, does that mean that no-one need take any notice of them?

        • Nota Tory Fanboy

          Furthermore, your response answers nothing whatsoever about the procedural mechanics of the ICJ that napier and I were seeking.

  • Stephen C

    Thanks for your continued detailed coverage of this awful situation. It is so frustrating when the UK govt continues to support action that has been shown to be assisting genocide.

  • SA

    I am so pleased to have followed this website for several years, because Craig Murray’s assessment of this judgement has been the most lucid and also in some ways optimistic. The West has ensnared itself through unconditional support for Israel. Their actions against UNRWA show arrogance that may blow up in their faces but may eventually lead to US further attempts at disruption of the UN and its various bodies. The West’s leaders are victims of cognitive dissonance. They do not understand what racism is, which is simply that there is no hierarchy in whom you could other. Nor do they understand that the concept of ‘never again’ is meant to be for all, not just for select people. Craig Murray gives us hope, and realistically so, because it is one step towards a long fight. But it will be only a question of time before our leaders are hit by guilty feelings when their evil deeds they perceive to be required to right a wrong are exposed for what they are, just simple wanton evil deeds.

  • Malcolm Frame

    When an Israeli spokesman boasts about the success of their army they quote the ratio of Hamas dead (~8000) as a proportion of the total dead (25000), implying that this is a measure of their concern for civilians. Even if such a statement was, exceptionally, true it implies that there are no wounded or captured Hamas fighters. Israel followed the US State Department and categorized Hamas as a terrorist organisation and thereby not deserving of due process, meaning they can apply the same judgment to “hors de combat” fighters, in defiance of the Geneva Convention laws of war. Francs tireurs in the Franco-Prussian war and partisans in occupied Europe during WW2 were not treated as deserving the respect of their opponents and when captured they were killed even if they were wounded or defenceless. Israel doesn’t allow independent observers access to the combat zones in Gaza and no interviewer of the various pro-Israel apologists that make their way into MSM studios would dare question the morality of the IDF, but the suspicion remains that this army behaves just like Einsatzgruppen killers.

1 2 3 4