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
  • Nicholas Moore

    Craig, perhaps you can clarify something? It seems to me that the ICJ, having effectively told Israel to stop attacking Palestinians, has made no such directive towards the Palestinians. In other words the Palestinians are free to keep on fighting (to defend themselves): something which a full ceasefire would preclude. What do you think?

    • Diane McLoughlin

      To decree a ceasefire against the Palestinians would be to entrench Israel’s illegal occupation by denying the right of the occupied to self-defence.

    • Ingwe

      Nicholas Moore at 16:08: The ICJ’s jurisdiction extends only to States. Palestine has not yet been accepted as a State. Therefore the court could not order Palestine to do anything.

    • Tom Welsh

      The Palestinians are by no means stupid, ignorant, or foolish. To attack the Israelis after the latter had stopped fighting would be to put themselves in the wrong after so much good work has given them the moral high ground.

      • Johaiyna

        The Palestinians themselves have always had the moral high ground as an Indigenous people resisting a settler colonial occupation. They didn’t need to be “given” it by anyone.

    • Jen

      My understanding is that South Africa brought the case of genocide against Israel, not against Israel and Hamas.

      As another commenter has noted, Palestine is not a state and the ICJ’s jurisdiction applies to existing states.

      The Palestinians are fighting in self-defence and for the right of self-determination, the latter being covered by the UN’s Charter.

    • Yeah, Right

      As others have said, Israel insists that it is fighting against “Hamas”, not against “Palestine”.

      And Hamas is not a state. The ICJ can only rule on disputes between states (this is why South Africa had to bring the case to the court, not “Hamas”) and, therefore, the ICJ has no authority to issue orders to any non-state actor.

      IMHO this precludes the court ordering an immediate ceasefire, precisely because it is manifestly absurd for the court to order Israel to “cease firing” when that would leave Hamas free to “keep firing”.

      That is the one point about the Israeli argument (which was otherwise abysmal) that I agree with.

      But note the orders that were given (especially the supply of humanitarian aid) which are impossible for Israel to comply with unless it negotiates a ceasefire with Hamas.

      Or, put another way: the COURT itself didn’t order a ceasefire, but it did impose orders that will require ISRAEL to bite the bullet and negotiate a ceasefire.

      Quite clever, really.

  • Philip Cope

    Very helpful, Craig. Thank you so much for your focus and work on this issue. Your clarifications and analysis of this ICJ document give depth and breadth to my/our understanding of the impact it is having and will have. Thank you. Thank you.

  • Andy Coombes

    Evidently the Western axis now sees fit to discredit and defund the UN, thus making the UK *overtly* collude in genocide. At least it’s clear.
    Our political class make me want to vomit

  • harry law

    May I repost this comment from Yeah, Right on the previous thread? It is concise and, in my opinion, legally sound. I thank him for his erudite opinion.

    « The court can’t really call for a ceasefire because one of the parties to the conflict isn’t a party to the court.

    Remember, the case is South Africa versus Israel, so the court can only give interim orders to those two parties.

    To South Africa the ruling is: yep, we agree, there is merit in your case so we’ll proceed.
    To Israel the order is: we are putting you on notice not to do ANYTHING that might be construed as genocide.
    That’s pretty much all that the Court can do at this stage, because (a) this is an interim order and (b) it can only issue orders to Israel, it can’t issue any orders to Hamas.

    And a “ceasefire” is a two-way street, it must include Israel and Hamas otherwise such an order would be manifestly absurd.
    But the court can’t issue any orders to Hamas because they aren’t a party to the case that the ICJ is hearing.

    So on an emotional level, yes, this can be disappointing. But on a legal/political/commonsense level it is perfectly understandable that the court doesn’t want to make itself into a laughing stock by issuing orders that are manifestly absurd. »

    • Tom Welsh

      To which the Israelis will no doubt reply (explicitly or implicitly): “You and what army?”

      Which has always been the question ever since the Arab armies tried and failed.

  • Jack

    The ICJ could not keep itself from showing their true colors, why is this quoted segment below even part of the report that deal with genocidal acts by Israel?!
    “The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release”.
    If ICJ are going to call out Hamas and their “hostages”, why then are ICJ complately oblivious to the fact that Israel keeping many thousands of palestinians as hostages? Why no calls from ICJ on Israel to release the palestinians?
    Israel is holding thousands of palestinians in jail without charge/trial as graphic show below:
    Note also how ICJ are “gravely concerned” about the israeli hostages, a phrase they not use anywhere else in the text to describe the horror palestinians face.

    And come on now, a western lead ICJ will never judge that Israel commit genocide: that would imply that western states are complicit.
    We need a trial like the Nuremberg where every judge was from the allied camp.

  • Casperger

    Wonderful analysis and campaigning for truth, as always, from Craig Murray. One small question is whether Israel/the West’s attack on UNRWA’s funding, happened in response to Phillipe Lazzarini’s 13 January statement, and the Court’s reliance on it, as Mr Murray suggests. It appears that attacks on UNWRA were already being made in the Israeli Parliament on January 4: https://twitter.com/i/status/1751480836682399772
    The wholesale killing of UNRWA workers in the field was already underway then, of course.

  • Athanasius

    The genocide argument really doesn’t fit here, but was used, I suspect, because — as far as I’m aware — there’s no explicit prohibition in international law against straight-out vengeance, which is what’s going on in Gaza.

    • craig Post author

      Genocide most certainly does fit here, very plainly so, as defined by the Genocide Convention, not by whatever definition you have in your head.

      • AG

        Since I am still struggling with the terminologies – Noam Chomsky shortly after 7/10 argued that Lemkin would be devastated if he knew how his intention re: genocide convention, has been “watered down” over the decades.

        Since what Lemkin in fact had in mind was extermination nothing less.
        I have no knowledge of a new Chomsky view on the state of affairs since his early Oct. appearance.

        And I have not seen any such argument made by others who are as critical as Chomsky has been of Israel over such a long period.
        If scholars do raise this question they are usually siding with Israel. And those are not the ones I wish to consider.

        I personally have come to the conclusion that over the decades media and diplomacy have changed in ways that have made it necessary to lower the bars re: genocide, in order to get something solved and help and save people.

        But is it truly justified to equate campaigns of extermination of peoples as they have happened several times since 1945 with a case as the current one in Gaza? Or is there not a difference in quality and scope.

        p.s. of course one can argue that if an extermination in fact is taking place that we have failed. Therefore to prevent that worst case scenario extermination hasn´t been introduced as a term and crime category of its own in the first place.

        • Yeah, Right

          “Since I am still struggling with the terminologies”

          Dare I suggest that you do yourself a favor and read up a bit more.

          The Genocide Convention:
          Article 3 is where you should take particular note.

          The ICJ Interim Order:

          The Convention itself is very brief. The ICJ Interim Order is much longer, but is IMO well-written.

          Read them both, and come back and say again that “The genocide argument really doesn’t fit here” because, so sorry, that isn’t the opinion of the Highest Court On The Planet.

          • AG

            thx. I will try look into it again more closely.

            (However I did not mean to say that this is no case of genocide. I have spent months now like everyone else on this site to support the SA/Gaza cause sending emails, drafting letters, argueing with people etc. I was simply pondering whether it made sense to add another category and questioning the term regarding its historical roots albeit that might only be of academic self-serving relevance in the light of the present atrocities.)

          • Bayard

            “I was simply pondering whether it made sense to add another category…”

            Not unless you think that what is currently happening in Gaza is somehow more acceptable if it isn’t actually genocide. The object of the exercise is to stop what is happening in Gaza, whatever you choose to call it, not convict the Israeli government of a specific crime.

    • Nota Tory Fanboy

      Athanasius, you really need to read Mr. Murray’s other articles on this to appreciate just how wrong your statement is and how brazenly our leaders are collaborating in this live-streamed genocide.

  • Republicofscotland

    Apparently Labour has backed the UK’s government stance on suspending aid to the UNRWA. Labour’s Lisa Nandy said it was the right thing to do.

    Meanwhile Margaret Hodge and Ruth Smeeth’s organisation, Jewish Labour, has called for the suspension of Labour MP Kate Osamor. Osamor mentioned the genocide in Gaza as she signed the WWII holocaust commemoration book.

    • Yeah, Right

      IMHO the move to suspend aid to the UNRWA moves the legal hazard for Sunak from “Complicity in genocide” into “Conspiracy to commit genocide”

      Shameful. Utterly and completely shameful.

      And criminal. That should never be forgotten.

      • Nota Tory Fanboy

        Indeed; when combined with the relevant article of the Geneva Convention on collective punishment, it violates article 2(c) :
        “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”

  • Urban Fox

    I’m surprised that Mr Murray is surprised by anything this regime of neo-s**t-libs do.

    The content of character individually and as a collective, is far more important than an avowed ideology. To a governing regime, most of the time

    We know for a proven fact. That the “Westminster regime” consists of mendacious backstabbers, relentless liars, brazen thieves, quisling traitors, debauched perverts and cowardly killers.

    What could possibly be surprising about any vile action in word or deed, those f**king droogs take?

  • Rosemary MacKenzie

    Also hear a report on CBC which I can’t find/verify that the IDF are clearing away Israeli protesters at one of the southern crossings into Gaza who were stopping aid trucks entering. Lots of trucks crossing now according to report. Sugggestion was that Israeli govt is beginning to listen to the court ruling. Anyone heard anything more?

  • AG

    I might be too sentimental but this text by Craig when read from beginning to end is touching due to its unwavering forcefulness and conviction of knowing to be on the right side.

    It thus offers what is so dearly needed these days, hope. Since one imperial tool has always been to coerce people into giving up hope.

    But that´s not gonna happen. Obviously.

    p.s. Did Craig ever run for a seat in parliament? He would make a terrific public election campaign speaker

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      Twice in the noughties, AG. Lost his £500 deposit (i.e. got less than 5% of the vote) both times. He almost retained it in Blackburn – unfortunately, the winner, former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, was cheating / treating (see our host’s book for details).

        • Lapsed Agnostic

          Thanks for your reply AG. I should have said that the book is ‘Murder in Samarkand’, not the Sikunder Burnes or Catholic Orangemen of Togo ones – available in all good bookshops (though they’ll probably have to order it) or online bookstores.

          Straw was up to the same tricks in the following general election when, ironically, he was Justice Minister. Our host put in an official complaint to the cops, but obviously nothing was done:


          For a bit of context, someone is currently languishing in jail after being sentenced to 10 months for standing as an Independent candidate in a council election on Tyneside when he was ineligible, even though he only got 70 votes and didn’t affect the overall result.

          • AG

            thx LA.
            These are fascinating facts. I did know of the general corruption surrounding Mr. Straw (“straw man”, “the last straw” …) but not the depth and breadth of his benign activities.
            Why was the candidate “ineligible”?
            I spare you the question who enacted a law punishing this with 10 months jail.

          • Nota Tory Fanboy

            Just shows how little changes in facist UK: David Cameron’s majority government only succeeded by ~20…and the same number of Tory MPs deliberately broke electoral funding laws whilst campaigning for that GE. The Police decided not to investigate further for “lack of evidence”, in spite of the fact there was plenty.

            Likewise, when two pre-2019 GE cabinet ministers and Ruth Davidson broke electoral law live on TV in their statements about postal vote results they said they’d seen BEFORE the 10pm voting cut-off (thus potentially influencing the outcome), the Police just didn’t care and asked complainants what they were expecting the Police to do about it…

          • AG

            Nota Tory Fanboy

            on this note may be of interest: Matt Taibbi´s long entry on the US perspective re: 2024 elections:

            “Is the Electoral Fix Already In?
            The 2024 presidential race increasingly looks like it will be decided by lawyers, not voters, as Democrats unveil plans for America’s first lawfare election”
            Matt Taibbi

            As often with MT its long and a bit overcomplicated due to his attempt to report truthfully and give an understanding of the clandestine character and dishonest nature of these meetings.

            The people involved in GB or the US of course are fully aware of the illegality of such doings.
            The details how they particularly react to those can be of narrative relevance however.

          • will moon

            AG did you look at the comments?

            A very wide range of opinion – no suprise with that many subscribers. Quite a lot of commentators calling the Biden administration “communist”, others calling it “socialist” – so many fragments of the political spectrum – an ideological “Tower of Babel”. Will America survive the election?

            “There must be some kind of way out of here”
            said the joker to the thief
            “There’s too much confusion I can’t get no relief”
            All Along the Watchtower, Bob Dylan

          • AG


            I did not.
            With Taibbi I mostly read only the text simply for lack of time.
            But I do realize that the spectrum must be very interesting to read, indeed.
            (I did in the beginning but I had to scale back and focus on places like this.)

            I don´t even know what to think about Jan. 6th any more.
            What I still regard as criminal is Trump urging the Georgia Governor to find more votes.

            Taibbi himself says he doesn´t know if Dems did rig votes in 2020. (Which means there is still no proof for that.)
            I know that Gordon Hahn is sure there was Dems´ voter fraud going on. I do not know the grounds for that though.

            Taibbi however, and I strongly agree, demands the right to inquire about that as a journalist.
            In Germany e.g. this would be beyond any discussion.

            The trust in government and the affirmation of government has increased in ways unimagineable.
            However if scrutiny is officially allowed it concerns completely third-rate subjects.
            Just like the UKR “Andromeda” boat NS-2 hoax.
            That was researched or at least published by some of the best paid legacy paper reporters in the country. And numerous people still believe that.

            It´s a bit like Germany´s Russiagate. The level of infantility is just monstrous.
            In comparison American skepticism is at least refreshing.

            People have forgotten that democracy and freedom of speech are hard work if you take ´em seriously instead of cutting it all short and use state force to silence views. Then it´s of course easy to simulate a majority that seems to agree on everything.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply AG. I think you may have meant malign rather than benign. Former Tory councillor and local ‘character’ Jeff Milburn was ineligible to stand as a candidate in last year’s local elections because he’d received a suspended prison sentence of 20 months for firearms possession 18 months earlier and, under Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, in England you’re not allowed to stand in local elections for five years after being convicted of an offence which results in a sentence of ‘not less than three months (suspended or not)’. In stark contrast, you can stand for parliament whilst actually being *in* prison (provided your sentence is no longer than a year), which was famously done by the IRA’s Bobby Sands whilst on the hunger strike that led to his death a short time later.


            In a similar vein, I reckon that the leader of the up-and-coming far-right party Britain First, Paul Golding, also fell foul of that law when he stood in the local elections in Dartford last year, as he’d previously been convicted of distributing literature which could incite hatred in June 2019 and received a suspended sentence of three months. He only got 107 votes but, theoretically at least, he could have affected the overall result. So far, he’s escaped prosecution. The anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate have been trying to get him for declaring that he was resident in Dartford on his nomination papers, when he spends most of his time in Salford with his partner (and fellow BF activist) Ashlea Simon, and submitted a dossier to the police, but I doubt they’ll get anywhere as BF does have a property in the locale. I’ll have to drop them a line – it would be nice to see him banged up (again).


            The police did investigate 2015 general election expenses abuses in South Thanet, NTF, after being badgered to do so by Michael Crick & Channel 4 News. The CPS eventually prosecuted three people, including its MP Craig Mackinley. He got off, but the former Tory official Marion Little was given a 9 month suspended sentence and a fine of £5000. The Beeb’s Laura Kuenssburg did a similar thing as regards revealing information about postal votes before the 2019 election. I doubt she even got a reprimand from them.

          • AG

            Lapsed, thank you for taking the time to expand.
            Initially I had assumed that Craig´s time in jail coud have been the reason for not trying to run for office again. Some century-old English law forbidding it.
            (These events remind me of old times when things like the Skokie protest of 1977 were still possible. Causing most insane confrontations.)
            p.s. I in fact did mean “benign” trying to be sarcastic. But apparently that didn´t work.

          • Lapsed Agnostic

            Thanks for your reply AG. Sorry I missed the sarcasm – you don’t tend to get much of that on here. I’ve looked up the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and found that the same thing applies in Scotland, so our host can’t stand in a local election there until the second half of 2026 either. For some reason though, if you’ve been convicted of an offence and sentenced to three months or more in the Republic of Ireland less than five years previously, you’re allowed to stand in local elections in England & Wales, but not in Scotland.

            On the Skokie case: that’s just example x thousand of unconstitutional federal law. The First Amendment states that Congress shall pass no laws restricting freedom of speech, assembly etc – it doesn’t say anything about state legislatures or county/city/town councils doing so. The Gitlow v NY, 14th Amendment due process clause stuff is just nonsense.

          • will moon

            AG have you read Guy Debordes “Society of the Spectacle”. I think it is from the 1960’s, I just started looking at it but what I have read so far, it is a good fit for what you describe.above ie the plasticity of memory of even recent events eg “I don’t even know what I think of Jan 6 anymore” – nothing is real and everything is possible and you chose between Trump or Biden or their local analogs, picking who will upset you the least – both fully behind the colossal slaughter in Gaza

            My feeling about Jan 6, is how did it happen, where was law enforcement? I thought the American police were fully militarised – SWAT teams, AFV’s, drones, robots, dogs, robot-dogs, helicopters, aircraft, heavy weapons, chemical weapons, vehicles, CCTV etc., etc., ad infinitium – but no one showed up? They could have saved all the bother by “kettling” the crowd 800 yards from the Capitol but instead we have the ritualised political slaughter that goes under the name “insurrection”. I think that clown Charnsley, recently released from jail has become a talkshow darling – everything is a spectacle it seems in the “Society of the Spectacle”.

            Do you remember the scene in “Wag the Dog”?

            – Who are we at war with?
            – Albania
            – Why Albania?
            – Why not?

          • AG


            “Wag the Dog” is one of those examples for how right-wing Hollywood even in comparison to the 90s is today. Straight forward ridicule of the government has become most unlikely. It is instead limited to poking fun at caricatures like Trump (who thus is not the government but a glitch). Which I am fine with if its well done (which will always mean that the presentation in itself is not affirmative of its own ideology, which would bring us into aesthetic theory and comedy – satire – spoof v. power and narrative function). As well something like “Hot Shots II” with Charlie Sheen probably couldn´t get made today. Which is why for instance I personally find “VICE” (the satire on Dick Cheney which is not funny) is one of the director´s weakest films. Since “VICE” would work the same territory as Wag The Dog did. The reasons for this are btw the same why an adaptation of Batman today could never be like the one from 1989 and 1992 (with Catwoman) which were satires. Instead they are “The Dark Knight” franchise by a director who most likely on private terms is a British left-wing citizen. Which again he would never make public the way Hollywood actor-producers did in the 1970s proudly so. “10 Days That Shook The World” aka “REDS” did not hurt the careers of anybody involved (received 3 Oscars instead). Imagine a project like that today, even before 2014 or 2022.

            In the light of what you say I have to get back to “Spectacle”, it has been too long ago.

            WAG THE DOG:

            – Albania…
            – Yes.
            – Why?
            – What do you know about them?
            – …nothing…
            – Precisely.
            – What did Albania ever do to us?
            – What did they ever do for us…?
            You see, this is why we have to mobilize the B-2 Bomber.
            – … you want us to go to War with Albania.
            – Here’s what you got to do: Get your Press Office, Right now. To deny. There is no report of Albanian Activity. They have to deny it. Now, get the C.I.A.

          • AG


            … and remember, the big shot producer in Wag The Dog I think ends up killed because he wouldn´t keep quiet.
            So today you would say: The deep state killed a big Hollywood producer for NOT cooperating with the CIA.
            That´s as realistic today as Belgians colonizing Mars…

          • will moon

            Good points AG – funnily, I watched “Reds” the other week and yes Beatty’s politics are built in to the film – probably used as a marketing device for certain demographics.

            Do you remember in the “The Player” (made in 1992) this dialogue?

            Griffin Mill: It lacked certain elements that we need to market a film successfully.
            June: What elements?
            Griffin Mill: Suspense, laughter, violence. Hope, heart, nudity, sex. Happy endings. Mainly happy endings.

            Something changed in the 1990’s, I think Altman is offering the dots, the viewer just got to join them. No-one in Hollywood talks about “auteurs” anymore, I can’t help noticing!

          • AG


            funny enough this very THE PLAYER that you are quoting was regarded as Altman´s comeback after he had become a fringe director aka auteur with films totally outside the system. Now that you mention it I have to go back and watch it again.

            p.s. related to WAG THE DOG is the little acknowledged SPECIAL CORRESPONDENTS with a script by Ricky Gervais and him also acting alongside Eric Bana. (They currently have it on Netflix)

            They play 2 unsuccessful media men who fake reporting from a non-existent South American revolution and on that become media stars. Although every piece of info they report is purely invented by them eventually they create a real crisis. The second half I think becomes a blunder. But nonetheless I always liked it. It´s certainly an improvement to the French original of the same title and has more wit than many big budget comedies. A small film which I find has it merits.

          • will moon

            I will watch “Special Correspondents” shortly, thanks for the tip.

            In the 1930’s E. Waugh wrote a novel called “Scoop”, dealing with same topic, “fake news”, tabloid reporting and international relations. It is a funny book – I would not be suprised if some of the jokes in “Scoop” are recycled in the film you mention. Nothing wrong with that of course and there are a couple of sublime comedy highs in “Scoop”

            I watched “Foreign Correspondent” (1940) by Alfred Hitchcock and was amazed at the way the male star (Joel McCrea) was depicted – like eye candy! Hitchcock getting in some advanced gender theory observations in 1940! A good film with a great studio scene in Dutch windmill country at the end! Also a little bit of about geopolitics, in the Ambler sense!

            I note that “Mulholland Drive” (2001) by David Lynch makes some of the same points as Altman does in “The Player” concerning auteurs/artists and the studio system though with less analytical clarity and more emotion and with perhaps some bitterness thrown in.

  • Ian Smith

    Do the ICJ have anything to say about kidnapping babies as hostages? The human rights activists on here don’t seem to have any opinion.

    • Tom Welsh

      I imagine they would be against it. Have babies in fact been kidnapped as hostages?

      Please note, also, that hostages are useful only if kept alive and in good health. So any “hostage” babies are a lot better off than the hundreds or thousands who have actually been killed by Israel. Quite deliberately.

      In the USA’s halcyon days of “Manifest Destiny” many white colonists used to declare, openly and with pride, that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”. (Ignorantly exhibiting their failure to distinguish between native Americans and Indians).

      Ever since 1947 many Zionists have similarly been making it clear that, as far as they are concerned, “the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian”.

    • Crispa

      I seem to remember Charles Darwin in “Voyage of ‘The Beagle'” asking his Argentine colonial hosts why they deliberately and purposefully massacred the women and children accompanying any marauding group of “indians”. The answer was to stop them from breeding and eventually exterminate them as a “race”, which would leave everything open for the colonists. That the Israelis seem intent on killing so many women and children under the pretext of rooting out Hamas would seem to have the same genocidal purpose as statements read out by the ICJ attest.

        • Yeah, Right

          “Hard to explain why the population has risen every year”

          No, it is easy to explain by simply pointing out that October 8th is only 3 months ago, not “years ago”.

          And I’m going to wager very good money that the population of the Gaza Strip has shrunk quite considerably since October 8th.

          Shrunk by, oh, back of the envelope stuff, something significantly more than 30,000 people.

          If Ben-Gvir, Smoltrich, Netanyahu and his gang have their way then it’ll shrink by, again, roughly, rather more than 2 million.

        • Steve

          Not that hard to explain. Children are the ultimate form of resistance. Moreover, all societies with high child mortality have a large number of children. Usually the high mortality is down to famine or disease, not genocide.

        • Crispa

          Population growth increases the threat to Israel. Since one Israeli minister (Galant) described the Palestinians as “human animals” and the President of Israel considers them to be a “herd”, the opportunity to carry out a cull is more than plausible.

      • Tom Welsh

        As I recall, it was the cold-blooded murder of his tribe’s women and children that turned the previously peaceful Geronimo into a death-dealing machine.

    • Jen

      Ian Smith’s statement is so ridiculous, it looks like deliberate trolling.

      South Africa’s case to the ICJ was against Israel, not against Hamas or Palestine. The ICJ has no jurisdiction over Hamas or Palestine because Palestine isn’t even a state.

      Plus, the Israeli claim that Hamas kidnapped babies and committed atrocities like beheading or baking them in ovens has never been substantiated by the Israelis themselves. You’d have to be a fool to take the claim of baking children in ovens seriously anyway. This, and other outrageous claims against Hamas in its treatment of the hostages it took, look more and more like psychological projections on the Israeli government’s part. This is sheer atrocity propaganda porn.

    • Jack

      Ian Smith

      We do not know if ICJ is OK with not only kidnapping but killing 10000 babies. How about you? Do you think murdering 10000 children including perhaps 5000 of them babies, is ok?

  • Brianfujisan

    The videos one sees from Gaza. Yesterday it was a group of children dancing around in white body bags that had been donated …thinking they were costumes…. Today Children of Gaza crying of hunger whilst holding an empty plate; and the evil west want ever more children to starve with the long planned assault on UNRWA. My heart aches. It’s hard to take.

  • Robert Lipton

    Thank you so much Mr. Murray! A slow head of steam is building. I was at the CCRs hearing on Friday in Oakland, we painted a huge street mural in front of the federal building.

  • Greg Park

    Excellent report and analysis of a highly significant ruling. If the court does eventually rule that Israel and its accomplices are guilty of genocide the geopolitical repercussions will be profound. I have seen next to no serious discussion of the ruling in approved UK media, which is instead trying to delegitimize the ICJ by smearing the UN as a terrorist organisation.

    Approved UK journalists have also predictably responded with sage approval to Starmer’s decision to kick Kate Osamor out of the Parliamentary Labour Party because she agrees with the International Court of Justice. Just as they did when Sir Keir said Israel has the right to cut off food, water and power to Gaza and when Lammy declared Palestinians had “raped babies” in order to justify their extermination.

    These are the serious journalists the NUJ and that Scottish woman judge say you do not deserve to be spoken in the same breath as. Approved, credentialed guardians of the public space against misinformation.

  • Steve

    Plausible is a deliberate euphemism from the ICJ. A plausible case for genocide lands much softer than a believable case for genocide or a credible case for genocide. Both synonyms. This tells us straight away that the ruling has been compromised by politics. A deeper dive confirms this. The court believes a genocide may be underway but does not order a stop. Moreover the ICJ lets the belligerent report back on its own Genocidal ways in a month.

  • Jack

    This ought to be one of the biggest shame of them all in this story, the arab leaders enabling of the israeli genocide.

    Gaza war: Why did Arab states not join South Africa’s case against Israel in the ICJ?
    South Africa’s historic case against Israel has raised a debate in the Arab world about why Arab states did not join in this action or file a similar case at the ICJ to protect Palestinians
    Despite the Arab governments’ rhetorical support for Palestinians, (pro-israel-apologist) Dennis Ross, the former US envoy to the Middle East, claimed that every single Arab official he had known told him that “Hamas must be destroyed”. After more than 100 days of its assault on Gaza, it is abundantly clear that for Israel, destroying Hamas means destroying Gaza and its people.

    As we have seen, though, it is not about Hamas because the arab leaders have been as silent and passive regarding Israel’s killing and maiming in the PA/Fatah run West Bank as they have been on Gaza.
    Israel and West play these corrupt gullible arab leaders like a fiddle, the only arab leader, for all his faults aside, was Khadaffi.
    In this video Khadaffi blast the arab world’s division/weakness and just look at the reaction: smirks, grimaces by the rest of the arab leaders in the room!

    And yeah the rest is history:
    Arab League asks U.N. for no-fly zone over Libya
    What keeps the arab league from urging a no-fly zone in Gaza? Yes, it would be vetoed but the symbolic significance would be immense. But nah, they will not even do that.

    • Bayard

      Once again you fail to explain why Arabs have any more responsibility for doing something about a rogue European colony than Europeans.

      • Jack


        I have explained this to you many times, I baffled that you pop up (once again!) every time I expose the corrupt nature of the arab leaders passivity or even complicity in what is going on in Gaza – I thought that after 120 days of pure killing you would have changed. What’s in it for you? What is it in my argumentation that is wrong? False? Please explain.

        • Bayard

          “I have explained this to you many times,”

          No you haven’t. You have explained what they could do, but not why they should do it. The whole problem has been caused by Europeans and their descendants and it is the Arabs’ problem in the sense that they are the ones that it affects most, but that does not make it their responsibility to deal with it. That responsibility lies with the people who caused the problem in the first place, not with the people who are suffering with the problem. You are being like someone who looks at a pile of shit that a passing drunk has left in someone’s doorway and says “how disgusting, they should clear it up” meaning the owner of the house. Why should the homeowner clear it up? they didn’t put it there. It’s not their fault your eyes and nostrils are offended by the sight and smell of it.
          Not only that, but to continue to complain that some Arab countries are not doing something about something that is not their responsibility when others are doing something and doing it fairly effectively too, and being killed into the bargain, something that you refuse to mention, looks like you just want to have a go at Muslims.
          If you stop blaming the victims, I’ll stop pulling you up on it. Deal?

          • Jack


            I have repeatedly typed down multiple measures the arab leaders could take to stop and/or put the breaks on Israel’s genocide or even take mere symbolic measure but the arab leaders will not even do that. You have yet to explain why the arab leaders you support should not take on these measures. Reply to that question please.
            Especially please tell us why Egypt have to ask Israel if it is OK for egyptians to send humanitarian aid from their own side of the border into Gaza.

            The fact is that there are 20+arab states or 50+ islamic states that are neighbours to Palestine, they even share borders, they also share the culture, language, ethnicity, history and other types of affinity. Of course such a group of nations should come to the aid to the palestinians. It goes without saying. Again you believe the arab leaders somehow care for the palestinians, try read what I am saying or google yourself, again – the politicians in the arab world that care for palestinians are the ones in the opposition, they are often put in jail. They are the ones you should support not the current nasty genocidal enablers.

            Why do you have to make up a odd analogy about defecation? A real analogy would be something like this:
            You have a relative that are being violently assaulted day in and day right out outside your door, you do nothing about it, even aiding the perpetrator in some cases.

            And how could the enablers be the victims? You know Israel is as found of the arab dictators you defend so much, the arab leaders sit where they sit because dethroning them would mean arab world would take real action against Israel.
            Why do you think Blinken traveled so quickly to the region to all these puppet arab leaders days after 7th of october? It was of course to get them all on board for the israeli massacre we have seen since.

            And do not take my word for it, here we have the islamists in the Houthi movement blasting the arab leaders in the same vein:
            “In the face of the major tragedy that the Palestinian people [have been suffering] for more than 70 years, a limited and weak stance has been shown by over a billion Muslims,” he lamented. “Arab regimes are losing seriousness and do not have the will to act seriously towards Gaza.”
            “Although the Arab-Islamic Summit was an emergency meeting of 57 countries, it did not come up with a position or practical action, and this is shameful and sad,” Houthi said.
            “The summit that claimed to represent all Muslims only produced statements with no practical stance. Is this capability of over a billion and a half Muslims?” he added. “Fifty-seven Arab and Islamic countries, with all their … capabilities, came out with a statement that could have been issued by a primary school and by one person.”
            Read up Bayard, a whole lot that is.

            How could anyone disagree with that statement?
            So, please read up Bayard, you got things really mixed up here.

    • Stevie Boy

      The zionist pigs are trying very hard to antagonise ‘the arabs’ into reacting to their provocations. Iran, Lebanon, Syria are all targets. If they react then the western nazi apologists (usa, uk ) will immediately jump into the fray, with glee, to exploit the opportunity to murder more ‘arabs’.
      Can you not see that a reaction by ‘the arabs’ will only lead to increased murder and suffering for ‘the arabs’ ?
      Netanyahu and Biden need this genocide to continue to protect their political careers and keep them from being prosecuted. The UK needs a continuation of the suffering to enable them to exploit and rob more ‘arabs’, because that is what the UK does.
      Diplomacy and pressure is the only solution, unfortunately.

      • Jack

        Stevie Boy

        That is a made up argumentation made out of nothing – with that argumentation palestinians should not do anything either – they should lay down and die.
        The issue is not that these 22 powerful economically rich and highly military equppied military states ruling over big gas/oil reserves are afraid of the west – that is ridiculous, the issue is obviously that these 22 arab states simply do not care for the palestinians and I hate to admit that to myself too, but that is the obvious reality. (let alone 50+ islamic states!)

        Why do you think Israel worked so hard past decade to normalize relations with the arab world (abraham accords etc)? To quell crticism, to stop any action, reaction, resistance. And that is where we are today – the only arab resistance come from the poorest of nation – a rebel group in Yemen, as the author of the link above said, it took over a month for the Arab League to level a useless vocal “support” for the South African ICJ case.
        In 1973 the region iniated the oil embargo against the west, today 50 years later, they cannot even provide proper food, aid, medicine to Gaza before asking Israel if that is OK from their own side of the fence in Gaza! So come on, please stop play along that these corrupt arab leaders care for Gaza, the arab politicians that actually care for Gaza are the opposition which is often jailed in the arab world. Case in point, the disgraceful israeli-puppet nation named Egypt.

        • Stevie Boy

          Jack. I won’t unduly argue with you because I see your point, understand your frustration and agree to a point. Yes, my argument was made up, I can do that 😉 But it’s not based on nothing, it’s based on the reality of the situation.
          You’re right about the arab divisions, Sunni, Shiite, Wahhabis, etc. all trying to gain prominence, no love lost between them. I’m sure they support the Palestinians but they don’t want to commit suicide for them or want them as refugees – and, do we? Doing nothing pushes the problem onto the war pigs. However, there is, I believe, one unifying belief amongst the arabs which is a hatred of the USA and Israel. That will be underpinning talks, actions and manoeuvring going on in the background.

          • Jack

            Steve Boy

            What signs do you see there are talks in the background? Honestly?
            The only talks is again of corrupt nature among the Arab leaders, PA/Fatah, Israel and the US on how to get rid of Hamas.

            There is no hatred against Israel and the US among the top elites in the arab world. Gaza have been under occupation snce 1967 – what has happend since? Nothing because there is no pressure on Israel nor the west to change their course. No Israeli political party recognize a palestinian state on the 1967 borders and even yesterday there were israeli ministers protesting with the population to annex Gaza strip.

            Israeli Ministers Join Thousands at Rally for Gaza Settlement

            They do this because no one is stopping them or even putting some breaks on their schemes for the region.

  • Darryl Wise

    Your analysis, though full of your own insightful take-outs in mitigation of the claim of genocide, amounts to little meaningful argument that changes the realities of a politically motivated court being unable to
    1) call for a ceasefire
    2) do anything of any substance to see a change in the status quo
    3) do anything of any substance to prevent Hamas & Gazan for their war crime of counting to hold & occasionally murder hostages taken from Israel on 7 October.

    From my vantage point, all SA achieved was to bask in the glow of appreciation it received from numerous terrorist movements & states such as Russia/Iran/Syria known to sponsor terror. The ramifications of SA’s actions are yet to occur

    • Ian

      Well, that’s a weirdly obtuse vantage point then, which has little basis in fact, and is full of supposition and misleading claims. Not surprised at the attempt, though.

  • Anne

    “Now the ICJ did not repeat that an occupying power has no right of self-defence”. Right. Besides the Wall Decision of 2004, the case Wilhelm List and Others, United States Military Tribunal, Nuremberg 1949 (p. 56) is important. It says that the status as an occupying power remains unchanged when the belligerent occupant evacuates parts of the territory, as long as it is able at any time to reassume control over those parts. It is also nice that the US said this themselves. Our Western governments want us to forget both decisions. This is why we have to bring them up again and again.

  • Peter Mo

    C’mon people. Action has to be taken. The attempt to defund UNRWA is a criminal act. Half a million people could perish if UNRWA was forced to cease activities. Its just unreal that any government would accede to this. For 12 possible Hamas members out of 13,000 employees. If its only 12 that’s amazing. I would have thought 1000 a more likely figure given the circumstances and even then stopping funding not justified.

  • Carlyle Moulton

    What are Israel’s intentions for the Palestinians and for those of Gaza in particular?

    Answer that they disappear from all areas occupied by Israel or coveted by Israelis. Israel doesn’t care how they disappear whether by death or they “leave voluntarily” when it becomes obvious that survival for them in a devastated cityscape devoid of the necessities of life such as drinkable water, food, health care, and sewerage is impossible.

    Israel by its actions is telling them this. Evacuate from this area to which we previously told you to flee because we are going to bomb where you are now and then “accidentally” bombing you in the new place to which we have told you to flee. These bombings are not accidental, some of them may be the choices of front-line commanders rather than political leaders but some may have been ordered by the higher ups on a statistical basis, say 5% of the new “safe area”.

    Now we come to the alleged crimes of 11 UNRWA officers in supporting the October the seven attacks. The war has been going on for more than 3 months but the Israelis have just discovered this? Or the Israelis have known for some time and only just released the information because now is convenient? Or this is a lie like that the Israelis have used along with “Secret evidence” and statements under torture to convict and lock up one officer (whose name escapes me at the moment) of an NGO for diverting donations to HAMAS even though that NGO could find no evidence of the alleged diversion.

    The Israelis have form for propagating blatant lies on the theory that they will work for a time.

    But the reaction of the governments of those Nations of the Western Empire who have suspended donations to the UNRWA shows that these governments are fully in support of Israel’s plans for the Palestinians whether genocide or ethnic cleansing.

    Suspending funds to the UNRWA makes getting any “humanitarian” supplies into Gaza impossible by disabling any surviving capacity of the UNRWA.

    • Carlyle Moulton

      There is an empire. Normally we refer to it as “The US Empire” but there are other possible names that fit better:-

      1/ The Euro-American Empire;
      2/ The Empire of the West;
      3/ The Empire of Northern Global Capital;
      4/ The Empire of “The Rules based Order”.

      Like all empires past, future and imaginary it is arrogant, ruthless, stupid and devoted to advancing the unenlightened self interests of members of the ruling elite as those members perceive them.

      There is a theoretical concept called “enlightened self interest” that advises that a group of homo sapiens members who have power over another group of homo sapiens are unwise to exercise that power to the maximum extent possible. As an example if 18th century French aristocrats had been motivated by enlightened self interest they wouldn’t have lost their heads.

      The revolutions in France and Haiti come to mind.

      However it may be that advances in surveillance pioneered by Israel using their captive Palestinians as lab rats along with coming advances in AI may make a total Panoptcon state possible where AI can identify future dissidents before they themselves know that they are inevitably going to become dissidents.

      The desires of the West’s elites, Albanese (Australia), Biden (US), Macron (France), Starmer & Sunak (UK) ….. are no longer aligned with those of a significant section of their populations.

      Of course the individuals I have named above are not themselves members of the true elite, only “democratic” place holders for these. The true elites are the extremely rich in the numbers of at least high tens of millions of US dollars, CEO’s of corporations, hedge funds and private equity firms and true billionaires. There are many servants of the true elite who see their interests aligned with those of the latter even though not nearly as wealthy or potentially wealthy, those who man the IMF the World Bank and the WTO come to mind.

      The US and the UK are in fact “kleptoplutocratic oligarchies” and other nations of the West are to some extent also tending that way. Until recently I believed that my country Australia was relatively uninfected until I started talking to two people even more cynical than I am, one of them a true prepper (he walks the talk), he is setting up self sustaining farm communities in rural Australia in to ride out the collapse of civilization and preserve knowledge and more importantly skills needed post collapse, the other just resigned to the inevitability of death in the not so distant future.

      No one who starts a war intends to cause the conflagration that they end up starting. Biden and Sunak do not intend their moves against the Arab world and Iran to get out of hand, but it will happen and they will be surprised until that is they vanish under a mushroom cloud.

  • suzie halewood

    Thank you Craig for all you are doing. We are trying to get people to withhold tax lawfully by putting all taxes in a revocable TRUST with HM Government as the Primary Beneficiary. HM Gov can collect their taxes if they can remedy their criminal ways. As this won’t happen, the funds in the TRUST go to the Secondary Beneficiary who can then invest in their local community.

    • Lapsed Agnostic

      I’m sure if it was that simple to avoid paying UK tax, Suzie, bankers at Goldman Sachs etc would have already thought of it (with the beneficiaries of the secondary trusts being themselves), so they could get out of paying 45% tax on their bonuses. There would also probably be a whole industry offering to set up these trusts for other people in exchange for hefty fees.

      The easiest way to avoid paying tax is not to work. That way you can pay no income tax (or not much) or National Insurance – and to only buy the very basics (or second-hand stuff) to avoid paying VAT (apart from the 5% on energy bills). If half of the people in Scotland did that, and firmly maintained that they would only go back to work after a second Indyref had taken place, one would be arranged in a matter of months, maybe weeks.

  • Republicofscotland

    With Japan now suspending aid to the UNRWA, (Japan has 120 US bases on its lands) George Galloway posts a comment (on X) saying that it looks like banks are making it difficult for ordinary folk to send cash donations to the UNRWA.

    • Carlyle Moulton

      Obviously the UNRWA is pro-Palestinian therefore pro-terrorist and should itself be classified as a terrorist organization. Strip it of all access to the financial system and confiscate all its assets.

      On second thoughts, declare the whole UN to be a terrorist organization, prosecute all its officers (from Guterres down) and strip it of all assets. Demolish its building in New York and have Donald Trump build a mega tower on the site.

      Also Mod much thanks for the correction.

    • Mr Mark Cutts


      I was just going to ask as to how this Aid is ‘Paused’ or Stopped? Do governments provide the bulk of money/aid? Are Western banks using the Swift Payment System (as they do with sanctions) to prevent even individual donations?

      The Court just ruled to tell members who signed up to the same Court not to facilitate a plausible (as in potential) Genocide in Gaza.

      Using aid and food as well as water as a weapon against any country is a ‘plausible’ war crime too.

      So if I were a willing country I would go back to IJC and tell them that a lot more of their members have added to the plausibility of A Genocide. This time by sanctioning the necessities of life.

      Thereby they not only have become complicit in the death and destruction of Gaza by supplying Israel with arms, but they are now enabling disease/hunger and lack of medical care, further adding to a potential Genocide by stopping aid purely on the say-so of the proven liars that were before them a few weeks ago.

      Names should be named collectively and individually. Then (and the western leaders should take note of this) when they are no longer powerful or influential it is they who will be stood in the Dock.

      The trouble is with the powerful is that they have never remained powerful for ever. May take years but it will happen – this lunacy will never be forgotten.

      • Yeah, Right

        Yes, I think it quite likely that another state party to the genocide convention will bring this as ANOTHER case to the ICJ.

        Keep the current case laser-focused on Israel, but get another country to bring charges against the USA, UK, Germany, Australia, etc. for conspiracy to commit genocide i.e. Israel destroys the infrastructure, then those countries refuse to fund the humanitarian aid.

  • Republicofscotland

    Is there still no solid corroborating evidence (only Israel’s word it did happen) on the so-called actions of a handful of UNRWA workers? So why are some countries suspending their aid to the UNRWA, and why are some banks now making it difficult for ordinary folk to send money to the UNRWA?

    More to the point, even if a handful of UNRWA workers did participate in violence, how does that equate to some countries cutting off their aid to around 2 million Palestinians in Gaza? Already the Zionist occupying forces have illegally killed over 13,000 Palestinian children, not to mention adults, and Zionist forces have killed over one hundred UNRWA workers, and more than one hundred journalists, yet Western aid flows into Israel on a daily basis.

    That God-awful man Nik Ferrari was on LBC radio this morning attempting to defend the cutting off of aid to the UNRWA; thankfully many callers took a complete opposite view to his. Western governments may back the genocide in Gaza, but the majority of the public utterly oppose it.

    The West, by cutting of aid to the UNWRA, is aiding the Zionist occupying forces in Palestine, who are in the process of exterminating the Palestinians in Gaza by all means necessary, including starving them to death.

    • Republicofscotland

      The European Commission has said it will suspend any aid to the UNRWA until the end of February.

      I’m lost for words on that one. No doubt Ursula von der Leyen will be doing cartwheels of delight. She’s not even elected by the citizens of the EU. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who who did approve her elevations to the position should hang their heads in shame.

      • Stevie Boy

        More evidence of the hypocrisy of the West.
        Outcries against the UN based solely on tortured confessions of UN workers obtained by the IDF.
        I cannot recall any great outcries when the ‘White Helmets’ were aiding ISIS, or any great outcries when Israel was treating injured ISIS fighters in the Golan Heights.

    • Jack

      They clutch onto anything to justify their heinous policies. The hypocrisy is of course in the open: EU have been not silent but aiding and abetting Israel – openly, went there shaking the hands with the people that are responsible for the butchering 30000 people, that number is is x30 times more than the alleged deaths palestinians carried out on the 7th october. Still EU have no issue with keep aiding, arming funding Israel!

      It seems the whole of the EU have really lost it, it has been obvious last decade but past couple of years have turned the warmongering into a more reckless and dangerous pace. They try to be like their idols, the americans with their advernture neocon-foreign policy, but it is not a good fit for the EU.

      • Nota Tory Fanboy

        Ireland is a member of the EU, so not quite the whole of the EU…

        It makes you wonder though: are all these countries doubling down from being complicit in genocide to actually directly carrying out genocidal acts in the expectation that, in a few years’ time, Israel won’t be found guilty of genocide because if the ICJ ruled as such then they would have to rule that a large number of developed Western, “democratic” co-signatories are also guilty and they won’t do that so in order to justify not doing so they simply rule that Israel hasn’t been guilty of it?

    • Jack

      Looks like a western cover for Israel, especially when this move came just after the ICJ statement, so by western cutting aid through UNRWA, Israel have no “aid” to let in in the first place?

  • DiggerUK

    This is either a decision that has kicked the can down the road as far as it can, or a shot across everybody’s bows.
    The major point to note is that the ICJ, although not finding Israel culpable of Genocide, have gone a lot further than Not Proven…_

  • Jack

    Good chat with Katie Halper, Craig Mokhiber and Norman Finkelstein for almost 2hrs, very interesting take on the ICJ:

    Norman Finkelstein take us back to the UN Goldstone report of 2010 (a fact-finding report by self-proclaimed zionist south african jew, Richard Goldstone exposed israeli warcrimes and possible crimes against humanity) where Israel/US but also the corrupt Palestinian Authority blocked the report from being sent to the ICC.
    Finkelstein said the same passivity occured after the 2004 ICJ statement that said the blockade, wall and annexation was illegal. Thus palestinians have gained success at the trials but have not done anything with it:
    Norman also shame the hypocrite europeans by putting the so called “civilized” EU vs the Houthi movement – that have proved to be more respectful for interantional law than the smug europeans, in Finkelstein’s view, 1 South Africa, 2 the doctors in Gaza and 3 the Houti Movement deserve the Nobel Peace prize.

    Indeed Houthis really deserve an applaud, being the poorest of the poor – a nation that itself have been bombed by the corrupt arab states and the US to the point of genocide – and they give out a lending hand. That is really something.
    The Houtis seems to be the only ones with a heart and brain amongst the arab leaders:

1 2 3 4