Sunak, Cleverly and Shapps Could Be in the Old Bailey Dock for Genocide 142


Expect the UK to intervene on Israel’s side in the South African case against Israel for Genocide at the International Court of Justice. If Israel loses, British ministers, civil servants and military personnal could end up in the dock for genocide – not only in the Hague, but in the UK.

Infamously, UK courts give no force to international treaties even when the UK has ratified them, unless they are specifically incorporated in UK domestic legislation. The Genocide Convention was explicitly incorporated into UK law in 1969 by the Genocide Act. However the Genocide Act was repealed in 2001 and replaced by Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act.

That is perfectly clear. Article 53 makes plain that this includes ancillary offences, eg aiding and abetting genocide.

What has the UK government done to aid and abet the genocide? It has:

1) Actively encouraged and incited genocide, including by the systematic obstruction of ceasefire resolutions at the UN Security Council;
2) Provided military equipment to Israel, with dozens of flights from RAF Akrotiri to Israel during the course of the genocide itself;
3) Provided communications intelligence to Israel to assist in genocide;
4) Provided aerial surveillance to Israel to assist in genocide.

These are for certain. It is also widely rumoured that UK Special Forces have participated directly in the genocide. That is something the prosecution will have to determine.

There has been a great sense of impunity among the zionist-controlled political classes: they have believed that they were in no danger of any personal retribution for their part in the brutal destruction of thousands and thousands of young children. In fact they felt able to turn the power of the state against anybody protesting that destruction.

There has been no legal jeopardy to anybody supplying, inciting or cheering on Israel’s monstrous atrocities. The jeopardy has all been felt by those opposing the atrocities.

That all changed with South Africa’s reference to the International Court of Justice. A determination of genocide by the International Court of Justice must be respected by the International Criminal Court and it will be impossible even for the odious Karim Khan to avoid bringing prosecutions against the perpetrators. Similarly in the UK, the fact of genocide being legally established, a police investigation will be obliged simply to focus on whether the UK aided and abetted it.

Quite simply, if you ask the police to investigate Sunak for aiding and abetting genocide today, they will laugh at you and say there is no genocide. After an ICJ judgment they can no longer do that.

Now I am not naive. Just as our rulers believe their backs are covered by Karim Khan KC at the International Criminal Court, they believe that their backs are covered in the UK by the provision that any prosecution must be with the consent of the Attorney General. A government therefore has to agree to the prosecution.

I gave evidence at great length to the police inquiry into UK complicity in CIA torture and extraordinary rendition, in which Tony Blair and Jack Straw had so much blood on their hands it would fill swimming pools. There were of course never any prosecutions.

But the world changes over time, and it feels like something has seriously shifted in both the international and domestic order from the open espousal by our ruling classes of the most extreme atrocities, happening again and again and again in plain sight.

Our ruling classes may find they are less fixed in power than they believe. I would not bet on their impunity being permanent. There is a good precedent of participants in the Holocaust being brought to justice many decades later. We may yet see justice, and I believe a good deal sooner than that.

 
————————————————

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
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
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.

142 thoughts on “Sunak, Cleverly and Shapps Could Be in the Old Bailey Dock for Genocide

1 2 3
  • nevermind

    How interesting, another lesson in hypocrisy by the UK Government and others. They are in support of the ICJ case against Myanmar for genocide of the Rohynga people, forcefully hounded out of their state and homes and deported to a small part of Bangladesh. The ICJ threw out the flimsy arguments of Myanmar and the mighty UK supports the ICJ.

    But we are not able to call out the genocide that is happening with our considerable help in Gaza and we expect the ICJ to throw out South Africa’s enactment of the genocide act which is supported in words by many other countries around the world.
    Red faces all round.

  • Rosemary MacKenzie

    This is a really good synopsis of South Africa’s submission to the ICJ and also of the role of the ICJ and the duties of its signatories. https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/08/israel-is-terrified-the-world-court-will-decide-its-committing-genocide/ Admin – I hope you will allow this post. Personally, I do not see how this court would find that Israel has not been guilty of the most horrific crimes in full view of the whole world. Social media has become a true alternative to the MSM by keeping us informed of the horrors of this conflict. In all ways, the Israelis have condemned themselves not just be their actions but by their words. Other countries are being asked to file declarations also through petitions – this the link to one of them I received this morning from World beyond War – please pass it along.
    https://worldbeyondwar.org/gaza-genocide/
    The Americans and Israelis are trying to strong arm others to oppose the declaration – I can guess who will succumb but I still hope Canada will support the declaration. I also hope the links work.

    • harry law

      The ICJ is a United Nations organ, that being the case a ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution put forward by a UN member has a limited chance of success to overcome the US veto power. It would appear the only steps a successful vote by the General Assembly that could have any influence would be a ‘recomendation’, well short of practical action, i.e. pronouncements devoid of any binding legal force.
      Which of course means the US would use their veto.
      However total emancipation from the Security Council is reached where the Secretary-General convenes an emergency special meeting at the request of a United Nations Member acting with the support of a majority in the General Assembly.
      Any application of Uniting for Peace with a view to taking enforcement action would at least need the support of one of the permanent members. To date, resolution 498 (V) of 1951 remains the only example of a situation where the General Assembly, at that time under dominating Western influence, recommended taking such action, notwithstanding the firm resistance of a permanent member.
      In order to overcome this impasse, the United States, under the leadership of its Foreign Secretary Dean Acheson, succeeded in persuading the General Assembly that it should claim for itself a subsidiary responsibility with regard to international peace and security, as enunciated by Article 14 of the Charter. The result of these efforts was resolution 377 A (V).

      The most important part of resolution 377 A (V) is section A which states that where the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly shall seize itself of the matter. Procedural and substantive steps are suggested. First of all, if the Assembly is not in session, it may meet in emergency special session at the request of the Security Council or of a majority of its own members. Second, such a session shall be convened with a view to making appropriate recommendations for “collective measures…including the use of armed force when necessary”. As the language of the resolution also clearly reveals, the General Assembly can never be a full substitute for the Security Council in this area. Accordingly, only “recommendations” are mentioned, i.e. pronouncements devoid of any binding legal force. Additionally, resolution 377 A (V) establishes two auxiliary bodies, a Peace Observation Commission, which existed until 1960, and a Collective Measures Committee, which had a short life of only two years. None of these bodies has played any role of major significance.

      Although the General Assembly did not attempt to arrogate to itself powers akin to those rooted in Chapter VII of the Charter, it stands to reason that originally resolution 377 A (V) was hardly reconcilable with the Charter. Articles 11 and 12 establish unequivocally the primacy of the Security Council with regard to all matters relating to international peace and security. As far as procedure is concerned, Article 12, paragraph 1, stipulates that while the Council is exercising its function in respect of any dispute or situation, “the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation”. https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ufp/ufp.html
      Uniting for Peace
      General Assembly resolution 377 (V)
      New York, 3 November 1950

  • harry law

    The case of Nicaragua v United states is instructive in relation to International law. Here is what the ICJ determined. This was an advisory opinion, therefore a court’s nonbinding interpretation of law.
    1. Did the US violate its customary international law obligation not to intervene in the affairs of another State, when it trained, armed, equipped, and financed the contra forces or when it encouraged, supported, and aided the military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua?
    2. Did the US violate its customary international law obligation not to use force against another State, when it directly attacked Nicaragua in 1983 and 1984 and when its activities in point (1) above resulted in the use of force?
    3. Can the military and paramilitary activities that the US undertook in and against Nicaragua be justified as collective self-defence?
    4. Did the US breach its customary international law obligation not to violate the sovereignty of another State, when it directed or authorized its aircrafts to fly over the territory of Nicaragua and because of acts referred to in (2) above?
    5. Did the US breach its customary international law obligations not to violate the sovereignty of another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to use force against another State and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce, when it laid mines in the internal waters and in the territorial sea of Nicaragua?
    The court’s decision:
    The US violated customary international law in relation to (1), (2), (4) and (5) above. On (3), the Court found that the United States could not rely on collective self-defence to justify its use of force against Nicaragua.

    The US did not accept the court’s decision and just walked away, and refused to pay any reparations.

  • harry law

    If the ICJ issue a binding order, as opposed to an advisory opinion, then all states at the UN are under an obligation to take action against the offending state. It is possible for the offending state to ignore the order, as has been done in the past. But if the ICJ issue a binding order, after coming to a decision on whether Israel has committed Genocide, then it is possible for those UK leaders, whom Craig mentions in this article, to be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such crimes under the ICC UK Act (with the consent of the Attorney General).
    If no consent is forthcoming then presumably a private prosecution could be started, as I outlined in this thread earlier. Then an Iraqi General failed in his effort because the High court said there was no such criminal offence of ‘Aggression’ on the statute books.

  • harry law

    This is very interesting, Left-wing Labour MP Jon Trickett has tabled a parliamentary ‘Early Day Motion’ (EDM) demanding that the government reveal the advice its legal experts have given it over Israel’s war crimes and South Africa’s powerful and thorough genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
    The motion reads:
    https://skwawkbox.org/2024/01/09/trickett-tables-motion-demanding-disclosure-of-government-legal-advice-on-gaza-genocide/

    • Rosemary MacKenzie

      We need to know this Harry Law, thanks. According to the skwawkbox article about Trickett’s motion: Tory MPs have spoken in the Commons to try to dismiss South Africa’s case as having ‘no legal merit’ – farcical when the ICJ, by accepting the case, has already decided that Israel has a case to answer. My understanding is that at least eight of the judges on the ICJ have to move that Israel has committed genocide for the case to have any legal standing. Looking at the list, if there is political pressure, the US and Germany will definitely side with Israel – also maybe Japan and Australia. It looks as if there maybe eight judges who agree – with South Africa’s declaration. I would hope ALL the judges will be professional enough to resist any lobbying and judge the issue on the facts.

      I believe hundreds of millions of people in the “west” have been enlightened and shocked by the lack of humanity, morals and pure disregard for life demonstrated by their governments. I sent a letter to the Canadian government a few days ago asking them to support South Africa. My MP, who is a conservative – the party in power is liberal – wrote back telling me that the Israeli position is justified given that the events of October 7 was the worst loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust – just parroting the party line.

  • DunGroanin

    Where to watch the proceedings today?

    https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3

    Starts 9 am I believe. I’ll try following as much as poss.

    And an interesting site for anyone wanting to put up their own submission to the process
    Everyone can add their own submission to the IJC here. Compile video photos statements and add your own commentary to the submission

    https://www.justiceforall.org/icc-submissions/

    If there is to be a lawful multipolar world with any role for the ICJ this must be its acme or stand revealed as a mirage. The Judges must know the majority of the worlds population expects justice for the colonised Palestine and an end to a 100 year old crime by the imperial Rules based order – or it leads to chaos and war.

    The Houthi’s practiced a swarm attack on our warship yesterday. Expending much expensive ammunition against their cheap drones. How long before it uses up all of it and has to withdraw for re-supply?

    The remaining Anglo European colonisers can’t stay either way. As even the oldest French occupied African territories are showing.

    I fear the worst and hope for the best.

    • DunGroanin

      As usual Jonathan Cook says it better than I can. A great tweet with a link to a longer article expresses what most of the world feels today. Here’s a snippet

      “ Will the West defy Israel or the court? The post-war consensus that serves as the foundation for international law – already shaken by the failure to address the West’s war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan – is on the verge of complete collapse.”
      https://nitter.net/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1745175068047466952#m

      • jim Hogg

        I think the more pertinent question is: will the West defy the US? Very unlikely in any meaningful way. Might gets what it wants, or it gets away with trying to and gets supported in its business by all the little leaders it has in its very ample pockets.. Nearly all of the important power-plays taking place on the world stage at the moment involve the US, one way or another, in its quest to dominate the 21st C. To do that it has to keep its client states in check. For the foreseeable future I’d expect most of them to keep on rolling over. Even the EU has stepped up, to fund Ukraine (iow, to fund the US’s proxy war), while Biden gets his funding issues sorted out.

    • DunGroanin

      Thank you CM! I look forward to your reports.

      A mighty journalist representing all the murdered and jailed and honouring the Greats.
      “Craig Murray
      @CraigMurrayOrg
      22m
      I am now walking back to the International Court of Justice to report today’s hearing.
      Notebook and pen in hand.
      Arm in arm with my friend John Pilger…
      Jan 11, 2024 · 7:14 AM UTC “
      https://nitter.net/CraigMurrayOrg

  • karel

    if
    “What has the UK government done to aid and abet the genocide? It has:
    1) Actively encouraged and incited genocide, including by the systematic obstruction of ceasefire resolutions at the UN Security Council;”
    then
    could those government officials in the Czech Rep. responsible for “systematic obstruction of ceasefire resolutions” be held liable for their crimes? Thank you for any answer.

    • Andy Dyer

      The Czech Republic is not in the Security Council and is not wielding a veto.
      The Czech Republic is not making large number of mysterious flights into Israel, starting immediately after 7th Oct.
      The Czech Republic is not credibly accused of sending its special forces to Israel/Gaza – and their version of Boris Johnson wasn’t photographed with national volunteers in IDF uniforms.

  • kris

    They should be but they won’t.

    Recall bliar telling bush that some small fry may get thrown under a bus but no-one that matters will get touched.

    Kris.

1 2 3