Your Man in the Hague (In a Good Way) Part 2 358

There was a very good feel at the end of the South African presentation on day one. Everyone felt it had gone extremely well, and left very little room for the court to wriggle away from provisional measures. We left the public gallery, and I went with Corbyn and Mélenchon to meet the South African delegation. This caused some concern to the security officials, who told us that members of the public had to leave immediately and not meet delegates or speak to the media, who were grouped outside the court but still within the precincts.

This was fairly impractical as the media very much wanted to speak with Corbyn and Mélenchon. There was a lot of flapping of arms and waving. All my friends of the queue had left, while I stayed sticking close to Jeremy, partly because I didn’t like to leave him unsupported, but mostly because his wife Laura was somewhere looking after my phone. The ICJ staff seemed scared to tell off Corbyn and Mélenchon, so kept getting pretty shirty with me as a proxy, saying we must leave.

It was quite strange. The situation was very friendly; there was no tension. There were about sixty delegates and about the same number of journalists, who were all supposed to be there. Then there were Corbyn, Mélenchon and me, who were apparently supposed to have left, but whose presence made no actual difference to events. People being in slightly the wrong place entirely peacefully after proceedings had finished, seemed to me an unnecessary source of anger. But a succession of female officials arrived, getting increasingly cross.

At this stage the South African delegation returned to their allocated office inside the building to finalise the formal press statement. We went with them. I was chatting to Amaar Hijazi, Palestine’s Deputy Foreign Minister, who I know a bit. One of the ICJ ladies came in with a clipboard, asked for silence, and then asked the assembled group in the manner of a public proclamation: “is this a legal meeting or a political meeting?”

Nobody seemed inclined to answer. So I replied “That’s rather a philosophical question. I am not sure if you can make that simple binary distinction”. Rather more usefully, Varsha [Gandikota-Nellutla of Progressive International] assured her it was a legal meeting, and the official said “good, political meetings off the premises”, waving her clipboard for no apparent reason. After a bit of a conflab we went out again.

I was enjoying Mélenchon enormously; he seemed to have unlimited stores of bonhomie and was unstoppably voluble with everyone. Whether the security guards wanted a lecture on workers’ cooperatives I am not sure, but they certainly got one.

We wandered back out the front door again and back into interviews. Two ladies came up to me looking very stern and said I must leave. Jeremy was giving an interview to Israeli TV and Mélenchon had bustled back into the building. One of the ladies said to me, “I am asking you to leave and you are refusing to do what I say”. I replied, “Oh no, certainly not. Of course I am doing what you say. Just very slowly”.

By now I had three enormous security officers with me, as I tried to keep an eye on Jeremy as he drifted through the milling journalists, while I kept running in to people I knew. I have to say the security people were very friendly, and seemed unsure why they were shadowing me too. Shortly a fourth turned up, a mountain of a man with a bald head and beard, who said, “Here you are; we’ve been looking for you everywhere”, which seemed strange. Possibly they couldn’t see me surrounded by their massive bouncers.

Laura had somehow got in, and gave me back my phone. Jeremy was slowly heading for the gates, but he is incapable of being impolite and not having a friendly word with anybody who addresses him, whoever they are. Once we were outside the gates he showed no sign of stopping with the much larger crowd outside, so I said my farewells and headed back to the hotel. My toes had gone very painful again and I was keen for another warm bath.

After the bath I went down to look for some food. I felt exhausted and drained. It was not just the cold night standing in the queue with no sleep, it was the immediately preceding 40 hour, four economy-flight journey from Bali, with virtually no sleep either, to get here. I hadn’t been in a bed, I calculated, for 85 hours.

I was also feeling a bit unappreciated. I had in fact played a role in this happening at all. Copies of my initial articles on invoking the Genocide Convention had been physically in front of South African cabinet ministers when they took the initial decision on 8 December to ask their excellent legal services to prepare a case. It was not me that arranged that and I cannot break confidence by telling you how it came about. I didn’t expect any acknowledgement, but it seemed an unfair twist of fate that had me standing all night in the cold trying to get in.

I was, dear reader, simply wallowing in exhaustion and self-pity, and in a kind of ridiculous teenage sulk. My tired brain was fogged and I was seriously worried about finding the energy to write up day one, which I had to do immediately. I wasn’t sure that my body was physically capable of another night of no sleep and standing in the freezing cold. I was fed up with being in exile over this laughable terrorism investigation, and I was missing my children.

I made up my mind – I could not do another night. I would have to explain to readers that I had done what I could. A great feeling of relief came over me, and I decided to go to bed.

That very second, out of the lift walked the eminent British lawyer Tayab Ali, with a short, unassuming bearded Arab gentleman.
“Hello Craig, how’s it going”, he asked, but they were evidently in a hurry, going somewhere: “This is Ghassan”.
We shook hands briefly and then the realisation struck me.
“Are you the surgeon?”
Ghassan looked diffident, slightly abashed.
“The surgeon from Gaza?”.
“Yes, I am Ghassan Abu SItta.”
“I am honoured, sir. Greatly honoured”.
He looked slightly embarrassed, and they dashed off to their meeting.

I felt even more embarrassed. I had just met the man who had stayed operating in Shifa hospital while Israel bombs and missiles struck it and Israeli snipers fired through the windows. He had continued to operate with no electricity, with no bandages, with no antiseptic, with no anaesthetic. He had worked 20 hours a day, amputating the limbs of children or trying to piece them back together. He stayed and stayed and stayed through weeks under fire. He did this for love: he is a top British plastic surgeon and could have been in the UK making millions.

I felt deeply ashamed. This man had endured so much, and done so much, and seen so much suffering. Here was I giving up over sore toes and lack of sleep, and over wanting to be important. I had an epiphany; I realised I can be a dreadful egoist, and I hated myself for it. Nothing stopped hurting, but I had a new surge of adrenaline and decided to get on with it. Perhaps nothing I did would help prevent genocide, but we all have to do that which is within our power to try.

I accept you may wish to scoff, but for me that encounter with Mr Abu Sitta revealed an important element of greatness – the ability to inspire others to do more that they believed they could, to transmit will. Even without actually saying anything.

I did, however, retain the sense to know that I had to prepare, so I got a taxi to a camping shop. There I bought the warmest sleeping bag I could afford, a reflective groundsheet, thermal socks and a flask.

I then took a taxi back, went straight to my room and started to write. The first three paragraphs flowed very easily. Then suddenly I was opening my very groggy eyes with my head on the keyboard, not sideways but leaning on my forehead. I had been asleep like that for three hours.

After that it was like wading through treacle. The phrases still rushed into my head as always, but there was a strange disconnect to my fingers and what they typed, which often was a phrase that sounded a bit like the one I was trying to get down. I recall typing “to assist them” as “his big cyst hen”. It was slow going.

At 11pm I went to see if there was a queue yet for the public gallery the next day. Nobody was there. I was worried that after the arguments at the gate the previous morning, with many people disappointed, the queue would start to form much earlier for Day 2. I decided to just publish what I had written so far, with an explanatory first paragraph, and check the queue regularly. The cold walk woke me up. It was notably warmer than the previous night – plus 2 rather than minus 5 – but the ground was all wet with a heavy dew and there was a lot more wind chill.

I checked again at 1.30am, still nobody had come. But at 3am there were eight people in the queue. I rushed back to the hotel, picked up my sleeping bag and groundsheet and published the now almost finished Day 1 article. I joined the queue as number 9 of the 14 who would be let in. I met a wonderful Dutch lady who had joined the queue with the intention of giving me her place if I arrived too late. I am ashamed to say I forget her name.

I was disappointed that not one of my new friends from the previous night’s queue was there again. I felt we had bonded through a pretty tough experience and a mutual cause. Almost all had said they intended to do both nights, and I presume the cold and exhaustion just got to people. This second night was much more jolly, I think because it was not quite so cold.

The reflective groundsheet was a big success, dry and surprisingly effective at stopping the cold seeping up. The mummy sleeping bag proved more of a problem. I am not as slender as I used to be, and with several layers of clothing and my ski jacket all on, it was a very tight fit. I got the zip up pretty well, but I couldn’t do the last bit that would bring the cowl over my head, not least because by that stage the bag had immobilised my arms.

Thankfully several wonderful young ladies came to help and zipped me up tight. This involved a lot of laughing. We could have invented a whole new genre of internet porn, in which fully clothed old men get zipped into bags. Although it probably already exists. I am not going to google for it, given the frequency with which the security services seize or steal my electronic devices. It might be misunderstood.

So at 3.30am I lay down my head, and did in fact sleep until about 5.30am. It was not comfortable, but it was not cold. I then wandered off to find a bush for a pee. When I returned, three women had taken over my groundsheet and were using my sleeping bag as a blanket. They joked that they had occupied my sleeping bag. I said I perfectly understood – surely their ancestors had a sleeping bag there 3,000 years ago. It was not brilliant repartee, but this kind of thing kept us going. The 14 of us who made the public gallery took group pictures.

There were some changes from the day before. We are to be allowed pens. But in view of “people wandering around” the day before, they said huffily, we were to be escorted in via a back door and leave the same way, and strictly forbidden from talking or interacting with anybody not in our group. So we entered the tiny public gallery. It has only two rows, and I now discovered that if you sit in the second row you cannot see anything. From the hall you can’t even tell there is a second row to the gallery. Once again, I marveled at the lack of attention to the dreadful design of the courtroom.

Luckily for me, a young man who apparently should not have been there was ejected from a front row seat, and finally I got to watch the Israeli presentation.

As with the South African case, according to court procedure the Israeli case was introduced by their “agent”, permanently accredited to the court, Tal Becker of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He opened with the standard formula “it is an honour to appear before you again on behalf of the state of Israel”, managing to imply purely through phrasing and tone of voice that the honour lay in representing Israel, not in appearing before the judges.

Becker opened by going straight to the Holocaust, saying that nobody knew more than Israel why the Genocide Convention existed. 6 million Jewish people had been killed. The Convention was not to be used to cover the normal brutality of war.

The South African case aimed at the delegitimisation of the state of Israel. On 7 October Hamas had committed massacre, mutilation, rape and abduction. 1,200 had been killed and 5,500 maimed. He related several hideous individual atrocity stories and played a recording he stated to be a Hamas fighter boasting on WhatsApp to his parents about committing mass murder, rape and mutilation.

The only genocide in this case was being committed against Israel. Hamas continued to attack Israel, and for the court to take provisional measures would be to deny Israel the right to self-defence. Provisional measures should rather be taken against South Africa and its attempt by legal means to further genocide by its relationship with Hamas. Gaza was not under occupation: Israel had left it with great potential to be a political and economic success. Instead Hamas had chosen to make it a terrorist base.

Hamas was embedded in the civilian population and therefore responsible for the civilian deaths. Hamas had tunnels under schools, hospitals, mosques and UN facilities and tunnel entrances within them. It commandeered medical vehicles for military use.

South Africa had talked of civilian buildings destroyed, but did not tell you they had been destroyed by Hamas booby traps and Hamas missile misfires.

The casualty figures South Africa gave were from Hamas sources and not reliable. They did not say how many were fighters? How many of the children were child soldiers? The application by South Africa was ill-founded and ill-motivated. It was a libel.

This certainly was a hardline and uncompromising start. The judges appeared to be paying very close attention when he opened with the 7 October self-defence argument, but very definitely some of them started to fidget and become uncomfortable when he talked of Hamas operating from ambulances and UN facilities. In short, he went too far and I believe he lost his audience at that point.

Next up was Professor Malcolm Shaw KC. Shaw is regarded as an authority on the procedure of international law and is editor of the standard tome on the subject. This is an interesting facet of the legal profession, where standard reference books on particular topics are regularly updated to include key extracts from recent judges, and passages added or amended to explain the impact of these judgments. Being an editor in this field provides a route to prominence for the plodding and pedantic.

I had come across Shaw in his capacity as a co-founder of the Centre for Human Rights at Essex University. I had given a couple of talks there some twenty years ago on the attacks on human rights of the “War on Terror” and my own whistleblower experience over torture and extraordinary rendition. For an alleged human rights expert, Shaw seemed extraordinarily prone to support the national security interests of the state over individual liberty.

I do not pretend I gave it a great deal of thought. I did not know at that time of Shaw’s commitment as an extreme Zionist and in particular his long term interest in suppressing the rights of the Palestinian people. After 139 states have recognised Palestine as a state, Shaw led for Israel the legal opposition to Palestine’s membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. Shaw’s rather uninspired reliance on the Montevideo Convention of 1933 is hardly a legal tour de force, and it didn’t work.

Every criminal deserves a defence, and nobody should hold it against a barrister that they defend a murderer or rapist, as it is important that guilt or innocence is tested by a court. But I think it is fair to state that defence lawyers do not in general defend those accused of murder because they agree with murder and want a murderer to go on murdering. That however is the case here: Malcolm Shaw speaks for Israel because he actually wants Israel to be able to continue killing Palestinian women and children to improve the security of Israel, in his view.

That is the difference between this and other cases, including at the ICJ. Generally the lead lawyers would happily swap sides, if the other side had hired them first. But this is entirely different. Here the lawyers (with the possible exception of Staker) believe profoundly in the case they are supporting and would never appear for the other side. That is just one more way that this is such an extraordinary case, with so much drama and such vital consequences, not least for the future of international law.

For the reason I have just explained, Shaw’s role here is not that of a simple barrister plying his trade. His attempt to extend the killing should see him viewed as a pariah by decent people everywhere, for the rest of his doubtless highly-paid existence.

Shaw opened up by saying that the South African case continually spoke of context. They talked of the 75 years of the existence of the state of Israel. Why stop there? Why not go back to the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate over Palestine? No, the context of these events was the massacre of 7 October, and Israel’s subsequent right of self-defence. He produced and read a long quote from mid-October by European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen, stating that Israel had suffered a terrorist atrocity and had the right of self-defence.

The truth is that this is not genocide but armed conflict, which state has existed since 7 October. That was brutal, and urban warfare always involved terrible civilian casualties, but it was not genocide.

He then turned to the question of genocide. He argued that South Africa could not bring this case and the ICJ had no jurisdiction, because there was no dispute between Israel and South Africa on which the ICJ could rule, at the time the case was filed. South Africa had communicated its views to Israel, but Israel had given no substantial reply. Therefore a dispute did not yet exist at time of filing. A dispute must involve interaction between parties and the argument had been on one side only.

This very much interested the judges. As I noted on day one, this got them more active than anything else when Professor John Dugard addressed the same point for South Africa. As I reported:

The judges particularly enjoyed Dugard’s points, enthusiastically rustling through documents and underlining things. Dealing with thousands of dead children was a bit difficult for them, but give them a nice jurisdictional point and they were in their element.

They were even more excited when Shaw tackled the same point. This gave them a way out! The case could be technically invalid, and then they would neither have to upset the major Western powers nor make fools of themselves by pretending that a genocide the whole world had seen was not happening. For a while, they looked visibly relieved.

Shaw should have given up while he was ahead, but he ploughed on for an hour, with some relief when he continually muddled his notes. A senior KC with zero ability to extemporise and recover was an interesting sight, as he kept stopping and shuffling paper.

Shaw argued that the bar for judging whether South Africa had a prima facie case must be significantly higher because of the high military and political cost to Israel if the court adopted provisional measures. It was also necessary to show genocidal intent even at this stage. Otherwise the genocide was a “car without an engine”. If any illegal actions had taken place within Israel’s carefully targeted military action, Israel’s own military courts would investigate and act on them.

Random Israeli ministers and officials making emotional statements was not important. Official policy to protect civilians would be found in the minutes of the Israeli war cabinet and national security council. Israel’s strenuous attempts to move civilians out of harm’s way was an accepted measure in international human law and should not be viewed as mass displacement.

It was South Africa which was guilty of complicity in genocide in cooperation with Hamas. South Africa’s allegations against Israel “verge on the outrageous”.

Israel’s next lawyer was a lady called Galit Raguan from the Israeli Ministry of Justice. She said the reality on the ground was that Israel had done everything possible to minimise civilian deaths and to aid humanitarian relief. Urban warfare always resulted in civilian deaths. It was Hamas who were responsible for destruction of buildings and infrastructure.

There was overwhelming evidence of Hamas’ military use of hospitals. In every single hospital in Gaza that IDF had evidence of military use by Hamas. Mass evacuation of civilians was a humanitarian and legal measure. Israel had supplied food, water and medicine into Gaza but supplies had come under Hamas fire. Hamas steals the aid for its fighters.

Next up was lawyer Omri Sender. He stated that more food trucks per day now entered Gaza than before October 7. The number had increased from 70 food trucks to 109 food trucks per day. Fuel, gas and electricity were all being supplied and Israel had repaired the sewage systems.

At this stage Israel had again lost the judges. One or two were looking at this man in a highly quizzical manner. A couple had definitely fallen asleep – there are only so many lies you can absorb, I suppose. Nobody was making notes about this guff. The judges may find a way not to condemn Israel, but could not be expected to go along with this extraordinary nonsense. Sender continued that the scope and intensity of the fighting was now decreasing as the operation entered a new phase.

Perhaps noting that nobody believed him, Sender stated that the court could not institute provisional measures but rather was obliged to accept the word of Israel on its good intentions because of the Law of the Unilateral Declarations of States.

Now I have to confess that was a bit of international law I did not know existed. But it does, specifically in relation to ICJ proceedings. On first reading, it makes a unilateral declaration of intent to the ICJ binding on the state that makes it. I cannot see that it forces the ICJ to accept it as sufficient or to believe in its sincerity. It seems rather a reach, and I wondered if Israel was running out of things to say.

That appeared to be true, because the next speaker, Christopher Staker KC, now took the floor and just ran through all the same Hamas stuff yet again, only with added theatrical indignation. Staker is the lawyer I suspect would happily have appeared for either side, because he was plainly just acting anyway. And not very well.

Staker said that it was astounding this case could be brought. It was intended to stop Israel from defending itself while Israel would still be subject to Hamas attacks. Hamas has said it will continue attacks.

If you look at the operation as a whole including relief efforts, it was plain there was no genocidal intent. Israel was in incredible danger. The proposed provisional measures were out of proportion to their effect. Can you imagine if in the Second World War, a court had ordered the Allies to stop fighting because of civilian deaths, and allowed the Axis powers to keep on killing?

The final speaker was Gilad Noam, Israel’s deputy attorney-general. He said that the bulk of the proposed provisional measures should be refused because they exposed Israel to further Hamas attack. Three more should be refused because they referred to Palestine outside Gaza. There was no genocidal intent in Israel. Ministerial and official statements made in the heat of the moment were rather examples of the tradition of democracy and freedom of speech. Prosecutions for incitement to genocide were under consideration.

The court must not conflate genocide and self-defence. The South African case devalues genocide and encourages terrorism. The Holocaust illustrated why Israel was always under existential threat. It was Hamas who were committing genocide.

And that was it. Israel had in the end not been allowed to show its contentious atrocity video, and it felt like their presentation had become repetitive and was padded to fill the time.

It is important to realise this. Israel is hoping to win on their procedural points about existence of dispute, unilateral assurances and jurisdiction. The obvious nonsense they spoke about the damage to homes and infrastructure being caused by Hamas, trucks entering Gaza and casualty figures, was not serious. They did not expect the judges to believe any of this. The procedural points were for the court. The rest was mass propaganda for the media.

In the UK, the BBC and Sky both ran almost all the Israeli case live, having not run any of the South African case live. I believe something similar was true in the USA, Australia and Germany too.

While the court was in session, Germany has announced it will intervene in the substantial case to support Israel. They argue explicitly that, as the world’s greatest perpetrator of genocide, they are uniquely placed to judge. It is in effect a copyright claim. They are protecting Germany’s intellectual property in the art of genocide. Perhaps they might in future license genocide, or allow Israel to continue genocide on a franchise basis.

I am sure the judges want to get out of this and they may go for the procedural points. But there is a real problem with Israel’s “no dispute” argument. If accepted, it would mean that a country committing genocide can simply not reply to a challenge, and then legal action will not be possible because no reply means “no dispute”. I hope that absurdity is obvious to the judges. But they may of course wish not to notice it…

What do I think will happen? Some sort of “compromise”. The judges will issue provisional measures different to South Africa’s request, asking Israel to continue to take measures to protect the civilian population, or some such guff. Doubtless the State Department have drafted something like this for President of the court Donoghoe already.

I hope I am wrong. I would hate to give up on international law. One thing I do know for certain. These two days in the Hague were absolutely crucial for deciding if there is any meaning left in notions of international law and human rights. I still believe action by the court could cause the US and UK to back off and provide some measure of relief. For now, let us all pray or wish, each in our way, for the children of Gaza.



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.

358 thoughts on “Your Man in the Hague (In a Good Way) Part 2

1 2 3 4
  • harry law

    Peter Oborne – to me the only decent Journalist around today – zeroes in on Keir Starmer and Sunak’s collaboration on support for Israel. In particular he destroys UK Foreign Secretary’s lack of knowledge on fundamental International law and his incompetence about not remembering the advice he had been given etc. This is a must see article, and the links are must see also.

    Cameron was out of his depth. At one point Cameron actually appeared to accept that Israel was committing war crimes when he said: “One of the things we’d like the Israelis to do is switch the water back on” – an implicit acceptance that Israel had turned the water off.

    Scottish National Party MP Brendan O’Hara, Cameron’s biggest tormentor, asked him whether he had received advice from foreign office lawyers that Israel was in breach of international humanitarian law.
    It is inconceivable to me that any foreign office lawyer could or would have advised that Israel’s actions fall within international law.
    This exchange makes for painful viewing. Cameron ducked and dived, dodged the question, answered other questions he had not been asked, and claimed not to remember what advice he’d received from officials.
    But O’Hara stuck to his task and eventually the wretched Cameron stated, on the record and in front of the cameras, that he had not been advised that Israel’s actions were in breach of international humanitarian law.
    It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this exchange at a time when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is considering whether Israel is committing Genocide in Gaza.
    And I find it hard to believe the foreign secretary’s protestations.
    The evidence is overwhelming.

  • Jack

    There seems to be a propaganda, psy-ops campaign going on in the west where the aim is to deny that Israel is even commiting warcrimes.

    Examples from past days:
    Netherlands:: “What can we say so that it appears that Israel is not committing war crimes”
    US: “No ‘deliberate’ war crimes by Israel”
    I have read statements from other western nation reps. too.

    Note also the word “deliberate warcrimes”, there are of course no such term in international law. As absurd as saying – well there have been no “deliberate” rape, it just occured. Oh well.

    Perhaps the west fear that themselves will be labeled a complicit partner in obvious warcrimes and acts of genocide.
    War on Gaza: Complaint filed alleging UK ministers’ complicity in Israeli war crimes

    Netherlands accused of war crimes complicity for Israeli military supplies
    It is so tragi-hilarious to see the west aiding and abetting Israel in obvious warcrimes, I mean Netherlands and the US, have been one of the most harshest critics of russian intervention in Ukraine for 2 years straight now! Karma, is that the word? I do not believe that word cover up this situation the west have found themselves in now.

    In a way the west has been left dumbfounded by Israel, they have embraced this regime without clue and now, not knowing how they should react to the obvious warcrimes they respond by… flat out deny any crimes even though new obvious warcrimes are streamed live from Gaza! They do not understand how stupid this move make them look, right on par with flat-earthers or the-moon-landing-was-fake type of crowd. Great job west, sigh.

  • Carlyle Moulton

    The fact is that as far as Israel and its supporters are concerned the German Holocaust was the only genocide that matters and the only victims that matter are Jews. Forget the anti-Nazis, communists, the disabled, The Roma and the trade unionists, their killings were legitimate just as are the Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

  • harry law

    It would be wonderful Karma, if, after watching Keir Starmer stabbing Jeremy Corbyn in the back, calling him an AntiSemite and now dancing on his political grave, falls flat on his face for supporting the Aparthied Genocidal state of Israel, Starmer is a baby killing supporter of Israel and a psychopath who should be ostracized from normal society.

    • Allan Howard

      The following is a passage from a Guardian article a few days ago entitled ‘The levels of attack are extraordinary’: Gary Lineker on punditry, podcasts – and why he won’t stop speaking his mind:

      What upset many in the Jewish community more than his empathy with the Palestinians was that before or since those tweets he’d said nothing about the Hamas atrocities on 7 October, the hundreds of hostages or the crimes of sexual violence. He says he hasn’t lost friends, “I’m not a falling out person”, but there are “associates” he’s chosen not to spend time with because “their views are so hardcore”. Most of his Jewish friends share his views: “But I don’t see it as a Jewish thing. I see it as the Israeli government. Obviously, they’re responding to 7 October, but crikey, one atrocity does not deserve 80 atrocities. Or more.” It’s true, he concedes, that he also has Jewish friends who disagree with him, including those who “have [privately] asked me to try to support Israel on Twitter, to back what they’re doing. I had to say, ‘What?! Look, absolutely no. And nor should you.’

      It’s the line about “… atrocity does not deserve 80 atrocities. Or more.”, that I was thinking of in particular. Other people have said something similar of course, and if October 7th was a Holocaust, as the DM had it in a front page article, albeit in quotation marks – i.e. ‘This was a holocaust pure and simple’ – then how many holocausts has Netanyahu and Co and the IDF inflicted on the people of Gaza! Depending on how many Israelis the IDF killed on October 7th – and including the estimated 10,000 or so Gazans that are dead and buried under the rubble – it amounts to between 30 and 50/60 ‘holocausts’, and increasing each and every week by another holocaust or two.

      • Allan Howard

        Tony Greenstein posted an ‘Open Letter to the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie on his blog early this morning, and of course brings up the fact that the BBC covered Israel’s submission/defence to the ICJ but not S Africa’s submission the day before. Tony doesn’t actually mention that Sky News did the same (but then why would he in a letter to the DG of the BBC), but it led to the obvious thing occuring to me – ie what an extraordinary ‘coincidence’ that both the BBC *AND* Sky News should do th the same.

        In response to a complainant that Tony included in his ‘letter’ the BBC said the following:

        The South African case was the lead story on both the international and UK feed during the evening 11 January. Further to this, segments of the South African case were also played during coverage of the Israeli defence on Friday 12 January to give UK audiences as complete a picture as possible.

        But this doesn’t address the key point of course – ie Why didn’t the BBC cover South Africa’s submission on the 11th? And also a secondary question, in two parts: Why did the BBC decide to NOT cover the South African submission? But decide to cover Israel’s defence?

        Anyway, here’s a link to Tony’s ‘letter’:

        • Allan Howard

          Reading through the above post, the second question in two parts should have been more like: What was the thinking of those who made the decision to NOT cover S Africa’s submission to not cover it? And what was the thinking of those who made the decision to cover the Israeli defence – which was presumably the same people – to cover it?

        • Mr Mark Cutts

          Allan Howard

          It’s very similar to CCTV cameras ‘not working’ mysteriously on the day of a tragedy, or something that the State has involvement in in some way or another.

          The sad truth is that the BBC and Sky are not ordered to X, Y, and Z; they know what to do naturally.

          The Directors and Producers of the news, definitely censor. Noam Chomsky told Marr the same thing – very politely. Self Censoring – not knowingly; unknowingly, as it’s part of their education.

  • Allan Howard

    Oh, my word, how terribly amusing – ie that the culture secretary should tell GB News – Yes, that’s GB News, otherwise known as Tory TV – that those who work for the BBC “should respect impartiality”!

    I expect she was alluding to the fact that the BBC covered Israel’s defence to the ICJ, but didn’t cover S Africa’s submission the day before. But then, maybe not, cos THAT is exactly what the Tories would want the BBC to do, and quite likely had a word in someone’s ear to that effect. And ditto Sky News!:

    Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer has said that people who work for the BBC “should respect impartiality”.

    She told GB News: “I think it’s really important that those who work for the BBC, and this is what the guidelines say, respect that impartiality and that they don’t undermine the reputation of the BBC.

    “Obviously, it’s for the BBC and not for me to determine whether those guidelines have been crossed by any particular presenter and it’s something that I know audiences and I are monitoring very carefully.”

    PS I was actually searching to ascertain what a ‘feed’ is exactly (as in the BBC’s response to a complainant) when I came across the above article.

      • Allan Howard

        Apologies for so many posts, but I’m on a roll, and no-one else is posting:

        I just did a search to ascertain who owns GB News and came across the following in the wikipedia entry:

        The channel has been found to have breached Ofcom’s standards on several occasions and as of 12 November 2023 was the subject of fourteen investigations[11] into its compliance with Ofcom’s due impartiality rules, including cases of potential breaches of the rule that apart from exceptional circumstances, politicians should not act as newsreaders, reporters or interviewers.[12]

        Right, so much for impartiality, as if WE – and the culture secretary – didn’t know allready.

        And whilst on the subject of rabid right-wing propaganda outlets, the following DDN video with Lowkey from a couple of weeks ago is very enlightening:

        Is this why TalkTV is so aggressively pro-Israel? (3mins 24secs)

  • Jack

    Speaking on Palestine and South Africa, great interviews below with Nelson Mandela on the issue: well-read, good rhetorician, fearless – a man of principles, obviously his stance on Palestine infuriated the pro-israel audience:
    Rare Video: Nelson Mandela Speaking on Palestine [Extracts]
    Nelson Mandela: What the South African icon said about Palestine

    One should also remember that Israel very much supported South Africa during the apartheid-era, even to the extent of nuclear weapons:
    Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons

    One wonder if Mandela was still on US terror-list until 2008 mainly because of his support for palestinians which seemed to annoy pro-zionist groups/politicians in the US immensely.

    And yeah, here is Jens Stoltenberg giving his support to Mandela,
    Dear Nelson Mandela
    And look at Stoltenberg today, leading a military alliance that actively support another apartheid regime with arms, ammo. No scruples, no shame.

  • ronan1882

    Thank you for this fine report. Israel and Germany have raw sewage where a heart should be. British politicians and media too. No one knew how dark and soulless these entities were until now.

  • harry law

    David Cameron’s satisfaction with the advice he received from the relevant ministerial bodies was the determining factor in continuing arms sales to Israel. Even when doubts were raised by those bodies on Israel’s compliance with International Humanitarian Law, Cameron took the word of the Israelis, in the face of all facts to the contrary, especially Israel’s non-compliance with the facilitation of Food, Water and Energy to Gaza. The High Court ruled that the Government complied with all the procedures and that the Government had made its decision (to continue supplying arms to Israel) as its right, as the executive authority, after following procedure correctly.
    The Israeli government have breached International Humanitarian Law and crimes against Humanity. Many Israeli Government Ministers have admitted that fact. David Cameron, the Trade Secretary, and the Minister of Defence, must resign for making a purely political decision, based on Israel assurances that they are complying with IHL, which will turn out to be wrong but also to be a precursor to Acts of Genocide occurring in front of our eyes. The Genocide court’s decision on interim measures is expected this Friday, 26th Jan 2024.

    “In light of information received and other inquiries undertaken, we are satisfied that we do have sufficient information on compliance to inform our overarching view of Israel’s compliance with IHL that the record of compliance does not reveal a pattern suggestive of unaddressed underlying systemic weakness which might undermine other material pointing towards an ability and willingness to comply with IHL – noting that the assessment on commitment is subject to Ministerial decision.”

    • harry law

      Here is what the lead lawyer of the group opposing arms sales to Israel had to say…

      Dearbhla Minogue, a lead lawyer with the Global Legal Action Network, one of the groups that are challenging the government at the High Court, said the UK’s response has “made it clear that they have not stood back and looked at all of the evidence objectively”.

      Instead, she said, they have “gone to the perpetrator, asked whether they are violating international law, and taken their word for it”.

      In other words, the UK government (and opposition) says we support Israel whether right or wrong.

  • harry law

    The US are determined to continue their illegal occupations of Iraq and Syria. Both governments have told the US Military forces to leave, but the US want to increase its military presence. It is now bombing an official arm of the Iraq armed forces [the PMU]. Madness.

    The office of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani on 24 January issued a statement blaming the US for actively working against Baghdad’s sovereignty after an attack on positions held by the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU).

    “In a clear determination to harm security and stability in Iraq, the United States is returning to carry out air strikes against the places of Iraqi military units of the army and the PMU, in the areas of Jurf al-Nasr and Al-Qaim,” Yahya Rasool, spokesman for the Commander-in-Chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces, said in a statement on behalf of Sudani.

1 2 3 4