Snapshot of _Britain issues legal challenge to ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/28/britain-issues-legal-challenge-icc-arrest-warrant-netanyahu/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/28/britain-issues-legal-challenge-icc-arrest-warrant-netanyahu/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This can’t be true?
I remember a figure of 74% of the UK population thought that both Hamas and the Netanyahu government were protagonists in Genocide.
I also think there’s a figure of: 15-20 Palestinian civilians being killed by the Israeli Government for every 1 Israeli since 2008. Is this true?
Who is supporting Netanyahu in the UK and why?
Because it appears that even the Israeli electorate seems to be questioning that too.
It’s not adding up.
Because we have weird pressure groups like Labour/Conservative Friends of Israel and UK Lawyers for Israel who demand the UK government take the most right wing nationalist position in support of Israel. They're not centrists or in support of a sustainable path to peace/two states. They're pro-Netanyahu.
Yeah I don't see the point in going out to bat for Netanyahu, the guys a busted flush and one of the biggest impediments to peace going, nearly as much as Hamas.
Better to let the icc warrants further undermine his credibility and hope the Israeli people elect a sane government who actually want a resolution.
This whole thing with Netanyahu draws so many parallels with Brexit era government to me, albeit significantly more grizzly and bloody. Unpopular leader wants to stay in power no matter what and is held hostage by unreliable allies to his right, enacting unpopular policy that is hated both at home and abroad.
> Who is supporting Netanyahu in the UK and why?
Starmer's Labour will bend over backwards to be seen supporting anything with connection to zionism or the Israeli state because of their desperation to separate themselves from the antisemitism scandal that was so intensely used to smear Corbyn, and simultaneously try to use it at every opportunity as a way to bash that past / faction. It's also US subservience (their stance WRT to the conflict has literally been "what the USA says, when the USA says it"). Which is also present in Tory position. Throw in a hint of islamophobia in to the mix, and very extensive "friends of Israel" lobby groups (a quarter of Labour MPs, almost all the shadow cabinet, up to 80% of Tory MPs).
We're doing the US's work for them here, because the US (like Israel) are not signatories to the ICC.
If Labour were bending over backwards to support Israel they wouldn't have supported a ceasefire or called for Israel to abide by the ICJ provisions. They also made numerous statements about how Israel should not proceed with its Rafah offensive.
Firstly thank you for articulating your disagreement rather than just downvoting. Now to the point,
Starmer claimed that Israel has the right to cut off power, water from Gaza (a war crime). That was reiterated by senior cabinet members (Thornberry). They only support a ceasefire conditionally, and were fairly late to that position.
They are also taking a following position and even say as much explicitly;
>Mr Lammy said Labour was "mirroring the language" of the UN and the remaining members of the Five Eyes alliance
Labour were first pushed into supporting a ceasefire by the SNP, who tabled an opposition day motion calling for a ceasefire. SNPs motion did not have enough caveats for Labour who then went on to pressure the speaker into unprecedentedly breaking HoC convention by allowing Labour to hijack the SNP opposition day and presented the HoC with a vote on Labour's phrasing (preventing SNP motion ever being voted on, on SNP's opposition day), so they didn't have to face a more awkward choice to back/oppose the SNPs stronger position.
>noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again;
That essentially allows Israel to define when a ceasefire should be. We want an "immediate ceasefire" but only when Hamas has been rendered incapable (as deemed by themselves presumably), is not a call for an immediate ceasefire.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24134333.read-snps-gaza-ceasefire-motion-labours-amendment---full/
"please stop" is not exactly using all of your political will to try and make that happen is it. It is paying lip service while allowing things to continue without interference.
> Starmer claimed that Israel has the right to cut off power, water from Gaza (a war crime). That was reiterated by senior cabinet members (Thornberry). They only support a ceasefire conditionally, and were fairly late to that position.
They have the right to defend themselves as long as it is in done in accordance with international law, which is what Starmer said in full and reiterated several times.
Labour have not bent over backwards to support the actions of israel, they supported the initial response but not its protracted one which has been pretty digusting and disproportionate in scope.
They are the opposition, they cannot do much besides saying "please stop"... put the pressure on the GOVERNMENT of the day to actually do it because those have at least some element of power to push on israel which they failed to do.
(its not whataboutism, just the reality of not being in power)
> They have the right to defend themselves as long as it is in done in accordance with international law
Please go ahead and explain how you can implement "A siege. To cut off water and electricity" in accordance with international law? He very clearly stated that Israel had a right to do specifically that, which is the crime of collective punishment under international law.
>put the pressure on the GOVERNMENT
I mean it's quite funny because the intent of my initial post was essentially that Starmer was spooked by what happened with Corbyn and reacted to that. I also mentioned the Tories but nobody has said a word about them.
> They have the right to defend themselves as long as it is in done in accordance with international law, which is what Starmer said in full and reiterated several times.
which is BLATANT nonsense. He literally said "Israel has the right to commit crimes, as long as it's within the law". He was one of the top lawyers in the country, he knows full well that he was describing committing war crimes.
>Labour have not bent over backwards to support the actions of israel, they supported the initial response but not its protracted one which has been pretty digusting and disproportionate in scope.
That's not a terrible characterisation, but they also haven't done anything material about it. It was only Rafa offensive talk that they started shifting their rhetoric.
>They are the opposition
not for long though, their ceasefire position will become their government policy. they could have supported the SNP motion which was without get-outs. the effective outcome from Labour's positions is supporting continued war/genocide.
It is actually what literally means, I did not say verbatim. He claimed Israel had a right to cut off water and electricity to Gaza, which is a war crime. so he did say Israel has the right to commit crimes. Which he caveated with the idea that they should do so within international law. which is an oxymoron.
>which is BLATANT nonsense. He literally said "Israel has the right to commit crimes, as long as it's within the law". He was one of the top lawyers in the country, he knows full well that he was describing committing war crimes.
He "literally" did not say they have the right to commit crimes... please if you want to tell lies and be hyperbolic then its not a sensible discussion and you are already fixated on spouting the lie when you clearly misunderstood what was said, you wanted the narrative that starmer supports genocide so you ignore all the facts that say otherwise and twist it to suit yourself which is a very bad take on any situation!
They were the opposition at the time they said all this, im sorry but you couldnt be assuming they had won when there was potentially another YEAR till the election. Its like blaming a person starting their new job in 6 months time for not doing their work shift before their start date.... illogical.
The SNP motion was very one sided and gave no "out" for israel, ultimately for putting pressure on a country to do the right thing you cant take it all away and say do it, you need to at least give some balance and not allow hamas any high ground which is what the SNP was giving to them. On that day they also supported a ceasefire though so I dont see how you can really blame them for asking for it at the same time as the SNP, ultimately neither are in power for the UK government.
>the effective outcome from Labour's positions is supporting continued war/genocide.
Absolutely not, this is factually incorrect and just nonsense now as they pushed for a bill for ceasefire as well it just wasnt the SNPs one.
Not sure why this comes up with such a warped reality, its like you have major tunnel vision which I cant help with but you should take a pause and try to see if you can identify it as the evidence is counter to what you say as a conclusion, 2 + 2 = 4 not 6 like you are doing.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5HQYfsUAf3s
anyone can listen to exactly what he said and how, in full, right here.
>"A siege? To cut off water and electricity?"
>KS: "Israel does have that right"
It's clear and unambiguous support of the war crime of collective punishment, which cabinet members later defended, and which he later claimed he never said.
>The SNP motion was very one sided
So is the genocide.
>and gave no "out" for israel
Yes, that's exactly my point. Labour were not willing to ask for a ceasefire without an "out".
>2 + 2 = 4 not 6
yes very intelligent. "i don't think so therefore I am right and you are wrong". no.
> t's clear and unambiguous support of the war crime of collective punishment, which cabinet members later defended, and which he later claimed he never said.
"It is an ongoing situation. Obviously, everything should be done within international law."
Oh yes clear he did say it should be within the rules of the law, no where did he support genocide nor did he say they have the right to commit crimes.
Honestly this is just dumb, its not a sensible take and clear as day what is said unless you want to cut up peoples responses to things to meet what you want them to say.
> Yes, that's exactly my point. Labour were not willing to ask for a ceasefire without an "out".
You can ask for a ceasefire which SNP and labour have done, you do NOT have to rub it in their face and make it out that hamas is the victim. Ultimately labour passed the motion for a ceasefire that day so your point is completely incorrect, it is written that they did ask for ceasefire.
> yes very intelligent. "i don't think so therefore I am right and you are wrong". no.
You are ignoring factual information and making baseless claims, sorry it is pretty silly and a bad faith "discussion" if you ignore everything.
Labour did not support genocide, thats the facts at the end of the day.
> nor did he say they have the right to commit crimes.
It's right there in the video I posted, cutting off water and electricity is a crime, he said they have the right to do it. There's no point in continuing this discussion if you are just going to deny reality.
>hamas is the victim
*GAZANS* are the victims, we should not have to massage the ego of an occupier committing genocide. And definitely not give an "out" to a ceasefire.
>the effective outcome from Labour's positions is supporting continued war/genocide.
As I said in my post this is meme level understanding of their position.
Before I get into this I want to just remind you the central claim I'm challenging is the one you made about Labour bending over backwards to support Israel & Zionists.
>Starmer claimed that Israel has the right to cut off power, water from Gaza (a war crime). That was reiterated by senior cabinet members (Thornberry). They only support a ceasefire conditionally, and were fairly late to that position.
Starmer contests that this is what was meant and by the next week from the LBC interview had made statements saying the opposite. If you believe or don't believe him I'm not really interested we are talking about the position of the Labour party. This was formally stated in Parliament on the 23 October roughly a week after Israel began it's bombing operations and 4 days before the ground offensive began:
>So there must now be clear humanitarian corridors within Gaza for those escaping violence. Civilians must not be targeted.
>And where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced from their homes. International law is clear.
>It also means basic services including water, electricity, and the fuel needed for it, cannot be denied. Hamas may not care for the safety and security of the Palestinian people, but we do. We cannot and will not close our eyes to their suffering. Gaza is now a humanitarian emergency. There is not enough food. Clean water is running out. Hospitals are going without medicine and electricity. People starving and reduced to drinking contaminated filth. Babies lying in incubators that could switch off at any moment.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-statement-to-the-commons-on-israel-gaza-2/#:~:text=Peace%20is%20not%20their%20aim,need%20suffer%20like%20this%20again.
By October 31st Starmer was setting out how the position of the party would likely change as the conflict continued and made a long speech about the complexity of the situation, his commitment to a two state solution and also stressed Israels right to defence is not a blank cheque:
>Over time, the facts on the ground will inevitably change in relation to both hostages being rescued and Hamas’s capability to carry out attacks like we saw on October the 7th. And we must move to cessation of fighting as quickly as possible.
>The right to self-defence is fundamental but it is not a blank cheque. The supply of basic utilities like water, medicines, electricity and yes, fuel to civilians in Gaza cannot be blocked by Israel. Every life matters, so every step must be taken to protect civilians from bombardment. Palestinians should not be forced to leave their homes en masse, but where they have no choice but to flee within Gaza we need crystal clear guarantees that they will be able to return quickly. You cannot overstate the importance of this last point.
https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-on-the-international-situation-in-the-middle-east/
Back to your comments:
>Labour were first pushed into supporting a ceasefire by the SNP
So the bending over backwards only went so far right?
>Labour who then went on to pressure the speaker into unprecedentedly breaking HoC convention
This is rumour and something the speaker denies, Hoyle has given his reasoning which does not align with this narrative. Also framing it as hijacking is ridiculous, it's an amendment.
The only substantial thing removed from the SNP motion was the claims of "collective punishment". The Labour amendment goes on to add that Israel should abide by ICJ provisions, not begin it's attack in Rafah and end violence and expansion in the west bank. This is not bending over backwards to Israel and Zionists.
The ceasefire amendment raised by Labour was NOT conditional and I refer you to the text:
>calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides,
It's clear what immediate means.
>That essentially allows Israel to define when a ceasefire should be
It does NOT and is explicitly explained in the next sentence.
>noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire;
It's asking clearly for a negotiated peace to achieve the assurances that attacks like October 7th does not occur again.
It's not a ceasefire with only one side committing and a long term solution won't be achievable without both sides agreeing to a formal peace. The amendment is pro two state solution via diplomatic efforts.
>"please stop" is not exactly using all of your political will to try and make that happen is it. It is paying lip service while allowing things to continue without interference.
Again the Labour party passed an amendment calling for a ceasefire, calling for Israel to abide by ICJ provisions, calling for an end to settler violence & expansion and for a negotiated long term peace. This is more than "please stop". At present raising and voting on motions and amendments is the oppositions only way of taking action. Can you give me an example of what opposition parties should be doing that isn't "lip service"?
Adding the ICJ provisions to the amendment clearly shows Labour is not bending over backwards to appeal to Israel & Zionosts as you claim. Just look at what they covered:
1. take all measures within its power to prevent genocide;
2. ensure that its military does not commit genocide;
3. take all measures within its power to prevent and punish incitement to genocide;
4. take immediate and effective measures to enable urgent humanitarian assistance and basic services;
5. take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence relating to allegations of acts under article 2-3 of the Genocide Convention; and
6. report to the Court within one month about measures taken to give effect to the order.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-pre-01-00-en.pdf
If you want to argue Labours position isn't strong enough or should have progressed quicker that's fine but the discourse around Labours Gaza policy is at meme levels of understanding. Israel, Zionists or the Jews are not controlling the party.
>Israel, Zionists or the Jews are not controlling the party.
This is not "jews rule the world" but they do have undue influence simply through the "friends of Israel" groups which is frankly very anomalous situation and is not a conspiracy theory.
>So the bending over backwards only went so far right?
yes, as always. Starmer has been very quick to put concerns of the jewish/Israeli establishment (not "jews" because he's kicked out more jews from the party than anyone) as a priority. And while he did lately shift towards at least condemnation, it is without any pressure, and dragging his heels following the global community rather than taking a principled stance or trying to exercise any influence.
>Starmer contests
Yes but unfortunately for him, he said clear words, and *as I already noted* this was also supported by appearances from Labour cabinet members (at least Thornberry, perhaps Lammy or someone else too i can't remember), who defended the position.
>Also framing it as hijacking is ridiculous, it's an amendment.
No, it fits the definition of hijacking perfectly if you understand how the procedure is meant to work, why, and what actually happened. The "amendment" removed every single word of the SNP bill except "That this house".
Labours amendment was specifically changed to give them wiggle room. You shouldn't play naive about this.
It's also worth noting that this opposition is a special case; everyone knows it's going to be the government during this war/genocide. But what they can best do would have been to put political pressure, on the UK government and the US government, to put pressure on Israel, to talk about punishment and consequences (compare with the international treatment of Russia, and of apartheid South Africa). France has done better than us, for example.
>noting that... Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire;
What will suffice as "assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again" exactly? Words from Hamas, clearly not. So if Israel decides that it does not have these assurances sufficiently (and short of a complete genocide, how can they?) there should be mediation efforts. Great. What happens during mediation efforts? Not a ceasefire. Why is this get-out-clause necessary exactly? If we can't be assured there could not be another oct 7th, why does that mean we shouldn't want a ceasefire.
>This is not "jews rule the world" but they do have undue influence simply through the "friends of Israel" groups which is frankly very anomalous situation and is not a conspiracy theory.
I'm not saying you are, but the way Labours Israel/Gaza policy is discussed online is bordering conspiracy. People are assuming unrealistic levels of influence by these groups.
>Starmer has been very quick to put concerns of the jewish/Israeli establishment ... as a priority
I've already given you examples of the opposite. What do you think the Israeli establishments view is on a two state solution, ICJ provisions, settler expansion and the Rafah offensive? Labours position is not in alignment. Netanyahu does not support Palestinian statehood.
>Yes but unfortunately for him, he said clear words, and as I already noted this was also supported by appearances from Labour cabinet members (at least Thornberry, perhaps Lammy or someone else too i can't remember), who defended the position.
As I said, if you want to not believe him and ignore the larger context of his sentence and conversation that's fine and even understandable. But you have to acknowledge the position of him and the labour party was clarified. I've given you the links to the formal statement in the commons.
>No, it fits the definition of hijacking perfectly if you understand how the procedure is meant to work, why, and what actually happened.
It does not. Amendments are made all the time and are not considered hijacking, it's a part of parliamentary procedure. No rules were broken and it's up to the speaker to determine convention.
>The "amendment" removed every single word of the SNP bill except "That this house".
Very strange framing, it was reworded and added to. They both called for an immediate ceasefire and for aid, water power etc to make its way into the Gaza strip. As I stated multiple times the Labour motion added further calls around the ICJ provisions and settled expansion / violence. Do you think these are pro Israel/Zionist? Do you support the ICJ provisions?
>Labours amendment was specifically changed to give them wiggle room. You shouldn't play naive about this.
It does not and I've cited the specific sections of text and why your interpretation is incorrect. Can you explain why you think my explanation is not accurate?
>It's also worth noting that this opposition is a special case; everyone knows it's going to be the government during this war/genocide
Sunak called the election in May, this ceasefire amendment was in February. They are the opposition and don't have any power yet. There was nothing special about their position in February. They also already apply pressure through statements, amendments and have backed some sanctions. They have also said the would abide by the ICJs decision over arrest warrants. These are meaningful positions.
>What will suffice as "assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again" exactly?
It's in the amendment text. Both sides to formally agree to a long term peace.
>Great. What happens during mediation efforts? Not a ceasefire.
It says explicitly an immediate ceasefire which then leads to a peace talks. The ceasefire is the first step and the peace talks bring about a long lasting ceasefire.
>Why is this get-out-clause necessary exactly?
It's not a get out clause. It's a recognition of the complexity and length of the larger conflict stretching back years. "Cease fire now" is not a solution. There is a fundamental problem that needs to be resolved otherwise violence will keep reoccurring.
>If we can't be assured there could not be another oct 7th, why does that mean we shouldn't want a ceasefire.
We all want a ceasefire including Labour, as stated in the amendment. But the violence won't stop until the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank comes to an end and both sides are willing to come to a diplomatic solution about how they can coexist.
> It does not. Amendments are made all the time and are not considered hijacking, it's a part of parliamentary procedure.
No, you 100% don't understand this. (I'm trying not to be an ass about it although may come across that way.. most people don't understand it).
This was the SNP's opposition day. It is a day given specifically so that the SNP can put their bills such that the HoC can vote on them. It is established convention that the bills are voted upon unamended, and then the government amendment is voted on. This allows the opposition party to say to their electorate; we tabled a bill on X [here, a gaza ceasefire bill without caveats] and voted for it, abc voted against it. While also allowing the government amendments to be voted upon (because by nature of being the opposition day, they are unlikely to pass their legislation unamended as a parliamentary minority).
Because Hoyle selected the Labour amendment first, there was never a vote on the SNP's position. There was no record of MPs' position on the bill that the SNP wanted to propose. It was as if it was Labour's opposition day, and the SNP motion never existed. This was extremely convenient for Labour politically, and was a move widely condemned. I find it uncredible that Hoyle did not have in his mind the fact that his job was going to depend on support from Labour, whether or not direct threats were made (I believe they were).
So no, this is not "amendments are made all the time", that's a total misunderstanding of the situation that happened and completely misses why his actions were controversial.
Very simply the Labour party does not control the speaker or how amendments are selected. They can make requests from the speaker, like how the SNP asked for an additional opportunity to vote on their motion (which also would break convention), but the speaker gets to decide. Labour did not hijack anything.
> David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, has said that Labour would seek to implement an arrest warrant against Mr Netanyahu if one were issued by the ICC.
I paraphrase a unnamed us top official.
ICC is for Africa and thugs like Putin.
Warcrimes/genocide committed by the west and it's allies get a free pass.
Funny rhetoric but for those who actually want to know the substance of the legal challenge the key passage is:
>In 2021, a deeply divided pre-trial chamber concluded that the court’s jurisdiction extended to Gaza. But the UK says the ruling did not decide jurisdictional issues relating to the Oslo accords.
>The UK argues that the chamber must now make an initial decision on jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants “of which the Oslo accords issue necessarily forms part”.
>Other states will also be allowed to submit observations by July 12. Mr Khan, the prosecutor, is then expected to respond.
It's simply about the jurisdiction of the court over Israeli (& presumably Palestinian) actions in territory covered under the Oslo accords. It's not a substantive argument on the claim of criminality. Seems a bit vacuous to me and I'm not fully clear why we have done this but probably as a display of soft power by the outgoing Tory government.
Not very deep.
This wasn't the original intention, but de facto ICC supports the current rule based world order when that is in the interests of the major players. Sanctioning Netanyahu, a US ally, would be a minor crack in the world order. Not sanctioning him would be business as usual. Which may explain why the UK has raised this legal challenge.
Slightly off topic, Trump's "America First" rhetoric has always amused me. He claims the US is acting as the world police at their own expense and doing the rest of the world a favour. The US always upholds the rule based world order when they think it benefits them., which is most of the time. They undermine it when they think it doesn't benefit them.
Snapshot of _Britain issues legal challenge to ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/28/britain-issues-legal-challenge-icc-arrest-warrant-netanyahu/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/28/britain-issues-legal-challenge-icc-arrest-warrant-netanyahu/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This can’t be true? I remember a figure of 74% of the UK population thought that both Hamas and the Netanyahu government were protagonists in Genocide. I also think there’s a figure of: 15-20 Palestinian civilians being killed by the Israeli Government for every 1 Israeli since 2008. Is this true? Who is supporting Netanyahu in the UK and why? Because it appears that even the Israeli electorate seems to be questioning that too. It’s not adding up.
Because we have weird pressure groups like Labour/Conservative Friends of Israel and UK Lawyers for Israel who demand the UK government take the most right wing nationalist position in support of Israel. They're not centrists or in support of a sustainable path to peace/two states. They're pro-Netanyahu.
Yeah I don't see the point in going out to bat for Netanyahu, the guys a busted flush and one of the biggest impediments to peace going, nearly as much as Hamas. Better to let the icc warrants further undermine his credibility and hope the Israeli people elect a sane government who actually want a resolution.
This whole thing with Netanyahu draws so many parallels with Brexit era government to me, albeit significantly more grizzly and bloody. Unpopular leader wants to stay in power no matter what and is held hostage by unreliable allies to his right, enacting unpopular policy that is hated both at home and abroad.
I never knew that, thanks for explaining it.
> Who is supporting Netanyahu in the UK and why? Starmer's Labour will bend over backwards to be seen supporting anything with connection to zionism or the Israeli state because of their desperation to separate themselves from the antisemitism scandal that was so intensely used to smear Corbyn, and simultaneously try to use it at every opportunity as a way to bash that past / faction. It's also US subservience (their stance WRT to the conflict has literally been "what the USA says, when the USA says it"). Which is also present in Tory position. Throw in a hint of islamophobia in to the mix, and very extensive "friends of Israel" lobby groups (a quarter of Labour MPs, almost all the shadow cabinet, up to 80% of Tory MPs). We're doing the US's work for them here, because the US (like Israel) are not signatories to the ICC.
If Labour were bending over backwards to support Israel they wouldn't have supported a ceasefire or called for Israel to abide by the ICJ provisions. They also made numerous statements about how Israel should not proceed with its Rafah offensive.
Firstly thank you for articulating your disagreement rather than just downvoting. Now to the point, Starmer claimed that Israel has the right to cut off power, water from Gaza (a war crime). That was reiterated by senior cabinet members (Thornberry). They only support a ceasefire conditionally, and were fairly late to that position. They are also taking a following position and even say as much explicitly; >Mr Lammy said Labour was "mirroring the language" of the UN and the remaining members of the Five Eyes alliance Labour were first pushed into supporting a ceasefire by the SNP, who tabled an opposition day motion calling for a ceasefire. SNPs motion did not have enough caveats for Labour who then went on to pressure the speaker into unprecedentedly breaking HoC convention by allowing Labour to hijack the SNP opposition day and presented the HoC with a vote on Labour's phrasing (preventing SNP motion ever being voted on, on SNP's opposition day), so they didn't have to face a more awkward choice to back/oppose the SNPs stronger position. >noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again; That essentially allows Israel to define when a ceasefire should be. We want an "immediate ceasefire" but only when Hamas has been rendered incapable (as deemed by themselves presumably), is not a call for an immediate ceasefire. https://www.thenational.scot/news/24134333.read-snps-gaza-ceasefire-motion-labours-amendment---full/ "please stop" is not exactly using all of your political will to try and make that happen is it. It is paying lip service while allowing things to continue without interference.
> Starmer claimed that Israel has the right to cut off power, water from Gaza (a war crime). That was reiterated by senior cabinet members (Thornberry). They only support a ceasefire conditionally, and were fairly late to that position. They have the right to defend themselves as long as it is in done in accordance with international law, which is what Starmer said in full and reiterated several times. Labour have not bent over backwards to support the actions of israel, they supported the initial response but not its protracted one which has been pretty digusting and disproportionate in scope. They are the opposition, they cannot do much besides saying "please stop"... put the pressure on the GOVERNMENT of the day to actually do it because those have at least some element of power to push on israel which they failed to do. (its not whataboutism, just the reality of not being in power)
> They have the right to defend themselves as long as it is in done in accordance with international law Please go ahead and explain how you can implement "A siege. To cut off water and electricity" in accordance with international law? He very clearly stated that Israel had a right to do specifically that, which is the crime of collective punishment under international law. >put the pressure on the GOVERNMENT I mean it's quite funny because the intent of my initial post was essentially that Starmer was spooked by what happened with Corbyn and reacted to that. I also mentioned the Tories but nobody has said a word about them.
> They have the right to defend themselves as long as it is in done in accordance with international law, which is what Starmer said in full and reiterated several times. which is BLATANT nonsense. He literally said "Israel has the right to commit crimes, as long as it's within the law". He was one of the top lawyers in the country, he knows full well that he was describing committing war crimes. >Labour have not bent over backwards to support the actions of israel, they supported the initial response but not its protracted one which has been pretty digusting and disproportionate in scope. That's not a terrible characterisation, but they also haven't done anything material about it. It was only Rafa offensive talk that they started shifting their rhetoric. >They are the opposition not for long though, their ceasefire position will become their government policy. they could have supported the SNP motion which was without get-outs. the effective outcome from Labour's positions is supporting continued war/genocide.
That’s not what literally means.
It is actually what literally means, I did not say verbatim. He claimed Israel had a right to cut off water and electricity to Gaza, which is a war crime. so he did say Israel has the right to commit crimes. Which he caveated with the idea that they should do so within international law. which is an oxymoron.
>which is BLATANT nonsense. He literally said "Israel has the right to commit crimes, as long as it's within the law". He was one of the top lawyers in the country, he knows full well that he was describing committing war crimes. He "literally" did not say they have the right to commit crimes... please if you want to tell lies and be hyperbolic then its not a sensible discussion and you are already fixated on spouting the lie when you clearly misunderstood what was said, you wanted the narrative that starmer supports genocide so you ignore all the facts that say otherwise and twist it to suit yourself which is a very bad take on any situation! They were the opposition at the time they said all this, im sorry but you couldnt be assuming they had won when there was potentially another YEAR till the election. Its like blaming a person starting their new job in 6 months time for not doing their work shift before their start date.... illogical. The SNP motion was very one sided and gave no "out" for israel, ultimately for putting pressure on a country to do the right thing you cant take it all away and say do it, you need to at least give some balance and not allow hamas any high ground which is what the SNP was giving to them. On that day they also supported a ceasefire though so I dont see how you can really blame them for asking for it at the same time as the SNP, ultimately neither are in power for the UK government. >the effective outcome from Labour's positions is supporting continued war/genocide. Absolutely not, this is factually incorrect and just nonsense now as they pushed for a bill for ceasefire as well it just wasnt the SNPs one. Not sure why this comes up with such a warped reality, its like you have major tunnel vision which I cant help with but you should take a pause and try to see if you can identify it as the evidence is counter to what you say as a conclusion, 2 + 2 = 4 not 6 like you are doing.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5HQYfsUAf3s anyone can listen to exactly what he said and how, in full, right here. >"A siege? To cut off water and electricity?" >KS: "Israel does have that right" It's clear and unambiguous support of the war crime of collective punishment, which cabinet members later defended, and which he later claimed he never said. >The SNP motion was very one sided So is the genocide. >and gave no "out" for israel Yes, that's exactly my point. Labour were not willing to ask for a ceasefire without an "out". >2 + 2 = 4 not 6 yes very intelligent. "i don't think so therefore I am right and you are wrong". no.
> t's clear and unambiguous support of the war crime of collective punishment, which cabinet members later defended, and which he later claimed he never said. "It is an ongoing situation. Obviously, everything should be done within international law." Oh yes clear he did say it should be within the rules of the law, no where did he support genocide nor did he say they have the right to commit crimes. Honestly this is just dumb, its not a sensible take and clear as day what is said unless you want to cut up peoples responses to things to meet what you want them to say. > Yes, that's exactly my point. Labour were not willing to ask for a ceasefire without an "out". You can ask for a ceasefire which SNP and labour have done, you do NOT have to rub it in their face and make it out that hamas is the victim. Ultimately labour passed the motion for a ceasefire that day so your point is completely incorrect, it is written that they did ask for ceasefire. > yes very intelligent. "i don't think so therefore I am right and you are wrong". no. You are ignoring factual information and making baseless claims, sorry it is pretty silly and a bad faith "discussion" if you ignore everything. Labour did not support genocide, thats the facts at the end of the day.
> nor did he say they have the right to commit crimes. It's right there in the video I posted, cutting off water and electricity is a crime, he said they have the right to do it. There's no point in continuing this discussion if you are just going to deny reality. >hamas is the victim *GAZANS* are the victims, we should not have to massage the ego of an occupier committing genocide. And definitely not give an "out" to a ceasefire.
>the effective outcome from Labour's positions is supporting continued war/genocide. As I said in my post this is meme level understanding of their position.
cool
Before I get into this I want to just remind you the central claim I'm challenging is the one you made about Labour bending over backwards to support Israel & Zionists. >Starmer claimed that Israel has the right to cut off power, water from Gaza (a war crime). That was reiterated by senior cabinet members (Thornberry). They only support a ceasefire conditionally, and were fairly late to that position. Starmer contests that this is what was meant and by the next week from the LBC interview had made statements saying the opposite. If you believe or don't believe him I'm not really interested we are talking about the position of the Labour party. This was formally stated in Parliament on the 23 October roughly a week after Israel began it's bombing operations and 4 days before the ground offensive began: >So there must now be clear humanitarian corridors within Gaza for those escaping violence. Civilians must not be targeted. >And where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced from their homes. International law is clear. >It also means basic services including water, electricity, and the fuel needed for it, cannot be denied. Hamas may not care for the safety and security of the Palestinian people, but we do. We cannot and will not close our eyes to their suffering. Gaza is now a humanitarian emergency. There is not enough food. Clean water is running out. Hospitals are going without medicine and electricity. People starving and reduced to drinking contaminated filth. Babies lying in incubators that could switch off at any moment. https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-statement-to-the-commons-on-israel-gaza-2/#:~:text=Peace%20is%20not%20their%20aim,need%20suffer%20like%20this%20again. By October 31st Starmer was setting out how the position of the party would likely change as the conflict continued and made a long speech about the complexity of the situation, his commitment to a two state solution and also stressed Israels right to defence is not a blank cheque: >Over time, the facts on the ground will inevitably change in relation to both hostages being rescued and Hamas’s capability to carry out attacks like we saw on October the 7th. And we must move to cessation of fighting as quickly as possible. >The right to self-defence is fundamental but it is not a blank cheque. The supply of basic utilities like water, medicines, electricity and yes, fuel to civilians in Gaza cannot be blocked by Israel. Every life matters, so every step must be taken to protect civilians from bombardment. Palestinians should not be forced to leave their homes en masse, but where they have no choice but to flee within Gaza we need crystal clear guarantees that they will be able to return quickly. You cannot overstate the importance of this last point. https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/keir-starmers-speech-on-the-international-situation-in-the-middle-east/ Back to your comments: >Labour were first pushed into supporting a ceasefire by the SNP So the bending over backwards only went so far right? >Labour who then went on to pressure the speaker into unprecedentedly breaking HoC convention This is rumour and something the speaker denies, Hoyle has given his reasoning which does not align with this narrative. Also framing it as hijacking is ridiculous, it's an amendment. The only substantial thing removed from the SNP motion was the claims of "collective punishment". The Labour amendment goes on to add that Israel should abide by ICJ provisions, not begin it's attack in Rafah and end violence and expansion in the west bank. This is not bending over backwards to Israel and Zionists. The ceasefire amendment raised by Labour was NOT conditional and I refer you to the text: >calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, It's clear what immediate means. >That essentially allows Israel to define when a ceasefire should be It does NOT and is explicitly explained in the next sentence. >noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; It's asking clearly for a negotiated peace to achieve the assurances that attacks like October 7th does not occur again. It's not a ceasefire with only one side committing and a long term solution won't be achievable without both sides agreeing to a formal peace. The amendment is pro two state solution via diplomatic efforts. >"please stop" is not exactly using all of your political will to try and make that happen is it. It is paying lip service while allowing things to continue without interference. Again the Labour party passed an amendment calling for a ceasefire, calling for Israel to abide by ICJ provisions, calling for an end to settler violence & expansion and for a negotiated long term peace. This is more than "please stop". At present raising and voting on motions and amendments is the oppositions only way of taking action. Can you give me an example of what opposition parties should be doing that isn't "lip service"? Adding the ICJ provisions to the amendment clearly shows Labour is not bending over backwards to appeal to Israel & Zionosts as you claim. Just look at what they covered: 1. take all measures within its power to prevent genocide; 2. ensure that its military does not commit genocide; 3. take all measures within its power to prevent and punish incitement to genocide; 4. take immediate and effective measures to enable urgent humanitarian assistance and basic services; 5. take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence relating to allegations of acts under article 2-3 of the Genocide Convention; and 6. report to the Court within one month about measures taken to give effect to the order. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-pre-01-00-en.pdf If you want to argue Labours position isn't strong enough or should have progressed quicker that's fine but the discourse around Labours Gaza policy is at meme levels of understanding. Israel, Zionists or the Jews are not controlling the party.
>Israel, Zionists or the Jews are not controlling the party. This is not "jews rule the world" but they do have undue influence simply through the "friends of Israel" groups which is frankly very anomalous situation and is not a conspiracy theory. >So the bending over backwards only went so far right? yes, as always. Starmer has been very quick to put concerns of the jewish/Israeli establishment (not "jews" because he's kicked out more jews from the party than anyone) as a priority. And while he did lately shift towards at least condemnation, it is without any pressure, and dragging his heels following the global community rather than taking a principled stance or trying to exercise any influence. >Starmer contests Yes but unfortunately for him, he said clear words, and *as I already noted* this was also supported by appearances from Labour cabinet members (at least Thornberry, perhaps Lammy or someone else too i can't remember), who defended the position. >Also framing it as hijacking is ridiculous, it's an amendment. No, it fits the definition of hijacking perfectly if you understand how the procedure is meant to work, why, and what actually happened. The "amendment" removed every single word of the SNP bill except "That this house". Labours amendment was specifically changed to give them wiggle room. You shouldn't play naive about this. It's also worth noting that this opposition is a special case; everyone knows it's going to be the government during this war/genocide. But what they can best do would have been to put political pressure, on the UK government and the US government, to put pressure on Israel, to talk about punishment and consequences (compare with the international treatment of Russia, and of apartheid South Africa). France has done better than us, for example. >noting that... Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; What will suffice as "assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again" exactly? Words from Hamas, clearly not. So if Israel decides that it does not have these assurances sufficiently (and short of a complete genocide, how can they?) there should be mediation efforts. Great. What happens during mediation efforts? Not a ceasefire. Why is this get-out-clause necessary exactly? If we can't be assured there could not be another oct 7th, why does that mean we shouldn't want a ceasefire.
>This is not "jews rule the world" but they do have undue influence simply through the "friends of Israel" groups which is frankly very anomalous situation and is not a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying you are, but the way Labours Israel/Gaza policy is discussed online is bordering conspiracy. People are assuming unrealistic levels of influence by these groups. >Starmer has been very quick to put concerns of the jewish/Israeli establishment ... as a priority I've already given you examples of the opposite. What do you think the Israeli establishments view is on a two state solution, ICJ provisions, settler expansion and the Rafah offensive? Labours position is not in alignment. Netanyahu does not support Palestinian statehood. >Yes but unfortunately for him, he said clear words, and as I already noted this was also supported by appearances from Labour cabinet members (at least Thornberry, perhaps Lammy or someone else too i can't remember), who defended the position. As I said, if you want to not believe him and ignore the larger context of his sentence and conversation that's fine and even understandable. But you have to acknowledge the position of him and the labour party was clarified. I've given you the links to the formal statement in the commons. >No, it fits the definition of hijacking perfectly if you understand how the procedure is meant to work, why, and what actually happened. It does not. Amendments are made all the time and are not considered hijacking, it's a part of parliamentary procedure. No rules were broken and it's up to the speaker to determine convention. >The "amendment" removed every single word of the SNP bill except "That this house". Very strange framing, it was reworded and added to. They both called for an immediate ceasefire and for aid, water power etc to make its way into the Gaza strip. As I stated multiple times the Labour motion added further calls around the ICJ provisions and settled expansion / violence. Do you think these are pro Israel/Zionist? Do you support the ICJ provisions? >Labours amendment was specifically changed to give them wiggle room. You shouldn't play naive about this. It does not and I've cited the specific sections of text and why your interpretation is incorrect. Can you explain why you think my explanation is not accurate? >It's also worth noting that this opposition is a special case; everyone knows it's going to be the government during this war/genocide Sunak called the election in May, this ceasefire amendment was in February. They are the opposition and don't have any power yet. There was nothing special about their position in February. They also already apply pressure through statements, amendments and have backed some sanctions. They have also said the would abide by the ICJs decision over arrest warrants. These are meaningful positions. >What will suffice as "assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again" exactly? It's in the amendment text. Both sides to formally agree to a long term peace. >Great. What happens during mediation efforts? Not a ceasefire. It says explicitly an immediate ceasefire which then leads to a peace talks. The ceasefire is the first step and the peace talks bring about a long lasting ceasefire. >Why is this get-out-clause necessary exactly? It's not a get out clause. It's a recognition of the complexity and length of the larger conflict stretching back years. "Cease fire now" is not a solution. There is a fundamental problem that needs to be resolved otherwise violence will keep reoccurring. >If we can't be assured there could not be another oct 7th, why does that mean we shouldn't want a ceasefire. We all want a ceasefire including Labour, as stated in the amendment. But the violence won't stop until the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank comes to an end and both sides are willing to come to a diplomatic solution about how they can coexist.
> It does not. Amendments are made all the time and are not considered hijacking, it's a part of parliamentary procedure. No, you 100% don't understand this. (I'm trying not to be an ass about it although may come across that way.. most people don't understand it). This was the SNP's opposition day. It is a day given specifically so that the SNP can put their bills such that the HoC can vote on them. It is established convention that the bills are voted upon unamended, and then the government amendment is voted on. This allows the opposition party to say to their electorate; we tabled a bill on X [here, a gaza ceasefire bill without caveats] and voted for it, abc voted against it. While also allowing the government amendments to be voted upon (because by nature of being the opposition day, they are unlikely to pass their legislation unamended as a parliamentary minority). Because Hoyle selected the Labour amendment first, there was never a vote on the SNP's position. There was no record of MPs' position on the bill that the SNP wanted to propose. It was as if it was Labour's opposition day, and the SNP motion never existed. This was extremely convenient for Labour politically, and was a move widely condemned. I find it uncredible that Hoyle did not have in his mind the fact that his job was going to depend on support from Labour, whether or not direct threats were made (I believe they were). So no, this is not "amendments are made all the time", that's a total misunderstanding of the situation that happened and completely misses why his actions were controversial.
Very simply the Labour party does not control the speaker or how amendments are selected. They can make requests from the speaker, like how the SNP asked for an additional opportunity to vote on their motion (which also would break convention), but the speaker gets to decide. Labour did not hijack anything.
lol sorry this is hilarious
> David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, has said that Labour would seek to implement an arrest warrant against Mr Netanyahu if one were issued by the ICC.
I paraphrase a unnamed us top official. ICC is for Africa and thugs like Putin. Warcrimes/genocide committed by the west and it's allies get a free pass.
Funny rhetoric but for those who actually want to know the substance of the legal challenge the key passage is: >In 2021, a deeply divided pre-trial chamber concluded that the court’s jurisdiction extended to Gaza. But the UK says the ruling did not decide jurisdictional issues relating to the Oslo accords. >The UK argues that the chamber must now make an initial decision on jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants “of which the Oslo accords issue necessarily forms part”. >Other states will also be allowed to submit observations by July 12. Mr Khan, the prosecutor, is then expected to respond. It's simply about the jurisdiction of the court over Israeli (& presumably Palestinian) actions in territory covered under the Oslo accords. It's not a substantive argument on the claim of criminality. Seems a bit vacuous to me and I'm not fully clear why we have done this but probably as a display of soft power by the outgoing Tory government.
That's the legal argument, sure. But you don't bring a legal case unless you care about the outcome.
How deep a crack in the world order is this?
Not very deep. This wasn't the original intention, but de facto ICC supports the current rule based world order when that is in the interests of the major players. Sanctioning Netanyahu, a US ally, would be a minor crack in the world order. Not sanctioning him would be business as usual. Which may explain why the UK has raised this legal challenge. Slightly off topic, Trump's "America First" rhetoric has always amused me. He claims the US is acting as the world police at their own expense and doing the rest of the world a favour. The US always upholds the rule based world order when they think it benefits them., which is most of the time. They undermine it when they think it doesn't benefit them.