International Humanitarian Law

Contents:

    • Articles & Talks.
    • Blogs & Essays – NB these are set out and appear after the ‘Bibliography’ so please scroll down to find and read.

–    ‘Expropriation of Gazan land by Israel is illegal under International Law.’

 –   ‘Israel – US – Iran War Updates.’

–   ‘UN declares that US bombing or Iran violated International Law.’

–     ‘In breach of International Law & without any reason Trump attacked civilian installations in Iran 22.06.2025.’

–    ‘What background checks will be made on Israeli/UK dual nationals evacuated from Israel by HM Government who may have committed War Crimes & Crimes v. Humanity?’’

–    ‘Embassies are closing & Foreign Nationals are being evacuated from the Middle East.’ 

–   ‘UK Attorney General warns UK joining war on Iran may be illegal.’

–   ‘We are on the edge! – So, if Israel’s War is futile & Illegal then why is it in the UK National Interest to become involved?’

–   ‘Is Regime Change justifiable under International Law?’

–   ‘Israel attacked Iran’s Nuclear facilities – 13.06.2025.’

–   ‘What legal advice was provided by Foreign Office Legal Advisers to the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and UK Government Ministers, about the Madleen incident?’

–    ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch!’

–   ‘Weaponizing aid to forcibly remove an entire population is a Crime Against Humanity!’

–  ‘Doctor slams BBC for echoing Israel.’

–  ‘The evidentiary nexus between: (i) deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage as a strategy; (ii) Ethnic Cleansing; and (iii) Genocide.’

–   ‘Are Starmer & his Ministers allowing any British firm to supply engines & parts for Israel’s new military quadcopters? – If so, then why?’

–   ‘Will Israel attack Iran?’

–   ‘Starvation in Gaza.’

–  ‘Where are the Peacemakers?’

–   ‘So much for celebrating peace?’

–   ‘Ship carrying Humanitarian Aid to Gaza is bombed by Drones and disabled in International waters near Malta.’

–  ‘Dramatic escalation in Trump’s War v. the Judiciary – Judge arrested in US.’

–  ‘Qui Bono?’

–   ‘One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest – The deportation of US citizens for thought crimes v. Israel & Zionism?’

–   ‘Is an attack on Iran next for Trump?

–   ‘If the logistical window for attacking Iran & the deadline for Iran to comply with Trump’s ultimatum are the same – what does this signify?’

–  ‘Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes.’

–  ‘Could World War 3 start by accident – The logical Achilles heel in Trump’s war plans?’

–  ‘If your eyes are shut, well you can now open them!’

–  ‘Legal accountability for War Crimes & Crimes against Humanity.’

–   ‘Yemen & Iran.’

–   ‘Gaza.’

–  ‘MENA.’

–  ‘Ukraine.’

–  ‘Panama & Mexico.

–  ‘China.’

–  ‘US Foreign Policy.’

–  ‘Attacks on free speech.’

–  ‘Complicity in War Crimes.’

– ‘How morally bankrupt have Britain’s political leaders become?’

–  ‘Naivety about the planned fate of Gaza?’

–  ‘Has Trump declared that the US is the enemy of civilization itself?’

–  ‘What did Trump mean when he said he wants to clean out Gaza by removing Palestinians’?

– ‘Conflicting analysis of the Gaza ceasefire.’

– ‘Turning a blind-eye to genocide – The lesson of history is that the real complaining party in the courtroom is civilization itself.’

–   ‘250,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over 9 month (12.07.2024).’

–   ‘Will a restatement of the International Rule of Law by BRICS + the SCO eventually form the legal bedrock of an evolving Eurasian Multi-Nodal World Order thereby displacing Neoliberalism & the International Liberal Rules Based Order?’

–  ‘Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline.’

–  ‘Toward an International Cultural Heritage Court?’

–  ‘The wide range of potential cultural heritage claims/applications which have been/could be determined by the International Court of Justice – linked under International Law to peace & protection of the environment.’

–  ‘Should any group or organisation which lobbies members of Parliament on behalf of Israel be legally banned as an extremist group/organisation under the new legal definition of extremism?’

–   ‘How can the US lawfully continue to supply arms to a UN “black-listed” state which appears to have been classified & branded by the UN as being a de-facto “terrorist” state?’

–    ‘Ahead of an imminent attack on Rafah by Israel Gaza is now officially in a state of Famine.’

–    ‘US State Department Official resigns over Gaza.’

–    ‘According to a leaked recording the British Government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public.’

–   ‘Murder of unarmed civilians waving white flags + Concealing Murder by bulldozing their bodies into rubbish + Famine through deliberate starvation of an entire civilian population.’

–   ‘Envisioning Ethnic Cleansing & Genocide in Gaza as a real estate opportunity for Zionists? – For once I am speechless! – What do you conclude from the evidence about what Israel is doing & selling?

–  ‘Who is politically driving and financing the slaughter of Palestinians.’

–  ‘Who are the Evangelical Chrisitan Zionists & what is their influence over US Foreign Policy?’

–   ‘Can Biden & Sunak prevent the slaughter of women & children in Rafah?’

–   ‘The escalating risk of nuclear war in Ukraine  – Do Biden, Macron & Sunak understand this?’

–    ‘Understanding Putin & Russia.’

–    ‘Moral force in Foreign Policy is not possible without visionary leadership tempered by realism.’

–   ‘Twin disasters for Biden in Ukraine & Gaza.’

–   ‘New Definition of Extremism in UK.’

–   ‘Is Zionism a form of white  colonial settler supremacy?

–   ‘Is the US preparing to quietly leave Ukraine?’

–   ‘Is pressure from within the US Foreign Policy establishment gathering momentum to rein in Israel and stop the haemorrhaging of American credibility?’

–  ‘5 questions MPs can ask to test the legal necessity of calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza so that Israel can comply with IHL.’

– ‘A violation of International Humanitarian Law can give rise to a private law remedy actionable in the English Court.’

– ‘Combatting the illicit trade is stolen antiquities is linked to global peace.’

– ‘Cultural Heritage Safe Zones.’

– ‘No Fly Zones.’

– ‘Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’

  • Humanitarian & Transformative Mediation Resources.
  • Mediation of Peace Process and Agreement Resources.

Articles & Talks

Please note that links to Foreign Affairs articles are only available to view on my PC and are not accessible to visitors to the webiste. They are assembled here for my future research and writing.

John Mearsheimer: How the ‘realists’ won

Amb. Chas Freeman: Israel’s Devastating Defeat in Lebanon/Iran Exposed!

Israel is DONE: Iran Readies DEVASTATING Strike, Hezbollah Wrecks IDF w/ Prof. Mohammad Marandi

Scott Ritter: Iran & Hezbollah CRUSHING IDF, Israel on the Brink w/ CIA Analyst Ray McGovern

Prof. Ted Postol: Israel’s Situation is Getting Worse by the Day – Israel vs Iran/Hezbollah

Israel Facing Iran’s Deadly Threats w/Amb. Chas Freeman – YouTube

Scott Ritter: Israel’s Attack Crumbles! Iran & Hezbollah’s Powerful Defense Leaves Israel Powerless!

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Is This the End? Israel Facing Defeat on Every Front!

COL. Douglas Macgregor : Is Israel In Retreat?

Israeli Mourners BOAST About Dead IDF Soldier’s War Crimes… At His Funeral

Ex-Israeli Negotiator’s SHOCKING Analysis Of What’s Really Happening – w/. Daniel Levy

TERRIFYING Truth On Why Palestine Is Laboratory For Humanity’s Future – w/. Antony Loewenstein

“Is Genocide A Western Value?” – Palestinian Analyst Exposes Western Hypocrisy – w/. Ahmed Najar

Scott Ritter : Iran and Hezbollah Crushing IDF.

Prof. Mohammad Marandi | Israel’s Deadly Miscalculation: Consequences of Attacking Iran & Hezbollah!

Capt. Matthew Hoh | Netanyahu’s Wake-Up Call: Is Reality Finally Catching Up to Him?

Daniel P. Welch | Middle East Power Shift: How Israel-Iran Attacks Change Everything!

Ukraine & Israel On the Path to Defeat – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Israel lobby funded half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet

Israel Strikes Iran: Precise but FEEBLE

What Does the Leak of Top Secret Documents Have to Do With Israel’s Promise to Attack Iran?

What Does Peace Look Like In The Middle East? | Question Time (youtube.com)

Rory Stewart: Why The War In The Middle East Is Escalating (youtube.com)

Israel Keeps Shooting KIDS In The Head – And Its Cheerleaders Are Smearing Medics With The Evidence (youtube.com)

This Doctor’s Gaza Testimony Will Never Leave You – w/. Dr. Ana Jeelani (youtube.com)

Larry C. Johnson | Israel’s DESPERATE Gamble: Begging for a CRUSHING Defeat from Iran & Hezbollah? (youtube.com)

Mohammad Marandi | Iran’s WARNING to Israel: Preparing for the Ultimate Showdown! (youtube.com)

Alastair Crooke : Is Israel America’s Tool or Boss? (youtube.com)

Pepe Escobar : Putin’s Thoughts on Ukraine/Israel (youtube.com)

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Can the US Say NO to Israel? (youtube.com)

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow: Who Runs US Foreign Policy? (youtube.com)

LtCOL. Tony Shaffer : Is the American Empire Over? (youtube.com)

How Israel And The West Use Propaganda For War And Genocide. It’s EVERYWHERE | Thomas Karat (youtube.com)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Can Diplomacy Bring Middle East Peace? (youtube.com)

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: The FBI Is the Deep State (youtube.com)

U.S. Sends 2 Carrier Strike Groups While Iran REJECTS Calls to Stand Down (youtube.com)

Renowned Gaza Writer’s DEVASTATING Experience Of Genocide – w/. Ahmed Masoud (youtube.com)

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: What Does Netanyahu Want? (youtube.com)

Pepe Escobar : Will China Help the Palestinians? (youtube.com)

Putin: I Will Kick Ukraine Out w/Guest Host Larry Johnson (youtube.com)

Col. Jacques Baud: Israel on the Brink of Collapse? Ukraine’s Desperate Move (youtube.com)

The Undoing of Israel | Foreign Affairs

Ray McGovern : Ritter’s Courage, Israel’s Moral Crisis (youtube.com)

Scott Ritter: Why Israel Could Be Humiliated and Defeated by Iran or Hezbollah! (youtube.com)

Prof. John Mearsheimer : Will Russia and China Back Iran? – YouTube

Amb. Charles Freeman: Ritter, Ukraine, and Israel – #ScottRitter (youtube.com)

Who Caused the Ukraine War? – by John J. Mearsheimer (substack.com)

Prof. John Mearsheimer: The Israel Lobby – it’s POWER (youtube.com)

Scott Ritter : “They are marking me for death , and that’s something you don’t come back from” (youtube.com)

Blog & Essays

‘Israel – US – Iran War Updates’

‘The UK is preparing to provide support if Donald Trump decides to bomb Iran, despite a last-ditch diplomatic push to persuade the United States against military action, The i Paper understands. … The UK providing limited support was backed by Commons Foreign Affairs Committee chair Emily Thornberry, who told The i Paper: “The best place to be if the Americans do decide [to join the bombing of Iran], is that we’re not obstructive but we’re not helpful.

“If they want to use their bases in Diego Garcia, we don’t say no, but equally, we don’t offer assistance. Because it’s consistent with what we are saying.”

But the Labour MP, a barrister who specialised in human rights and is a former shadow attorney general, did not think strikes against Iranian nuclear sites would be legal under international law.

She said: “You can use force to defend yourself if you are attacked, you can use force to defend an ally.

“But I don’t think that’s the position here, I think it’s just stretching it too far.”

Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, something which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Trump decides to act militarily.’

‘Expropriation of Gazan land by Israel is illegal under International Law’

Today, under International Law, we are supposed to live in an era where the enhancement of ‘accountability’ and ‘global constitutionalism’ have become fundamental, and with a UN agenda prioritising the need to strengthen the Rule of Law at both the National and International levels.

Gaza is no exception.

So, I wonder, will any MP ask Starmer at PMQ’s tomorrow, whether he agrees with this proposition, in light of what appears to be planned for Gaza. See – Tony Blair Institute linked to Gaza plan condemned as ethnic cleansing: Report – Documents show TBI staff were involved in discussions on a Gaza plan condemned for promoting ethnic cleansing: https://lnkd.in/eq9nd5B8

Out of curiosity I put the following words into Google this morning – ‘Expropriation of Gazan land by Israel is illegal under international law.’

AI replied as follows:

‘Yes, the expropriation of Gazan land by Israel is considered illegal under international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including the Gaza Strip, are illegal. This ruling, along with consistent UN resolutions, international opinion, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, affirms that Israel’s actions violate international law.

Here’s why:

·        Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into occupied territory.

·        Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are illegal:

The ICJ and the international community consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza to be a violation of international law.

·        Obligation to cease settlement activity and evacuate settlers:

The ICJ has called on Israel to end its occupation, cease settlement activity, and evacuate settlers from the occupied territories.

·        No legal basis for Israeli claims of sovereignty:

Israel’s claims of sovereignty over the Palestinian territories are not recognized by the international community, and its actions in these areas are viewed as a violation of international law.

·        International consensus.’

NB in a US court, the ‘Expropriation Exception’ in the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to Israel, and to any agency of instrumentality of Israel, where that entity is engaged in a ‘commercial activity’ in the US, and the case is one in which rights in property taken in violation of International Law are an issue, United States, Supreme Court, Austria and Austrian Gallery v. Altmann, 7 June 2004, 5641 US 677 (2004).

Arguably, directly/indirectly selling an interest in expropriated ‘Gazan land’ = a ‘commercial activity.’

So, in theory, it appears that a civil case could be litigated v. Israel in a US court for restitution.

To be continued in my comments …

In relation to s1605(a)(3) of the FSIA AI added –

‘The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act … specifically §1605(a)(3), outlines an exception to foreign sovereign immunity in cases where a foreign state’s actions involve a taking of property in violation of international law, and that property or any property exchanged for it is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity. In essence, if a foreign government seizes property in a way that violates international law and then brings that property (or something acquired with it) into the U.S. for commercial purposes, it can be sued in U.S. courts.’

So, if the alleged ‘commercial activity’, satisfies the legal test, and I invite US attorneys on my network to comment, then it would appear that claims by Gazans (and possibly a ‘Class Action’) could be brought in a US court, seeking damages or restitution for expropriation.

Although as a Law Postgraduate I studied Sovereign Immunity many years ago, I am not a US qualified or practising lawyer, so this is ‘pure speculation’ on my part, and technically, I do not know the answer to this Q. However, if this legal analysis is robust, then is Israel about to open the door to civil litigation in US courts?

‘The right of access to a court is indeed one of the main pillars of the Rule of Law. Regardless of whether a right to compensation for victims of violations of International Humanitarian Law exists under International Law, International Conventions and National Constitutions impose on States an obligation to secure access to courts and provide an effective remedy to the persons under their jurisdiction. Domestic legislations also provide for a right of compensation for torts in general, whether or not they contain a specific provision for violations of International Humanitarian Law. Therefore, it may be immaterial for the victims of grave violations of human rights whether or not International Law provides for a specific right of compensation, as long as they are able to seek compensation under the general provisions of National Law.’ (The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law (2019), Edited by Tom Ruys and Nicolas Angelet with Luca Ferro, Cambridge University Press, p.163).

‘As observed by the ICJ  in the Boll judgement on the conflict between domestic and international norms,     Courts must take into account “social progress” in their harmonisation endeavours. The court declared that it may not subscribe to any construction that would make international conventions an obstacle to “social progress” or prevail over national legislations pursuing the same. Political considerations inherent to state immunities should not discourage Courts from eviscerating their tension with human rights. It is vital to keep pace with the current movement towards the enshrinement of the Rule of Law, accountability and transparency in national and international legal orders.’

(The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law (2019), Edited by Tom Ruys and Nicolas Angelet with Luca Ferro, Cambridge University Press, p.166).

Arguably, the importance of such a case if it reached the US Supreme Court, is that it would settle the matter of Sovereign Immunity in the United States in the context of land unlawfully appropriated by Israel from Palestinians. In resolving the immunity issue in favour of the claimant, a ‘test’ case would remove a potentially important impediment to all other further claims. Such a case would also give voice to the timeless desire for ‘justice’ and encapsulate the issue of ‘ownership rights’ of the ‘individual’ as against the potential ‘totalitarian authority of the state’.

See also:

‘UN declares that US bombing or Iran violated International Law’

  • UN experts condemn United States attack on Iran and demand permanent end to hostilities: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/un-experts-condemn-united-states-attack-iran-and-demand-permanent-end

‘UN experts* today unequivocally condemned the recent United States military attack against three nuclear facilities in Iran.

“These attacks violate the most fundamental rules of world order since 1945 – the prohibition on the aggressive use of military force and the duties to respect sovereignty and not to coercively intervene in another country,” the experts said. “The responsible U.S. political and military leaders may also be liable for the international crime of aggression.”

“The attacks also seriously threatened human rights, including the rights to life, security of the person, health, a clean environment and self-determination of the people of Iran,” they said.

The U.S. launched 75 munitions by air and sea against the facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, causing extensive damage. Iran retaliated against a U.S. base in Qatar, causing no injuries or damage. A fragile ceasefire now appears to be in place.

Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the threat or use of force against any state, except in self-defence or if the Security Council approves. Self-defence is only available in response to an actual or imminent armed attack by another country.

“Iran has not attacked the U.S. or Israel with a nuclear weapon. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran intends to imminently attack the U.S. or Israel with a nuclear weapon.”

“Preventive” or “anticipatory” self-defence against speculative future threats, such as nuclear proliferation or terrorism, has not been permitted by international law since the United Nations Charter was adopted 80 years ago.

“Accepting preventive self-defence would unleash a catastrophic era of ‘might is right’, where powerful countries could bomb others to advance their security or foreign policy interests. This would fuel corrosive suspicion, ‘arms races’ and destabilising ‘balance of power’ alliances – precisely what the post-1945 order, out of the ashes of a world war, aimed to avoid,” they said. “It would further destabilise the Middle East region and increase the risk to human rights everywhere.”

The experts affirmed the view of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that nuclear facilities must never be attacked as doing so could cause the release of radioactive material with devastating impacts on the environment and human rights, including the rights to life, personal security, health, protection against arbitrary displacement and the rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised communities. International humanitarian law generally prohibits attacks on nuclear facilities.’

‘In breach of International Law & without any reason Trump attacked civilian installations in Iran 22.06.2025.’

See
– Col. Jacques Baud: America Bombs Iran’s Nuclear Facilities:
https://lnkd.in/ep3W89cV

An attack on the ‘nuclear’ facilities of a member of the United Nations is unprecedented.

There is no legal rationale for this attack whatsoever.

Under International Law, in attacking Iran, the US has committed War Crimes.

The attack was made by Trump without any Congressional and United Nations Legal authorisation.

The attack has also created an ‘institutional crisis’ in the US, because Trump
disregarded the intelligence provided by the US Intelligence community.

Since ‘intelligence’ should ensure the ‘rationality’ of ‘strategic decision-making’, it is a key element of the Rule of Law.

By acting in total disregard of the intelligence provided by his DNI Tulsi
Gabbard on behalf of the US Intelligence community, Trump has turned the US into a ‘pariah’ state, in the eyes of the rest of the international community.

In other words, instead of ‘Making America Great Again!’ Trump has just turned America into a ‘Banana Republic.’

So, if Starmer and his Ministers, now involve the UK in America’s illegal war v. Iran, then this country will also suffer an ‘institutional crisis’, and be seen by the rest of the world including our principal trading partners, as being a ‘pariah’ state.

This was an unprovoked surprise attack against a ‘Sovereign’ member state of the UN. So, what the US has done, will have ‘global’ consequences, as the UN Charter no longer has any value.

In other words, by ‘going rogue’ today, Trump has consigned the UN Charter and the Rules Based International Order to the dustbin of history.

That was act of ‘self-harm’ to America and the collective West.

Counterintuitively, instead of military retaliation, is diplomacy at the UN with the collective aim of reinstating the ‘International Rule of Law’, the most effective method of resolving the conflict, since preventing a future attack on a ‘nuclear’ facility that may result in environmental damage, is a universally shared aim of all member states of the UN, and will require full disclosure and transparency by Israel, about its nuclear weapons, nuclear programme and nuclear sites, for registration with and ongoing safety inspections by, the IAEA ?

The outcome of effective diplomacy may also prevent the ‘proliferation’ of nuclear weapons programmes by Rogue States around the world, in order to deter a potential US attack against their country in breach of International Law, because of their concerns following the precedent set by the US in attacking Iran, which according to US DNI Tulsi Gabbard, does not possess and was not developing nuclear weapons.

‘What background checks will be made on Israeli/UK dual nationals evacuated from Israel by HM Government who may have committed War Crimes & Crimes v. Humanity?’’

See:
(i) my post – ‘Embassies are closing & Foreign Nationals are being evacuated from the Middle East’’: https://lnkd.in/eKUMb78j; and
(ii) ‘Foreign Office to evacuate stranded Britons from Israel –
David Lammy announces charter flights for British nationals when Israeli airspace reopens’: https://lnkd.in/erFzr837.

If any Israeli/UK dual national who is being repatriated, is of age to have served in the IDF, then they may have served in Gaza and/or in Lebanon.

In which case, they may have committed, or been involved in the commission of War Crimes and Crimes v. Humanity.

Such people may be sadistic and violent criminals.

So, what background checks at the UK border, will British Police and Immigration Officials make about ‘suspect’ individuals, i.e. who are of age to have served in the IDF, as they re-enter Britain?

Perhaps an MP can ask a Q. about this at PMQ’s in Parliament next Wednesday?

Since the risk of ‘violent criminals’ being admitted to the UK appears to be high on the political agenda of both ‘Reform’ and the ‘Conservatives’, then perhaps Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, or Kemi Badenoch will ask a Q. about this?

Would you be surprised, if they did not?

Let’s wait and see what they do.

‘Embassies are closing & Foreign Nationals are being evacuated from the Middle East?’ 

See;
– ‘Australia closes Tehran embassy, orders staff to leave Iran amid escalating tensions’: https://lnkd.in/etWtWEvN
‘Iranian Missile Attacks on Tel Aviv Trigger Embassy Closures, Diplomats’ Evacuations’: https://lnkd.in/eDG_4SgC
– ‘Foreigners evacuated by air, land and sea as Israel-Iran conflict worsens’, see: https://lnkd.in/eDzbJA9k

‘China said it has evacuated more than 1,600 nationals from Iran and “several hundred others” from Israel. … The European Union has helped evacuate some 400 people from Israel via Jordan and Egypt as part of its efforts to coordinate an emergency response within the 27-nation bloc. … Germany flew 171 people out of Amman on a special flight on Wednesday. A further 174 people returned on Thursday and another flight is planned this weekend. … Japan is sending two military aircraft to Djibouti to stand by for the possible airlifting of Japanese nationals from Iran. … The State Department is planning to evacuate Americans from Israel by air and on cruise ships, according to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Huckabee said Americans interested in leaving Israel should enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program for updates. There are some 700,000 Americans, many of them dual U.S.-Israeli citizens, in Israel and thousands more in other Mideast countries, including Iran.’

‘UK Attorney General warns UK joining war on Iran may be illegal.’

So, has the Attorney General advised Starmer and his Ministers that Israel’s attack on Iran on 13 June 2025, and the war that Israel is waging v. Iran, are or may, both be illegal?

I wonder what legal advice was provided to the Attorney by HM Government Legal Advisors?

See: ‘Attorney general warns UK joining war on Iran may be illegal –

Lord Hermer is said to have cautioned against British engagement unless UK personnel are targeted’: https://lnkd.in/d3NK2YV3

‘The attorney general has warned Sir Keir Starmer that Britain becoming involved in US attacks on Iran could be illegal. Richard Hermer has reportedly called on the prime minister to limit the UK’s involvement in the conflict to solely protecting its allies from being attacked. The government’s top legal adviser has questioned whether Israel’s actions in Iran are legal, while cautioning against British engagement unless UK personnel are targeted. Lord Hermer is reportedly reluctant to sign off any offensive operations, with a source telling The Spectator: “The AG has concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies.” …’

So, how can Starmer and his Ministers now provide any ‘cast-iron’ assurance to British Armed Services Chiefs, that based upon the advice of HM Government Lawyers, this war is 100% ‘legal’ under ‘International Law’ – since, based upon expert HM Government Legal Advice and Opinion, it appears that it is not?

Likewise, logically, it would also appear to be axiomatic, that the UK Government cannot, inter alia:

·        Lawfully approve any export licence for the supply of any arms and parts to Israel for use in an ‘illegal’ war, and therefore that the approval of all export licences must be suspended with immediate effect, and likewise, that licences which have been approved for arms that have not yet been supplied, must also be immediately revoked.

·        Allow Israel to use any RAF base in Cyprus to launch an attack v. another sovereign state in breach of International Law, i.e. Iran, in what is an ‘illegal war’.

·        Refuel Israeli aircraft in the air that are engaged in military operations in an illegal war, i.e. v. Iran.

·        Allow the United States to use any RAF base in Cyprus or elsewhere to launch an attack v. another sovereign state in breach of International Law, i.e Iran, in what is an ‘illegal war’.

What do you think?

Perhaps an MP will enquire about what the Government has done/is going to do in relation to each of the above, following the receipt by Starmer and his Ministers of Legal Advice from the Attorney about this war ‘apparently’ being ‘illegal’.

See also:

‘We are on the edge! – So, if Israel’s War is futile & Illegal then why is it in the UK National Interest to become involved?’

(i) ‘Futility, see – ‘Israel’s Futile Air War – Precision Strikes Will Not Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program – or Its Government’ by Robert A. Pape, published 17.06.2025 in Foreign Affairs Journal & the extracts below.

(ii) Legality, see – my previous post – ‘Is Regime Change justifiable under International Law?’: https://lnkd.in/epix6VXr

(iii) Why it is not in the British national interest to become involved, see:

·       ‘Israel’s war on Iran: Why the UK must stay out’: https://lnkd.in/eGv5_MJU
·       ‘Israeli strikes on Iran were illegal says former UK ambassador’ | MEE Live: https://lnkd.in/eUmXugHk

‘Regime change is an overambitious goal. Such a gambit would demand not just the decapitation of Iran’s entire senior leadership and the removal of hard-liners throughout the operational areas of the administrative government; it would require the installation of a friendly government willing to abandon the remnants of Iran’s existing nuclear program and guarantee that it would never pursue nuclear weapons in the future. Put differently, Israel would need to achieve a version of what the United States and the United Kingdom achieved when they inspired a military coup in 1953 to topple the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and replaced him with the Western-backed puppet regime of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

But unlike the United States and Britain during Mosaddegh’s overthrow or in other successfully orchestrated foreign-sponsored coups, Israel would be attempting to use airpower as the main tool through which it would overthrow the existing regime rather than a local group of Iranian military or civilian leaders. That strategy would likely stir great opposition to foreign military intervention without seriously dislodging the government of the Islamic Republic.

Airpower, even when paired with intelligence networks, has never toppled a government. …

‘Israeli airpower cannot decisively knock out Iran’s nuclear program; Iran could reassemble its program from the remnants covertly, with even less Western oversight and intelligence about weapons development. If Israel had a plan to launch a military coup against the Iranian government, it likely would already have pursued it. Without U.S. intervention on Israel’s behalf, Israel will be alone, with no good options, facing a more dangerous Iran than it ever has. As the situation stands now, the conflict is escalating into a “war of the cities” between Tel Aviv and Tehran, as Israel and Iran assail densely populated urban areas. As civilian casualties mount, both countries are likely to grow more defiant, with increasingly disastrous consequences.

The biggest stumbling block to installing friendly governments is popular sentiment, or nationalism, in the targeted country. Nationalism tends to grow rapidly when local populations are confronted by the prospect of rule by foreigners and especially rule as the object of a foreign military intervention. It is the principal reason that the United States’ efforts to install ostensibly democratic regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan were met with terrorism—and why Israel’s current military conquest of Gaza has faced similar difficulties. Airstrikes targeting local leaders only exacerbate this tendency. Local dissatisfaction with leadership, however intense, does not mean a population wants to be governed, directly or indirectly, by a foreign master willing to kill any leader with whom they disagree. Israel might have learned from its own experience to this effect: every time it has decapitated a terrorist leader, their successor has never been friendlier to the Israeli government. Iran would be no exception.

The Trump administration, for its part, has emboldened Israel in its war in Gaza and threatened military strikes of its own against Iran in the lead-up to nuclear negotiations, which now seem to be entirely off the table. More than 20 years after launching its own pre-emptive war in Iraq, the United States may yet join Israel’s in Iran.

But U.S. intervention is not inevitable. If Iran acts with restraint, Trump may be persuaded not to join what could become another forever war. It took the 9/11 attacks to motivate Washington to wage a preventive war against Iraq. In the absence of a major provocation, few U.S. leaders, especially one as image conscious as Trump, would relish another such misadventure. In that case, Israel would remain on its own to face the possibility of Iranian covert nuclear acquisition. Ultimately, there may be no way for Israel to escape its smart-bomb delusion—or another quagmire in the Middle East.’

Comments added:

  • Israel’s Futile Air WarPrecision Strikes Will Not Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program—or Its GovernmentRobert A. Pape: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/israels-futile-air-war?s=EDZZZ005ZX&utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=fatoday&utm_campaign=How%20Iran%20Lost&utm_content=20250618&utm_term=EDZZZ005ZX
  • Robert A. Pape is Professor of Political Science and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats. He is the author of Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. ‘Foreign Affairs Journal’, which I subscribe to, and receive a daily briefing from, is in the premier rank of globally read Journals about International Relations and Foreign Affairs. I have always regarded it as being a primary source of ‘US Establishment thinking and ‘Expert Geopolitical’ opinion. So, this should make ‘sobering’ reading to Trump’s administration. However, I wonder if Trump will even read the article? He has dismissed the conclusions of the US Intelligence Community, see – ‘America’s spies say Iran wasn’t building a nuclear weapon. Trump dismisses that assessment’: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/americas-spies-say-iran-wasnt-building-a-nuclear-weapon-trump-dismisses-that-assessment -‘The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels. …“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.
  • What is the point of this war?The outrage in Iran at the Israeli attacks, has resulted in a strengthening of widespread popular support for the Iranian Government and its military, i.e. the exact opposite of Israel’s strategic objective, which was ‘Regime change’.Since the price in blood and treasure will rise exponentially as the conflict escalates, what is Israel’s strategic rationale for a war which may: (i) crash the world economy; (ii) bring about WW.3; and (iii) result in the use by Israel of a nuclear weapon?So, why are the mainstream media not asking:- ‘What for Israel is the point of this war?’; and- ‘Is the price of carrying on the war now too high for the collective West?’Israel failed to achieve its primary strategic objective, because its leadership, political supporters and financial backers, made a massive ‘miscalculation’ about how the Iranian people would react.As did George Bush and his administration, when they invaded Iraq.So, for Israel:- ‘Is the war now utterly futile?’; and- ‘How can they sustain it?’See – Mohammed Marandi: TOTAL SHOCK: Iran’s Response HUMILIATES Israel – U.S. Feels the Heat!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bzgC-alNlo
  • Starmer calls emergency COBRA meeting as UK withdraws embassy families amid escalating Israel-Iran conflict: https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/uk-politics/starmer-emergency-cobra-meeting-israel/#:~:text=Starmer%20calls%20emergency%20COBRA%20meeting%20as%20UK%20withdraws,staff%20at%20the%20British%20embassy%20in%20Tel%20Aviv
  • Today at Prime Minister’s Questions in the British Parliament, not a single MP i.e. politician, asked a question about whether the attack by Israel on Friday is ‘illegal’ under ‘International Law’, and therefore if Britain becomes involved in the war, i.e. follows Trump’s America into a war v. Iran, whether Britain would be taking part in an ‘illegal’ war. Why? What Government legal advice has been provided about this vital issue to Starmer and his Ministers? Why is nobody asking this question?
  • Mohammad Marandi: Iran Just Cracked Israel’s Iron Dome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgOo5fBSe3k
  • The Quincy Institute Think Tank in the US – ‘The Israeli attack on Iran is an act of naked aggression, in clear violation of international law as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and of anything that can labelled a rules-based international order.

The attack continues and expands Israel’s record of profligate use of military force throughout its region, including serial attacks on Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories, including the devastation in the Gaza Strip that many informed and objective observers consider genocide. Israel has thrown its military weight around the Middle East far more than any other state and as such is the biggest destabilizing actor in the region.

The Israeli claim that its attack is “pre-emptive” is false. There was no indication of any imminent Iranian attack in the other direction. Nothing in press reporting or leaked intelligence suggested any such thing. Threats to initiate an attack, and associated inflammatory rhetoric, have for years come more from Israel than from Iran, whose own threats have uniformly been couched as warnings that Iran would respond vigorously if Israel attacked it.

Even the looser concept of a preventive war does not justify what Israel has done. The Iranian nuclear program has been the main focus, and Israel says its attack has hit, among other things, nuclear-related targets. But Iran demonstrated with its signature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and adherence to it — until President Trump in his first term reneged on the agreement — that it was willing to close all paths to a possible Iranian nuclear weapon through peaceful diplomacy and strict international monitoring of its program.’ https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-attacks-iran/

  • ‘Israeli forces kill 51 Palestinians waiting for flour at Gaza aid site, witnesses and rescuers say’: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74zj9kv2xjo‘A local journalist and eyewitnesses said Israeli drones fired two missiles, followed shortly after by a shell from an Israeli tank positioned between 400 and 500m away from the crowd. The explosions caused many casualties.The crowd had assembled near a key road leading to the town of Bani Suheila, an area that has seen weeks of ongoing Israeli military operations.
    Nasser Hospital, the main functioning medical facility in the area, has been overwhelmed by the number of casualties. It is so overcrowded that the many wounded are lying on the floor as medical staff treat their injuries.
    Video showing the immediate aftermath of the incident and shared on social media has been located by BBC Verify to a location in Khan Younis.Gaza’s civil defence agency spokesman Mahmud Bassal told AFP that at least 50 people were killed. “Israeli drones fired at the citizens. Some minutes later, Israeli tanks fired several shells at the citizens, which led to a large number of martyrs and wounded,” he said.’This was less than 24 hours ago!

So, legally, what is the justification for the UK supporting a Genocidal regime?

  • ‘Arrogance and self-delusion have a bad habit of trumping reason … I think that [Trump’s] description of reality is completely remote from what is happening on the ground and in the air … Israel is being pulverized’ …. what [Trump] is [demanding of Iran] is absurd.’ See – Iran’s Khamenei: “We Will Never Surrender” /Col Doug Macgregor & Lt Col Daniel Davis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaJNDEbspKI
  • It is not only Starmer & his Ministers who must choose which side of history to end up on, see – Arab Leaders CAUGHT Helping Israel Attack Iran AND Gaza:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heo6QxpGWyQ
  • Less than 1 hour ago ( 5.15pm 18.06.2025) it was reported by Col Daniel Davis (Ret), from multiple sources inside the White House, that apparently a decision has been made about strikes being made v. Iran, possibly in a matter of hours. If this report is accurate and strikes are in fact made, then what will Starmer and his Ministers decide in the COBRA meeting(s)? The creature that is War can take on a life of its own, outside the control of Trump and Netanyahu, so if/when this threshold is crossed by the US, then there will be no going back! If Trump does this, he will have taken America to War without Congressional approval. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaJNDEbspKI & scroll forward to 10:45 Minutes.

‘Is Regime Change justifiable under International Law?’

See :
–     BBC interview today on ‘Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg’ with the son of the late Shah of Iran. Fast forward to 50 mins – ‘The ultimate solution is regime change’: https://lnkd.in/egBZFnnV
–     ‘Regime Change and Just War’ by Michael Walzer: https://lnkd.in/eVHEaujJ
–     ‘Israel’s attacks on Iran amount to crime of aggression – Leading international lawyers argue that Israel’s assault is manifestly unlawful & cannot be justified as an act of self-defence: https://lnkd.in/eeutbDhb –

‘The only justification for the use of force is outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is to respond to an attack that is underway.

“Unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently publicly available, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack” …

“Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. It is committing aggression.”

The crime of aggression is one of the four core international crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It refers to the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression, or use of force in violation of the UN Charter, by a person in a leadership position, such as a head of state or senior military commander. …

According to Jon Heller, while the US has taken the same position as Israel only occasionally, “Israel is the only state that has unequivocally endorsed the right of preventive self-defence.” …’

Comments added:

  • See also – ‘In Europe, the ground is being prepared for another genocide  – The genocide denial and Holocaust revisionism raging in Europe all point to the normalisation of genocidal violence. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/6/14/in-europe-the-ground-is-being-prepared-for-another-genocide
  • See also – ‘The Beginning of WWIII? War Expands in Europe & Middle East /Lt Col Daniel Davis’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zvtN5FlFDg
  • ‘Other scholars on Friday also accused Israel of committing the crime of aggression.Professor Kevin Jon Heller of the University of Copenhagen said: “Few acts are more unequivocally illegal than preventive (non-imminent) self-defence. So Israel’s attack is both unlawful and criminal – the crime of aggression.””Israel’s attack on Iran is not simply a violation of the UN Charter. It is a manifest violation of it,” he wrote on X.Sergey Vasiliev of the Open University of the Netherlands also qualified the attack as falling under the crime of aggression.”This operation is an unlawful use of force,” he wrote.”Iran presented no imminent threat to Israel that would justify such an attack. This is an act of aggression.”Netanyahu’s justification for Friday’s attack is similar to arguments made by Russia to justify its invasion of Ukraine, said Milanovic, or those used by the US to justify the use of force against Iraq.”The problem with this approach is that it is so boundless that it completely eviscerates the prohibition on the use of force – a state could act whenever it perceives an existential threat,” argued Milanovic.”In short, this ‘preventive’ form of self-defence is simply not self-defence at all.”
  • If as these leading International Law scholars have clearly and unequivocally stated – Israel has started and is waging a war that is ‘illegal’ i.e. that is not ‘just’ under International Law, and since Starmer and his Ministers appear to have sent UK military assets to Cyprus which may be used to support Israel (see: ‘The chancellor has told Sky News that UK military assets could “potentially” be used to help defend Israel, and the government is “not ruling anything out”: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-military-could-potentially-be-used-to-defend-israel-chancellor-tells-sky-news-13383945), then what legal advice was sought from and provided by Government Legal Advisors about the ‘legality’ of Israel’s attack? Crucially, what ‘legal assurances’ have been sought by and provided to UK Armed Services Chiefs about whether what Starmer and his Ministers may ask them and British forces to do = participation in an illegal war? Nb Israel made an unprovoked surprise attack on Iran on Friday 13 June, and no prior resolution was sought by Israel from the UN Security Council to legally authorise the attack and the war.
  • You can only launch a surprise attack like this once.

The attack failed to decapitate the Iranian regime.

Women and children were blown out of buildings in Tehran during the attack on Friday 13 June 2025.

The attack caused widespread outrage in Iran, see: Mohammad Marandi: Iran’s Response Just DEVASTATED Israel, US in TROUBLE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_8kSVVtLPg

Consequently, instead of bringing about the downfall of the regime, it achieved the opposite effect, i.e. it has strengthened internal support for it.

So, I am wondering just how educated and informed the policy makers behind the attack, and their political and financial supporters and backers are?

Historically – look at the destabilising consequences of regime change in: Iraq; Libya and Afghanistan.

Look at the price paid in blood and treasure by the West for these wars.

Regime Change in Iran has already failed.

So, what will the economic and political price be of carrying on with a war that not only appears to be illegal, but that has already failed to achieve its primary strategic objective?

A war that could not only crash the world economy, but also lead to WW3?

  • ‘The ultimate grounds of the right to national defence have to do with the value of peace, as it is articulated in the first purpose of the [UN] Charter. The UN Charter is built on the assumption that global political and distributive justice should be implemented by peaceful means, not by war. [So ‘might’ is never ‘right’!]. The right to national defence is designed to deter just states from using force in resolving their disputes with unjust states or non-state actors.’ (The Cambridge Handbook Of The Just War’, edited by Larry May [2018], page 79). Instead of de-escalating the conflict, Starmer and his Ministers appear to be escalating it, see: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/typhoon-jets-moved-to-cyprus-in-british-show-of-force/. So, I am left wondering, do Starmer, who is a Human Rights Lawyer, his Ministers, and British Armed Forces Chiefs, understand that this fundamental principle of ‘Just War Theory’, in practical ‘Diplomatic’ action, dictates conflict ‘de-escalation’, and not ‘escalation’? I cannot see any Diplomacy taking place. All I see, is our Political leaders throwing petrol on to a fire that can not only crash the world economy, bring about WW.3, but also result in a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East. Why?
  • Mohammed Marandi: TOTAL SHOCK: Iran’s Response HUMILIATES Israel – U.S. Feels the Heat!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bzgC-alNlo
  • ‘I do not believe that regime change, by itself, can be a just cause of war. When we act in the world, and especially when we act militarily, we must respond to “the evil that men do,” which is best read as “the evil that they are doing,” and not to the evil that they are capable of doing or have done in the past. Aggression and massacre are legitimate causes of war, and we must learn, what we have not yet learned, to respond to each of these in a timely and forceful way. But the existence of regimes capable of aggression and massacre requires a different response.’: https://www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/sss/pdfs/Walzer/RegimeChange.pdf

‘Israel attacked Iran’s Nuclear facilities – 13.06.2025.’

Friday 13 June 2025 – Israel attacked nuclear facilities in Iran.

This was the start of a series of attacks that Israel declared will take place over days.

See – Strikes IRAN’: https://lnkd.in/ePkUQ9yK

Israel also attacked residential areas – killing civilians.

The commentator (Col Daniel Davis) states that Israel attacked Iran on an ‘assumption’ & not on the basis of ‘intelligence’ (forward to 23 minutes).

There is also a ‘contradiction’ between what Netanyahu said about Iran possessing ‘9 nuclear warheads’ & what the IDF Spokesman said about Iran possessing ’15’. Which is it?

Commentators have been warning about the likelihood of an attack over the last 4 days, including:
–        [SPECIAL EDITION] Alastair Crooke : How Close Is War With Iran?: https://lnkd.in/eb2SeRSu
–        If Israel Attacks Iran, US Navy is DONE: Yemen Proved It w/ Mohammad Marandi, Ali Abunimah & Lowkey: https://lnkd.in/ei-jeJFe

If Iran retaliates & Isael begs the US to come to its aid, then the US will become involved.

If the US, Jordan & any Gulf State was involved in the attack by Israel e.g. by facilitating re-fuelling of Israeli aircraft, then as commentators have repeated warned, the UAE, Saudi Arabia & US bases in the region may all be attacked & Iran may close the ‘Straights of Hormuz ‘to shipping.

A third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and almost 25% of total global oil consumption passes through the strait, making it a highly important strategic location for international trade.

So, this will affect China.

My guess, is that for Iran & ultimately its strategic allies in BRICS, the ‘Gloves are now off’ v. Israel and those of its allies who get sucked into this war.’

As Shakespeare wrote in his play The Tempest – ‘What’s past is prologue’.

It is too late to reverse the damage Israel has caused to the stability of the region.

While nobody can predict with any certainty how and when this conflict will end, one thing is certain, and that is the Middle East & Gulf States will never be the same.

If the Gulf States end up on the ‘missile’ firing line & there is capital flight as people try to get out, then is there also a risk that this could bring about the downfall of the Gulf autocracies, i.e. if their disaffected populations rise up against the Gulf Monarchies?

I will post updates as comments.

The Foreign Office have not yet issued a travel warning for travel to the UAE, see https://lnkd.in/eVqkXQmi

However, see – ‘After Israel strikes Iran, airlines divert flights as airspace closed’: https://lnkd.in/eHwSw99m

‘Airlines cleared out of the airspace over Israel, Iran, Iraq and Jordan on Friday after Israel launched attacks on targets in Iran, Flightradar24 data showed, with carriers scrambling to divert and cancel flights to keep passengers and crew safe.’

Israel has placed the Gulf States and Jordan in the middle of a ‘de facto’ Missile War Zone.

Comments added:

  • Wall Street Journal – ‘Israel Launches Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: Live Updates’:
    Head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard was killed in the attack
    https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-iran-strike-conflict
  • I wonder is part of the Israeli ‘Geopolitical’ calculus, that the consumption of Jordan, the Gulf States, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in a war of missiles, will result in the overthrow of King Abdullah II of Jordan, and of the Gulf Monarchies, thereby clearing a path for Israel with US support, to fill the void after defeating Iran, thereby bringing about the ‘Hegemonistic’ Greater Israel Project, which includes the whole of Jordan, and parts of Iraq, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia? See: ‘Trump’s “Greater Israel” Plan EXPOSED — Why It’s Destined to FAIL!’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aYTA_eNNPQ. If that is the Israeli plan, then the war will be existential for every state that is or becomes involved.
  • Iran’s Missiles CRUSH Iron Dome, Israel HUMILIATED w/ Brian Berletic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmWkSj_650c
  • “Israeli strikes targeting Iranian energy production facilities, manufacturing plants & aviation signalled the start of a wider and more intense phase of the conflict Sunday, as Israeli war planes pursued new targets deeper in Iran’s cities & towns…The targets appear to indicate an expansion of Israel’s war aims beyond the Iranian nuclear facilities…
    By striking Iranian hashtag#industry, local security forces and hashtag#infrastructure, Israel is aiming to degrade the Iranian hashtag#state, further damage the country’s already reeling hashtag#economy and possibly trigger regime change, according to analysts & former officials.
    The shift appeared to begin Saturday night with strikes on energy infrastructure. Israel attacked Iran’s South Pars, the world’s largest natural gas field, partially suspending production and igniting a fire. Another attack on a fuel depot outside Tehran ignited a massive blaze …Elsewhere Sunday, strikes hit airports, electronics manufacturing plants, police stations, an airplane maintenance site and an office that coordinated Tehran’s mosques…”

Elsewhere Sunday, strikes hit airports, electronics manufacturing plants, police stations, an airplane maintenance site and an office that coordinated Tehran’s mosques, according to social media video and state media reports. Many of the aftermath videos from urban areas showed strike locations just yards away from traffic and pedestrians. There was no immediate information on casualties from Iranian authorities.

In Mashhad, a city on Iran’s eastern edge near the border with Turkmenistan, a strike hit a small regional airport…

rapid expansion of targets in Iran demonstrates Netanyahu is prepared to move quickly, perhaps fearful that the wide international latitude his operations have so far been granted could suddenly evaporate, according to Farzan Sabet, a researcher focusing on Middle East security at the Geneva Graduate Institute …” (Extract form ‘Israel appears to take aim at Iran’s regime with wider targets’ published in the Washington Post 16.06.2025).

‘What legal advice was provided by Foreign Office Legal Advisers to the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and UK Government Ministers, about the Madleen incident?’

The incident – see: Israel intercepts Gaza-bound aid vessel, Madleen, detains activists and redirects ship to Ashdod: https://lnkd.in/ei5Y_bYK

The ‘Madleen’ is ‘UK Flag Vessel carrying medical supplies.

Article 92(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states:

‘Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas. …’

‘Freedom of navigation provides ships of any States with the right to traverse the high seas with no or minimal interference from any other State. A key aspect of freedom of navigation is that it is exercised under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Flag State (Art. 92 (1) UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; Art. 6 (1) High Seas Convention). The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in The ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey) (1927) (Lotus, The) confirmed that, except in limited instances expressly recognized by international law, ships on the high seas are not subject to any authority other than the State whose flag they fly.’ (‘Freedom of Navigation, Albert J Hoffmann, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law’, para H 22):
https://lnkd.in/enpvxijK

‘The right for ships flying the flag of a state to sail freely on the high seas (Article 90) is a cardinal principle of international law. The Flag State has exclusive jurisdiction over ships on the high seas flying its flag (Article 92 (1)), subject only to some limited exceptions.’ (Handbook of International Law, Second Edition, by Anthony Aust (2005), Cambridge University Press, page 290).

Anthony Aust was a Legal Advisor to the Foreign Office in London for 35 years.

A further issue is whether the ‘Israeli quadcopters’ that surrounded the vessel, were powered by engines supplied by a UK company with the knowledge and approval of the UK Labour Government? – see: ‘Israel’s killer drones powered with UK engines – A British firm is supplying engines for Israel’s new military quadcopters, it can be revealed.’ https://lnkd.in/ehhby9ri

So, what legal advice was provided by Foreign Office Legal Advisers to the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and UK Government Ministers about the Madleen incident?

Furthermore, before Israeli commandos boarded the vessel while it was sailing peacefully in International Waters and abducted everybody on board, did they inform the British Government about the military operation they were about to carry out on a private British Flag Vessel, in breach a cardinal principle of International Law? Unless Sir Keir Starmer consented to the Israeli operation on a British Flag Vessel, what possible defence can Israel have to this breach of International Law?

What precedent does this set?

If the International Law of ‘Freedom of Navigation’ on the High Seas is not worth the paper it is written on, because as a result of what Israel has done, any state can now interfere with a Flag Vessel of another state sailing peacefully in International Waters, with total impunity, then what commercial impact will this have on vessel and cargo insurance premiums worldwide?

What Israel has torn up dates back to Hugo Grotius – ‘Mare Liberum’, which was first published in 1609.

At a stroke, Israel has single-handedly destroyed centuries of International Law.

So, the implications of this incident are not only very far reaching for all civilized states, but also for all Martime Underwriters in the Lloyd’s market in London, see – https://www.maritimelondon.com/service/insurance.

I wonder if Sir Keir Starmer who is an International Lawyer, understands that the ‘sanctity’ of ‘Freedom of navigation’ under International Law, is a fundamental pillar of global commercial ‘International Trade’, and therefore, the potential impact of what Israel has done on the UK economy and our national wealth as an International Trading Nation?

Will the State whose Flag Vessel the ‘Madleen’ is, i.e. the United Kingdom, in an attempt to repair the damage to International Law done by Israel, and thereby to re-assure the commercial and global Maritime Insurance Market in London, now make an application to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, for an Advisory Opinion about whether the Madleen Incident was a breach by Israel of the fundamental principle of International Law of Freedom of Navigation? If not, why? Will any Parliamentarian ask a Q at PMQ’s on Wednesday about this? What reply will Sir Keir Starmer, who is an International Lawyer, give to Parliament? What statement will the Foreign Secretary David Lammy make, as he has previously said in Parliament that he is a lifelong friend of Israel. See also ‘David Lammy: Friend of Israel
– The shadow foreign secretary, who has received funding from the Israel lobby, has consistently failed to criticise Israel’s genocide in Gaza.: https://www.declassifieduk.org/david-lammy-friend-of-israel/
Will there be a vote in Parliament about whether such an application should be made to the ICJ? If there is a vote on a bill which proposes this, then that will test the overriding political loyalty of every MP who votes.

See also the ‘Madleen Freedom Flotilla Ship -EDM (Early Day Motion)1392: tabled on 04 June 2025’: https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/63775
‘Motion text

That this House stands … supports the statement by UN experts that the people of Gaza have the right to receive aid through their own territorial waters even under occupation, and that the Coalition ship has the right to free passage in international waters to reach the people of Gaza; agrees that Israel must not interfere with its freedom of navigation, long recognised under international law and must adhere to international law and comply with orders from the International Court of Justice to ensure unimpeded access for humanitarian aid; notes that malnutrition cases in the region have skyrocketed, UNICEF have stated that currently 14,000 children are suffering from acute malnutrition, elderly Palestinians as well as children are dying of starvation due to prolonged food shortages and a lack of access to medical aid, further notes that the entire 2.1 million population of Gaza is at risk of famine if the blockade is not lifted urgently; and notes that member states including the UK have a legal obligation and moral imperative to stop the starvation in Gaza.’

‘The Gaza Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC), which operates the vessel, accused Israel of “forcibly intercepting” the boat and acting with “total impunity”.
It said in a statement that the boat was “unlawfully boarded”, its crew “abducted” and its cargo confiscated by Israeli forces in international waters in the early hours of Monday morning. …
They argue that under international maritime law, the UK has full jurisdiction over the vessel and a legal duty to protect the crew as the boat is British flagged.
“As a vessel flying the British flag, it falls under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the UK government, which has a legal duty to defend ‘Madleen’ and the civilians on board, and to prevent unlawful interference – including any threat or use of force – by foreign powers such as Israel,” the FFC said in a statement published on X.
It added that any attack or interference with the boat would “constitute a violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)” as well as an “affront to UK sovereignty, and a breach of international humanitarian law”. …’ See: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-pro-palestine-and-climate-activists-urge-government-secure-release-madleen-crew

Unless Starmer and his Ministers take immediate and effective action to ensure the safety & release of this British Flag Vessel, its ‘humanitarian’ cargo, and of its civilian crew, which have been seized & abducted by Israel in breach of International Law, then how can the ‘owners’ and ‘crew’ of any British Flag Vessel sailing peacefully in International Waters anywhere in the world, have any confidence that any other State Actor will now not act with total impunity, in seizing possession of their vessel & cargo & in abducting their crew?

An abject failure by Starmer & Ministers, will show the entire world that Britain is weak.

I wonder what the Ministry of Defence think about the precedent that Israel has set?

What advice are they giving Starmer & his Ministers?

Has a COBRA meeting even been covened?

Do Starmer & his Ministers not understand the far reaching implications of what Israel has done with total impunity?

This is broadly analogous to breaching the ‘Inviolability of Diplomatic & Consular Premises’. See my article ‘The Inviolability of Diplomatic and Consular Premises’, cited on the ‘Diplomatic Law’ page of Wikipedia (see Footnote 6), for which there is a link to the text, on the Home page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, has written to the labour Government Foreign Secretary David Lammy – who is a lawyer, urging him to take action over the Madleen ship. Ms Whittome wrote in the letter:

‘I write regarding the Madleen aid flotilla, a UK-flagged vessel, which has been seized by Israel.

Our government must act now to ensure the safety of all on board, and ensure that vital humanitarian aid reaches the people of Gaza without delay.

I am gravely concerned for the welfare of those on board the Madleen in light of Israel’s previous actions in seizing aid ships.

In 2010, 10 people were killed, while 30 more were injured, after Israeli forces opened fire on a vessel they had seized, in what the UNHCR described as an “unacceptable level of brutality”.

The interception of the Madleen represents yet another flagrant violation of international law.

I also urge you to bring all possible political pressure to ensure that Israel no longer uses aid as a weapon.’

As far as I am aware as at 18:10 (09.06.2025), neither Keir Starmer, David Lammy, nor any other Minister in the British Government has yet made any statement about the seizure by Israel of a British Flag Vessel, its ‘humanitarian’ cargo, and the abduction of its entire crew.

‘There is no such thing as a free lunch!’

Israel lobby funded half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet: https://lnkd.in/esX2Rk56

As one my Law Professors used to say – ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch!’

So, what does the Israel Lobby in the UK expect in return?

What do you think?

Note also:

The components supplied by the UK are used in F-15 jets.

Israel uses these jets to drop bombs on civilians in Gaza.

‘Weaponizing aid to forcibly remove an entire population is a Crime Against Humanity!’

See ‘Israel’s new ‘AID’ plan is a GENOCIDAL LIE’: https://lnkd.in/evDUUbRJ

I have previously written that ‘There is no vocabulary to describe the moral depravity of what Israel is doing in Gaza.’

To watch an example, forward the programme today by Owen Jones to 8 minutes and 30 seconds, in which he shows a video, in his words, of ‘a masked American mercenary clearly enjoying the sight of being in front of a camp of desperate starving Palestinians. What happened next? [i.e. after this US mercenary had taunted starving civilians who had been penned-up in cages by the Israelis]. Starving Palestinians overran the checkpoint and took the supplies while being fired at by the Israeli military, as the US mercenaries fled.’

See also:
https://lnkd.in/eMKnFzk8
Have you looked at satellite images of Gaza? You should: https://lnkd.in/edYPPqGu. There will be nothing left in Gaza – not even rubble! – see: https://lnkd.in/eXWsNdDd – ‘Images are coming out of widespread bulldozing of entire city blocks [and] now they are bringing in machines that pulverise the rubble … a kind of second stage of erasure of entire cities and peoples entire lives.’
See also – ‘Gaza is the slaughterhouse’: https://lnkd.in/e8Ux9EfU.
This is happening right now as you read this comment.
An entire people, their Cultural Heritage and Civilization are being annihilated in Gaza – as if the Palestinian people, their Culture and Civilization had never even existed! Israel in erasing their memory from history. That is Genocide!

See also:

‘Doctor slams BBC for echoing Israel’

See – https://lnkd.in/eTFmHerg –

‘In a searing interview with the BBC, paediatrician Dr Tanya Haj Hassan condemned the broadcaster for echoing Israeli government talking points as she recounted her harrowing experiences in Gaza. Dr Haj Hassan, who recently returned from volunteering with Medical Aid for Palestinians, shared the devastating story of her colleague, Dr Alaa, a paediatric emergency doctor at Nasser Hospital. While Dr Alaa was on call at the hospital, her home was bombed and nine of her children were killed, their bodies charred and dismembered beyond recognition. Her husband remains in critical condition. Dr Haj Hassan described a healthcare system in collapse: intensive care units overflowing with maimed, orphaned children – many the sole survivors of their families. She also questioned why the BBC has delayed the release of ‘Medics Under Fire’, a documentary it commissioned about systematic attacks on Gaza’s healthcare workers, calling for its immediate release.’

See also – https://lnkd.in/eMZuKvdp.

Yesterday, Israel attacked women, children and babies, while they slept on makeshift beds, inside a school that had been converted into a ‘humanitarian’ shelter.

Following the bombing, these civilians were trapped inside – some under rubble.

They burned alive!

For the Sky News Report see: https://lnkd.in/d739jDjS

If any bombs were dropped on these civilian targets by Israel’s new ‘military quadcopters’, then were the ‘engines’ which powered these ‘quadcopters’, supplied by a UK company to Israel, with the actual/imputed knowledge and approval of the Labour Government?

See

– ‘A British firm is supplying engines for Israel’s new military quadcopters, it can be revealed.’ https://lnkd.in/ehhby9ri.

– ‘Are Starmer & his Ministers allowing any British firm to supply engines & parts for Israel’s new military quadcopters? – If so, then why?’: https://lnkd.in/eZHC5X5U.

Perhaps a Parliamentarian will ask the PM a Q. about this on Wednesday at PMQ’s?

There will be nothing left in Gaza – not even rubble!

See – ‘Why are European countries distancing themselves from Israel now?’ with Asa Winstanley’: https://lnkd.in/eXWsNdDd –

‘Images are coming out of widespread bulldozing of entire city blocks [and] now they are bringing in machines that pulverise the rubble … a kind of second stage of erasure of entire cities and peoples entire lives.’

This is happening right now as you read this post.

An entire people, their Cultural Heritage and Civilization are being annihilated in Gaza – as if the Palestinian people, their Culture and Civilization had never even existed!

Israel in erasing their ‘memory from ‘history’.

This is Genocide!

See: ‘The evidentiary nexus between: (i) the deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage as a strategy; (ii) Ethnic Cleansing; and (iii) Genocide.
https://lnkd.in/exE7haCt

I wonder will any Parliamentarian ask the PM a Q. about this on Wednesday at PMQ’s?

Comments added:

‘The evidentiary nexus between: (i) deliberate Destruction of Cultural Heritage as a strategy; (ii) Ethnic Cleansing; and (iii) Genocide’

In my essay – ‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy & IHL at www.artandcivilization.tv, I explain that:

‘… [T]here is an unspoken connection between:
1.    the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation;
2.    Ethnic Cleansing; and
3.    Genocide.

In the 16th century, the strategist and political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli wrote that ‘he who becomes a master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always [been] the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget.’ (‘The Prince’, Chapter V – ‘Concerning The Way To Govern Cities Or Principalities Which Lived Under Their Own Laws Before They Were Annexed.’)(1532). In other words, if you really want to destroy a people, its pride, it self esteem, and its sense of belonging to its own cultural identity, you need to destroy its cultural heritage, otherwise you will not be able to dominate.

Hence, ‘the real target of most acts of intentional destruction of cultural heritage is therefore, not the heritage in itself but the human communities for which such a heritage is of special significance.’ (‘Mens Rea of Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage’, by Federico Lenzerini, Chapter 4 of the Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law’ (2020), Oxford University Press, page 77).

So, ‘the destruction of heritage, and prohibition of cultural behaviours are used by certain conflict actors as “shaping operations”, where violence against the “Other” becomes normalised as communities, either incrementally or at once, lose their property, freedoms, and humanity. Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places. Roosevelt’s four freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want. Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction: genocide.’ (Clack, Timothy & Mark Dunkley (2022) Cultural Heritage in Modern Conflict, Past, Propaganda, Parade, Routledge, p.301 – An interview with Colonel Rosie Stone. These are the words of Colonel Stone).

See also:

·        HALF of Israelis back EXTERMINATING ALL PALESTINIANS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ARnepbehg
The poll results were published in the Israeli paper Haaretz. This is a mainstream, newspaper.
·        Palestinian BABIES are the ENEMY – Israeli politician: https://lnkd.in/ei_w7-Xi
·         COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Netanyahu Killing Babies: https://lnkd.in/e5DyUU6B
· Israel’s Allies PANIC As 14,000 Babies Face DEATH – They Know A RECKONING Is Coming: https://lnkd.in/efPGjt7v
· https://lnkd.in/eQzMZQYm
·        53% of Israeli public opposes aid entering Gaza, new poll shows: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250522-53-of-israeli-public-opposes-aid-entering-gaza-new-poll-shows/

Note:
·        ‘Labour MPs have accepted over £280,000 from Israel lobby.
Twenty percent of Labour’s sitting MPs have been funded by pro-Israel groups or individuals – including 15 who have been directly funded by the Israeli state.’: https://www.declassifieduk.org/labour-mps-have-accepted-over-280000-from-israel-lobby/
·        ‘Israel lobby funded half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet
Exclusive: Labour’s top team has accepted hundreds of thousands of pounds from pro-Israel funders.’: https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-lobby-funded-half-of-keir-starmers-cabinet/#:~:text=The%20list%20of%20recipients%20includes%20prime%20minister%20Keir,secretary%20David%20Lammy%20and%20home%20secretary%20Yvette%20Cooper.

See also:
– https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9yjj54v3xo
and
– https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-attacks-gaza-palestinians-journalist-killed-b2757774.html
– https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/hundreds-of-israeli-settlers-storm-al-aqsa-mosque-to-mark-east-jerusalem-occupation/3579567
See also – https://unwatch.org/item-7/claim/claim-38-israeli-settlers-invade-the-al-aqsa-mosque/

Taking into account my previous comments, I wonder, this week in Parliament, will any Parliamentarian who has received any money or other benefit(s) either from: (i) the Israel Lobby; or (ii) the State of Israel directly, ‘unequivocally’ and ‘unconditionally’ condemn the ‘Genocidal’ behaviour of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, including the desecration and destruction of Mosques, holy sites, and Islamic Cultural Heritage, in breach of the fundamental ‘jus cogens’ and ‘erga omnes’ rules of International Humanitarian Law? If in the Trial of Israel for Genocide at the ICJ, South Africa discharges the burden of proof on the threshold elements of: jurisdiction, actus reus and intent, then because the prohibition of Genocide is a ‘Jus Cogens’ norm, there is no legal justification or defence whatsoever. So, I further wonder, on which side of history will Parliamentarians who continue to apologise for Israel, and do not ‘unequivocally’ and ‘unconditionally’ condemn the ‘Genocide’ that Israel is carrying out in Gaza, end up on? I believe that there will be a ‘legal reckoning’. In the front line at Trial, will be those who carried out the Genocide, and standing behind them, will be those who were ‘complicit’ in and ‘facilitated’ Genocide.

  • Israel butchers hundreds of Palestinians while destroying hospitals, with Nora Barrows-Friedman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG3Dw4Gd_3I
  • desspite European repression, Zionism is collapsing, with Franck Magennis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4B60j6H4P0(NB Franck Magennis, a barrister with Garden Court Chambers and a member of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers. His work focuses on challenging rights breaches by the British and other states).

  • ‘On Friday, an Israeli strike on the home of a Palestinian doctor in Gaza killed nine of her 10 children. Dr Alaa al-Najjar’s 11-year-old son was injured, along with her husband, Hamdi al-Najjar, who is in critical condition. The nine children – Yahya, Rakan, Raslan, Gebran, Eve, Rival, Sayden, Luqman and Sidra – were aged between just a few months old and 12. The Israeli military has said the incident is under review. Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said two of its staff were killed in a strike on their home in Khan Younis on Saturday. The killing of Ibrahim Eid, a weapon contamination officer, and Ahmad Abu Hilal, a security guard at the Red Cross Field Hospital in Rafah “points to the intolerable civilian death toll in Gaza”, the ICRC said, repeating its call for a ceasefire.’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9yjj54v3xo

  • There will be nothing left in Gaza – not even rubble! – see ‘Why are European countries distancing themselves from Israel now?’ with Asa Winstanley’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyI0gWMYeNE –‘Images are coming out of widespread bulldozing of entire city blocks [and] now they are bringing in machines that pulverise the rubble … a kind of second stage of erasure of entire cities and peoples entire lives.’See also – ‘Gaza is the slaughterhouse’: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/gaza-slaughterhouseThis is happening right now as you read this post.An entire people, their Cultural Heritage and Civilization are being annihilated in Gaza – as if the Palestinian people, their Culture and Civilization had never even existed! Israel in erasing thier memory from history.
  • To educate yourself about the ‘Law of Genocide’ I recommend – ‘Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes 3rd ed’, by William A. Schabas (2025) :https://www.amazon.co.uk/Genocide-International-Law-Crime-Crimes/dp/1009460781.

See also:This was reported 25 minutes ago (26.05.2025) – ‘Israel-Gaza latest: Dozens killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza; head of US-backed aid group resigns – Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry says at least 36 people have been reported dead in an Israeli airstrike on a school-turned shelter in Gaza City, with 15 others – all from the same family and including women and children – killed in a second attack on a hospital. Follow the latest.’ https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-latest-airstrikes-on-school-and-hospital-kill-at-least-46-as-us-backed-aid-organisation-vows-to-begin-deliveries-today-13362469 e also:

  • ‘One of the most heartbreaking tragedies’: Gaza doctor’s last goodbye before nine children killed in airstrike’ – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/25/gaza-doctor-last-goodbye-nine-children-killed-airstrike
    ‘Israeli strike kills dozens sheltering in Gaza school, officials say’ Reported 1 hour ago):
  • Doctor slams BBC for echoing Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5yFJ1CjZYE
    ‘In a searing interview with the BBC, paediatrician Dr Tanya Haj Hassan condemned the broadcaster for echoing Israeli government talking points as she recounted her harrowing experiences in Gaza. Dr Haj Hassan, who recently returned from volunteering with Medical Aid for Palestinians, shared the devastating story of her colleague, Dr Alaa, a paediatric emergency doctor at Nasser Hospital. While Dr Alaa was on call at the hospital, her home was bombed and nine of her children were killed, their bodies charred and dismembered beyond recognition. Her husband remains in critical condition. Dr Haj Hassan described a healthcare system in collapse: intensive care units overflowing with maimed, orphaned children – many the sole survivors of their families. She also questioned why the BBC has delayed the release of ‘Medics Under Fire’, a documentary it commissioned about systematic attacks on Gaza’s healthcare workers, calling for its immediate release.’
  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9yjj54v3xo‘Israeli forces bomb a school-turned-shelter in Gaza City, causing a fire and killing at least 36 Palestinians, including several children. Overall, more than 50 have been killed in attacks since dawn on Monday.’ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/5/26/live-israel-kills-red-cross-workers-children-controls-77-percent-of-gaza.
  • This was just 12 hours in Gaza today and the day is not over!How many more civilians in Gaza will die today from forced starvation, illness, and Israeli bombs and bullets?I have not heard a single UK Parliamentarian speak up today in condemnation of these war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Being on holiday is not an acceptable excuse!

  • A Mr Paul Reichler Esq. said at the ICJ – see my earlier comment about this – ‘People in Gaza are being starved to death. And we are all witnessing, if not complicit in, it. But this human tragedy is a deliberate choice. It is the consequence of a political decision. It is both avoidable and reversible. All of us ⎯ as diplomats, international lawyers, humanitarians, but most importantly, as individuals ⎯ have the moral obligation to raise our voices in outcry of this catastrophe and in efforts to stop it.’ So, why are UK Parliamentarians not ‘raising their voices’ about these atrocities, that are taking place in front of the eyes of the world and being reported hourly?

‘Are Starmer & his Ministers allowing any British firm to supply engines & parts for Israel’s new military quadcopters? – If so, then why?’

‘A British firm is supplying engines for Israel’s new military quadcopters, it can be revealed.’ https://lnkd.in/ehhby9ri –

‘The APUS 25 is a “revolutionary long-endurance TactiQuad” produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), an Israeli state-owned company which manufactures fighter aircraft and drones. … Images published on IAI’s website reveal that the APUS 25’s engine is supplied by RCV Engines, a British engineering company based in Dorset. The revelation offers further evidence that UK-made drone components are being exported to Israel, where they might be used to commit war crimes in Gaza.
Over recent months, Israeli remote-controlled quadcopters – which are small unmanned vehicles with four rotors – have been filmed dropping bombs and firing on Palestinians in Gaza.

“The drones would come down and pick off civilians – children”, retired surgeon Nizam Mamode told British MPs in November.

“We [were] operating on children who would say: ‘I was lying on the ground after a bomb had dropped and this quadcopter came down and hovered over me and shot me’”, he added.

Israeli quadcopters have also been used to broadcast the sound of crying babies in order to lure Palestinians out of their homes and onto the killing fields.

RCV Engines admitted in 2022 that it had been granted an export licence exemption to ship its equipment worldwide, suggesting that its exports to Israel might not be subject to the Labour government’s recent arms restrictions.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Emily Apple told Declassified: “Labour urgently needs to reverse this decision and close this loophole. It’s beyond time it ended its complicity in genocide and prioritised Palestinian lives over the profits of the arms industry”. …’

Starmer, his Ministers, and all parliamentarians can see and read about how Israel is using drones to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza – including Genocide.

Note the words used by Keir Starmer at Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday (21.05.2025), when asked about the ongoing supply of specific military aircraft parts to Israel, given his actual and imputed knowledge about the commission of war crimes by Israel in Gaza.

See https://lnkd.in/eMnhQADU & scroll forward to 27.34 minutes.

In his reply, he refers to a ‘pool’.

Did he mean that Britain, with the approval of his Government, is supplying these parts to Israel indirectly?

What arms & parts are being exported from the UK to Israel directly?

See also:
·       Palestinian BABIES are the ENEMY – Israeli politician: https://lnkd.in/ei_w7-Xi
·       COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Netanyahu Killing Babies: https://lnkd.in/e5DyUU6B
·  Israel’s Allies PANIC As 14,000 Babies Face DEATH – They Know A RECKONING Is Coming: https://lnkd.in/efPGjt7vhttps://lnkd.in/eQzMZQYm

Notes added:

Extract from the transcript of https://lnkd.in/ei_w7-Xi

Owen Jones – ‘Moshe Zalman Feiglin [who] was a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s party until last year appeared on Israel’s channel 14, the most watched news channel in Israel.

This is what he said –

“Every child every baby in Gaza is an enemy. The enemy is not Hamas, and it is not the military wing of Hamas … every child in Gaza is the enemy. We need to conquer Gaza and colonize it, and not a single Gazan child should remain there. There is no other victory.”

So to quote this former member of the Knesset – he said on [Israeli] Television:

“Every child, every baby in Gaza, is an enemy … we need to conquer Gaza and colonize it, and not leave a single Gazan child there. There is no other victory.”

… These are Nazi views.’

What do you think?

More pertinently, when they hear or read these words what do Starmer his Ministers, and all UK Parliamentarians conclude about whether Israel is committing a Genocide in Gaza?

Note also -53% of Israeli public opposes aid entering Gaza, new poll shows: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250522-53-of-israeli-public-opposes-aid-entering-gaza-new-poll-shows/

See also – HALF of Israelis back EXTERMINATING ALL PALESTINIANS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ARnepbehg

The poll results were published in the Israeli paper Haaretz. This is a mainstream, newspaper.

‘Will Israel attack Iran?

‘Starvation in Gaza’

See:

‘Where are the Peacemakers?’

On Monday – Israel attacked: Syria; Lebanon; Gaza & Yemen. Ukraine also attacked Russia. See my post on the ‘International Humanitarian Law’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com – ‘So much for celebrating peace?’

On Tuesday – Ukraine attacked Moscow with drones  – see:

·       Russian Parade in DANGER? – May 9th Great Patriotic War Parade in Moscow: https://lnkd.in/esE4AycK
·       Ukraine DRONES Hit Moscow 2 Nights in a Row w/Larry Johnson: https://lnkd.in/eZKVzYxf

Today – Wednesday 7 May 2025 – India attacked Pakistan, see –  Kashmir crisis live: Pakistan PM authorises armed forces to undertake ‘corresponding action’ after India strikes kill 26: https://lnkd.in/eT8GFWcm

Today – The Guardian also reported – ‘Gaza will be entirely destroyed, Israeli minister says – Bezalel Smotrich says Palestinians will “leave in great numbers to third countries”, raising fears of ethnic cleansing’: https://lnkd.in/eEZH3BV8

At PMQ’s today Starmer appeared to admit that the UK will not suspend the approval of export licences for arms & military aircraft parts to Israel – see: https://lnkd.in/ei2txhw8 & forward to 24.30 minutes.

If Israel does what it has said it will do, then will the armed forces of Egypt intervene with the support of the armed forces of Jordan?

See:

·       COL. Douglas Macgregor : Is Iran a Threat to the US?: https://lnkd.in/eWjp5djm
·       Col. Larry Wilkerson & Andrei Martyanov: Does Trump Have a Vision — or Just Vibes?: https://lnkd.in/eQJ9NnFZ

Therefore, unless Trump can prevent it, will there will be regional war also involving Iran & Yemen?

Last week in the ICJ Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC  spoke for all of humanity when she said:

‘In addition to seeking to destroy the protective application of international law to the Palestinian people, Israel appears set on destroying the very international framework created to ensure compliance with international law and accountability for its breach, with profound consequences that reverberate far beyond Palestine and Palestinians. If these venerable institutions are to survive, and if — in the words of the United Nations Relief Chief — “the basic principles of . . . law still count, the international community must act while it can to uphold them”

(See my blog on the ‘International Court of Justice’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com – ‘Western Civilization itself is on trial this week at the ICJ in the Hague – State of Palestine v. Israel.’)

So, my Q . for Mediation ‘Gurus’ around the world is – ‘Why are you not speaking-up about what Israel has done & has pledged to do i.e. to finish off the Genocide in Gaza?’

Where are all the righteous and self-proclaimed Peacemakers?

Notes added since:

‘An Israeli government minister has vowed that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed” as a result of an Israeli military victory, and that its Palestinian population will “leave in great numbers to third countries”, raising fears of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territory.

The declaration on Tuesday by the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, came a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved a plan for Operation Gideon’s Chariots, which an Israeli official said would entail “the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories”.

The Israeli threats to seize control of the territory permanently has stirred global outrage. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/06/hamas-israel-hunger-war-in-gaza

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/gaza-should-be-completely-destroyed-and-its-people-moved-to-third-countries-says-israeli-minister/ar-AA1Eavul?ocid=BingNewsSerp

I wonder – when was the last time that Starmer and his ministers received advice form the Foreign Office Legal Department, about whether the involvement of the UK Labour Government, in supplying arms and military aircraft parts to Israel, has breached International Law? There will be a record of the advice sought and provided, and of course Starmer will not disclose this. However the Civil Servants at the Foreign Office must know. So, if any of them now resign over this issue, i.e. as a matter of ‘conscience’, then what conclusions can be drawn? There is a precedent, see – https://www.newarab.com/news/british-diplomat-quits-over-uk-israel-arms-sales-amid-gaza-war#:~:text=A%20British%20Foreign%20Office%20diplomat%20has%20resigned%20over,war%20crimes%20and%20international%20law%20violations%20in%20Gaza.

I also wonder – will any of Starmer’s ministers now resign over this issue? If not, then I invite you to draw your own conclusions about to whom or what, they each owe an ‘overriding loyalty’ – the British State (i.e. us), or the Israel Lobby (and Zionism)? See also: ‘Israel lobby funded half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet Exclusive: Labour’s top team has accepted hundreds of thousands of pounds from pro-Israel funders’: https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-lobby-funded-half-of-keir-starmers-cabinet/. You can judge for yourself by how these MP’s now behave, as the public spotlight is cast brightly upon them, and ordinary people watching Israel finish off what it started in Gaza, start to ask ‘difficult’ questions about ‘uncomfortable political truths’, like – ‘why apparently is Starmer, and why apparently are his Ministers and Labour MP’s, not doing anything, to suspend the supply of arms to Israel?’ Turn that around, and the British people may ask themselves another Q. – ‘Why apparently, is Starmer and his Government facilitating a Genocide that is taking place in front of our eyes?’ This is a poignant Q. to ask, as this week, the world is commemorating VE Day – i.e. victory over the genocidal Nazi regime in Germany. What do you think?

‘So much for celebrating peace?’

See: https://lnkd.in/eAJKXHC5

LIVE: Gaza residents refuse Israeli displacement, Hamas says no truce talks: https://lnkd.in/eXYUiuTX.

‘Israel … attacked Yemen, Lebanon … Syria [&] Gaza, where air raids killed at least 54 people. … Netanyahu says Gaza’s more than 2 million people “will be moved” in a new ground offensive as Israel’s total blockade on the enclave reaches 65 days. Hospitals in Gaza are 48 hours away from collapse and the lives of thousands of sick and wounded are at risk …’

This was done by Israel on the 80th Commemoration of VE Day in London! i.e. yesterday.

Incidentally on this day, and remember that Russia lost more members of its armed forces fighting ‘goose-stepping’ Nazis in WW2 than the rest of the allies all put together, Ukraine attacked and murdered civilians inside Russia – see: https://lnkd.in/e5qHYJJA

So, as he watched Ukrainian soliders marching down the Mall yesterday, did Starmer know that these attacks were all going to happen, i.e. both inside Russia and in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza?

If he did, then so much for celebrating peace!

Comments added since:

  • Is Ukraine going to attack Russia on the May 9th Great Patriotic War Parade in Moscow? If they do, then what will the consequences be? – see: Russian Parade in DANGER? – May 9th Great Patriotic War Parade in Moscow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjiZdMl3CCU

What are Trump and Starmer doing to de-escalate the conflict by preventing such an attack? Do they not understand where such an attack can and is likely to lead?

If for example a visiting dignitary from the Global South, e.g. China, is killed by Ukraine while attending the Parade, what do you think China is going to do?

Are we being led by political leaders who are not only geopolitically illiterate but incredibly reckless and stupid? This is how a World War could begin, and there are now only three days left in which to stop it!

‘Ship carrying Humanitarian Aid to Gaza is bombed by Drones and disabled in International waters near Malta’

https://lnkd.in/ekFnDz63

‘A ship carrying humanitarian aid and activists to Gaza has been bombed by drones and disabled while in international waters off Malta as it headed towards the Palestinian territory, its organisers have said.
“At 00:23 Maltese time, the Conscience, a Freedom Flotilla Coalition ship came under direct attack in international waters,” the group said in a statement.
“Armed drones attacked the front of an unarmed civilian vessel twice, causing a fire and a substantial breach in the hull,” it added, blaming Israel.
The strike appeared to target the boat’s generator early on Friday, leaving the boat without power and at risk of sinking, the activists said. Images posted to social media by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition showed a fierce blaze onboard the ship and two explosions.’
(https://lnkd.in/eheN_dPN)

If this was committed by Israel, and if any of its NATO allies were involved, then under International Humanitarian Law, this is a war crime.

‘Dramatic escalation in Trump’s War v. the Judiciary – Judge arrested in US.’

What is Trump going to do next?

If you are making a decision tomorrow about an inward investment in the US, e.g. in a manufacturing plant, then your lenders will have to assess the bankability of your project. One fatcor that they should consider is respect in the US, for the Rule of Law. If they conclude that under Trump the Rule of Law is fast being undermined and eroded, then what impact will this have on all inward investment decisions? I wonder if Trump and his economic advisors understand this?

See – https://lnkd.in/ewMzh8Nn

‘The FBI on Friday arrested a judge whom the agency accused of obstruction after it said she helped a man evade US immigration authorities as they were seeking to arrest him at her courthouse.

The county circuit judge, Hannah Dugan, was apprehended in the courthouse where she works in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at 8.30am local time on Friday on charges of obstruction, a spokesperson for the US Marshals Service confirmed to the Guardian. …

In a statement shared with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, an attorney for Dugan said: “Hannah C Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law and the principles of due process for her entire career as a lawyer and a judge.”
It continued: “Judge Dugan will defend herself vigorously, and looks forward to being exonerated.”

Trump weighed in on his Truth Social platform by sharing an image of the judge found on the judge’s Facebook page by the rightwing blogger Libs of TikTok, which showed Dugan on the bench wearing a KN95 face mask and displaying the Ukrainian national symbol of a trident.

The Milwaukee city council released a statement following the arrest: “This morning’s news that Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested by federal authorities is shocking and upsetting. Judge Dugan should be afforded the same respect and due process that she has diligently provided others throughout her career.

“Perhaps the most chilling part of Judge Dugan’s arrest is the continued aggression by which the current administration in Washington, DC has weaponized federal law enforcement, such as ICE, against immigrant communities,” the statement reads. “As local elected officials, we are working daily to support our constituents who grow increasingly concerned and worried with each passing incident.”

Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat representing Wisconsin, called the arrest of a sitting judge a “gravely serious and drastic move” that “threatens to breach” the separation of power between the executive and judicial branches.

“Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country and we are a democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by,” Baldwin said in an emailed statement after Dugan’s arrest.

The leftwing senator Bernie Sanders said the move was about “unchecked power”.

“Let’s be clear. Trump’s arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with [Trump] moving this country towards authoritarianism,” he said in a statement.

The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren said in a social media post: “This administration is threatening our country’s judicial system. This rings serious alarm bells.” …’

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Youtube%20us%20judge%20arrested%20by%20fbi&mid=5BFC08A1158FB9647AA75BFC08A1158FB9647AA7&ajaxhist=0

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Youtube%20us%20judge%20arrested%20by%20fbi&mid=5BFC08A1158FB9647AA75BFC08A1158FB9647AA7&ajaxhist=0

Protests over FBI arrest of Wisconsin judge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0GJXTBXbdI

‘Qui Bono?’

See – https://lnkd.in/eUaqi2Uu.

The total blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza is designed to have catastrophic consequences. It amounts to the starving to death of an entire civilian population. So, the blockade is self-evidently an act of Genocide.

The UK Government has not suspended the supply of arms and parts to Israel.

Ask yourself – Qui Bono? i.e. ‘Whose interest does the policy of Keir Starmer and his Labour Government toward Israel serve? Is it the victims of Genocide (i.e. Christian & Muslim Palestinians living in Gaza) or is it the perpetrators?’

You may also be wondering whether the supply of arms & parts to a Genocidal foreign regime, with either actual or imputed knowledge that they will be used to commit the mass murder of civilians = complicity in war crimes + crimes v. humanity?

This of course may be tested in an English Court of Law.

Meanwhile, those of us who are witnesses to the crime of the century, can speak up, and question what Starmer, his Ministers and his MP’s are doing to end the Genocide.

As far as I can see, nothing of any significance and substance.

So, if that observation is correct -and you may disagree, then you have to ask yourself – ‘Why?’

Let me put it another way.

You have to ask – ‘In whose interests are they acting? The interests of the UK or, those of a foreign Genocidal regime?’.

If it is the latter- then why?

In other words – ‘Qui Bono?’

See also:

Evidence of a climate of widespread and deeply ingrained ‘Genocidal mania’ amongst the settlor-colonial society of Israel? If the answer is yes, then has this created an atmostphere in which it is permissible for Israel’s armed forces to carry out acts of genocide with impunity? – Read, listen & judge for yourself:

On a separate note – today my thoughts are with Opus Dei: https://lnkd.in/eAaXxWUj, whom I lived amongst as a resident of Netherhall House: https://lnkd.in/esdW-akV, whilst I attended the Inns of Court School of Law in London.

This was an enriching experience, not least because of the intellectual calibre of the staff & permanent residents, but poignantly, because members of Opus Dei are servants of all humanity.

Even though I was not a Catholic I was welcomed into their house.

We had vigorous discussions at the dinner table about many controversial issues, and it was a great honour & privilege to have spent time with them.

They shaped part of how I think today.

Today – Saturday 26 April 2025, I am thinking in particular about the Pope, who was a Jesuit.

The Jesuits practically give up their lives to serve the cause of humanity.

I hope that whoever follows in the footsteps of Pope Francis will share his zeal for saving humanity from itself.

I think that the Papal mission extends far beyond Catholicism.

It is about our shared humanity.

I have met very few people in my life who match the rigorous standards of self-sacrifice, decency and kindness of those in Opus Dei, whom I had the privilege to live amongst when I was a young Law student in London.

I wish that there were more leaders in the world who not only share the values of Opus Dei, but also have the courage of Pope Francis to speak up about the Genocide in Gaza.

That is moral leadership.

Qui Bono Papa? – All of humanity!

‘One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest – The deportation of US citizens for thought crimes v. Israel & Zionism?’

See Max Blumenthal : ICE and Freedom: https://lnkd.in/e3G-U4-Q – Fast forward to 8 minutes.

US Immigration & Customs sent a US citizen born in the United States who is an immigration lawyer – Nicole Nisharoni, an email notifying her to self-deport within 7 days.

This was allegedly an administrative error.

According to the journalist Max Blumenthal, the Trump administration is targeting ‘journalists and lawyers all over the country under this new immigration regime.’

See: https://lnkd.in/ehURVWxk

A United States citizen who is an immigration attorney received an email on Friday morning that told her to self-deport—one of seemingly dozens of recipients.
“It is time for you to leave the United States,” the email sent to Nicole Micheroni, seen by Newsweek, began. “… DHS is now exercising its discretion to terminate your parole. Unless it expires sooner, your parole will terminate 7 days from the date of this notice.”
Micheroni, a partner at Cameron Law Offices in Massachusetts, who is not on parole told Newsweek that she did not believe the email was a scam, but a sign of the sweeping mass deportation efforts by the Trump administration.’

If a US citizen is deported to e.g. a torture prison in Venezuela, and without any due process in the US, they may never be released, and die in that prison.

See https://lnkd.in/eXMKfPYv

‘After deporting 238 alleged Venezuelan gang members and 23 members of a Salvadoran gang to a maximum-security El Salvador prison last month, US President Donald Trump is now contemplating deporting criminals who are United States citizens there as well, he told reporters on Monday.’ https://lnkd.in/eZipPftf

What has any international ‘white shoe’ US Law firm done in the US courts, and in the media, to challenge the violation of the US 1st Amendment by the Trump administration, in a single deportation case?

What does passivity on this issue say about what America is today, stands for and its values?

Has morality, conscience and selfless duty, been suffocated by selfish greed and big money?

What do you think we are witnessing in Trump’s US today?

What era in history does turning a blind eye to rising ‘authoritarianism’ and extreme ‘right wing’ fascism remind you of?

Professor John Mearsheimer, who unlike Trump was educated at West Point and is a Vietnam Veteran, says that he cannot believe what is happening in the US – https://lnkd.in/efV7Dmxh

Should we in the UK, be worried about the Zionist assault on free speech in the US, eventually resulting in the deportation without any due process in the UK, of UK citizens, who have committed ‘thought crimes’ against Israel and Zionism?

Why are so few Human Rights lawyers in the UK speaking out about this urgent issue now, and why is this issue not being discussed in the mainstream UK media?

As the German Pastor Martin Niemöller famously said:

‘First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.’

So, who will be next in the US and then in the UK?

See also:

  • Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to enforce his rule, via a militia if need be?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1SjVCYUIwk
  • ‘A 20-year-old United States citizen was held in a Florida jail at the request of federal immigration authorities despite his mother showing his birth certificate and Social Security information to a judge in court. Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez was taken to Leon County Jail after a traffic stop and charged with illegally entering the state as an “unauthorized alien” under a state law that has been temporarily blocked from enforcement by a federal judge. The charge was dropped, but Leon County Judge LaShawn Riggans claimed on Thursday that she did not have jurisdiction to release him after Immigration and Customs Enforcement requested that he remain in detention, according to court records. The Florida Phoenix first reported the arrest.’ – U.S.-born citizen held by ICE in Florida jail despite birth certificate presented in court. State law makes it a crime to enter the state as an ‘unauthorized alien’ — but it’s blocked by a judge, and Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez was born in the U.S.’ (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/juan-carlos-lopez-gomez-ice-florida-b2735491.html).

‘Is an attack on Iran next for Trump?

·      12 February 2025 – ‘Donald Trump’s economic masterplan – He is plotting an anti-Nixon shock’: https://lnkd.in/eK3qHqmH
·       4 April 2025 – Yanis Varoufakis: Trump just upended the global financial system: https://lnkd.in/ear8T3dY

So, Tariffs were predicted.

What Trump has done is not unprecedented – see https://lnkd.in/esFcRuyF.

See also ‘The New Economic Diplomacy – Decision-Making and negotiation in International Economic Relations, Third Edition, by Nicholas Bayne & Stephen Woolcock (2011), pp. 155 & 156.

Therefore, if:
·       Trump’s ambition is to go down in history as being a ‘Transformational US ‘MAGA 1st’ President;
·       he is ideologically, a true MAGA 1st believer;
·       he has a radical ‘MAGA 1st’ agenda; &
·       one of his ‘MAGA 1st’ geopolitical objectives, is to collapse the neo-liberal ‘globalist’ world order,

then, he is not going to reverse himself on Tariffs.

That is because the destruction of the neo-liberal ‘globalist’ world order, is core to his ‘hegemonic’ economic ‘MAGA 1st’ masterplan.

According to the UK Chief Secretary to the Treasury speaking to the BBC earlier today – ‘Globlisation has ended.’

If he is correct, then Trump has already partly achieved one of his primary geopolitical MAGA 1st objectives.

So, there is a ‘method’ in what appears to be ‘madness!’.

In other words, Trump knew what he was doing. This was calculated and planned a long time ago.

So, I am wondering is an attack on Iran next, on Trump’s planned and ‘radical’ MAGA 1st geopolitical agenda?

Note that the logistical window for attacking Iran & the deadline for Iran to comply with Trump’s ultimatum are the same. See:

·       Trump gave Iran a 2 month deadline for compliance with his ultimatum. https://lnkd.in/eGf7Dxry
·       Daniel Davis in https://lnkd.in/eFu-VTPV states at 11:46 that this US military build-up is ‘unprecedented … strike groups + the air tankers + the tactical air + the strategic bomber force all at the same time.’

Daniel Davis appears to conclude that the US has already made a decision to attack Iran, i.e. that there is a ‘Plan of Attack’ and that it has been set in motion.

At 10:34 he states that this ‘unprecedented’ US military build-up [indicates that the US] will either do something or [not] do something within 2 months.’

If the US attacks Iran, and this results in the closure of the ‘Straights of Hormuz’ to commercial shipping, oil prices will go through the ceiling, crashing the world economy.

As a MAGA 1st President and the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, is Trump betting on the US being the ‘last man’ standing?

The UK will be economically wiped-out if the US attacks Iran.

So, why is Starmer not standing up to Trump?

Why are none of our politicians speaking about this in the media today?

Have they neglected to join-up the ‘geopolitical dots’, or are they blind to/or deluded about, Trump’s ‘MAGA 1st’ Masterplan?

See also:

  • On the Path to War with Iran – Alastair Crooke, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVg-9EKLuqY
  • ‘Is The U.S. About To Go To War With Iran? – The U.S. is pouring military assets into the Middle East as Trump’s deadline for Iran to come to the negotiating table fast approaches’: https://www.twz.com/air/is-the-u-s-about-to-go-to-war-with-iran

‘If the logistical window for attacking Iran & the deadline for Iran to comply with Trump’s ultimatum are the same – what does this signify?’

‘If the logistical window for attacking Iran & the deadline for Iran to comply with Trump’s ultimatum are the same – what does this signify?’

Note:

·       Trump gave Iran a 2 month deadline for compliance with his ultimatum. https://lnkd.in/eGf7Dxry
·       Daniel Davis in https://lnkd.in/eFu-VTPV states at 11:46 that this US military build-up is ‘unprecedented … strike groups + the air tankers + the tactical air + the strategic bomber force all at the same time.’

He appears to conclude that the US has already made a decision to attack Iran, i.e. that there is a Plan of Attack.

At 10:34 he states that this ‘unprecedented’ US military build-up [indicates that the US] will either do something or [not] do something within 2 months.’

So, are (i) the ‘deadline for compliance’; and (ii) ‘logistical time-window for launching an attack’ – i.e. for war – the same?

If they are, then what logical conclusions do you draw about this apparent coincidence?

See:

‘Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes’

Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes 3rd ed by William A. Schabas: https://lnkd.in/e6N2zmax is expected to be published within the next 3 weeks. I have pre-ordered a copy.

In my capacity as an International Cultural Heritage Law author, commentator and Mediator, one of the Video Programmes that I am planning to produce in 2026 for www.artandcivilization.tv, is – ‘The unspoken connection between the destruction of Cultural Heritage and: (i) Ethnic Cleansing; and (ii) Genocide.’

See also my essay at www.artandcivilization.tv – ‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy & IHL – Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’

Bearing witness to War Crimes and the attack on Free Speech – see:

·       Prof. John Mearsheimer : Single greatest threat to free speech: https://lnkd.in/ez95Cjuc and https://lnkd.in/esyb6YvG

·       Israel Unleashes Final Destruction Of Gaza: https://lnkd.in/es-HNVCQ
·       This Outrageous Gaza Article In ‘The Economist’ Should Be A Scandal: https://lnkd.in/eg_MbZWd
·       This Genocidal Psycho Just Got Elected To US Congress: “May The Streets of Gaza Overflow With Blood”: https://lnkd.in/e4eedEij
·       Netanyahu BRAGS About Genocide – And Our Media COVERS IT UP: https://lnkd.in/eCTq-vpK
·       Israeli Newspaper PROVES Netayanhu Planned Genocide: https://lnkd.in/et-Ptw4S
·       Israel On RAMPAGE In Gaza – And Our Media Covers It Up: https://lnkd.in/eksBdT3f
·       This Israeli Crime Will SICKEN YOU: https://lnkd.in/exvqKgsJ

Israeli soldiers handcuffed and executed one by one – with a bullet to the head 8 Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) Paramedics, 6 Civil Defence Workers and 1 UNRWA staff member. They then buried the bodies in a shallow mass grave and attempted to bury the ambulances! That was 10 days ago.

This war crime was committed in full view of the world, however I have not heard this mentioned on the BBC, ITV or SKY News even once. Why?

Pertinently, for the upholding of the rule of law in the UK, why has not a single MP raised this war crime in Parliament, and demanded to know what the British Government is actively doing, to bring Israeli war criminals who set foot in the UK, or who are already here (including any person) who has been complicit in the commission of either a war crime or a crime against humanity, to justice in the British courts?

One of the subjects discussed in William A. Schabas’ book, is the jurisdiction and powers of the English courts to prosecute Israeli war criminals. So, our MP’s cannot plead ignorance, if a copy of the book is obtained by the Library of the House of Commons.

Humanity and the upholding of the Rule of Law demand that there must be a legal reckoning. Otherwise, if War Crimes and Crimes Againast Humanity become normalised, there will be anarchy and we will all be powerless to resist it.

As the German Pastor Martin Niemöller famously said:

‘First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.’

This is the fate that awaits humanity, unless those who today are committing Genocide in broad daylight in front of our eyes, are held to account under International Law. Meanwhile, we bear witness to these War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity!

Notes added:

‘Some of the bodies of 15 Palestinian paramedics and rescue workers, killed by Israeli forces and buried in a mass grave nine days ago in Gaza, were found with their hands or legs tied and had gunshot wounds to the head and chest, according to two witnesses.’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/01/palestinian-paramedics-shot-by-israeli-forces-had-hands-tied-eyewitnesses-say

Israel Medic Massacre Lies FALL APART: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fWi6Y6xEhM

The execution by Israeli soldiers of 8 Palestinian Red Crescent Society Paramedics, 6 Civil Defence Workers and 1 UNRWA staff member are not only War Crimes, they are Crimes Against Humanity. Some of the dead – while wounded, may have been buried alive with their hands & legs tied behind their backs. Yesterday, with actual/imputed knowledge of these unlawful killings in gross violation of International Law, Trump praised Netanyahu – against whom an International Arrest Warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court to stand Trial in the Hague for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, as being the greatest leader that Israel had ever had. In February, Netanyahu said that Trump was ‘the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.’ So, has Trump pledged unconditional support to Israel, for the genociding of what remains of the Palestinian population in Gaza? Palestinians living on the West Bank will be next. Then, in pursuit of its ‘Greater Israel Project ‘- who will Israel genocide next – the indigenous Arab populations living in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Jordan & Egypt?
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5134621-netanyahu-praises-trumps-as-israels-greatest-friend-to-ever-be-president/

If Trump has pledged unconditional US support to Israel for the carrying out of its ‘Greater Israel Project’, then how can the extermination by Israel of ‘non-Jews’, i.e. both Muslims and Christians, who are living in and indigenous to the Middle East end, if the Genocide in Gaza is only the beginning of the ‘Greater Israel Project?’ If the reason i.e. ‘raison d’etre’/’rationale’, for apartheid in Israel and the Genocide in Gaza, is that ‘demographically’, there is a parity between the size of the ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Jewish settlor’ populations on that land, then as Israel expands its territory further into that of its Arab neighbours (including in 2024 – Lebanon and Syria), will Israel also commit Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide on that ‘stolen’ land, in order to create a ‘Greater Israeli’ state that is for Jews alone? That is the question that the rest of the world needs to ask itself. However, I have not heard a single mainstream media TV journalist draw this logical conclusion about the ‘root cause’/raison d’etre for Ethnic Cleansing and the Genocide of the entire ‘non-Jewish’ population i.e. both Muslim and Christian, in Gaza and the West Bank. The ‘root-cause’/raison d’etre for Genocide is the unspoken elephant in the room!

Genocide is also linked to the attack on free speech.

See:
·       COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Will Trump Deport Americans?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LcjHxKHNfs&list=UUDkEYb-TXJVWLvOokshtlsw&index=3
·       Prof. John Mearsheimer : Trump, Netanyahu, and Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd2_XNuujDU&list=UUDkEYb-TXJVWLvOokshtlsw&index=2

Fast forward to 27 mins –

‘[Trump] will eventually come for people like us. He would cook up some charge against us that we were damaging American Foreign Policy because we were criticising him, and then ship us off to El Salvador. That is what will happen here. … This is why Law firms should have stood up to him. Media should have stood up to him. Hardly anybody stands up to the Guy. There are no checks and balances on him.’ (Professor John Mearsheimer).

As Trump upended the global international trade system, by declaring an emergency that did not exist, in order to unilaterally impose tariffs (and NB constitutionally only the US Congress has the power to impose tariffs), then what is to stop him behaving like a Roman dictator by arresting and deporting anybody who criticises him, his powerful donor friends and political allies, to prisons in far off places – like El Salvador?

See aslo:

‘Trump has warned that the United States could launch a bombing attack “the likes of which they have never seen before” against the Islamic Republic of Iran. … “If they don’t make a deal… there will be bombing,” he stated.’ See: https://lnkd.in/e8GVeHiB

‘Every 5th-generation fighter regardless of origin can be detected under the right circumstances.’ See https://lnkd.in/ewakgsAA.

So, if:
(i)       Trump orders bombers sent to Diego Garcia that are capable of carrying a nuclear payload, to attack Yemen; &
(ii)       Iran detects stealth aircraft heading toward the Persian Gulf,

then logically:

(iii)          Iran will ready itself to launch an immediate counter-attack (that may target: Diego Garcia; all US bases and ships in the Gulf; & all Gulf State oil installations – which would crash the world economy). Apparently, this would take minutes to implement and carry out.
(ii)        Notify Yemen, who may sink US ships. NB there are at present, two US carrier strike groups in the region: https://lnkd.in/eWvQ9xm3. If that happened, would one consequence be the crippling of US military power to contain China in South East Asia? So, has Trump and his top team thought this through?

Britain may also be drawn in, see Iran Warns US And UK, Threatens Strike On Chagos Island | World News | WION: https://lnkd.in/e8psj4WX

I wonder if any MP has ‘joined-up the dots’ yet, and will ask a question at PMQ’s in less than 1 hour.

In other words today, will anybody in Parliament ask –

‘Is the US military build-up in Diego Garica and the Persian Gulf in preparation for a nuclear attack against Yemen in breach of International Law, in which the UK will participate or could become involved?’

Because if it is, then have Trump and any of his top advisors (and remember what ‘Signalgate’ exposed about the calibre of these people), thought this through & understood the logical Achilles heel above?

Have Keir Starmer & his Ministers ‘joined-up the dots’, i.e. that World War 3 could begin by accident if Trump orders bombers in Diego Garcia to attack Yemen?

Intellectually – just how smart are these politicians & world leaders?

See also:
·       COL. Douglas Macgregor : Will the US Attack Iran For Netanyahu?: https://lnkd.in/eJWkdqQV. NB Colonel Macgregor answers Yes to this question.
·       Pepe Escobar: Yemen Strikes Back – The Crisis Spirals Out of Control!: https://lnkd.in/eTCMY4WB. He speculates as I have been wondering for several days, whether the military build-up in Diego Garcia is not to attack Iran, but to attack Yemen?

If the above analysis is logically correct, then will the US & UK military establishments warn about the risk of a nuclear world war starting by accident, i.e. if Trump attacks Yemen & Iran at the bidding of: Israel; the US Neocons & powerful pro-Israel donors to his Presidential campaign?

Why is nobody asking questions about this?

No question was asked about this. Nor was any question asked today about – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knaBrE6_cPA.
Israeli soldiers handcuffed and executed – with a bullet to the head,  8 Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) Paramedics, 6 Civil Defence Workers and 1 UNRWA staff member. They then buried the bodies in a shallow mass grave and attempted to bury the ambulances! That was 7 days ago. This war crime was committed in full view of the world, however I have not heard this mentioned on the BBC, ITV or SKY news even once. Why? Pertinently, for the upholding of the rule of law in the UK, why has not a single MP raised this war crime in Parliament, and demanded to know what the British Government is actively doing, to bring Israeli war criminals who set foot in the UK, or who are already here (including any person) who has been complicit in the commission of either a war crime or a crime against humanity, to justice in the British courts?

I have just realised:
·       Trump gave Iran a 2 month deadline for compliance with his demand. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/19/politics/trump-gives-iran-deadline-nuclear-deal/index.html
·       Daniel Davis who in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzfEemh0ARw confirms at 11:46 that this US military build-up is ‘unprecedented’ … ‘strike groups + the air tankers + the tactical air + the strategic bomber force all at the same time.’ He concludes that the US has already made a decision to go to war. At 10:34 he states that ‘[it indicates that the US] will either do something or don’t do something within 2 months.’
·       So, the ‘deadline’ and ‘time-window’ for war are the same.

See also:

‘If your eyes are shut, well you can now open them!’

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwjBbeUapxo

Full Report – https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session58/a-hrc-58-crp-6.pdf

I wonder – how many Palestinian girls and young women are officially amongst the ‘Disappeared’?

See also ‘Legal coalition to pursue Israelis accused of war crimes around the world’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb5XaEyY1ug

‘At a launch event in London on Tuesday, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) said the Global 195 initiative would seek to use domestic and international legal mechanisms to seek justice against Israeli soldiers and others “spanning the entire Israeli military and political chain of command”. …’

See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOEtoWtjlLY.
As the Historian and Guardian Columnist Owen Jones states – ‘No crime in history has been so documented as it actually happened.’

The evidence of ‘fact’ is overwhelming.

‘Legal accountability for War Crimes & Crimes against Humanity‘

This is an example of what you are not supposed to be ‘thinking’ and ‘talking’ about. However, to do that is not a ‘Thought crime v. Israel & Zionism’, because what Israel did is a ‘War Crime’ and a ‘Crime Against Humanity’ under International Law.

‘Two hours of terror: Sky News investigation reveals how Israel’s deadly attack on aid workers unfolded.’ New evidence unearthed by Sky News contradicts Israel’s official account of the killing of 15 aid workers.’ By Ben van der Merwe and Michelle Inez Simon, Data & Forensics, Celine Al Khaldi and Sky’s Gaza team: https://news.sky.com/story/two-hours-of-terror-sky-news-investigation-reveals-how-israels-deadly-attack-on-aid-workers-unfolded-13348776

See also:

Yemen & Iran

Gaza

MENA

Ukraine

‘Panama & Mexico’

‘China’

‘US Foreign Policy’

Attacks on free speech

‘Complicity in War Crimes’

‘How morally bankrupt have Britain’s political leaders become?’

See: https://lnkd.in/epj5N6vn.

I watched these speeches as they were broadcast live in the House of Commons on Wednesday, with disgust and shame.

Who do these politicians speak for? i.e. to what audience/political base are they appealing for votes?

The Guardian Newspaper Columnist Owen Jones (see the link above), describes what these political leaders said as being ‘Racist contempt for Palestinians’.

These politicians do not speak for me.

I personally find what they said to be vile, repulsive, divisive and potentially very dangerous.

In what direction are these politicians taking this country?

I will let you work that out for yourself.

Why were they applauded by their colleagues in Parliament, instead of being immediately condemned for uttering these words?

What has become of moral political leadership in Britain?

Where has ’empathy’ and ‘humanity‘ gone to in the Mother of all Parliaments?

‘Naivety about the planned fate of Gaza?’

See – Ray McGovern : What Mossad Tells Netanyahu: https://lnkd.in/djizJ-id

Scroll forward to 13 minutes.

‘Bunker busting bombs emit carbon monoxide over a very large radius. What does that mean? That means people hiding in tunnels, people who are still hiding in basements, most of them will succumb to the carbon monoxide Ok. So, when I talk about exterminating the Palestinians in Gaza, I think that is the natural conclusion of what is going on. … That is because nobody is going to take these people and they are not going to leave.’ [Ray McGovern].

According to this commentator, Trump is asking the US Congress to approve $7-8 Billion of military aid (i.e. as a ‘gift’) to Israel, including the supply of 1000 to 2000 pound bombs, which emit carbon monoxide.

As far as I am aware, Trump has proposed Congressional approval of $Zero aid to Palestinians in Gaza, i.e. for their immediate survival needs and re-construction.

See also – ‘Report reveals Israel used toxic gas to suffocate Palestinian fighters, captives in Gaza tunnels’: https://lnkd.in/dkUWQy-s

So, is the long term plan that has been set in motion by the Trump administration and Israel, the extermination of potentially the entire remaining civilian Palestinian population in Gaza?

What logical conclusions do you draw from:

(i) what Tump is asking the US Congress to approve and do, i.e. on behalf of the American people; and

(ii) the military purpose, for which 1000 – 2000 pound bombs that emit ‘carbon monoxide’, are being supplied to Israel – a state that is on trial at the ICJ in the Hague, for the ultimate crime under International Law, of Genocide?

If you think/believe, that what appears to Ray McGovern (see above), to be the planned murder of around 1.5 million Palestinian civilians, i.e. men, women, children, and babies, using the agency of carbon monoxide (alongside with bombs and starvation etc …), is not a planned genocidal ‘holocaust’ – then please explain to me, how logically, you arrive at that conclusion – i.e. am I missing something here?

Has Trump now also ‘normalised’ Genocide?

If that is not the plan, then why seek Congressional approval for the supply to Israel, of an instrument of potential mass murder – ‘Bunker Busting’ 1000 – 2000 bombs that emit ‘Carbon Monoxide’, i.e. which can be used by Israel, as an agency of indiscriminate mass killing and genocide?

See also:

“I’m committed to buying and owning Gaza,” he said, repeating a claim he first uttered on the second day of his presidency.

  • See also my blog on the ‘Negotiating Political Order’ page entitled- ‘Mediation Advocacy Paradigm – Who am I negotiating with – the Political Leader, an Oligarch or a Patriarch – or all three?’ in which I wrote:‘Where a political leader [‘PL’] is also an Oligarch and/or Patriarch – what is her/her priority – their business/family empire, or their country? …
    Hypothetically, if for example, a PL’s plan, involves taxpayers in PL’s country [‘PLC’], sacrificing billions in blood & treasure, in order to further the geopolitical interests of a foreign power [‘FG’] (which do not align with the geopolitical interests of PLC), so that FG in breach of International Law, can obliterate the territory of a neighbouring sovereign power [NSP’], in order to:
    (i)        clear the ‘indigenous’ land of NSP, by committing ethnic cleansing/genocide;
    (ii)       unlawfully appropriate the indigenous land of NSP; [&]
    (iii)      then transfer [it] to PLC,
    so that PL’s family business (& their partners … ), can profit from re-construction contracts, the building/ownership of resort hotels, … & casinos on the land, then why is that strategy ‘irrational’ within the ‘paradigm’ of PL’s ‘paramount family/business interests?’
  • Trump says no right of return for Palestinians under Gaza plan: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn57neepx4vo
  • Trump’s plan for ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Gaza is illegal, says UN investigator: https://www.politico.eu/article/trumps-plan-to-ethnically-cleanse-gaza-is-illegal-says-un-backed-judge/
  • ‘Josh Paul, who resigned from the State Department in 2023 over Biden’s Gaza policy, said circumventing the congressional review process “has essentially given the middle finger to those members and to Congressional oversight.” “In light of President Trump’s comment just this week, in which he talked about Gaza being a hell and a demolition site, these are the weapons that made it a hell and a demolition site,” said Paul, who founded A New Policy, which advocates for changing US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.’ [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/state-department-announces-7-billion-arms-sale-to-israel-circumventing-review-process/ar-AA1yCUzj?ocid=BingNewsSerp]
  • British Journalist: Palestinian Kids “Can Just Go To Hell” – Yet Dan Hodges Faces No Consequences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPqlaKwvsDE
  • ‘Some of these strikes, which were the deadliest in the war and often used American bombs, are known to have killed Israeli hostages despite concerns raised ahead of time by military officers. Moreover, the lack of precise intelligence meant that in at least three major strikes, the army dropped several 2,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that killed scores of civilians — part of a strategy known as “tiling” — without succeeding in killing the intended target.

“Pinpointing a target inside a tunnel is hard, so you attack a [wide] radius,” a Military Intelligence source told +972 and Local Call. Given that the army would have only a vague approximation of the target’s location, the source explained, this radius would be as large as “tens and sometimes hundreds of meters,” meaning these bombing operations collapsed multiple apartment buildings on their occupants without warning. “Suddenly you see how someone in the IDF really behaves when given the opportunity to wipe out an entire residential block — and they do it,” the source added.

The investigation also reveals how Israel has known for years that the use of bunker-buster bombs releases the lethal gas carbon monoxide as a byproduct, which can kill people inside a tunnel through asphyxiation even at a distance of hundreds of meters from the strike location. After discovering this by chance in 2017, the army first tested it as a strategy in Gaza in 2021, and employed it in its efforts to kill Hamas commanders after October 7. This way, the army could attack targets without knowing their precise location, and without having to rely on direct hits.

“The gas stays underground, and people suffocate,” Brig. Gen. (res.) Guy Hazoot, the only source willing to be named, told +972 and Local Call. “[We realized] we could effectively target anyone underground using the Air Force’s bunker-buster bombs, which, even if they don’t destroy the tunnel, release gases that kill anyone inside. The tunnel then becomes a death trap.” …’ [https://www.972mag.com/tunnels-hamas-lethal-gas-bombs-gaza/]

 ‘Has Trump declared that the US is the enemy of civilization itself?’

See – BREAKING: Trump comments on Gaza’s future: https://lnkd.in/eprppVuC

Scroll to 2m – we are going to ‘own it’ & ‘level it’.

At www.artandcivilization.tv there is an essay – ‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy & IHL – Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’

In the essay I state:

‘The destruction of heritage, and prohibition of cultural behaviours are used by certain conflict actors as “shaping operations”, where violence against the “Other” becomes normalised as communities, either incrementally or at once, lose their property, freedoms, and humanity. Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places. Roosevelt’s four freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want. Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction: genocide.’ (Clack, Timothy & Mark Dunkley (2022) Cultural Heritage in Modern Conflict, Past, Propaganda, Parade, Routledge, p.301 – An interview with Colonel Rosie Stone. These are the words of Colonel Stone).

I also posit that – ‘there is an unspoken connection between:
1.    the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation;
2.    ethnic cleansing; and
3.    genocide.’

Has Trump just stated that the US intends to level i.e. ‘destroy’ the entire ancient cultural heritage of this part of the Levant?

If that is what he intends the US to do, then has he just declared that the US is the enemy of civilization itself?

Trump, who is himself a convicted felon in the US, made this announcement at the White House, while standing next to a white settlor supremacist, against whom an international arrest warrant has been issued for war crimes & crimes against humanity.

So, has Trump in effect declared that the US is a ‘rogue’ state?

As far as I am aware, nobody has asked Trump if this is what he intends to do & means.

So what did he mean?

Does he understand the legal implications of the words he used – ‘own it’ & ‘level it’?

Did he take any professional advice from US Government lawyers before making this statement on behalf of the United Stated of America?

What advice did they give him?

Or, does he simply think and believe, that ‘might is right’?

Is that his geopolitical worldview?

In a democracy, how can a leader who has pledged to uphold the international ‘rule of law’, possess such a crude worldview?

So, I wonder, who has influenced Trump’s views about democracy & the rule of law?

See also:

Was a Plan agreed between the US & Israel to acquire Gaza? See – Max Blumenthal : GAZA Treachery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY96FUbxZok.

What is the Plan?

Who proposed it?

When was it agreed?

Who has a ‘commercial’ stake in the Plan being executed and completed?

This ‘idea’/’plan’ did not suddenly come into existence on Tuesday.

Trump was reading off cards that had been prepared for the Press Conference.

How did the idea/Plan evolve?

Who are the chief architects of the Plan?

‘What did Trump mean when he said he wants to clean out Gaza by removing Palestinians’

‘Trump says he wants to ‘clean out Gaza’ by removing Palestinians’:
US president proposes relocating 1.5 million displaced Gazans to neighbouring Jordan and Egypt.’ See: https://lnkd.in/e3YbVdnp.

‘President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Egypt and Jordan take in Palestinians from the war-ravaged Gaza Strip is likely to be met with a hard “no” from the two U.S. allies and the Palestinians themselves who fear Israel would never allow them to return. Trump floated the idea on Saturday, saying he would urge the leaders of the two Arab countries to take in Gaza’s now largely homeless population, so that “we just clean out that whole thing.” He added that resettling Gaza’s population “could be temporary or long term.” (Source: The Associated Press).’

When I first heard about this, 3 thoughts immediately entered into my mind:

1st – Why 1.5 million?

The entire Palestinian population has been displaced. Trump has in effect admitted knowledge of that fact by saying the words – ‘Gaza’s now largely homeless population.’

The size of the Palestinian population in 2022 was estimated to be over 2 million.

So, what happens to the other 500,000, unless Trump has been told by his officials that the total size of the Palestinian population today is only 1.5 million?

If that is the case, then has Trump just inadvertently confirmed that according to official US sources, in excess of half a million Palestinians have been killed by Israel since October 2023?

2nd – What if either: (i) neighbouring Arab states and Europe do not want to take in 1.5 million Palestinians?; or (ii) Palestinians do not want to leave their ancestral homeland?

Since under International Law, forced i.e. involuntary displacement = ethnic cleansing, then:

(iii) what is Trump’s Plan B, i.e. to avoid ethnic cleansing; and

(iv) will any state start today, to prepare for the making of an application to the ICJ to obtain an urgent ruling prohibiting ethnic cleansing? – i.e. if that is what Trump actually means and is in fact proposing?

Journalists travelling with him to MENA should therefore seek urgent clarification and confirmation.

Only Trump knows what goes on inside his head.

I wonder however, what his professional foreign policy and international relations strategy team have advised him – in writing?

Have they taken official and recorded US Government legal advice, about the risk of potential complicity in ethnic cleansing, and if they did, was this legal advice passed on to Trump before he opened his mouth, or was what he said, an unplanned and off-the-cuff remark?

What kind of rational world leader does that? i.e. what have the American people voted for?

Notes added:

 

Note: ‘Expanding the Crime of Genocide to Include Ethnic Cleansing: A Return to Established Principles in Light of Contemporary Interpretations’ by Micol Sirkin, Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 33:2, 489 – 526 [2010]:
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1984&context=sulr

‘Genocide is the worst crime known to man not only because it causes immense and widespread suffering, but because it eliminates a human group. Losing a human group deprives society of the group’s cultural contributions.’

‘The assault by Israel, the occupying Power, on the Gaza Strip has reached unprecedented levels, with northern Gaza now facing near-total devastation. … Palestinians are being forcibly displaced before our eyes. This is not an “evacuation” but forced displacement and ethnic cleansing – civilians are being forced to leave their homes and shelters under bombs and gunfire and starved with little or no aid. …
Most alarming is the Security Council’s passive tolerance of the killing and maiming of civilians and wanton destruction of civilian property, repeatedly and wrongly justified by Israel and other members as “self-defense”… The critical urgency to enforce a ceasefire has been completely lost, eclipsed by the relentless violence by Israel’s occupying forces and a soaring Palestinian civilian death toll. Instead, the bloodshed continues unabated, marking a profound failure of our collective humanity and the Council’s fundamental Charter duty.’

(See: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/ceirpp-chairs-statement-security-council-29oct2024/)

  • The apparent rationale for re-locating Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab States and Europe, is because Gaza ‘is literally a demolition site right now’ [Trump’s words].

Trump did not mention the West Bank.

When applied to the West Bank, and taken to its logical extreme, what appears to be the rationale articulated by Tump for re-locating Palestinians, leads to the conclusion that if Israel were to bomb the West Bank, thereby also turning it, into a ‘demolition site’, that Trump would then also propose that all Palestinians living in the West Bank who survived, should also be relocated to neighbouring Arab states and Europe.

According to Wikipedia, the estimated population of the West Bank = 2,747,943 Palestinians. Add 1.5m = the ‘re-location’ of 4,247,943 people.

To place that in context:
(i) the total population of Britain in 2023 was around 68.2m.
(ii) 4,247,943 divided by 68,200,000 and multiplied by 100 = 6.26% of the entire population of the UK.

See also – Prof. John Mearsheimer on Israel/Gaza Ceasefire, Trump’s Foreign Policy, Ukraine, Free Speech Crackdowns & More:

https://rumble.com/v6d3kep-system-update-show-396.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

‘Conflicting analysis of the Gaza Ceasefire’ (17.01.2025)’

Posted on January 17, 2025

The Israeli Security Cabinet is meeting to vote on approval of the terms of the Gaza ceasefire.

What did Trump actually agree with Netanyahu?

Contrast:

(i) COL. Douglas Macgregor : Trump and American Expansion:
https://lnkd.in/ez8P66Fa

Douglas Macgregor states:

– ‘Gaza is scheduled for extinction [&] the West Bank.’ [At 14:30m]

– There was an undocumented side deal. [At 11:17m].

– The terms of the side deal included:
(a) Israel re-entering Gaza with Trump’s blessing.
(b) Israel with US support (including naval support) attacking Iran.

In other words, things are not going to get better, they are going to get worse in the Middle East. He believes that the ceasefire enables Israel to protect its western flank ahead on an attack on Iran. Based upon information provided by a source, he appears to be in no doubt that Israel with the military support of the US will attack Iran. He also states that this may bring in Russia (who have signed a security pact with Iran). NB Russia, Iran, and China are all member states of both BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement, see: https://lnkd.in/emKUQerk. He expects the Gaza ceasefire to last around 6 weeks.

and

(ii) COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : What Ceasefire?:
https://lnkd.in/eyKuVnVt

He says that Israel is doing the bidding of the US in the Middle East, i.e. that Biden (and his predecessors) were the puppet-masters of the regional conflict in MENA, and that contrary to popular belief Israel is not the brain and driving force behind US foreign policy.

with

(iii) Alex Krainer | Trump’s Grand Strategy: Middle East & Europe:
https://lnkd.in/eYv4TK6t

His thesis is that the brain and controlling force behind Western foreign policy are elites in London.

He wonders if Trump will align the US with BRICS.

So;

(i) and (ii) = war with BRICS.
(iii) = US charting a course not as a unipolar hegemon, but amongst hegemons in a multi-polar world divided into spheres of influence.

As I have previously argued:

(a) Trump’s foreign policy priority is China & not Ukraine or MENA.
(b) The US military is already at overstretch in 3 theatres thousands of miles apart:
– Ukraine;
– MENA; and
– South China Seas (including Taiwan).

(c) If Trump allows the US to be drawn into a wider war in MENA, i.e. by attacking Iran, then how can he either fulfil his promise to ‘Make America Great Again’, or have sufficient military assets in the Pacific region to deter China?

(d) If the Straights of Hormuz close, that will impact upon: the supply of oil; oil prices; & the price of any product derived from Petro-chemicals – which could crash the world economy.

So, on the face of it, a rational US President would probably not support an attack on Iran.

Trump as a businessman, apparently analyses transactional benefit v. risk in the manner of a balance sheet & so, appears to be a rational leader.

What does Trump want to do & will the political elites around him allow it?

I think it is highly unlikely that a side deal was made in breach of the Logan Act. I also think it is highly unlikely that Trump pledged US support for Israel attacking Iran. I have arrived at the that conclusion because:
(i)          The two biggest i.e. ‘priority’ challenges facing Trump are:
(a) renewal at home; and
(b) China.
(ii)        Trump’s envoy has stated that Trump intends to apply maximum economic pressure on Iran, i.e. not to attack it.
(iii)       Yesterday Russia & Iran signed a security agreement.
(iv)       If the US attacked Iran (risking bringing Russia into direct conflict with the US), how can Trump have a dialogue with Russia & China about: where their geopolitical interests converge; where they conflict; and what arrangements can be agreed at heads of state level to avoid, minimise & contain the risk of a conventional or nuclear war between hegemons. That conversation is linked to a dialogue about ending the war in Ukraine.
See also my post today – ‘Heads of State Level Meeting Between Trump & Putin – It is not a question of whether but of when’.

See also:

As far as I am aware, Israel have not agreed with Trump to abandon the ‘Greater Israel Project.’ Thus, notwithstanding the terms of the Gaza Ceasefire agreement, the staged phases of which may never all be fully implemented (which we shall have to wait and see), it appears that the ‘Greater Israel Project’ remains a primary strategic objective of the Israeli Government. It is therefore likely to continue. So, logically, Israel will at some point re-enter and re-occupy the whole of the Gaza Strip. Unless I have misunderstood what the press are reporting inside Israel itself (see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-the-hostage-ceasefire-agreement-reached-between-israel-and-hamas/) the ceasefire agreement does not apply to the West Bank.

See also: https://www.fairobserver.com/politics/the-greater-israel-plan-has-a-colossal-reach/#

As this map shows, see:https://mepei.com/greater-israel-an-ongoing-expansion-plan-for-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/, the aim of the ‘Greater Israel Project’ is to expand the territory of Israel to include: the whole of Palestine (which Israel already occupies), Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Kuwait; and parts of Iraq; Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

  • For news about the ‘Greater Israel Project’ see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o61TCrOe36I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDZ15yHZUTs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjdXvmW-EMM
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/10/17/israeli-settlers-ambitions-for-lebanon-and-greater-israel

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-ceasefire-deal-live-hamas-attack-netanyahu-news-b2681268.html

Regional powers collide after Syria collapse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVw3DGCSKPo

‘Turning a blind-eye to genocide – The lesson of history is that the real complaining party in the courtroom is civilisation itself’

[Extract from the Decision of the Court delivered by Judge Dan Hayward, as dramatized in the film Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)]: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechjudgmentatnuremberg3.html

‘Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organised system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilised nations. …

The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilisation. …

The principle of criminal law in every civilised society has this in common:

Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime – is guilty. …

If [this defendant] and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts, if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary – even able and extraordinary – men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination.

No one who was sat through this trial can ever forget them: men sterilised because of political beliefs; a mockery made of friendship and faith; the murder of children. How easily it can happen.

There are those in our own country too who today speak of the “protection of country” – of  – “survival.”

A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient – to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is “survival as what?”

A country isn’t a rock. It’s not an extension of one’s self. It’s what it stands for. It’s what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.’

If you have not seen the film, I recommend it.

‘The film centers on a military tribunal led by Chief Trial Judge Dan Haywood before which 4 judges and prosecutors (as compared to 16 defendants in the actual Judges’ Trial) stand accused of crimes against humanity. … Haywood seeks to understand how the German people could have been deaf and blind to the Nazi regime’s crimes.’ (Wikipedia).

In the 24 hour social media era, it is no longer possible to be an uniformed and ignorant bystander to war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed daily before our eyes.

So, I wonder, how will history judge our political leaders and those who chose to ‘look the other way’?

The utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, who delivered an 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews stated:

‘Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.’

In other words, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men and women to do nothing.

See also:

‘250,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza over 9 month (12.07.2024)’

As the new cohort of MP’s go on holiday for 2 months I invite them to reflect upon the following:

The Lancet (conservative estimate) = 186 000 (violent i.e. ‘direct’ deaths) + 10,000 under the rubble (a high proportion of which are likely to be babies & children). [Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential – The Lancet]

Professor John Mearsheimer, who is a graduate of West Point (Prof. John Mearsheimer: Ukraine Collapsing (youtube.com) & fast forward to 20:28)[Broadcast yesterday] estimates 250,000 deaths:

37,000 (violently) + 13 (under the rubble) = 50,000 [‘Direct Deaths’].

+

x 4 = total number of ‘Indirect Deaths’ e.g. from starvation, de-hydration, disease & lack of medical care (since Israel bombed every hospital in Gaza) = 200,000.

So, 50K (‘Direct Deaths’) + 200k ‘Indirect Deaths’ = 250,000 Palestinians dead.

Using the 2022 Gaza Strip population estimate of 2, 375 259, this would translate to 10.52% of the total population in the Gaza Strip.

Executed over a 9 month period

So on a straight line calculation (‘SLC’) = 1.16% of the total population in the Gaza Strip per month.

The current population roughly = 2,125,259.

In order to extrapolate as an SLC divide by 250,000 and multiply by 9 = 76 months from today.

So, as a SLC, it is statistically probable that the entire population of Gaza will cease to exist in 6.3 years, i.e. sometime in 2030.

Statistically, on this SLC, it is also probable that the entire population of Gaza will cease to exist before 2030.

That is because the SLC must be adjusted to take account of the fact that the percentage of the population killed increases every month as the total number of survivors of the holocaust decreases. Other factors may also result in a sudden increase in deaths e.g. from starvation. NB the $320m Gaza humanitarian pier (paid for by US taxpayers) is being dismantled & may never come back & according to one journalist with sources on the ground – no food and medical supplies went into Gaza last week –  ‘Max Blumenthal: Israelis Killing Their Own – #HannibalDirective (youtube.com))

Hannibal Directive – ‘IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive – Israel News – Haaretz.com

The death toll in Israel from the Hamas-led attacks is estimated to be 1,139. Assuming that the total number of Israelis killed by the IDF that day = 60%, then the IDF killed 683.4 Israelis. So, Hamas killed 456 (and I am not in any way condoning these deaths which were all unlawful killings – I am merely stating a fact). Therefore the kill exchange ratio = 250,000 Palestinians divided by 455.60 Israelis.

The death exchange ratio = 250,000 Palestinians divided by 455.60 Israelis.

This yields a ratio of 548 Palestinian lives for 1 Israeli life, i.e. a ratio of 1:548.

To illustrate the disproportionate scale of these killings compare:
UK population of 67,968,441 x 10.52% would = 7,136,686 UK deaths.
US population of 341,864,230 x 10.52% would = 35,964,116.996.

Notes added:

See also:

Is Biden or Orban Shaping Our World? (youtube.com)

‘Will a restatement of the International Rule of Law by BRICS + the SCO eventually form the legal bedrock of an evolving Eurasian Multi-Nodal World Order thereby displacing neoliberalism & the International Liberal Rules Based Order?’

If such a global re-ordering takes place, I wonder if ‘collaboration’ leading to ‘convergence’ (see the ‘Idea of Geopolitical Mediation’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page), and closer ‘economic integration’, could prevent a war between ‘great powers’ from happening in the future?

For background, I recommend that you Google & watch:

The Summit of the Future — Jeffrey D. Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Political Upheaval and Global Security Challenges (youtube.com)

Pepe Escobar : SCO Summit a Geopolitical Game Changer (youtube.com)

So, in a post-BREXIT & evolving ‘multi-nodal’ world, how can Labour achieve its economic growth plan without maximising engagement in international trade with members of BRICS (+ the SCO Eurasian security partnership – which Turkey may leave NATO to join)?

Arguably, a logical corollary of the Q. above, is – ‘If the UK engages in a war with a member of BRICS + SCO – what impact will that have on international trade & the UK economy?’

A 3rd Q. is – ‘If we lose such a war, how will we be allowed full access to an international trade market which potentially spans a landmass running from Lisbon to Vladivostok (E – W); from MENA to South Africa (N-S) & (S-N) in South America (+ the Caribbean)?’

So, has Starmer made a fundamental geopolitical mistake within the first hours of his administration, by confirming that there will be no change in UK Foreign Policy vis-a-vis: (i) ‘neo-liberalism’ (based upon US hegemony in what is now a ‘multi-polar’ world); and (ii) ‘de-globalisation’ (based upon the displacement of ‘neo-liberalism’ & ‘great power politics’, by the creation of a comprehensive ‘multi-nodal’: (a) ‘geo-political’; (b) ‘geo-economic’; & (c) ‘security’ architecture, underwritten by a ‘restatement of the International Rule of Law’ & the ‘creation of new international dispute settlement institutions’, by: (a) BRICS + SCO (who may cohere into a single organisational entity); & (b) the remainder of the ‘Global South’, including members of the Commonwealth – who may apply for membership?

In other words, has Starmer committed himself to sailing the UK ship in the wrong ‘geo-economic’ & ‘geo-political’ direction, by committing UK Foreign Policy to an outdated & failed model – ‘Neo-Liberalism’? See the prediction in my blog – ‘Centre for Geopolitics at Cambridge University Panel Event about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).’ [04.08.2023], on the ‘Conflict’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

What do you think?

I will return to this theme when I start work in 2025 on my planned book – ‘Cultural Heritage Law & International Dispute Settlement’. See the corresponding page at www.carlislam.co.uk. Meanwhile, as an author, I will be following future developments with a keen academic interest.

Notes added:

See also my recent blogs on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation & Peace Building’ page:
–    ‘Peace requires the establishment of a new “Westphalian” world order.’
–   ‘Is the dynamic root of the geopolitical contest between Global North v. Global South – “cultural”?’
–   ‘Emergence of a New World Order?’
& my  blog on this page – ‘Toward an International Cultural Heritage Court.’
See also – The Summit of the Future — Jeffrey D. Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

‘Assuming that globalization, constrained state sovereignty, and demographic revolution continue as basic world trends, the world order is likely to be one in which concerns about conflicts of interests drive interactions, but no state or group of states is capable of benefitting from unilaterally enforcing its will against the rest. Thus, there is no set of “poles” whose competition or cooperation determines the world order, despite the differences of exposure created by disparities in capacity. Although the United States and China will be the primary state actors and their relationship will contain elements of rivalry as well as cooperation, the prerequisites of Cold War bipolarity no longer exist. Rather, the order would be best described as “multinodal,” a matrix of interacting, unequal units that pursue their own interests within a stable array of national units and an increasing routinization of international regimes and interpenetrating transnational connections.’ (China’s Future in a Multinodal World Order | Pacific Affairs (UBC Journal)).

‘The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a strategic partner of the United Nations on issues relating to political affairs and peace and security. In April 2010, the UN and SCO Secretariats signed the Joint Declaration on Cooperation, which includes information exchange and capacity building. In addition, SCO has also established partnerships with the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) … United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT). The UN and the SCO pursued their cooperation, particularly in the area of peace and security, including counter-terrorism and prevention of violent extremism, and sustainable development. The Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), as well as UNRCCA (United Nations Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia) maintain regular contacts with the SCO Secretariat and its Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure in Tashkent.’
(Shanghai Cooperation Organization | Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (un.org)).

‘UN Secretary has called for a Summit of the Future at the United Nations on September 22-23 … [This was] endorsed by the 193 UN Member states. The core idea of the Summit … is that humanity is facing a set of unprecedented challenges that can only be solved through global cooperation.  The crisis of human-induced climate change (especially the warming of the planet) cannot be solved by any one country alone.  Nor can the crises of wars (such as in Ukraine and Gaza) or the geopolitical tensions (between the US and China) be settled by one or two countries alone.  Each country, even the major powers including the US, China, Russia, India, and others are part of a complex global structure of power, economics, and politics that requires truly global solutions. The Summit will revolve around 5 core topics, all of them related to multilateralism, meaning the system by which nations co-exist with the rest of the world.  These topics are: (1) the goal of sustainable development; (2) the goal of peace; (3) the control of new technologies such as artificial intelligence; (4) the empowerment of young people and future generations; and (5) reform of the UN architecture.’ (The Summit of the Future — Jeffrey D. Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

‘The U.S. hegemony crisis is partly economic and social, derived from the failure of neoliberalism as an alternative to the accumulation crisis and its social consequences; but it is, above all, the result of changes brought about in power structures. This hegemony crisis could be understood as the loss or depletion of the economic structure, the political organization, and the ideological orientation instruments created after World War II, which are necessary to maintain a stable world order. Marco Gandásegui, founding leader of the CLACSO “United States Studies” Working Group (WG), assumed this crisis as a result of a “global” phenomenon. However, in his internal determinations related to the American power structure, he stressed its changes in the context of “neoliberal globalization.” He interrogated the ability, or lack thereof, of the American capitalist class or internal bourgeoisie to tackle the crisis, in a context of disarticulation and weakening of the working class.’ (The Hegemony Crisis, the Neoliberal Model, and the United States Power Structure – Dídimo Castillo Fernández, 2021 (sagepub.com)).

Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance (Google ‘Globalization and Neoliberalism by David M. Kotz’ – Glob_and_NL_02.pdf (umass.edu)).  ‘Globalization’ is an ideal of Neoliberalism.

‘Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as “eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers” and reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the economy. It is also commonly associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. Some scholars note it has a number of distinct usages in different spheres:
– As a development model, it refers to the rejection of structuralist economics in favor of the Washington Consensus.
– As an ideology, it denotes a conception of freedom as an overarching social value associated with reducing state functions to those of a minimal state.
– As a public policy, it involves the privatization of public economic sectors or services, the deregulation of private corporations, sharp decrease of government budget deficits and reduction of spending on public works.’ (Wikipedia).

‘Globalisation is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide. … Globalization is primarily an economic process of interaction and integration that is associated with social and cultural aspects. However, disputes and international diplomacy are also large parts of the history of globalization, and of modern globalization.
Economically, globalization involves goods, services, data, technology, and the economic resources of capital. The expansion of global markets liberalizes the economic activities of the exchange of goods and funds. Removal of cross-border trade barriers has made the formation of global markets more feasible. Advances in transportation, like the steam locomotive, steamship, jet engine, and container ships, and developments in telecommunication infrastructure such as the telegraph, the Internet, mobile phones, and smartphones, have been major factors in globalization and have generated further interdependence of economic and cultural activities around the globe.’ (Wikipedia).

‘Deglobalization or deglobalisation is the process of diminishing interdependence and integration between certain units around the world, typically nation-states. … It stands in contrast to globalization, in which units become increasingly integrated over time, and generally spans the time between periods of globalization. While globalization and deglobalization are antitheses, they are not mirror images. …

The occurrence of deglobalization has strong proponents who have claimed the death of globalization, but is also contested by the former Director-General of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy and leading academics such as Michael Bordo who argue that it is too soon to give a good diagnosis and Mervyn Martin who argues that US and UK policies are rational answers to essential temporary problems of even strong nations.

While as with globalization, deglobalization can refer to economic, trade, social, technological, cultural and political dimensions, much of the work that has been conducted in the study of deglobalization refers to the field of international economics.’ (Wikipedia).

‘Decades of neoliberal globalisation involved a refashioning of global and national rules to favour large private capital, in the form of financial and real investments and greater “ease of doing business”. It was associated with major privatisations: of public assets, of natural resources, of essential services (such as health, education and sanitation), of major amenities that were earlier seen as “natural monopolies” (like electricity) and even of knowledge (through intellectual property rights). It involved deregulation of other markets, leading to less protection of labour and the environment. This led to sharp declines in public wealth across the world and extreme concentrations of assets in the hands of a few multinational corporations and rich individuals. Inequality also reduced mass consumption demand, making for lower levels of economic activity and therefore employment. Meanwhile, technological changes added to inequality by reducing demand for many types of workers. …
Unfortunately, the current deglobalisation also remains fundamentally neoliberal in its nature and inspiration.’ …
(Globalisation and Deglobalisation: The Impact and the Alternatives – Intereconomics).

‘Most people would likely claim a general understanding of neoliberalism as a movement of laissez-faire principles aimed at ensuring free markets and an “unfettered” economy. In Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, one of the first intellectual histories of the movement, Quinn Slobodian shows that, in the beginning, neoliberalism was actually about shielding the economic world from the political world—about protecting the global economy, not freeing it. For Slobodian, neoliberalism is ultimately less a theory of the market or economics than of law and state, and his work gives us a much clearer sense of how the old world of empire gave way in the twentieth century not to a quasi-libertarian world of markets but to international institutions that were highly active in prescribing trade policies and rules about competition. Below, Slobodian introduces his study, and recounts its origins in a late-1990s moment when passion could often outpace understanding.’

(Making Sense of Neoliberalism – Harvard University Press Blog (typepad.com)).

[I have ordered a copy of the book].

So, neo-liberalism has resulted in a divided society in the US & UK & a world split between a rich minority (living in the ‘Global North’) & a poor majority (living in the ‘Global South’), i.e. an uneven distribution of rights, wealth, power & control over resources. Because our challenges are existential, the current model of ‘deglobalisation’ is not a practical alternative for humanity. Thus, there is no alternative to substantially increased international cooperation on key issues.

Fresh thinking about a practical & fair model of ‘de-globalisation’ is required in order to redress inequality through ‘balance’ and ‘distributive justice’. A new form of ‘balance of power politics’?

On the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page – see the ‘Idea of Geopolitical Mediation’, I argue that this requires ‘competition’ between ‘great powers’ to be transformed into ‘collaboration’, through a mediated process whereby their competing interests converge for mutual gain, i.e. instead of behaving as ‘competitors’, state actors become ‘partners’. This idea will of course be opposed by existing elites who have benefited from globalisation. What do you think is a fit for purpose alternative to globalisation?

See also:

“Was Tony Blair’s Prime Ministership Neoliberal?”: A Survey of British Economic Policy, 1979-2007 by Nader Elhefnawy :: SSRN

jessop-from-thatcherism-to-new-labour.pdf (lancaster.ac.uk)

Second-wave neoliberalism in the 1990s: Clinton’s market globalism and Blair’s Third Way | Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

‘Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline.’

Writing in Foreign Affairs Journal 5 July 2024 in an article – ‘Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline’, Fintan O’Toole wrote:

‘Starmer has to create a virtuous circle in which a radical renewal of the United Kingdom’s sclerotic democracy feeds into and is in turn fed by an energetic revival of its flaccid economy. But if there is no virtuous circle, there will be a vicious one. Political disillusionment will quickly take hold again. Over four million people voted for Farage’s far-right Reform Party, giving it 14 percent of overall party support. Although the workings of the electoral system translated this into just four Commons seats (including one for Farage himself), it gives him a solid base from which he can seek to capitalize on the Conservatives’ disarray.

If Starmer fails to turn public anger into a more long-term optimism, the sour English nationalism that Farage taps into will thrive on that hopelessness. With traditional conservatism in such deep disarray, there is the potential for the right-wing of English politics to end in a MAGA-style takeover. Not the least of its consequences will be the blocking of any moves toward taking the country back into Europe. That in turn will renew the drives toward separation in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.

Labour’s victory has given the United Kingdom a chance to save itself by remaking itself. It has sprung from a very deep pool of disenchantment with the way things work in the country—and the multiple ways in which they patently do not. If Starmer grasps the truth that his triumph is a function of the United Kingdom’s brokenness, he will have the courage to begin to fix it. If not, it will remain dangerously unfixed. And it may indeed become unfixable. The party that has dominated it for 200 years has imploded. It would be foolish to imagine that the same thing could not happen to the country.’

Can Starmer Save Britain? Why Labour’s Sweeping Victory May Not Reverse the Country’s Decline (foreignaffairs.com)

As the Mother Ship of the Commonwealth, the UK is uniquely positioned to mediate peace between the Global North & Global South. Instead of taking sides and behind closed doors, the UK can choose to mediate peace in Ukraine & Gaza. Conversely, logic suggests that if Britain engineers/participates in a hot war with Russia in Europe and v. the Arabs in MENA, loses and consequently BRICS establish new global governance institutions that eventually replace the UN, then unless the UK has a seat at the table, it will be impotent to shape the future of geopolitics. Instead of being a global ‘player’ it will become a global ‘outsider’. If a coalition of ‘Reform and the Conservatives’ win in 2029, and Britain is assessed by investors as being a political ‘risk’ for investment, i.e. because it is evaluated by experts as being politically volatile/unstable, then what impact will that have on inward investment? The choice is between the UK being at peace or war with BRICS & the Global South. So, Starmer must lead & not be led.

 

‘Toward an International Cultural Heritage Court?’

As I observe in my essay ‘Mediating Cultural Property Disputes’ on the ‘Mediating Cultural Property Disputes’ page at www.carlislam.co.uk:

‘At the epicentre of the restitution dialogue is a struggle between two competing theories under International Cultural Heritage Law.
1.   ‘Cultural nationalism’ – Proponents of this view believe that cultural objects belong within the boundaries of the ‘source’ nation of origin.
2.   ‘Cultural internationalism’ – Proponents of this view regard cultural property as being in the words of the 1954 Hague Convention –  ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind.’
Is this tension capable of reconciliation by the determination of a judge sitting in an International Cultural Heritage Court established by either the UN or BRICS?
Unlike a common law ‘domestic’ judge, such an international judge could:
(i) Apply principles of International Cultural Heritage Law.
(ii) Espouse evolutive interpretations of International Law Treaties.
(iii) Consider factors external to the law such as: history; morality; ‘practical ethics’; and peculiar local customs, i.e. after hearing expert academic opinion and evidence.
(iv) Exercise judicial discretion in order to ignore the letter of Treaty law where it proves to be unjust or immoral, thereby creating a new body of international law jurisprudence, i.e. of ‘equitable’ principles based upon: (a) core tenets of ‘natural law’, and ‘distributive justice’; and (b) a ‘re-imagining’ of the core principles of international law evolved centuries ago by western legal philosophers, in order to satisfy the ‘cultural’ needs of what is now a globalised ‘civilization’/’community’ in a modern, post-colonial, and geo-politically ‘multi-polar’ era?
Could such an international court become an incubator and instrument of ‘creative’ co-operation between states, in contrast to being a blunt and ‘politicised’ tool of binary competition for scarce resources between states in the Global North v. states in the Global South?

‘The current legal regime does not always manage to accommodate the diverse and competing interests struggling with each other in the realm of cultural heritage. In addition, while ADR methods are to be preferred, it is rather unlikely that all cultural heritage controversies can be effectively resolved through these mechanisms. Furthermore, litigation appears inadequate, lengthy and costly. Overall, these problems support the case for the establishment of a permanent international court. One can argue that until there is a supranational body empowered to resolve disputes and penalise uncooperative nations, unethical stakeholders and criminals, persuasion or appeals to cooperation will not prevail if it is not in the interests of the stakeholder concerned.’ (‘The Settlement Of International Cultural Heritage Disputes’, by Alessandro Chechi (2014), Oxford University Press, pp. 204 & 205.)

‘The wide range of potential cultural heritage claims/applications which have been/could be determined by the International Court of Justice – linked under International Law to peace & protection of the environment.’

Today I have been thinking about the: (i) ‘jurisdiction’ of the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’); & (ii) ‘standing’ of a state to apply to the ICJ (without the consent of the other state party), in a contentious dispute about ‘cultural heritage’, e.g. ownership of an ancient shipwreck & its cargo lying on the seabed.

I will be examining this when I research my next book – ‘Cultural Heritage Law & International Dispute Settlement’, which I am planning to start work on in my free time in August.

The short quote below is from an essay – ‘The International Court of Justice and Cultural Heritage – International Cultural Heritage Law Through the Lens of World Court Jurisprudence?’ by Gabriele Gagliani, published in ‘Intersections In International Cultural Heritage Law’ (2020), edited by Anne-Marie Carstens & Elizabeth Varner.

It illustrates the wide range of potential cultural heritage claims/applications which have been/could be determined by the ICJ, that are linked to the protection under International Humanitarian Law (‘IHL’) of:

(i)    a ‘community’;

(ii)   a ‘society’;

(iii)  an ‘indigenous population’;

(iv)  their ‘cultural property’;

(v)   their ‘language’ and ‘intangible cultural heritage’; and

(vi)  the ‘environment’,

during an armed conflict, i.e. collectively, as ‘cultural heritage.’

Can a state make an urgent application to the ICJ for provisional measures [‘PM’s] in anticipation of an armed conflict, which places cultural heritage in imminent peril?

If ‘yes’, this is linked to the prohibition on arms sales/banning export licences for the supply of arms, i.e. if PM’s are ordered.

‘One can safely conclude that the ICJ has given consideration, although with varying degrees, to cultural heritage and cultural heritage arguments and thus has contributed to the development of international cultural heritage law. Generally speaking, Parties in dispute before the ICJ Have not leveraged strong cultural heritage law arguments. As a consequence, the ICJ itself has recognised relevance to cultural heritage arguments only when these have been coupled with other types of argument, such as access to natural resources or the immunity of historical monuments used for public purposes. Nonetheless, the court, together with the PCIJ, has marked the emergence and expansion of international cultural heritage law. It has elaborated relevant concepts such as the one of ‘community’, and it has corroborated the relationship between cultural heritage and other fields of international law, such as environmental law and human rights. Moreover, it has allowed for the borders of cultural Heritage law to expand, and it has somehow strengthened the ‘international’ approach to cultural protection and management. In this position, the ICJ has engaged in a ‘dialogue’ with other international tribunals.’

‘Should any group or organisation which lobbies members of Parliament on behalf of Israel be legally banned as an extremist group/organisation under the new legal definition of extremism?’

In my blog, below – ‘How can the US lawfully continue to supply arms to a UN “black-listed” state which appears to have been classified & branded by the UN as being a de-facto “terrorist” state?’, I wrote:

‘The UN is adding Israel to its ‘blacklist’ of countries that have committed abuses against children in armed conflict. Others on the list include: the Islamic State (IS) group; al-Shabaab; the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. So, it would appear, that in the eyes of the entire international community, the UN has classified and branded Israel, as being a de-facto ‘terrorist’ state, by inter alia – association.’

Now, does the ‘blacklisting’ of Israel by the UN, on its own, or taken together with: (i) the catalogue of war crimes & crimes against humanity which Israel has been accused of committing – including genocide; and (ii) the imminent issue by the ICJ of an international warrant for the arrest of Netanyahu & Gallant as war criminals, constitute and provide, a sufficient evidentiary base/foundation for a vote to take place in Parliament about whether:

‘Any lobby or interest group in the UK which raises funds for Israel and/or exercises/seeks to exercise any coercive power over political decision making should be banned as an “extremist group” under the new legal definition?’

That would instantly cut off the power of the Israel Lobby in the UK, thereby allowing our MP’s to vote with their conscience & not seemingly because of political loyalty to a foreign power which has been bought and paid for by Israel, and its friends in the UK.

In my blog below –  ‘New Definition of Extremism in UK’ on the ‘International Humanitarian Law’ page of the Diplomatic Law Guide, I wrote:

‘In legislating for a new definition of “extremism” parliamentarians need to be wary, and careful that they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, by proscribing criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza, the US neo-cons have done in Ukraine, and about the catastrophic influence on US, and by proxy UK foreign policy, of Evangelical Christian Zionists – who believe in the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon, i.e. whose ultimate objective is Armageddon. Do you not think that exerting any political influence in order to bring about Armageddon, i.e. nuclear war, is not only harmful to the national security interests of the UK but is also “extremism”? The question is, why are MP’s not discussing this. Michael Gove did not even mention Zionists. Parliamentarians must not allow wool to be pulled over their eyes. It will be interesting to hear expert commentary about whether this new definition applies to donations made by Zionists (including Evangelical Christian Zionists) through the Israel Lobby, to UK MP’s and political parties.’

Of course, if this were to happen, then logically it appears to follow, that if any person, group, or organisation become an apologist for what Israel and the IDF have done, and are doing daily, in Gaza, in breach of the provisional measures ordered by the ICJ two weeks ago, that they will themselves be at risk of investigation and possibly prosecution, for being an ‘extremist’ by ‘association.’ This conclusion is arguably consistent with the bracketing-in of Israel and the IDF with: (i) the Islamic State (IS) group; (ii) al-Shabaab; (ii) the Taliban; and (ii0al-Qaeda, because the UN has placed Israel on a UN Black-List to which each of the afore-mentioned belong. An exclusive ‘club’ for super-war criminals, each of whom has committed the mass-murder of civilians in breach of every article of International Law.

‘How can the US lawfully continue to supply arms to a UN “black-listed” state which appears to have been classified & branded by the UN as being a de-facto “terrorist” state?’

The UN is adding Israel to its ‘blacklist’ of countries that have committed abuses against children in armed conflict. Others on the list include: the Islamic State (IS) group; al-Shabaab; the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.

So, it would appear, that in the eyes of the entire international community, the UN has classified and branded Israel, as being a de-facto ‘terrorist’ state,  by inter alia – association.

This follows an unpublished UN annual report to the Secretary-General  on children in armed conflict which compiled a list of parties engaging in violations against children, including killing and maiming, sexual violence and attacks on schools and hospitals. The latest attack by Israel on a school took place on the same day as the D Day Commemorations in Normandy.  See: Israel Has LOST – And This PROVES It (youtube.com)

In what, based upon my legal knowledge of Diplomatic Law & Protocol, is as far as I am aware, an unprecedented breach of Diplomatic Protocol, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN – Gilad Erdan, posted  part of a video of him speaking into a telephone with a United Nations official about the content of this confidential and unpublished report.

He said – ‘Our army is the most moral in the world.’

Tell that to the parents who in the aftermath, went into the carnage, to collect the charred body parts of their children who had been blown to pieces by Israel in a UN school, on the 80th Commemoration of D Day. See:

Israel attacks UN-run school in central Gaza, killing at least 40 | Israel-Palestine conflict News | Al Jazeera

Biden has said nothing. Nor has Sunak or Starmer – even though he found time to criticise Sunak for ‘letting the country down’, see:  ‘Are we a five minute wonder?’ D-Day veteran Ken Hay asks Sky’s Adam Parsons | News UK Video News | Sky News

Secretary-General Guterres’s spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, said of this breach of Diplomatic Protocol by Israel’s ambassador:

‘Ambassador Erdan’s video recording of that phone call, and the partial release of that recording on Twitter, is shocking and unacceptable – and frankly something I’ve never seen in my 24 years serving this organisation.’

See: UN adding Israel to ‘blacklist’ of countries harming children in conflict | Gaza News | Al Jazeera

So, how can any political leader now be confident that Israel will not post a recording of any confidential diplomatic exchange on Twitter. In other words, how can any state trust Israel? What Israel has done through its ambassador to the UN – who recently shredded the UN charter in front of ambassadors in the UN Assembly Hall, is not only an irrecoverable blow to its reputation and integrity, it adds credence to the voices of those full members states of the UN, who may consider that Israel is no longer fit to belong as a member of the UN.

See also my blog below – ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’ It records that, Max Blumenthal (‘MB’), speaking at the Woman’s National Democratic Club in Washington DC on March 7, 2024, said:
‘During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden … shocked … Israeli Prime Minister … Menachim Begin by saying, “I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children”. …’
MB cited as his source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward.

The author is described by Amazon as being ‘[the former] White House and national security reporter at Vox. He was an associate director on the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He has won multiple prestigious awards for his reporting and was a part of a team that was a finalist for the 2023 Pulitzer Prize.’ The account referred to appears on pp. 84 & 85.

So, if the bomb dropped on the shool was supplied with the approval of Biden, then it appears that this outcome is what he in fact achieved on 6 June 2024.

Notes added 09.06.2024

See also my blog below – ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’ It records that, Max Blumenthal (‘MB’), speaking at the Woman’s National Democratic Club in Washington DC on March 7, 2024, said:
‘During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden … shocked … Israeli Prime Minister … Menachim Begin by saying, “I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children”. …’
MB cited as his source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward.
The author is described by Amazon as being ‘[the former] White House and national security reporter at Vox. He was an associate director on the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He has won multiple prestigious awards for his reporting and was a part of a team that was a finalist for the 2023 Pulitzer Prize.’ The account referred to appears on pp. 84 & 85. So, if the bomb dropped on the shool was supplied with the approval of Biden, then it appears that this outcome is what he in fact achieved on 6 June 2024.
Thankyou to Kevin Magee for liking this post on LinkedIn. Ambassador Magee was formerly the Australian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Director of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Consulate-General in Guangzhou, China, and Deputy Head of Mission at the Australian Embassy in Moscow. Obvious his views are his own, but I am personally honoured that he reads my posts on these issues.
Israel has intensified its attack on Rafah in breach of the ICJ order two weeks ago. Civilians, mainly women and children, who are already starving to death, and have no water, electricity, shelter, and medical care, are at this minute – all over the Gaza strip, being blown to pieces, by US supplied bombs and other munitions supplied by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, see:

(68) Updates Israel’s war on Gaza updates: Death toll from Nuseirat attack rises to 210 (aljazeera.com)

(68) Updates Israel’s war on Gaza updates: Death toll from Nuseirat attack rises to 210 (aljazeera.com)


Why are Biden, Macron, Sunak & Starmer, not intervening to impose an immediate cease-fire? As far as I am aware, they have not even commented. Are they blind? Do they not care about human lives? or are they acting in the interests of a foreign power – Israel & ‘Zionism’, by not only: turning a blind eye; providing what is in effect a ‘green light’ to the IDF to commit mass murder; but also by supplying arms/permitting export licences for the supply of arms to Israel, to be approved, with either actual or imputed legal knowledge that these arms and parts, are being/can be/ probably will be used, to commit the mass murder of women and children?
If a journalist asks Biden, Macron, or Sunak to justify their behaviour, and they reply – ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, what in fact is the legal basis of this belief? As I have repeatedly explained as an International Humantiarian Law commentator: (i) commission of war crimes & crimes v. humanity is not ‘self-defence’; (ii) ‘self-defence’ is not even available as a defence, because Israel is an ‘occupier’; & (iii) the absolute prohibition against ‘Genocide’ is not only ‘erga omnes’, it is also ‘jus cogens’ i.e. there never is, or ever can be, any legal justification. So, how can Biden, Macron & Sunak legally justify their decisions? One day in the future, after the elections, each of them may have to ask this question when put to them by a criminal prosecutor. So, I hope that if Sir Keir Starmer is elected as Prime Minister, that one of his first acts, will be to order an immediate suspension of all export licences for the supply of arms and parts to Israel, and to prohibit the approval of all further licences, without excpetion. Let’s see what he actually does, as the blood on the hands of Biden, Macron & Sunak is not only on their hands, it is also on ours, because they have acted in our name.
30 minutes ago [13:30 GMT] ‘the Al-Aqsa Hospital spokesman Khalil al-Degran reported: “A lot of martyrs and wounded” are still in the streets following the attack on the refugee camps. Israeli forces are committing “brutal massacres regularly” and “destroying” the health system across the Gaza Strip. This is the only hospital that can provide healthcare for the one million displaced people, and they “suffer” due to shortages of medical staff and supplies. The hospital is full of patients and there is no space for more people. Al-Aqsa Hospital is now running on one generator – if it stops working, a “catastrophe is waiting for every one of us”. The hospital needs an “urgent intervention” to save it. He urges Palestinians in the area to go to the hospital “immediately” to donate blood. “We condemn the Israeli attack against Al Nuseirat refugee camp and the central governate [Deir el-Balah], and we urge the international community [and] international organisations to do whatever it takes to stop this brutality by the Israeli forces.” (Al-Jazeera news (08.06.2024)).
Right now and in front of our eyes, Israel, is committing ‘brutal massacres’ of women and children all over the Gaza strip. The world is watching. Will the UK intervene?
See also:
– (86) Updates Israel’s war on Gaza updates: Death toll passes 37,000 in Gaza (aljazeera.com)
274 Palestinians were killed by Israel, as I was writing this post yesterday afternoon. According to news reports, Over 700 were also maimed/seriously wounded. The bodies of dead/wounded civilians were strewn all over the streets of Gaza in whatever direction a film crew pointed a camera. This is one of the single worst attrocities committed by the IDF that has been recorded on film live as it happened. It consisted of multiple-massacres. The survivors of these massacres had only one hospital to go to. That hospital was operating on one generator. I have yet to hear Rishi Sunak, who has not even provided a reason for abandonning the WW2 veterans at the 80th Commemoration of D Day in Normandy on Thursday, condemn the mass murder of civilians by Israel. Nor as far as I am aware has Sir Keir Starmer. Why the silence over a war crime which is also a crime agaianst humanity, and is further evidence of an ongoing Genocide? These are serious issues.
Owen Jones who is a reporter for the Guardian & a contributor to the New Statesman, i.e. a serious, professional & rigorous journalist, reported in his video, that Palestinian patients under the medical care of Israel, had been tortured. The implement of torture, described by him, with which allegedly, the Israelis, and Isaraeli medical staff had tortured Palestinian patients who were allegedly taken out of their hospital beds by Israeli nurses, sounded like the electronic equivalent of a medieval iron ‘poking’ rod which had been placed in a fire until the tip was white hot. One of these Palestinian patients was allegedly tortured to death by the Israelis and by Israeli medical staff. So, if this is how the Israeli medical profession behaves, why would any reputable teaching hospital, professional medical association, and manufacturer & supplier of medicines to Israel, wish to have their name/’brand’ damaged, by in any way associating themselves with Israel, and what has allegedly gone on/is possibly going on today, inside Israeli hospitals, with the alleged active participation of Israeli health care professionals?

‘Ahead of an imminent attack on Rafah by Israel Gaza is now officially in a state of Famine.’

12 hours ago, Samantha Power, Director of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), told lawmakers that people in parts of northern Gaza have begun facing famine. A group of U.S. government humanitarian experts on Tuesday privately warned fellow officials that the spread of hunger and malnutrition in Gaza amid the U.S.-backed Israeli offensive is “unprecedented in modern history,” famine is likely already occurring in parts of the Gaza Strip and the pace of hunger-related deaths will “accelerate in the weeks ahead.”

The striking assessment was shared in a cable drafted by officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development and sent to the White House’s National Security Council, State Department offices and diplomatic posts abroad. It reflects outside aid groups’ reading of the desperate situation in Gaza and shows the Biden administration is aware of the risk that the death toll there will rise dramatically as it continues to support Israel’s operation and resist calls for a permanent end to the war.

“An immediate and substantial flow of food, health, nutrition and [sanitation] assistance; expanded humanitarian access; and safe unimpeded passage for humanitarian workers is paramount to addressing Famine conditions in Gaza,” the officials wrote. “While hostilities remain ongoing, however, humanitarians will face considerable challenges in providing life-saving aid and specialized services to those in need in Gaza.”

Famine was created by the State of Israel.

Wikipedia now has a ‘Gaza Strip Famine’ page which states:

‘The Israel-Hamas War has led to famine conditions in the Gaza Strip, resulting from Israeli airstrikes and the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel, which includes restrictions on humanitarian aid.[4][5][6] Airstrikes have destroyed food infrastructure, such as bakeries, mills, and food stores, and there is a widespread scarcity of essential supplies due to the blockade of aid.[c] This has caused starvation for more than half a million Gazans and is part of a broader humanitarian crisis in the Strip. It is the “highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger” ever recorded on the IPC scale,[8] and is widely expected to be the most intense man-made famine since the Second World War.’ Gaza Strip famine – Wikipedia

Google:

I also recommend that you watch:

So, on what legal basis can Lord Cameron credibly assert that there is absolutely no serious risk of genocide? – see my previous post – ‘When was the legal advice referred to by Lord Cameron given?

At the time of writing, and as far as I am aware – since the announcment by Samantha Powers 12 hours ago that Gaza is now officially in a state of famine: Rishi Sunak and none of his ministers, including Lord Cameron have made any comment or statement; the UK Government has not made any official statement to confirm or rebut the facts relied upon by Samantha Powers in making her statement; COBRA has not been convened; MP’s are all still on holiday; and arms are being supplied to Israel – some of which may be used to murder starving unarmed women and children in Rafah. I wonder if you will even hear this mentioned on the News today?
Google also – https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/mar-18-2024-famine-imminent-northern-gaza

‘Q1: Is Gaza in famine?

A1: Yes.

Evidence of Gaza’s “catastrophic living conditions,” as described by the International Court of Justice on March 28, is abundant. Humanitarian access is severely restricted, leading to malnutrition, starvation, and, in some cases, death. According to Gazan authorities, Palestinians in Gaza have also died in the delivery of humanitarian assistance: more than 100 Palestinians were killed at an aid convoy near Gaza City on February 29, five Palestinians were killed by a malfunctioned airdrop of humanitarian assistance on March 8, and 12 Palestinians drowned while trying to reach aid dropped into the Mediterranean Sea on March 25. Some Gazans who received humanitarian assistance are using it cautiously, combining flour with animal feed to make bread. Meals for some Palestinians in Gaza, including children, consist of animal feed alone. Many are regularly consuming a wild plant to stave off hunger.’  https://www.csis.org/analysis/famine-gaza

Note that the letter to the PM dated 2 April states:

  • ‘Food insecurity in Gaza has reached a catastrophic level. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (operated by UN agencies and humanitarian aid groups) warned on 18 March 2024 that “the entire population in the Gaza Strip (2.23 million) is facing high levels of acute food insecurity”. The World Bank Group warned on 19 March 2024 that more than half the population of Gaza is “on the brink of famine. …’
  • ‘The international community has sounded strong warning alarms against Israel’s threatened ground invasion of Rafah. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warns that a “potential full-fledged military incursion into Rafah – where some 1.5 million Palestinians are packed against the Egyptian border with nowhere further to flee-is terrifying..” The UN Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs likewise warned that over a million people are ”crammed in Rafah staring death in the face..” Save the Children, highlighting the plight of 610,000 children trapped in Rafah, has stated that “what happens next will be beyond our worst nightmares … With Israeli authorities telling people in Gaza that Rafah is a safe place to flee, 80% of the population – half of whom are children – is now crammed into this area, many with no walls or roofs to shelter and protect them..” …’
  • ‘The prohibition of genocide is recognised as a peremptory (or jus cogens) norm of international law.’
  • ‘States are required “to employ all means reasonably available to them” to prevent genocide and responsibility is incurred if “the state manifestly failed to take all measures to prevent genocide which were within its powers”. The notion of due diligence is of critical importance in this obligation.’
  • ‘The “obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the state learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the state has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent … it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit.” …’
  • ‘International Humanitarian Obligations do not operate on the basis of reciprocity. Even serious violations of IHL by one party to an armed conflict cannot therefore justify their commission by another. Similarly as a peremptory norm of international law, the prohibition of genocide is absolute. Your government’s obligations to prevent genocide are not abrogated by the serious breaches of IHL committed by Hamas on October 7 or by Hamas’ ongoing holding of hostages’.

So, starvation is being used by Israel to commit genocide. We are all witnesses. Israel has no legal defence to genocide under International Law, because the prohibition of genocide is a ‘peremptory’ rule and ‘jus cogens’ norm. A ‘peremptory’ rule which is also a ‘jus cogens’ norm is of universal application and permits of no exception. Consequently, any state which ‘learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed’ is under a duty ‘to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide.’ Therefore, any state which has ‘actual’ or ‘imputed’ knowledge of the existence even of a ‘serious risk’ of genocide, and which does not suspend the supply of arms to Israel, may be liable in future proceedings as an ‘accessory’ to genocide, i.e. as being legally ‘complicit’ in genocide.

In which event, it may be ordered to pay reparations – which in the case of Gaza could amount to £Billions.

If such an order were made, it would of course be UK taxpayers who eventually paid the bill. So, I am wondering, what legal advice has the government received about this, as being a ‘serious’ risk for which a budgetary contingency may need to be made in order to balance the books?

‘US State Department Official resigns over Gaza’

‘Israel has continued to violate international law as well as American Law … US Laws were not being followed and the State Department and White House officials were denying reality.’   US Official Tells Me Why She RESIGNED Over Gaza – w/. Annelle Sheline (youtube.com)

‘In an interview, Sheline said her focus had been promoting human rights in the Middle East and North Africa, work that was complicated by Israel’s war and a host of accompanying moral, legal, security and diplomatic implications for the United States. Sheline said she tried to raise concerns internally with dissent cables and at staff forums but eventually concluded that it was pointless “as long as the U.S. continues to send a steady stream of weapons to Israel.” Sheline’s departure is the most significant protest resignation over the Gaza conflict since the exit of Josh Paul, who was a senior State Department official involved in arms transfers to foreign governments. In a statement to The Washington Post, Paul commended Sheline for her decision, noting that she is leaving a bureau tasked with championing “universal values, including respect for the rule of law, democratic institutions and human rights,” according to the State Department website. “When the staff of that bureau feel that there is no more they can do,” Paul said, “it speaks volumes about the Biden administration’s disregard for the laws, policies and basic humanity of American foreign policy that the bureau exists to advance.” …’ Google –
‘State Dept. human rights staffer quits over Biden’s Gaza policy – The Washington Post.’

Annelle Sheline is an expert who has a deep understanding of the MENA region – ‘Annelle R. Sheline is a research fellow for the Middle East at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a non-resident fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Her research focuses on religious authority in the Middle East, examining the intersection of religious and national identities in the Arab monarchies, and emphasizes implications for combating violent extremism.’ https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/people/annelle-r-sheline

So, this is not a low level resignation.

cf the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmhurst – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4377605.stm

These are victories of conscience.

Now that begs a bigger question – How can any British MP who has a ‘conscience’ vote in Parliament in favour of the supply of arms to Israel?

NB The manufacture of arms in the UK by Israeli state owned and private companies is part of the UK’s own arms industry, i.e. the UK is not only supplying arms to Israel – Israel is also manufacturing arms in the UK, including Drones –

CAAT – Israel’s arms industry & its links with the UK

– ‘In 2016, Israeli company Elbit, in conjunction with Thales UK, completed delivery of 54 Watchkeeper WK450 UAVs as part of an £800 million contract.’

‘According to a leaked recording the British Government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public’

See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/30/uk-government-lawyers-say-israel-is-breaking-international-law-claims-top-tory-in-leaked-recording

I imagine that George Galloway will be asking Rishi Sunak a question about this on Wednesday at PMQ’s.

If this is the advice members of the Foreign Office Legal Department have provided to the UK Government, then what legal advice has been provided by Government Legal Advisors in the US State Department, the German Federal Foreign Office, and the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs to their respective Governments?

In other words, is this the thin edge of the wedge for Israel?

Extract:

‘The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.

The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.

On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.

“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”

The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.

Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.

Answering questions at an “evening drinks reception” hosted by the West Hampstead and Fortune Green Conservatives in London, Kearns said: “The Foreign Office has received official legal advice that Israel has broken international humanitarian law but the government has not announced it.

“They have not said it, they haven’t stopped arms exports. They have done a few very small sanctions on Israeli settlers and everyone internationally is agreed that settlers are illegal, that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing, and the ways in which they have continued and the money that’s been put in.”

Kearns told the gathering that both she and Cameron believed strongly in Israel’s right to defend itself. “But the right to self-defence has a limit in law. It is not limitless,” she said, going on to suggest that Israel’s actions put its and the UK’s long-term security at risk.

“Some of the ways in which Israel is prosecuting this is making their long-term security less certain. It is making our long-term security less certain. I’m amazed that our national threat level has not gone up. And it breaks my heart because I know it could be done differently.”

The British barrister Sir Geoffrey Nice, who was the lead prosecutor at former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic’s trial from 2002 to 2006, said he would not be at all surprised if such advice had been given by government lawyers and called for it to be made public.

Nice said: “A warring party becomes unlawful if it cannot show that its actions have been proportionate. It would not be surprising if there had been advice to that effect from the Foreign Office’s lawyers.”

Were that to be the case, he said that “at the very least that would mean the UK would have to look at the whole issue of arms sales to Israel. It takes you into the area of aiding and abetting. It takes you into to very difficult areas.”

He added: “Countries supplying arms to Israel may now be complicit in criminal warfare. The public should be told what the advice says.”

The UK’s arms exports to Israel amounted to £42m in 2022, a figure described by defence secretary Grant Shapps as “relatively small”.

But former lord chancellor Charles Falconer said a legal assessment that Israel had broken international law would also prevent the UK sharing intelligence with Israel.

“Governments who abide by the rule of law cannot ignore mounting evidence of breach which would then put those governments in breach if they continued assisting,” he said.

In a session of the foreign affairs select committee in January, Cameron was asked directly by Kearns whether “you have never had a piece of paper put in front of you by a Foreign Office lawyer that says that Israel is in breach of its international humanitarian commitments under international humanitarian law”.

Cameron stated that “I cannot recall every single bit of paper that has been put in front of me … I don’t want to answer that question.”

He later said that “if you are asking me whether I am worried that Israel has taken action that might be in breach of international law … yes, of course I am worried about that. That is why I consult the Foreign Office lawyers when giving this advice on arms exports.”

Other UK ministers have previously claimed that Israel has abided by international law. In late November, business secretary Kemi Badenoch said on Sky News that “we’ve always said that Israel should abide by international law, and that appears to be what they have done … It looks like they have taken great pains to make sure that they’re staying within the confines of the law. We applaud them for that.”

Labour has repeatedly called for the government to be transparent about the legal advice it has received.

On 22 March, David Lammy MP, the shadow foreign secretary, wrote to Cameron, calling on him to publish the legal advice on Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law.

On 26 March in the House of Commons, Lammy asked the minister for development and Africa, Andrew Mitchell MP, if the foreign secretary had received legal advice saying there was a clear risk that items licensed by the UK might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. Mitchell said “no government do[es] that”, adding later that “we do not disclose our internal legal advice”.

Last week, the international court of justice ordered Israel to allow inimpeded access of food aid into Gaza, where huge numbers of people are facing imminent starvation. Cameron has repeatedly voiced his frustration at Israel’s action in blocking aid from crossing the border into Gaza.

The war began on 7 October after Hamas launched an attack inside Israel that killed more than 1,100 Israelis, mostly civilians, and took about 250 people hostage.

Israeli military attacks on Gaza have resulted in the death of more than 32,000 people, the majority women and children, according to local health authorities.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We keep advice on Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law under review and ministers act in accordance with that advice, for example, when considering export licences. The content of the government’s advice is confidential.” ..’

See also my blogs below:

– ‘The UK Government is under a positive duty to ensure compliance by Israel with International Humanitarian Law’.
– ‘5 questions MPs can ask to test the legal necessity of calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza so that Israel can comply with IHL.’
– ‘A violation of International Humanitarian Law can give rise to a private law remedy actionable in the English Court.’

See also:

‘The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians has issued Prime Minister Rishi Sunak with a stark warning that UK government officials could be individually liable for their role in aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes. Sunak has been issued with the notice of intention to prosecute UK government officials, for their role in providing military, economic and political support to Israel, which has aided Israel’s perpetration of war crimes. …
[This] could lead to UK government officials being prosecuted for war crimes by Scotland Yard. Individuals could also be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. …
The UK government has provided military assistance and economic and political support. Now that war crimes have been carried out, continuation of such support and assistance would mean that UK Government officials would be complicit in the commission of war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity. This complicity, formally known as ‘aiding and abetting’ war crimes, may mean that UK government officials are individually criminally liable for breaking international law.’

See paras 10 – 14 – ‘The operational responsibility for deciding whether to commence or pursue a criminal investigation falls to the police, who exercise their discretion and responsibility to investigate independently of the executive. The war crimes team of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. Any allegations received by other police forces will be referred to SO15 for investigation. … The Crown Prosecution Service, Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD) has responsibility for prosecuting any such crimes. The Crown Prosecution Service also takes decisions independently of the Government. While maintaining their operational independence, both the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service will, where appropriate, liaise with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for advice on diplomatic handling.’

So, provided the jurisdictional threshold is met, what defence or immunity is potentially available if as Alicia Kearns allegedly said – ‘the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make’?

‘Murder of unarmed civilians waving white flags + Concealing Murder by bulldozing their bodies into rubbish + Famine through deliberate starvation of an entire civilian population.’

This is how the Zionist state of Israel has behaved following the UN Resolution call for an immediate ceasefire.

There must be an immediate call for sanctions – see my blog – ‘Hierarchy of Sanctions for non-compliance with a binding resolution of the UN Security Council’, on the ‘Negotiating Political Order’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com

The UNSC must also resolve to send a force of peace-keepers & humanitarian workers into Gaza, under the protection of armed soldiers wearing ‘blue helmets’, who are authorised to use lethal force against the IDF, in order to save civilian lives.

The UNSC has the power to order this because Israel is acting in breach of a binding resolution.

Unless immediate action is taken by the UNSC to enforce its binding resolution v. Israel, by ordering sanctions, then the future of the international rules based order is in jeopardy.

The vote needs to be held before the ceasefire expires.

If this is done & any state exercises a veto & continues to supply arms to Israel, then by holding the vote, those states in favour, will in effect, have placed the heads of any officials and political leaders of the vetoing state, on the legal block, for a future a war crimes court/tribunal.

In other words, by vetoing a resolution which called for sanctions, that was evidentially based upon the behaviour of the IDF over the last 24 hours, those decision-makers (i.e. officials and political leaders of the vetoing state), will have provided further evidence, if it was needed, of complicity in Genocide. Assuming of course, that the ICJ decide that Israel has committed genocide.

Of that, I am in no doubt.

The evidence against Israel is overwhelming & mounting by the hour –
Google:

‘UN agency warns “time is running out” to prevent famine in besieged and bombarded Gaza, urges Israel to lift aid restrictions immediately. Footage obtained by Al Jazeera shows unarmed Palestinian men – one repeatedly waving a piece of white cloth in a sign of surrender – before Israeli troops shoot them dead and then bury their bodies with a bulldozer near Gaza City.’

  • ‘They scream in hunger’ – How Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza | Israel War on Gaza News | Al JazeeraThe UN must not only save Israel from itself, the Jewish diasapora from what Zionist zealots are doing in their name, but also set the Palestinian people free from their brutal and inhuman oppressors. There is only side in this conflict – the International Rule of Law. When you apply the rule, there is only one place for the perpetrators of war crimes, murder and genocide – prosecution in a court of law with jurisdiction and the power to do justice in the name of mankind.

‘Envisioning Ethnic Cleansing & Genocide in Gaza as a real estate opportunity for Zionists? – For once I am speechless! – What do you conclude from the evidence about what Israel is doing & selling?‘’

See Jared Kushner says Gaza’s ‘waterfront property could be very valuable’ | Jared Kushner | The Guardian

‘His remarks at Harvard gave a hint of the kind of Middle East policy that could be pursued in the event that Trump returns to the White House, including a search for a normalisation deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

“Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable … if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner told his interviewer, the faculty chair of the Middle East Initiative, Prof Tarek Masoud. Kushner also lamented “all the money” that had gone into the territory’s tunnel network and munitions instead of education and innovation.

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner said. “But I don’t think that Israel has stated that they don’t want the people to move back there afterwards.”

Masoud replied that there was “a lot to talk about there”.

Kushner also said he thinks Israel should move civilians from Gaza to the Negev desert in southern Israel.

He said that if he were in charge of Israel his number one priority would be getting civilians out of the southern city of Rafah, and that “with diplomacy” it could be possible to get them into Egypt.

“But in addition to that, I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there,” he said. “I think that’s a better option, so you can go in and finish the job.”

He reiterated the point a little later, saying: “I do think right now opening up the Negev, creating a secure area there, moving the civilians out, and then going in and finishing the job would be the right move.”

The suggestion drew a startled response from Masoud. “Is that something that they’re talking about in Israel?” Masoud asked. “I mean, that’s the first I’ve really heard of somebody, aside from President Sisi [Egypt’s leader], suggesting that Gazans trying to flee the fighting could take refuge in the Negev. Are people in Israel seriously talking about that possibility?” …’

See also:

‘Who is politically driving and financing the slaughter of Palestinians’

Yesterday Al Jazeera broadcast ‘Praying for Armageddon’ – Why evangelical Christians influence US foreign policy in the Middle East | Witness Documentary (youtube.com)

Evangelical Christian Zionists believe in the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon i.e. in the destruction of civilization on earth at the end times – which some of them believe they can accelerate so that this happens during their lifetimes by supporting Israel.

‘Christians United for Israel [‘CUFI’] conceals a very right wing agenda that is driving this violence [against Palestinians]/ [CUFI] is permeating geopolitical factors which can lead to what they believe is the battle of Armageddon. Permeating policies that arm Israel to the teeth with US weapons [to] drive the Palestinians out of Jerusalem.[They are] ultimately pushing toward more conflicts in the Middle East. CUFA Has 10m members. There are more than 80m Evangelical Christians in the US = ¼ of US voters. [As the film makers claim – no politician can be elected in America with the support and endorsement of this group]. In 2021 CUFA lobbied to secure 3.3 Billion USD in military aid to Israel.’ [Fast forward to 33m].

See my blogs at www.diplomaticlawguide.com:

On the ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement’ page:

  • ‘Can Biden & Sunak prevent the slaughter of women & children in Rafah?’
  • ‘Is Zionism a form of white  colonial settler supremacy?

On the ‘Geopolitical Challenges & Dynamics’ page:

  • ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’

On the ‘Negotiating Political Order’ page:

  • ‘Gaza – Is the way forward the creation of a single normal secular state for both Israelis and Palestinians?’
  • ’15thPrinciple of Negotiating Political Order – In order to get a participant to really think about the philosophical basis and legitimacy of their position you need to speak to them in the language of their own source of reference.’
  • ‘Ethical decision-making based upon principles of natural law.’
  • ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement.’ – In which I noted:

 ‘Jo-Ann Mort of ‘Americans for Peace’ describes the collaboration between American Jews & the Christian Right as an ‘unholy alliance.’ The Israeli moderate Yossie Alpher has warned that Christian support for continued settlement expansion is ‘leading us into a scenario of out-and-out disaster.’ He told CBS News – ‘God save us from these people.’ The Israeli-American scholar Gershom Gorenberg notes that ‘dispensationalist’ theology does not foresee a happy fate for Jews: in the end-times ‘the Jews die or convert. … Christian Zionists don’t love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play … [and] it’s a five act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.’ So, who is manipulating whom?’

For a discussion of how reason can prevail over religious fanaticism see ‘The idea of Geopolitical Mediation’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation & Peace Building’ page.

This is a strategy that I will develop and discuss in my book to be written in 2025 – ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement.’

‘Who are the Evangelical Chrisitan Zionists & what is their influence over US Foreign Policy?’

See:

‘Can Biden & Sunak prevent the slaughter of women & children in Rafah?’

As a Political Science graduate from a leading school of Political Science, International Relations & Diplomacy [Keele Top 3 in England for Politics – Keele University], an Accredited Mediator, the founder of www.diplomaticlawguide.com  – 10 years ago, and as an author, I have an interest in ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement.’ This is the planned title of my next book, to be written in 2025.

For more about studying Political Science & International Relations at Keele see also:

Amongst my followers on LinkedIn are a number of former and serving Diplomats, members of NGO’s, University Lecturers and Professors of Political Science and International Relations, Journalists, serving & retired members of the UK Parliament (including Ministers), and some well-known Broadcasters.

Addressing that audience, I draw their attention to:

  • My blog on the ‘Geopolitical Challenges & Dynamics’ page – ‘What fundamental Zionist beliefs drive Joe Biden’s foreign policy toward Israel?’
  • Ward, Alexander (2024) The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump, pages 84 & 85.

[Obviously I do not know and therefore cannot comment on the truth & accuracy of this account and Alexander Ward’s source. Biden can and may deny what Ward has narrated, and I sincerely hope that Biden did not use the words reported by Ward in his book. So, this needs to be investigated by professional Journalists who can then invite Biden to confirm of deny the account narrated on pages 84 & 85 of this new book by Alexander Ward. Until then, I will keep an open mind and not make any judgment about Biden].

Joining-up the dots, I wonder if investigative journalists in the US and UK will ask the following questions:

Q. To President Biden:

  • ‘Mr President as a lawyer, you know that under International Law the execution of women & children is prohibited.

[See my blog ‘Execution of unarmed civilians by the IDF’ below].

  • Have you read the account narrated by Alexander Ward on pages 84 & 85 in his new book “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump?”
  • If the former Prime Minister of Israel, the late Menachem Begin did in fact says  what Alexander Ward has reported, do you not agree that the killing of women & children was a red-line for Israel in 1982?
  • In which case, will you openly state to Benjamin Netanyahu that if the IDF enter Rafah and slaughter women & children, that the United States will cut-off the supply of all arms, finance and aid to Israel – because this is also a “Red-Line” for the United States of America in 2024?’

Q. To Prime Minister Rishi Sunak:

  • ‘Prime Minister – Have you listened to the discussion: The West in Decline – John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen (youtube.com) [at 12 Minutes] ‘I didn’t believe it …. I contacted somebody who knows. They told me it is true. [We have today] just 40 operational tanks.’
  • So, my 1st question is – how many operational/serviceable tanks do we in fact have today?
  • My 2nd question is – how many UK taxpayer pounds have been spent in providing aid and arms to Ukraine since July 2023?
  • My 3rd question is – how many UK taxpayer pounds have been spent in providing aid and arms to Israel since July 2023?
  • If the IDF enter Rafah and commence the slaughter of women & children will you suspend the supply of all aid arms and parts to Israel?
  • If not, then can you explain why British taxpayers are financing and facilitating the slaughter of women & children in Gaza, in breach of International Law?
  • Should British taxpayers’ money be used instead, to re-build our own armed forces, whose numbers have been depleted to historically low levels during the 14 year term of your Government?’

‘The escalating risk of nuclear war in Ukraine  – Do Biden, Macron & Sunak understand this?’

‘[For Russia] Crimea is an absolute red line, and right now there is some talk amongst Western analysts that NATO allies are going to help Ukraine retake Crimea. If that’s it, it is an almost certainty that Putin is going to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.  …  Trust is absolutely shattered right now. … Russian intelligence services have made the assessment that President Biden is cognitively impaired and cannot be trusted. …

[Q. from the interviewer – what needs to happen to prevent undesired escalation especially after President Macron’s very fiery comments and the possibility that he could send troops to Ukraine. Could that escalate into war?]

A. ‘Yes. If any NATO country deploys troops into theatre Putin interprets it as the whole of NATO i.e. Article 5. … So if Putin destroys those troops we are in a direct kinetic war. Putin has a pre-emptive doctrine and won’t wait until NATO overwhelms Russia. There is a concept called strategic initiative in Russian war fighting doctrine and that can only be achieved by pre-emption. If Russia waits too long it is lost. They believe that Ukraine is part of Russia and that NATO would be attacking Russia. That is what triggers the nuclear doctrine.’

See/Google – Putin’s Playbook – His Next Move w/ Rebekah Koffler (youtube.com)

[Rebekah Koffler was a senior intelligence official focusing on detecting and helping neutralize foreign threats to America. Working for the Defense Intelligence Agency and with the CIA National Clandestine Service, Rebekah has led ‘red’ teams during war games and briefed the Pentagon, the White House, and NATO on Russian wartime doctrine and President Putin’s intentions. In Putin’s Playbook, published in July 2021, Rebekah predicted Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that was launched by Vladimir Putin in February 2024. The war is unfolding, consistent with Rebekah’s forward-looking intelligence estimates and Russia’s doctrine and strategy described in her book].

For more commentary on Russia’s ‘Red-Lines’, see also:

[‘Russia is not bluffing!’]

Note that in his interview, former US Ambassador Chas Freeman stated his belief that if the collective West triggers Russia’s premptive nucear doctrine, i.e., if France/Poland deploy troops to Ukraine, that Russia will skip over the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and will engage directly with metropolitan Europe and the US, by firing ‘strategic’ i.e. long range nuclear weapons which are capable of destroying cities.

If you have not read it, I recommend –  ‘2034: A Novel of the Next World War’ (2022) by Elliot Ackerman  and Admiral James Stavridis USN. (Available from Amazon). The book depicts exactly that scenario in a future war between China and the US.

‘Understanding Putin & Russia’

‘Moral force in Foreign Policy is not possible without visionary leadership tempered by realism’

See:

‘Twin disasters for Biden in Ukraine & Gaza.’

See:

‘New Definition of Extremism in UK’

Today in Parliament MP’s are debating a new definition of ‘extremism’ proposed by the Government. This comes one day after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak refused to return a £10m donation by a donor to the Conservative party, whom he openly acknowledged had made ‘racist’ remarks about black women. See:

In legislating for a new definition of ‘extremism’ parliamentarians need to be wary, and careful that they do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, by proscribing criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza, the US neo-cons have done in Ukraine, and about the catastrophic influence on US, and by proxy UK foreign policy, of Evangelical Christian Zionists – who believe in the 2nd coming of Christ at Armageddon, i.e. whose ultimate objective is Armageddon. Do you not think that exerting any political influence in order to bring about Armageddon, i.e. nuclear war, is not only harmful to the national security interests of the UK but is also ‘extremism’? The question is, why are MP’s not discussing this. Michael Gove did not even mention Zionists. Parliamentarians must not allow wool to be pulled over their eyes. It will be interesting to hear expert commentary about whether this new definition applies to donations made by Zionists (including Evangelical Christian Zionists) through the Israel Lobby, to UK MP’s and political parties.

Note that ‘Zionism’ is not ‘Judaism’– see:

It will be interesting to hear expert commentary about whether this new definition applies to donations made by Zionists (including Evangelical Christian Zionists) through the Israel Lobby, to UK MP’s and political parties.

I wonder if anybody will ask Michael Gove, who used to be a journalist, to:

(i) Confirm whether under the new definition, ‘Zionism’ has been prescribed as being an ‘extreme’ ideology, and therefore that all members of the government of Israel are extremists?

(ii) Disclose the names of any member of the UK Government, who has received any donation or contribution, from the Israel Lobby, including e.g. the payment of travel and accomodation expenses to visit Israel?

If Michael Gove declines to provide an unequivocal, comprehensive, and logically reasoned answer to those questions, then I further wonder, whether or not under the new definition, any person who ‘partners’ with the government of Israel, e.g. any member of the Israel Lobby in the UK who is an apologist for violence committed by Zionists in Gaza, might after the ICJ have ruled on the genocide case proceeding against Israel, be at risk of prosecution in the UK, for inciting genocide by seeking to excuse/normalise the killing of unarmed civilians by the IDF. See my blog below – ‘Execution of unarmed civilians by the IDF.’

If that risk exists/crystalises, then apologists for Israel will need to be very careful about what they now say in relation to the behaviour of the IDF and members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right wing Zionist government – No?

Again, it will be interesting to hear what expert commentators conclude about the application of the new definition to Zionists in the UK – which of course will include both individuals and organisations.

Perhaps one day, in the not too distant future, this will be tested in an English court?

See also my blogs below:

– ‘Execution of unarmed civilians by the IDF.’
– ‘Israeli troops massacre unarmed civilians collecting food in Gaza – 29.02.2024.’
– ‘War Crime of execution – Rome Statute of the ICC.’
– ‘International Humanitarian Law prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.’
–  ‘Israel is systematically destroying the infrastructure of society throughout Gaza in breach of IHL.’
– ‘South Africa’s case is legally watertight.’
– ‘Complicity In International Law.’
– ‘Prosecution of individuals in UK courts for international war crimes?’

and:

[Go to 5:28 – During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden shocked Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin by saying, ‘I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children’, Quoted Source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward].

[Note also that on Saturday on ‘Witness’, Al-Jazeera news is running a special documentary about the influence of Evangelical Chrisitan Zionists on US foreign policy, and by proxy on UK foreign policy].

‘In understanding conflict a Mediator must understand who is ‘pulling the strings’ and the ‘ideological source of their power’. These need to be brought to the surface because the underlying logic cannot be examined, understood, probed, and rigorously ‘reality-tested’ by an educated Mediator, while they remain submerged or are camouflaged. For an example in relation to Gaza, see pages 126 – 142 of ‘The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy’ by John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, who discuss ‘the origins of Christian Zionism which lie in the theology of dispensationalism, an approach to biblical interpretation that emerged in nineteenth-century England … and may have made British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour more receptive to the idea of creating a Jewish national home in Palestine.’ Note that Jo-Ann Mort of ‘Americans for Peace’ describes the collaboration between American Jews & the Christian Right as an ‘unholy alliance.’ The Israeli moderate Yossie Alpher has warned that Christian support for continued settlement expansion is ‘leading us into a scenario of out-and-out disaster.’ He told CBS News – ‘God save us from these people.’ The Israeli-American scholar Gershom Gorenberg notes that ‘dispensationalist’ theology does not foresee a happy fate for Jews: in the end-times ‘the Jews die or convert. … Christian Zionists don’t love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play … [and] it’s a five act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.’ So, who is manipulating whom? A Mediator may therefore legitimately ask the question – ‘For whom and for what are members of your armed forces dying?’ I also recommend that you read ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ & ‘Ten Myths about Israel’, by the Jewish Professor of History, Ilan Pappe.’

‘Is Zionism a form of white colonial settler supremacy?

To understand what Zionism is, see:

‘The Palestinian people have been denied the exercise of their legal right to self-determination through the more than century-long violent, colonial, racist effort to establish a nation State exclusively for the Jewish people in the land of Mandatory Palestine. When this began after the First World War, the Jewish population of that land was 11 per cent8. Forcibly implementing Zionism in this demographic context has necessarily involved the extermination, or forced displacement of, some of the non-Jewish Palestinian population; the exercise of domination over, and subjugation, dispossession and immiseration of, remaining.’

[Go to 5:28 – During a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joe Biden shocked Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin by saying, ‘I would go even further than you. I would be willing to kill women and children.’ Quoted Source: ‘The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump’ (2024) by Alexander Ward].

‘Is the US preparing to quietly leave Ukraine?’

Is the writing on the wall for Zelensky? See:

Meanwhile, is Biden keeping the war in Ukraine on life support until the Presidential election in November for his own benefit, and not for the benefit of Zelensky and Ukraine? See:

‘Is pressure from within the US Foreign Policy establishment gathering momentum to rein in Israel and stop the haemorrhaging of American credibility?’

Writing today in the influential US International Relations journal – ‘Foreign Affairs’, in an article entitled – ‘How to End America’s Hypocrisy on Gaza’, Sarah Yager who is Washington Director at Human Rights Watch, and from 2016 to 2018 served as the first Senior Adviser on Human Rights to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the U.S. Department of Defense, wrote:

‘The Biden Administration Must Assess Israel’s Conduct—and Hold It to Account. Some might argue that the United States can afford a little hypocrisy in order to support its longtime ally Israel. But playing a part in the erosion of international law will have harmful consequences for the United States far beyond Gaza. Future declarations by the State Department concerning atrocities will ring hollow, making it harder to hold perpetrators accountable and deter future international crimes. Pressure on warring parties to abide by the laws of war in other places—for example, Azerbaijan or Sudan—will carry less weight. In the eyes of the world, it will become harder to distinguish the United States from countries that outright dismiss international law and intentionally undermine the rules-based international order through their actions. To start reining in Israel and to stop the haemorrhaging of American credibility, the Biden administration needs to task its lawyers to assess all available information—classified and unclassified—on Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and determine when and where Israeli forces have violated the laws of war, and whether the IDF held those responsible to account. Their findings should be made public, and the evidence presented to Congress. While those assessments are happening, Israel should be put on notice that U.S. military aid is at risk. The political costs of looking squarely at the evidence and correcting U.S. policy as necessary won’t be comfortable for a president and legislators on the campaign trail. But those costs are lower than the cost of U.S. authorities acting as if the acute suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza does not deserve the same scrutiny as the suffering of civilians in other conflicts, a stance that gives ammunition to those who claim that, when it comes to applying core American principles and protecting basic human rights, Washington applies an obvious—and obviously hypocritical—double standard.’

I wonder what impact these views will have on the policy of the UK Government and Labour Party, as in less than three weeks time Israel must report to the ICJ and South Africa may make further submissions which could result in the ordering of more specific provisional measures. Whilst the US has vetoed any resolution against Israel in the UN Security Council it is fast approaching a cross-roads and so is President Biden whose latest approval rating was 38.6% [07.02.2024].

How to End America’s Hypocrisy on Gaza | Foreign Affairs

‘Following the ICJ ruling will Rishi Sunak confirm that future arms sales to Israel have been suspended?’

‘What makes the Government’s refusal to suspend arms sales even more horrifying is that Israeli officials have been quite open about their intent in Gaza. At the beginning of the assault, an Israeli military spokesperson said that “the emphasis” of bombing was on “damage and not on accuracy”.
Another official promised to turn Gaza into a “city of tents”, while the former head of the Israeli National Security Council said that the aim was to make Gaza “a place where no human being can exist.” The National Security Minister said that the only thing that should enter Gaza is “not a gram of humanitarian aid” but “hundreds of tons of explosives”. More recently, an Israeli Minister said that the war would be “Gaza’s Nakba”, which is a reference to the 1948 catastrophe in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homes and never allowed to return. Given that stated intent, and actions to match it, UN experts have warned of a “genocide in the making”. Let us be clear: if this is a genocide in the making, British-made weapons are almost certainly part of making that genocide happen. … Israel’s assault on Gaza has been carried out with the Government’s unequivocal support and with British-made weapons. … Following Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in 2014, which human rights organisations said violated international law, the Conservative-led coalition Government undertook an investigation into arms sales to Israel, finding that those arms could have been used by the Israeli military in Gaza. That resulted in the Government committing to suspend sales if Israel resumed its military assault.’ [Hansard – Extract from the speech by Zara Sultan MP (12.12.23).].

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-12-12/debates/BF12F435-8E9A-44B0-AA34-ADA9D01616E0/ArmsExportLicencesIsrael

As today the ICJ accepted the case and Israel is now on trial for Genocide, those facts appear to impute to any person supplying arms to it, and to any politician who approves an export licence, ‘constructive knowledge’ that arms may be used to perpetuate genocide. Therefore, following the ICJ ruling, every such person is now on actual notice that if they do so, they may be investigated and prosecuted for ‘complicity’ in a core international crime. I wonder whether at PMQ’s, any MP will ask Rishi Sunak to confirm that following today’s ruling, no further export licences for the sale of arms to Israel will be approved by his government? The board of directors of any British company involved in the supply of arms and parts to Israel, are legally under a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Presumably they will make an independent commercial decision which will take into account the reputational risk of being investigated and prosecuted for supplying arms with constructive knowledge of use in genocide? Today’s ruling therefore has far reaching implications.

See also:

UK arms export licences to Israel in the dock (france24.com)

Selling Weapons to Israel Could Make UK Complicit in War Crimes | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)

UK government faces legal challenge over arms exports to Israel | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

CDP-2023-0223.pdf (parliament.uk)

License to Kill: The Israel-Gaza Conflict and the UK’s Arms Exports Regime (justsecurity.org)

 

‘5 questions MPs can ask to test the legal necessity of calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza so that Israel can comply with IHL’

Article 49, Fourth Hague Convention [Google – ‘IHL Treaties – Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians 1949’] states:
‘Deportations, transfers, evacuations – Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. … Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. … The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.’ The term ‘forced’ is not limited to physical force. ‘It may also include the threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment”. The essential element is that the displacement be involuntary in nature, [i.e.] that the relevant persons had no real choice. …’ [International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Simic et al., (Judgment), Case No. IT-95-9-T, Trial Chamber II (17 October 2003), para 125.
So, this week, when MPs debate whether the United Kingdom should call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, they can ask 5 questions to test the legal necessity of Israel agreeing to an immediate ‘humanitarian’ ceasefire so that it can comply with IHL:
·       ‘What accommodation has been provided by Israel to receive displaced Palestinians?’
·       ‘What has Israel done to ensure satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition for displaced Palestinians?’
·       ‘What has Israel done to ensure that members of the same family are not separated as a result of the illegal i.e. “forced” displacement of Palestinians?’
·       ‘What is Israel doing to ensure that civilians taking refuge in hospitals under attack are not being detained?’
·  ‘How can Israel transfer displaced Palestinians back to their homes after hostilities have ceased, if their homes have been bombed i.e. no longer exist?’
For statistics Google – ‘Israel-Gaza war in maps and charts: Live Tracker’ + Aljazeera

A violation of International Humanitarian Law can give rise to a private law remedy actionable in the English Court

‘Law Debenture Trust Corp Plc v. Ukraine [2023]UKSC 11 – Can a threat by one foreign state [‘S.1’] to use physical violence against civilians of another foreign state [‘S.2’] and a threat  to damage property in S.2 constitute duress under English Law?’
‘Where a contract is governed by English law, the English courts can entertain the defence of duress raised by a sovereign state [S.1] based on threats by another state [S.2] to use physical violence towards the armed forces and civilians of the threatened state and threats to damage or destroy property in the threatened state. Such threats can constitute duress under English law.’ (‘Duress, Undue Influence and Unconscionable Dealing’ by Nelson Enonchong (2023) Fourth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, p.15).
At 147, their Lordships stated:
‘In argument, counsel for Ukraine maintained that Ukraine’s case on duress was based on the fact of the threats, that is to say on the nature of the acts which were threatened, rather than on their treatment under international law. On that basis, counsel characterised Ukraine’s case in relation to the threatened use of force as being based on duress of the person and of goods. Although counsel for the Trustee understandably emphasised that Ukraine’s case had not been pleaded in that way, the characterisation of this aspect of its case as one of duress of the person and of goods can be regarded as a change in the legal analysis of the facts pleaded rather than a different case on the facts. Defective pleadings which can be cured by amendment are not necessarily struck out without affording the pleader the opportunity to cure the deficiency, and the court has a wide ambit of discretion in this regard. The same principle also applies in the context of an application for summary judgment. In the present case, any trial of the action remains some considerable way off. We are also mindful that the law of duress has been the subject of significant clarification during the course of these proceedings. With all these factors in mind, we are prepared to consider Ukraine’s case based on alleged duress of the person and of goods. Any prejudice to the Trustee arising from Ukraine’s change of tack, and its failure to argue its case on the same basis in the courts below, is capable of being addressed in costs.’
Since equitable compensation ‘is a remedy by which the court of equity award substantial compensation for loss which the complainant has suffered as a result of the defendant’s equitable wrong … [it] is available even in a transaction where no property was transferred or none is required to be returned through rescission … Equitable compensation is a remedy which may be available in its own right in the absence of rescission … Equitable compensation seeks to restore the parties financially to the status quo ante.’ (Enonchong, para 28-064).

The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc (Appellant) v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) (Respondent) – The Supreme Court

‘Combatting the illicit trade is stolen antiquities is linked to global peace’

Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property [‘UNESCO 1970’] states:
‘1. The States Parties to this Convention recognize that the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural
heritage of the countries of origin of such property and that international co-operation constitutes one of the most efficient means of protecting each country’s cultural property against all the dangers resulting there from.
2. To this end, the States Parties undertake to oppose such practices with the means at their disposal, and particularly by removing their causes, putting a stop to current practices, and by helping to make the necessary reparations.’

‘There is international recognition that States should assist one another to prevent the unlawful removal of cultural objects including antiquities. … By Article 2 [UNESCO 1970] the parties recognise that the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin, and that international cooperation constitutes one of the most efficient means of protecting each country’s cultural property, and the parties undertake to oppose such practices with the means at their disposal.’ (Lord Phillips CJ at: 155, 157 in Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Barakat Galleries Ltd [2007] EWCA 1374).

‘Market’ and ‘Source’ countries share a common interest in combatting the global illicit trade in antiquities because it is linked to the drugs trade and terrorist financing, see the Report of the Ministerial Advisory Panel On Illicit Trade, December 2000. So, when a popular TV news anchor says ‘I simply don’t get it!’ what they are not ‘getting’ i.e. understanding and seeing, is the ‘big picture’ i.e. the geopolitical consequences of these three illicit trades fuelling each other, because they are all linked through organised criminal activity.

Cultural Heritage Diplomacy (‘CHD’) is a diplomatic forum/arena in which the UK working together with the United States and the EU, can provide global leadership. Cultural Heritage Diplomacy is at the heart of EU foreign policy, Google – ‘A new strategy to put culture at the heart of EU international relations’. ‘This field is in dire need of strong moral and political leadership. … It is only through mutual understanding of each other’s cultural and national identity that humankind can progress, as a global village, toward a more harmonious future. … Acting through the United Nations [state actors] should make a concerted effort to stop the invidious market in illegal art. No one benefits from these acquisitions. In the end, we all lose, because with each stolen artefact or piece of cultural property, we, as a community of nations, hinder UNESCO’s attempts at promoting mutual understanding through cultural education and exchange. It is only through such mutual understanding that nations can truly come to a greater knowledge of what makes us at the same time so different, yet so similar.. … [Diversity] of understanding is the root of what will lead to a more peaceful and more productive world community.’ (Shinn, John P. ‘A new world order for cultural property: addressing the failure of international and domestic regulation of the international art market’, 34 Santa Clara L.Rev 977 (1994), pp.978 & 1005).

‘Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’

States retain the primary responsibility in the prosecution of international crimes. Under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977, States must prosecute people accused of war crimes before their own national courts or extradite them for trial elsewhere.

The International Criminal Court (‘ICC’), headquartered in the Hague, exercises a complementary jurisdiction in respect of international crimes, and may take up a case when either:

  1. a State is unable or unwilling to prosecute the suspects, which include former and serving:
    1. heads of state;
    2. government ministers;
    3. public officials;
    4. military, intelligence, and police personnel of any rank;
    5. members of a paramilitary group; and
    6. civilians; or
  2. the Court is requested to initiate proceedings by the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system. To download the ICC guide, ‘Understanding the International Criminal Court’ please click on this link*.

The jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, including war crimes.

The ICC also has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, which include a range of acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.

Together, this includes most of the serious violations of international human rights law covered by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols, whether committed during an international or non-international armed conflict.

The ‘crime of aggression’, also mentioned in the Statute, was not defined during the establishment of the Court, but will come within the ICC’s jurisdiction once it is.

Contrary to other international courts, the ICC may take action against individuals but not States.

However, nothing in the ICC Statute releases States from their obligations under existing international humanitarian law or customary international law.

War Crimes

‘All war crimes are crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction, so that any State can prosecute them. The most authoritative and convenient, list of war crimes, committed in international or internal armed conflicts, is now to be found in the ICC statute. The defence that an accused was acting under the order of a superior is available only in very limited circumstances.’ Handbook of International Law, by Anthony Aust (formerly legal advisor to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office).

Article 8 (‘War Crimes’) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states,

  1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. 2.         For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:

(a)     Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i)     Wilful killing;

(ii)     …inhuman treatment…;

(iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii)     …unlawful confinement;

(viii)     Taking of hostages.

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v)     Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi)     Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

 (ix)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

 (xii)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii)     Destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xvi)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii)     Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii)     Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix)     Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx)     Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

 (xxiv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv)     Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

 (c)     In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:  

(i)     Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(ii)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii)     Taking of hostages;

(iv)     The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.  

(e)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:  

(i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

 (x)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;

 (xii)     Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

  1. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.

‘Prosecution of individuals in UK courts for international war crimes?’

Sky News reported at 11.30am today – ‘Israel-Hamas war: UK could be complicit in Gaza war crimes, Tory MP warns – Crispin Blunt, who is co-director of a pro-Palestinian group, told Sky News he is not sure his colleagues in Westminster are aware of the “legal peril they are in”. He spoke as Israel faces criticism for ordering more than a million people in Gaza to leave their homes. The UK could be complicit in war crimes in Gaza and could face legal action if it does not do more to “restrain” Israel, Tory MP Crispin Blunt has warned. The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) – of which Mr Blunt is co-director – announced it has written a notice of intention to prosecute UK government officials for “aiding and abetting war crimes in Gaza.” The move comes in response to Israel’s warning for 1.2 million people living in the northern part of the Gaza Strip to immediately leave their homes and move south. Mr Blunt told Sky News he is “not sure [his] colleagues have grasped the legal peril they are in” and “everyone must act to restrain people” if they know war crimes are going to happen. “If you know that a party is going to commit a war crime – and this forcible transfer of people is a precise breach of one of the statutes that governs international law and all states in this area – then you are making yourself complicit,” he said.” And as international law has developed in this area, the fact of being complicit makes you equally guilty to the party carrying out the crime.”’

Note – ‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 36 paras 158-159:
‘It follows from that provision that every State party to that Convention, whether or not it is a party to a specific conflict, is under an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the instruments in question are complied with … [and] … In addition, all States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 are under an obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.’

So, under international law, the UK Government is under a positive duty to ensure compliance by Israel with IHL. See also my comment about International Armed Conflicts [‘IAC‘s’] and the possibility of criminal prosecutions being brought against individuals who are either arrested in the UK or extradited to the UK, to face prosecution for War Crimes, in a trial that will take place in the UK courts.

With respect to IAC‘s – ‘all states are obliged , pursuant to the Grave Breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions, to domestically criminalise such violations, and seek out and either extradite or prosecute those violations.’ [Oxford Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2020), by Ben Saul & Dapo Akande (Oxford University Press), p.355].

So, if any person sets foot on UK soil who was involved in any War Crime committed during an IAC, it would appear that as an individual, they are at risk of being arrested and prosecuted in a UK court for War Crimes. That would appear to include any person, who either directly or indirectly, has been complicit in a breach of IHL which amounts to a war crime.

Therefore, if, as senior foreign policy experts in the United States have warned in the journal Foreign Affairs this week, the conflict in Gaza becomes an IAC, i.e. because it escalates into a regional conflict, then it also appears to be possible, that with the permission of a future Attorney-General, private prosecutions could be brought against any individual, who does not have diplomatic immunity, who is either arrested in the UK, or can be extradited to the UK, to face charges in a War Crimes trial that will take place in the Old Bailey.

 

‘Cultural Heritage Safe Zones’

Could Cultural Heritage diplomacy be a neutral method of mediating a ceasefire to create a network of humanitarian corridors, i.e. by designating certain areas as “Cultural Heritage Safe Zones” and linking them up?’ As the war in Ukraine has brought into sharp focus, there is no one who today can effectively provide any observance of the International Humanitarian Law Rules. No international peacekeeping mission is possible, because Russia is blocking Security Council action. Therefore, the designation of an area as a ‘Cultural Heritage Safe Zone’ is linked to issues:
(i) the powers and procedures of the UN Security Council; and
(ii) reform of the UN Security Council.

See:

‘There is still time.’ The Vatican assesses its influence as war breaks out in Ukraine. (religionnews.com)

Vatican Diplomacy – Diplomat Magazine

The Vatican and International Diplomacy on JSTOR

Vatican Secret Diplomacy (culturaldiplomacy.org)

New book ‘God’s Diplomats’ unveils the secret history of Vatican diplomacy | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)

‘No Fly Zones’

‘Air power can only be used effectively to coerce or deter if it is used in accordance with these ends. It can be called in to support a force on the ground and attack the targets indicated by the force as threatening it; and it can react to any aircraft ignoring the NFZ [No Fly Zone] and shoot it down. If it is to deter or coerce, then the opponent has to believe that targets that matter to him will be struck effectively, even if they are not necessarily those that he is risking in battle. He must also believe that you will escalate if you do not succeed in getting him to succumb at first, and that the outcome would be to his disadvantage. One is in effect negotiating by threatening or using force, in confrontation not conflict.’(‘The Utility of Force – The Art of War in the Modern World’ [2005], p.345 by General Sir Rupert Smith (former Deputy Supreme Commander (DSACEUR) in NATO. All territorial airspace is considered as coming within the purview of International Humanitarian Law [‘IHL’]. ‘IHL provides that certain areas within the territory of a party to the conflict (or in any other territory) may be rendered off-limits to military activity, through designation of the area as a demilitarised zone, a neutralised zone, and undefended locality (or safe zone), or a hospital or safety zone. Thus, IHL provisions and protection still apply, but these zones are not to be made the location of hostilities. Non-defended localities can be any town, village, dwelling, or building which is declared to be an undefended place. … Neutralised or demilitarised zones may also be established by parties to a conflict. … Demilitarised zones are outlined in article 60 of API and are intended to protect civilians living within such zones from attack by parties to the conflict. The provisions for establishing a demilitarised zone are similar to those for an undefended locality: however, demilitarised zones can only be created by agreement of the parties to the conflict. As the ICRC Commentary to the Protocols notes, the “essential character of the zones created in article 60 … [is] that they have a humanitarian and not a political aim; they are specially intended to protect the population living there against attack.”‘ (The Oxford Guide to International Humanitarian Law (2020) edited by Ben Saul and Dapo Akande), p.67. In international armed conflicts, international humanitarian law applies as soon as an armed conflict exists between states. The formal declaration of war is not required. Therefore, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to the invasion of a sovereign state by another state actor. The toolbox for humanitarian intervention includes the imposition of ‘humanitarian’ no-fly zones. An undefended locality can be estatblished unilaterally. Attacking a UN safezone is a breach of the rule of law. See also the ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

See also:

‘Are Principles of Humanity under International Humanitarian Law a diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement?’

Introduction

In this essay the author argues that:

  • Cultural Heritage is part of our shared humanity.
  • Cultural Heritage is entwined with UNESCO’s broader mandate concerning human rights, the rule of law, development, and peace.
  • The duty of a state to protect Cultural Heritage (‘CH’) is quintessentially a fiduciary duty under International Humanitarian Law (‘IHL‘). The underlying premise is that every civilized society is a fiduciary of humanity, and so are their governments.
  • Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity.
  • Destruction of CH is not only a war crime under IHL it can also be a political mistake – that is the paradox of Machiavelli’s Principle of Survival(‘MPS’).
  • If the destruction of CH has the potential to politically destabilise the aggressor (‘H’ i.e. a Hegemon), then it follows that  surrounding states in the region (‘SIR’s’) also have a national security interest in the survival of H.
  • Therein, and counter-intuitively, lies the seed of a principle that can result in the mediation of terms of peace which ensure the survival of both H and the sovereign state invaded by H. If this geo-political interest is recognised by all parties to the conflict and their supporters, that could open the door to a mediated dialogue using cultural heritage as a language of diplomacy, to negotiate a ceasefire and peace agreement.
  • This is where a non-partisan Non-State Actor (‘NSA’) e.g. an NGO, can play an instrumental diplomatic and mediation role.

Strategic importance of Cultural Heritage

In the frequently quoted words of the 1954 Hague Convention, cultural property is ‘the cultural heritage of all mankind.’[i] In other words, Cultural Heritage it is part of our shared humanity. Therefore, we all have a common interest in preserving and protecting cultural property everywhere.

Cultural Heritage is entwined with UNESCO’s broader mandate concerning human rights, the rule of law, development, and peace.[ii]

‘Annihilation of cultural heritage is gradually evolving into an issue of peace and security in the 21st century. Destructive ideologies are not new in history, as the UNESCO Strategy, entitled ‘Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict’, acknowledges; but today “threats to cultural heritage in the event of armed conflict result from intentional destruction, collateral damage, forced neglect, as well as from organised looting and illicit trafficking of cultural objects … [on] an unprecedented scale.”[iii] Intentional destruction of cultural heritage by extremist non-State actors, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, the so-called Islamic state (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, or Daesh) in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, may be seen as part of “ideological warfare against cultural property.”[iv] …’[v]

Cultural identity is considered to part of human dignity. It is linked to human rights because cultural heritage is of crucial importance to individuals and communities as part of their identity. As cultural heritage requires memory, this applies to both tangible and intangible heritage, because material and physical heritage needs to be placed in both a historical and cultural context, in order to understand its value.

‘The cultural heritage of a people is not limited to the tangible expressions of art, architecture, religion, poetry, or writing in general but also includes its intangible heritage, which is transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity. More generally, cultural heritage includes the expressions of the people’s spirituality, and the body of values which give meaning to life’  (Francioni & Vrdoljak‘, p 77).

Duty to protect

The author’s thesis, is that when ‘Art’ (‘A’) is of cultural significance, i.e. is recognised as being ‘Cultural Heritage’  (‘CH’), it forms part of a recognised heritage. If then in either a narrow or a broad sense, it becomes part of civilization and a record of human evolution (i.e. part of the consciousness and collective memory of mankind), public duties do or should attach to possession. In particular, the possessor (‘P’) who owns A that is also CH, is also a custodian of the CH. In which case, duties attach to possession, e.g. a duty to preserve and protect the cultural property (‘DP). DP also applies to an underwater archaeological site, because as the French Archaeologist Salomon Reinach famously remarked, ‘The sea is the largest museum in the world’.  If P is a state, these duties extend to protecting the CH in the event of war. Therefore, DP is quintessentially a fiduciary duty under IHL.  The underlying premise is that every civilized society is a fiduciary of humanity, and so are their governments.[vi] This also highlights the existence of a potential intersection between: (i) ‘principles of humanity’ under IHL; and (ii) the existence of ‘fiduciary duties’ on state actors under foundational principles of international law – see Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009).

The paradox of Machiavelli’s Principle of Survival

In the 16th century, the strategist and political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli wrote that ‘he who becomes a master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always [been] the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget.’ (‘The Prince’, Chapter V – ‘Concerning The Way To Govern Cities Or Principalities Which Lived Under Their Own Laws Before They Were Annexed.’)(1532). In other words, if you really want to destroy a people, its pride, it self esteem, and its sense of belonging to its own cultural identity, you need to destroy its cultural heritage, otherwise you will not be able to dominate. (‘Machiavelli’s principle of survival’) [‘MPS’].

‘The real target of most acts of intentional destruction of cultural heritage is therefore, not the heritage in itself but the human communities for which such a heritage is of special significance.’ (‘Mens Rea of Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage’, by Federico Lenzerini, Chapter 4 of the Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law’ (2020), Oxford University Press, page 77).

Analysing the psychology of an invasion through the hard geo-political lens of ‘Offensive Realism’ (see Mearsheimer 2014), if an invading sovereign state is a hegemon or an aspiring hegemon) (‘H’), and the political logic underlying invasion is survival, then since a hegemon must dominate in order to survive, there is a paradox, because PA requires the destruction of CH. In other words, to achieve its political objectives, H must destroy part of itself.

Therefore, invasion may be a political mistake[vii]. The miscalculation is that instead of H becoming stronger it will actually weaken itself, because by invading a state with a shared cultural heritage, H will to an extent destroy its own cultural identity. If that happens then over time, institutionally H may become unstable and ungovernable, resulting ultimately in the political break-up of H. In other words, institutionally, the destruction of cultural heritage by H is an act of political self-destruction.

The existential question for H then becomes, how do they end the war without ending up being in a worse position than they were in before it, in order to:

(i) preserve the status quo within H itself; and

(ii) restore the balance of power (i.e. the status quo ante) between H and other hegemons and aspiring hegemons in the region/world, including H‘s political allies –  who may pursue their own self-interest at the expense of H, if H becomes politically unstable, i.e. by annexing territory that H can no longer politically control because its military capability and economy have been weakened.

If the author is right, then the calculus of risk by H is a dynamic that can influence a decision by H to end a war by positively engaging in mediation.

Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity

‘The destruction of heritage, and prohibition of cultural behaviours are used by certain conflict actors as “shaping operations”, where violence against the “Other” becomes normalised as communities, either incrementally or at once, lose their property, freedoms, and humanity. Culture is a shared set of values, ideas, and behaviours that enable a social group to function and survive. Cultural heritage maintains identity, social cohesion, and a sense of security through intangible practices, including rituals, music, language and skills, and tangible property such as artefacts, archaeology and places. Roosevelt’s four  freedoms link cultural behaviour – to freedom from fear and want. Targeting cultural heritage is an act of power that legitimises one group while diminishing others and is often a precursor for the most offensive form of cultural destruction: genocide.’[viii]

Hence, there is an unspoken connection between:

  1. the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a strategy by an invading force in war and occupation;
  2. ethnic cleansing; and
  3. genocide.

The intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an offence against humanity as a whole.[ix] Article II.2 of the 2003 UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage (17 October 2003) states:

‘For the purposes of this Declaration “intentional destruction” means an act intended to destroy in whole or in part cultural heritage, thus compromising its integrity, in a manner which constitutes a violation of international law or an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience, in the latter case in so far as such acts are not already governed by fundamental principles of international law.’

In other words, the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is an unjustifiable offence to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.

Principles of Humanity

Whether IHL can bring warring P‘s together in an ‘offensive realism’ paradigm depends upon the answer to the following questions:

  • Do universal ethical values exist under IHL as ‘Principles of Humanity’ [‘principles’][x].
  • What are these principles.
  • In the real world, could these principles be used in mediation as potential building blocks of a peace process, protocol, and agreement – i.e. are they a sufficient basis for starting a ‘difficult’ conversation that can eventually transform attitudes and each P’s Political Doctrine [‘PD’], resulting in the negotiation of a sustainable and enduring Peace Treaty.

The philosophical pillars of universal Principles of Humanity under IHL, are two classical doctrines:

(i) obligations ‘erga omnes’; and

(ii) ‘jus cogens’.

Although it can be said that jus cogens rules consist of rules stipulating erga omnes obligations, it is not axiomatic that erga omnes obligations constitute jus cogens. While there is an overlap between: (i) obligations erga omnes; and (ii) jus cogens rules, the IHL principles and norms that can be derived from the nexus between these doctrines in relation to Cultural Heritage suffer from a lack of scholarly formulation, definition and classification.

Therefore the answer to the first question is yes. However because the formulation of these principles and their philosophical basis under IHL, requires further research[xi], the answer to the second question is almost a blank canvass.The answer to the third question depends upon whether these principles align with H’s political interest in the preservation of CH, as destruction of CH is ultimately an act on institutional self-destruction. So, in theory, because, by definition preservation of CG is common ground,  the door is open for a form of Mediation to take place through Cultural Heritage Diplomacy.

Conclusion

There is a tension between the:
(i)      common ground represented by a shared cultural heritage, including a set of ethical, philosophical and religious values/beliefs; and
(ii)      political ambitions and objectives (‘PA’) that drive military strategy in war.

A logical corollary of MPS, is that where  an invading state and an invaded state share a common cultural heritage i.e. CH, that the invader must destroy part of itself in order to achieve its political objective(s), i.e. its PA.

Arguably, Principles of Humanity under IHL are a powerful diplomatic tool in mediating a peace process and agreement, because violation, i.e. the impact of war on CH, may adversely sway public opinion within H and weaken support for the war.

When the political strategy of H is to create a failed state i.e., where it has failed in its primary objective to turn the invaded state into a client state, then the preservation and protection of cultural heritage in the invaded state, is also arguably elevated to the level of being a threat to the national security of any other state in the region (‘SIR’), because there is a risk of a failed state emerging within SIR‘s geo-political sphere of influence.

If the destruction of CH has the potential to politically destabilise H, then it follows that SIR also has a national security interest in the survival of H.  Therein, and counter-intuitively, lies the seed of a principle that can result in the mediation of terms of peace which ensure the survival of both H and the sovereign state invaded by H. If this geo-political interest is recognised by all parties to the conflict and their supporters, that could open the door to a mediated dialogue using cultural heritage as a language of diplomacy, to negotiate a ceasefire and peace agreement. This is where a non-partisan NSA e.g. an NGO, can play an instrumental diplomatic and mediation role.[xii]

Bibliography

Blake, Janet On Developing a New International Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, Art Antiquity & Law, Vol VIII, Issue 4, 381, December 2003. (‘Blake’).

Bowling, Daniel (Editor) & David Hoffman (Editor) (2003), Bringing Peace Into the Room: How the Personal Qualities of the Mediator Impact the Process of Conflict Resolution, Jossey-Bass. (‘Bowling et al’).

Carstens, Anne-Marie & Elizabeth Varner (2020), Intersections In International Cultural Heritage Law, Oxford University Press. (‘Carstens & Varner’).

Chalcraft, Jasper Into the Contact Zones of Heritage Diplomacy: Local Realities, Transnational Themes and International Expectations, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society (published online 05.01.2021). (‘Chalcraft’).

Clack, Timothy & Mark Dunkley (2022) Cultural Heritage in Modern Conflict, Past, Propaganda, Parade, Routledge. (‘Clack & Dunkley’).

Cloke, Kenneth (2019) The Crossroads of Conflict – A Journey Into the Heart of Dispute Resolution,  Goodmedig Press. (‘Cloke’).

Criddle, Evan J. & Evan Fox-Decent (2016) Fiduciaries of Humanity – How International Law Constitutes Authority, Oxford University Press. (‘Criddle & Fox-Decent (2016)’).

Criddle, Evan J. & Evan Fox-Decent A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol 34: 331-387. (Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009)’).

Criddle, Evan J, Miller, Paul B. & Robert H. Stikoff, editors (2019) The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law, Oxford University Press. (‘Criddle, Miller & Sitkoff’).

Durbach, Andrea & Lucas Lixinski (2019) Heritage, Culture And Rights – Challenging Legal Discourses, Hart. (‘Durbach & Lixinski’).

Francioni, Francesco & Ana Filipa Vrdoljak‘ (2020) The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law, Oxford University Press. (‘Francioni & Vrdoljak‘).

Grant, Adam (2021) Think Again – The Power Of Knowing What You Don’t Know, Penguin Books. (‘Grant’).

Goold, Benjamin J. & Liora Lazarus (2019) Security And Human Rights, Hart Publishing. (‘Goold & Lazarus’).

Gozzi, Gustavo (2019) Rights and Civilizations – A History and Philosophy of International Law, Cambridge University Press.(‘Gozzi’).

Iverson, Jens (2021) Jus Post Bellum: The Rediscovery, Foundations, and Future of the Law of Transforming War into Peace, Brill Nijhoff. (‘Iverson’).

Jervis, Robert (2017) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton University Press.(‘Jervis (2017)’).

Jervis, Robert (2017) How Statesmen Think – The Psychology of International Politics, Princeton University Press.

Jervis, Robert (2017) How Statesmen Think – The Psychology of International Politics, Princeton University Press. (‘Jervis (2019)’).

Kim, Jihon (2022) Non-State Actors in the Protection of Cultural Heritage: An Analysis on Their Rights, Obligations, and Roles, Springer-Verlag. (‘Kim’).

Mearsheimer, John J. (2014) The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (Updated Edition), Norton. (‘Mearsheimer (2014)’).

Mearsheimer, John J. (2019) The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (Henry L. Stimson Lectures), Yale University Press. (‘Mearsheimer (2019)’).

Mearsheimer, John J. (2023) & Sebastian Rosato How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy, Yale University Press. (‘Mearsheimer & Rosato’).

Milton, Patrick, Michael Axworthy and Brendan Simms (2018) Towards A Westphalia for the Middle East,C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd. (‘Milton et al’).

O’Keefe, Patrick J. (2017) Protecting Cultural Objects: Before And After 1970, Institute of Art & Law. (‘O’Keefe’).

Paterson, Robert J ‘Protecting Taonga: The Cultural Heritage of the New Zealand Māori’, 8 Intnl J. Cultural Prop. 108 (1999). (‘Paterson’).

Powell, Jonathan (2014), Talking To Terrorists – How to end armed conflicts, Vintage. (‘Powell’)

Randolph, Paul (2016) The Psychology of Conflict, Bloomsbury. (‘Randolph’).

Ury, William (1999) The Third Side – Why We Fight And How We Can Stop, Penguin Books. (‘Ury’).

Saul, Ben & Dapo Akande (2020) The Oxford Guide To International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press.(‘Saul & Akande’).

Shinn, John P.  ‘A new world order for cultural property: addressing the failure of international and domestic regulation of the international art market’, 34 Santa Clara L.Rev 977 (1994). (‘Shinn’).

Simpson, Moira Museums and restorative justice: heritage, repatriation and cultural education,  Museum International, Vol 61, No.1-2, 2009 (UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd). (‘Simpson’).

Slaughter, Anne-Marie ‘Every day global governance’, 132 Daedalus 83 (2003). (‘Slaughter’).

Stamatoudi, Irini ‘Mediation and cultural diplomacy’, 61 Museum Int’l 116 (2009). (‘Stamatoudi’).

Strother, Grant ‘Resolving Cultural Property Disputes in the Shadow of the Law’,  Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 2014, Vol19:335.(‘Strother’).

Tsagourias, Nicholas & Alasdair Morrison (2023) International Humanitarian Law – Cases, Material And Commentary, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press. (‘Tsagourias & Morrison’).

Weatherall, Thomas (2015) Jus Cogens – International Law and Social Contract, Cambridge University Press. (‘Weatherall’).

[i] This has a philosophical root in the western liberal theory of cultural property internationalism ‘A related claim is a critique of the nationalist position, namely that cultural heritage is a fluid concept and hence claims to total sovereignty are arbitrary. The position is less that there is no national claim to territorial cultural property, but rather that a balance should be struck between sovereignty and shared access to what is viewed by the cultural property internationalists as a common cultural heritage of humanity. Support for these claims are likewise evident from Article 4 UNESCO 1970, which includes in the definition of “cultural heritage” both “cultural property which has been the subject of a freely agreed exchange,” and “cultural property received as a gift or purchased legally with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of origin of such property.” These provisions seem to reflect an idea that cultural property can be attributed to a cultural heritage beyond the territory of its origin, and also acknowledges the value in protecting other states’ provision of access to cultural property of foreign origin.’ (Strother, p.358).

[ii] ‘Culture is [also] a key element of operational understanding. Operations of both the British and US militaries in Afghanistan and Iraq taught hard lessons: culture is critical. Culture is a driver and motivator of people. It is also a medium for communication and a means to achieve military effect. It can also shape and define the Information Environment. Culture, as a component of military planning is one of four key human factors that shape the operating environment. Put simply, culture determines how people interpret and orientate themselves to that environment.’ Clack & Dunkley, p.301 – An interview with Captain Mark Waring. These are the words of Captain Waring.

[iii] UNESCO General conference, ‘Reinforcement of UNESCO’s Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict (2 November 2015) UNESCO doc 38/C/49. See also UNESCO General Conference, ‘Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO’s action for the protection of culture and the promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict’ (24 October 2017) UNESCO doc 39/C/57, para 1.

[iv] Kirsten Schmalenbach, “ideological Warfare Against Cultural Property: UN Strategies and Dilemmas” 19 Max Planck  YB UN L 1.

[v] Carstens & Elizabeth Varner, p.82.

[vi] Note also that ‘fiduciary principles play a prominent role in the international law of occupation. As one leading scholar has observed, the foundational principle upon which the entire law of occupation is based is the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through unilateral action of a foreign power. Accordingly, when a state establishes effective control over foreign territory, its international legal status is conceived to be that of a trustee who exercises only temporary managerial powers until the occupation ends. … An occupant also bears a variety of proscriptive fiduciary duties. It must respect unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. … Nor may an occupant confiscate private property, [or] destroy property without military necessity. … Moreover the occupant serves only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, [and] real estate … belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct, avoiding wasteful or negligent destruction of the capital value … Contrary to the rules of good husbandry. … For centuries, international lawyers and statesmen have endorsed the principle that a state’s sovereign authority is held in trust for the benefit of its people.’ (Criddle, Miller & Sitkoff, pp.356 & 358-9).

[vii] In a proxy war, where a hegemon (‘H‘) is a liberal democracy acting in support of a strategic asset (‘SA’), aggression by SA in breach of IHL not only undermines the integrity of the international rules based order where a Nelsonian blind eye is turned to violation, it can also turn SA into a ‘liability’ which can sway public opinion in H, who demand that support for SA cease.

[viii] Clack & Dunkley, p.301 – An interview with Colonel Rosie Stone. These are the words of Colonel Stone.

[ix] ‘[It] seems to have been forgotten that even wars have limits.

The so-called “Hague-Law”, which regulates the use of means and methods of warfare so as to mitigate, as much as possible, the “calamities of war”, is the oldest branch of IHL. It’s basic tenet can be summarised in three fundamental maxims, namely: (i) that “the only legitimate object which states should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken military forces of the enemy”; and that therefore, in pursuing this aim, both (ii) “the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited”; and (iii) “[t]he civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.”’ (Saul & Akande, p.235).

[x] Primary sources include:

  • Hague Convention II, Convention (II) with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (adopted 29 July 1899, entered into force 4 September 1900):-

‘Preamble …

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and requirements of the public conscience.’

  • Additional Protocol 1, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978):-

1(2) – In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.’

  • International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia – Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al., (Judgment), Case No. IT-95-16-T, Trial Chamber (14 January 2000).

The following is an extract from Tsagourias & Morrison, pp43 & 44:

‘On the issue of humanity and how it assists in the interpretation of IHL, the Chamber held as follows:

  1. More specifically, recourse might be had to the celebrated Martens Clause which, … Has by now become part of customary international law. True, this Clause may not be taken to mean that the ‘Principles of Humanity’ and the ‘Dictates of Public Conscience’ have been elevated to the rank of independent sources of international law, for this conclusion is belied by international practice. However, this clause enjoins, as a minimum, reference to those principles and dictates any time a rule of international humanitarian law is not sufficiently rigorous or precise: in those instances, the scope and purport of the rule must be defined with reference to those principles and dictates.’
  • Danish Ministry of Defence, Defence Command Denmark, Military Manual on International Law Relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations (2016, updated 2020), chapter 4:-

‘The principle of humanity expresses a fundamental prohibition against the infliction of suffering, injury, or destruction that is not actually necessary for the accomplishment of legitimate military purposes. The principle also implies the basic requirement of humane treatment. … There are three aspects to the principle of humanity. The first aspect concerns the fact that belligerents are limited in their use of means and methods of warfare. … The second aspect of the principle of humanity is the requirement that certain precautions – for instance, in the choice of means and methods – must be taken in connection with the planning and execution of attacks and in the defence against attacks. … The third aspect of the principle concerns a minimum standard for the humane treatment of any person who is held in the custody of the belligerent state.’

  • ‘The key to understanding international jus cogenslies in a much neglected passage of The Doctrine Of Right, where Immanuel Kant discusses the innate right of humanity which all children may assert against their parents as citizens of the world. Drawing on Kant’s account of familial fiduciary relations, our theory of jus cogens posits that states exercise sovereign authority as fiduciaries of the people subject to state power. An immanent feature of this state subject fiduciary relationship is that the state must comply with jus cogens.’ (Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009), pp.353 – 354 (Kant’s Model of Fiduciary Relations).

[xi] ‘An additional consideration should be devoted, as well, to unpacking the fiduciary model’s consequences for future litigation to enforce alleged jus cogens violations, including such threshold concerns as standing, sovereign immunity, causes of action, compulsory jurisdiction, forums, and remedies. … Addressing these questions will be essential to determine the specific legal consequences that flow from a breach of jus cogens.’ (Criddle & Fox-Decent (2009)).

[xii] For example in mediating a ceasefire, in order to create a network of humanitarian corridors, i.e. by designating certain areas as ‘Cultural Heritage Safe Zones’, and then linking them up, so as to create a matrix, which in effect brings about a cessation of military operations throughout a conflict zone.

Humanitarian & Transformative Mediation Resources

Mediation of Peace Process & Agreement Resources

* to view pdf files you will need a suitable viewer, if you need to download one click on the link of your choice below:

Adobe Reader

Foxit pdf Reader