Difference between revisions of "Document:Netanyahu Plays Chicken"
(Creating Document:Netanyahu Plays Chicken) |
m |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
It is worth stressing that, contrary to the propaganda, in the last year [[Israel]] has hit [[Lebanon]] with five missiles for every one sent by [[Hezbollah]]. | It is worth stressing that, contrary to the propaganda, in the last year [[Israel]] has hit [[Lebanon]] with five missiles for every one sent by [[Hezbollah]]. | ||
| − | Meantime the [[United Kingdom]]’s claims to respect [[international law]] are exposed as an utter sham as it failed to vote for the [[UNGA]] Resolution giving effect to the [[International Court of Justice]]’s Advisory Opinion on [[Israel]]’s [[OPT|occupation of Palestinian Territory]]. | + | Meantime the [[United Kingdom]]’s claims to respect [[international law]] are exposed as an utter sham as it failed to vote for the [[UNGA]] Resolution giving effect to the [[International Court of Justice]]’s Advisory Opinion on [[Israel]]’s [[OPT|occupation of Palestinian Territory]].<ref>''[https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf "ICJ Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024"]''</ref> |
The [[ICJ]]’s ruling that the Occupation is itself an illegal act, and that states must do nothing which can assist [[Israel]] to maintain it, sets out a clear legal status quo which the [[UK]] is equally clearly breaking. | The [[ICJ]]’s ruling that the Occupation is itself an illegal act, and that states must do nothing which can assist [[Israel]] to maintain it, sets out a clear legal status quo which the [[UK]] is equally clearly breaking. | ||
When the [[ICJ]] decision came out on 19 July, the [[FCDO]] statement was as follows:{{QB| | When the [[ICJ]] decision came out on 19 July, the [[FCDO]] statement was as follows:{{QB| | ||
| − | :We have received the Advisory Opinion issued by the [[International Court of Justice]] on Friday 19 July and are considering it carefully before responding. The [[UK]] respects the independence of the [[ICJ]].}} | + | :We have received the Advisory Opinion issued by the [[International Court of Justice]] on Friday 19 July and are considering it carefully before responding. The [[UK]] respects the independence of the [[ICJ]].<ref>''[https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf "Foreign Office ‘carefully considering’ UK response to ICJ Israel-West Bank ruling"]''</ref>}} |
The promised response has never come; unless you take the failure to vote at the [[UN General Assembly]] for the implementation of the [[ICJ]] ruling as the response. The decision to suspend 8% of arms export licenses for [[Israel]] was framed not in terms of this [[ICJ]] ruling – which logically can only require the cessation of all arms sales to [[Israel]] – but more broadly in terms of unspecified possible breaches of international humanitarian law. | The promised response has never come; unless you take the failure to vote at the [[UN General Assembly]] for the implementation of the [[ICJ]] ruling as the response. The decision to suspend 8% of arms export licenses for [[Israel]] was framed not in terms of this [[ICJ]] ruling – which logically can only require the cessation of all arms sales to [[Israel]] – but more broadly in terms of unspecified possible breaches of international humanitarian law. | ||
In its “explanation of vote” at the [[UN General Assembly]], the [[UK]] deliberately ignored a key tenet of the [[ICJ]] Opinion. The [[UK]] stated:{{QB| | In its “explanation of vote” at the [[UN General Assembly]], the [[UK]] deliberately ignored a key tenet of the [[ICJ]] Opinion. The [[UK]] stated:{{QB| | ||
| − | :“Our abstention reflects our unwavering determination to focus on efforts to bring about a peaceful and negotiated [[two-state solution]].”}} | + | :“Our abstention reflects our unwavering determination to focus on efforts to bring about a peaceful and negotiated [[two-state solution]].”<ref>''[https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-uks-explanation-of-vote-on-the-un-general-assembly-resolution-on-the-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-israels-presence-in-the-occupied-palestinian-terr "The UK’s explanation of vote on the UN General Assembly resolution on the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories"]''</ref>}} |
This ignores the [[ICJ]] ruling that [[Israel]] must leave the [[OPT|occupied territories]] before any negotiations. An occupied people cannot negotiate with, in effect, a gun held at their head. That is explicitly why the [[ICJ]] did not accept that the [[Oslo Accords]] alienated any [[Palestinian]] rights in [[international law]]. | This ignores the [[ICJ]] ruling that [[Israel]] must leave the [[OPT|occupied territories]] before any negotiations. An occupied people cannot negotiate with, in effect, a gun held at their head. That is explicitly why the [[ICJ]] did not accept that the [[Oslo Accords]] alienated any [[Palestinian]] rights in [[international law]]. | ||
Revision as of 13:38, 21 September 2024
| Netanyahu’s strategy of assassinations and deadly stunts appears to be an attempt to goad Hezbollah out of their own territory into a suicidal advance into Israel. But Nasrullah is not falling for it. It is worth stressing that, contrary to the propaganda, in the last year Israel has hit Lebanon with five missiles for every one sent by Hezbollah. |
blog post by Craig Murray dated 21 September 2024Subjects: Benjamin Netanyahu, Axis of Resistance, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, Biden administration, Keir Starmer, Zionist lobby
Source: Craig Murray's blog (Link)
★ Start a Discussion about this document
Netanyahu Plays Chicken
Netanyahu is desperate to keep war simmering along and to draw the USA closer and closer to him. At the same time he cannot send ground forces into South Lebanon where they will take massive casualties.
Israel can assassinate, it can employ indiscriminate terrorism and it can bombard from the air, and it has done all these things against Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. But Israel cannot destroy Hamas nor Hezbollah, cannot get back its hostages from Gaza and cannot make Northern Israel safe for its colonialists.
Nothing Israel is doing in any way advances those declared objectives and in fact makes all of them increasingly unlikely ever to be attained.
But as Biden and Harris accept and reinforce every single escalation and every single illegality, Israel’s stranglehold on its western vassal politicians gets ever stronger. Those have now all (including both UK Labour and Conservative ministers) supported illegality well beyond the stage where there is any going back. They have now to hope that they will be “justified” by military victory.
The 2003 Iraq war shows that however illegal the war, if you win you get to write – or at least interpret – the rules of international law. I wish I could come up with good counter-examples. “Justice” is visited only upon losers.
But the problem for Netanyahu, Sunak, Starmer, von der Leyen et al. is that just what victory looks like, nobody seems in the least clear.
We appear to be locked into a hideous distortion of existentialism, where the killing of Arabs of any age and sex is in itself the path of virtue and a reason for living.
Israel’s TikTok army of child-killers, rapists and lingerie-flaunters will take heavy casualties if it advances into Lebanon. It is currently launching intense air attacks, but it cannot destroy Hezbollah that way, not even were it to triple the colossal amount of explosive it has dropped on Gaza.
Netanyahu’s strategy of assassinations and deadly stunts appears to be an attempt to goad Hezbollah out of their own territory into a suicidal advance into Israel. But Nasrullah is not falling for it.
It is worth stressing that, contrary to the propaganda, in the last year Israel has hit Lebanon with five missiles for every one sent by Hezbollah.
Meantime the United Kingdom’s claims to respect international law are exposed as an utter sham as it failed to vote for the UNGA Resolution giving effect to the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory.[1]
The ICJ’s ruling that the Occupation is itself an illegal act, and that states must do nothing which can assist Israel to maintain it, sets out a clear legal status quo which the UK is equally clearly breaking.
When the ICJ decision came out on 19 July, the FCDO statement was as follows:
- We have received the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice on Friday 19 July and are considering it carefully before responding. The UK respects the independence of the ICJ.[2]
The promised response has never come; unless you take the failure to vote at the UN General Assembly for the implementation of the ICJ ruling as the response. The decision to suspend 8% of arms export licenses for Israel was framed not in terms of this ICJ ruling – which logically can only require the cessation of all arms sales to Israel – but more broadly in terms of unspecified possible breaches of international humanitarian law.
In its “explanation of vote” at the UN General Assembly, the UK deliberately ignored a key tenet of the ICJ Opinion. The UK stated:
- “Our abstention reflects our unwavering determination to focus on efforts to bring about a peaceful and negotiated two-state solution.”[3]
This ignores the ICJ ruling that Israel must leave the occupied territories before any negotiations. An occupied people cannot negotiate with, in effect, a gun held at their head. That is explicitly why the ICJ did not accept that the Oslo Accords alienated any Palestinian rights in international law.
The UK is still – directly contrary to the ICJ – attempting to maintain that Palestine’s right not to be occupied was signed away at Oslo.
British military flights, weapons supplies and intelligence cooperation with the Israel occupation continue unabated. Starmer’s total support for Israel is now a fixed part of the governing landscape, as the failure to condemn the terrorist device attacks on the Lebanon makes clear.
The US and UK are now hopelessly yoked to a Netanyahu nihilist strategy of which the primary aim is to retain his own power and immunity from prosecution by permanent conflict, of a kind which makes his allies ever more complicit and which will rope them in to active military support.
That requires constant Israeli aggression against an Axis of Resistance that has so far refused to be provoked into major conflict. Israel’s plan is to humiliate Iran and its allies to an extent that a full-on regional war becomes inevitable, in which the United States will fight alongside them – and very probably the Sunni Arab regimes too, I am extremely sorry to say.
This is plainly madness that is entirely against the interests of the Western powers themselves. But their politicians, including very directly Biden and Starmer, are so compromised by Zionist lobby money that there appears to be no escape, short of popular revolt in the West.
The West is bound to Israel by the simple, unalloyed mechanism of cash paid to politicians. That is the truth.
