In its legal note on the suspension of some arms sales, the British government names violations of Israel’s duty to enable the delivery of humanitarian aid and the mistreatment of prisoners as probable violations of international humanitarian law. The UK Foreign Office lawyers who drafted the note seem to accept that Israel’s engagement in Gaza and its conduct of hostilities are lawful.
This rationale finds little basis in international law because it has been clearly established that Israel does not have the right of self-defence in territories it occupies and its current offensive conduct is well outside the permitted parameters of self-defence.
The British government’s interpretation fits within the highly questionable anti-terrorism framework inaugurated by the United States “war on terror” in the 2000s and widely accepted by its NATO allies. This framework is not considered a part of customary international law and represents a flagrant attempt to create an exceptional space for powerful states to continue the proliferation of war in the Global South.
In his statement to the House of Commons, Foreign Minister David Lammy justified this exemption by stating that the UK’s participation in the programme is “crucial to wider peace and security”. This choice of words is ironic given that Israel’s conduct in Gaza and generally in the Middle East threatens international peace and security. The notion of “peace and security” is also a cornerstone of the UN Charter, and UN member states have the obligation to preserve them. Lammy, of course, does not refer to the UN Charter but to NATO’s securitised language. According to the military alliance’s logic, “peace and security” is whatever serves the current world order spearheaded by the US.
NATO states are in defiance of the ICJ’s July decision on the illegality of the Israeli occupation, which clearly established that security concerns cannot override international law. In his separate declaration on the issue, ICJ Judge Dire Tladi wrote:
“As a first general point, when addressing security concerns, it should be recalled that all States, and not just Israel, have security interests. This includes Palestine. Often, when the “security concerns” claim is made, it is as if only Israel has security concerns or that somehow, Israel’s security concerns override those of Palestine’s. The second general point to make is that security interests as such, no matter how serious or legitimate, cannot override rules of international law, a point made by the Court.”
The power of the US asserted through NATO casts a long shadow of normalised illegality. Arms-exporting states are maintaining the flow of weapons in service of geopolitical and economic interests, thus becoming directly complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people. But international law is clear: The supply of weapons to a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity and a plausible genocide is itself a crime.
Shahd Hammouri@Al Jazeera
This rationale finds little basis in international law because it has been clearly established that Israel does not have the right of self-defence in territories it occupies and its current offensive conduct is well outside the permitted parameters of self-defence.
The British government’s interpretation fits within the highly questionable anti-terrorism framework inaugurated by the United States “war on terror” in the 2000s and widely accepted by its NATO allies. This framework is not considered a part of customary international law and represents a flagrant attempt to create an exceptional space for powerful states to continue the proliferation of war in the Global South.
In his statement to the House of Commons, Foreign Minister David Lammy justified this exemption by stating that the UK’s participation in the programme is “crucial to wider peace and security”. This choice of words is ironic given that Israel’s conduct in Gaza and generally in the Middle East threatens international peace and security. The notion of “peace and security” is also a cornerstone of the UN Charter, and UN member states have the obligation to preserve them. Lammy, of course, does not refer to the UN Charter but to NATO’s securitised language. According to the military alliance’s logic, “peace and security” is whatever serves the current world order spearheaded by the US.
NATO states are in defiance of the ICJ’s July decision on the illegality of the Israeli occupation, which clearly established that security concerns cannot override international law. In his separate declaration on the issue, ICJ Judge Dire Tladi wrote:
“As a first general point, when addressing security concerns, it should be recalled that all States, and not just Israel, have security interests. This includes Palestine. Often, when the “security concerns” claim is made, it is as if only Israel has security concerns or that somehow, Israel’s security concerns override those of Palestine’s. The second general point to make is that security interests as such, no matter how serious or legitimate, cannot override rules of international law, a point made by the Court.”
The power of the US asserted through NATO casts a long shadow of normalised illegality. Arms-exporting states are maintaining the flow of weapons in service of geopolitical and economic interests, thus becoming directly complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people. But international law is clear: The supply of weapons to a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity and a plausible genocide is itself a crime.
Shahd Hammouri@Al Jazeera
