The Labour Party conference exposed Starmer’s unflinching support for Israeli aggression

Spread the love

Original article by Patrick Ward republished from Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Pro-Palestinian protesters take part in a Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration as they march to the Labour Party conference venue on September 21, 2024 in Liverpool, England. [Ian Forsyth/Getty Images]

It’s difficult to comprehend the horrors of what’s happening in Gaza, Lebanon and beyond in the Middle East. The heartbreaking scenes of dirt-encrusted toddlers screaming as they’re pulled from the rubble of what was once their homes; the small children carrying plastic bags containing the remains of their slain siblings; the white-bandaged bodies of whole families laid out next to hospitals in their hundreds; the shaking youngsters trying to hide as Israeli soldiers fire indiscriminately at anything that moves. Surely, feeling a deep, painful empathy for the victims of such savagery, especially the children, is part of what gives us our humanity.

This isn’t the same for everyone, of course. Not for the perpetrators, who use their cutting-edge western-manufactured machines of death to extinguish these innocent lives. Nor, in most cases, for politicians here in Britain. For Prime Minister Keir Starmer, these scenes are even the set up for a joke.

During the new prime minister’s triumphant speech at this week’s Labour Party conference, a heckler dared to challenge the Dear Leader on his lack of empathy for Israel’s victims. After Starmer said that, “Every child, every person, deserves to be respected for the contribution they make,” Labour member Daniel Riley, 18, shouted in response: “Does that include the children of Gaza?”

“This guy’s obviously got a pass from the 2019 conference,” quipped the smug Starmer, in a reference to years when Labour was led by pro-Palestinian Jeremy Corbyn. The more sycophantic element of Starmer’s congregation, stronger than ever thanks to Sir Keir’s purges of the left, lapped up the jibe.

It’s become a cliché to respond to such things with variations of “imagine the response if Corbyn had said something like that about Israeli children,” but sometimes you can’t help but be stunned at the double standards. Corbyn would never have said such a thing, but if he had it would have been frontpage news; irrefutable proof of his alleged anti-Semitism.

READ: Israel rights groups accuse media of incitement to exterminate Palestinians

But they weren’t Israeli children. They were Arabs. And in mainstream western discourse, they don’t count. They don’t suffer. They don’t have dreams. They’re abstract numbers, if that.

They’re just Arabs, unworthy of our empathy.

To really hammer home the hypocrisy, the words “genocide” and “apartheid” had already been banned from the Labour conference. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign was forced to remove both words from the title of its fringe meeting. Some activists responded by painting the words “genocide conference” on the windows of the venue.

In many ways, the Labour government, elected in July after 14 years in the wilderness, is an improvement on their Conservative predecessors regarding Palestine. But that’s a pretty low bar. Starmer may have banned his MPs from attending the huge protests against the war on Gaza, which often numbered hundreds of thousands of people, but he didn’t go as far as former home secretary Suella Braverman, who branded them “hate marches”.

Pro-Palestinian protesters campaign near Downing Street in London, UK, on Wednesday, July 24, 2024. [Betty Laura Zapata/Bloomberg via Getty Images]

And despite Labour’s top team repeating the mantra that “Israel has the right to defend itself” like a broken record whenever the issue comes up, it has at least (and belatedly) called for a ceasefire and the establishment of a Palestinian state (however problematic that demand in itself is).

The Labour government has also drawn the ire of Israel for dropping its opposition to the International Criminal Court’s bid for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu. A further schism was seen when the UK resumed its £21 million funding to the Palestinian refugee agency, UNRWA. Again, it was a low bar.

Much has also been made of the new government’s decision to block arms sales to Israel (although this is limited to a pitiful eight per cent of exports). Unsurprisingly, the Palestine solidarity movement says it’s not enough. And so do the British public: in May, 55 per cent of the British public wanted arms sales to Israel to be suspended until the war against the Palestinians in Gaza ends.

Even less surprisingly, it was met with fury from Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu said that it was “sending a horrible message” to Hamas. Starmer responded to Netanyahu’s comment during an interview on LBC Radio over the conference period. “No, he’s not right about that,” he tried to reassure the audience. “We had to comply with international law and our domestic law in relation to that. I’ve always been clear, I support Israel’s right to self-defence, I’ve been robust about that… I’ve taken blows in relation to that – there’s no doubting that support – but it’s got to be done in accordance with international law.”

In other words, “I’m really sorry, and I’m not saying you’re committing war crimes, it’s just that it would be a bad look for a former lawyer to end up in The Hague.”

READ: Latin American presidents use UN platform to call for end to Gaza genocide

Foreign Secretary David Lammy was also questioned on LBC during the conference about why the other 92 per cent of arms sales to Israel had not been banned, including the export of parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used, among other things, to bomb heavily-populated refugee camps in Gaza. Lammy said that a full embargo would limit Israel’s ability to fight the Houthis in Yemen “and other proxies”.

“I think that would be a mistake,” he added. “It would lead to a wider war and an escalation that we here in the UK are committed to stopping, so I’m afraid I disagree with that position.”

In Lammy’s eyes, war is peace.

By coincidence, two of the arms companies currently selling their merchandise to Israel for use in Gaza were also at the conference. According to Private Eye magazine, BAE Systems, which makes parts for the F-35, hosted a high-profile meeting with defence secretary John Healey. A separate event, featuring armed forces minister Luke Pollard, was sponsored by US arms firm Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman makes parts for the F-35, the F-16 and the Apache helicopter. All are being used to massacre civilians in Israel’s war in Gaza and the wider region.

To ensure compliance with the Zionist narrative, Israeli politicians came to the conference themselves. Among them was opposition leader Yair Golan, who has said that Palestinians should “starve to death” until the hostages are released. He was granted audiences with several ministers, including Lammy, and attended a meeting hosted by Labour Friends of Israel.

Nevertheless, the conference did at least spark some hope for the Palestine cause, albeit inadvertently. During its opening weekend, 15,000 protesters gathered in Liverpool to send a message to Labour over its appalling support for the occupation state.

And that’s where the hope is. The Labour government won’t stand up to Israel’s devastating behaviour without pressure. If what we’ve seen already isn’t enough to make them change this attitude, I’m not sure what would. If Israel invaded London, Keir Starmer would probably still be trying to sell them the weapons to do it with.

OPINION: Internationalism is needed urgently to stand against the politics of genocide

Labour has pretty much always backed wars that align with the needs of the British and now US empires, from the First World War to Vietnam. It wants to preserve the British state, its crown and its interests, albeit in a way that slightly improves life for its working-class base. It’s currently in the interests of the British ruling class to cling to the coattails of the United States. The US, in turn, needs Israel as its outpost in the Middle East. This is all hardwired into Establishment politics.

Politicians who deviate from such norms, such as Corbyn, are vilified. That’s not how we do grown-up politics in this country, don’t you know?

Starmer is no radical. He’s not really much at all.

His main use was to seize back control of the Labour party from the left and return it to the hands of the Establishment. He did this by standing on a left-wing manifesto during his leadership election only to abandon it, ally himself with the right of the party and purge the left once he assumed the leadership.

His domestic agenda is hampered severely by his unwillingness to tax the rich to repair the devastation left by the Conservatives. Instead, he is removing winter fuel allowances from pensioners and maintaining benefit restrictions on anyone with more than two children. These, he keeps saying, are “tough choices”, even though they are the easiest choices for him, as he is so scared of upsetting the rich and powerful.

He’s desperate to be seen as an effective manager for the British state, which means maintaining the easy ride enjoyed by the wealthy and aligning himself with US-led geopolitical interests. Moreover, the British Establishment that Starmer works for is fully behind the US and its Middle Eastern proxy, Israel.

Just as a middle manager at a fast food company would enthusiastically and unquestioningly promote its unhealthy products, despite their harmful effects on consumers, Starmer is hardwired to enthusiastically and unquestioningly execute the will of the people with real power over Britain. That’s not the electorate.

Tales of children suffering in Gaza are as irrelevant to him as children suffering under his benefit restrictions in Britain. Elderly people freezing in makeshift shelters in Lebanon are as irrelevant to him as elderly people freezing in Britain because they can’t afford to pay their energy bills.

And all the while, Starmer enjoys the patronage of the powerful. His bewilderment at a recent outcry over major donations of cash, designer clothes and tickets to football matches and concerts to him and his top team reveals his belief that he should be reaping the rewards of his subservience as much as any effective manager.

The Labour party conference showed us a government that will continue to stand firmly behind Israel, no matter what the state does or the wider horrors it looks set to unleash. Mild reprimands aside, Labour under Starmer will not abandon the apartheid state without huge pressure.

That’s why real opposition to Israel’s crimes remains in the hands of those outside parliament who take to the streets, occupy their universities and speak up loudly in defence of Palestinians. The Labour leadership’s limited concessions to Palestinian rights would not have been made without that pressure from below. It’s only when actions like these begin to challenge Starmer’s tentative grip on power that he will be forced to offer any sort of meaningful opposition to Israel’s barbarism.

OPINION: Erdogan calls for UN military action to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Original article by Patrick Ward republished from Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Zionist Keir Starmer is quoted "I support Zionism without qualification." He's asked whether that means that he supports Zionism under all circumstances, whatever Zionists do.
Zionist Keir Starmer is quoted “I support Zionism without qualification.” He’s asked whether that means that he supports Zionism under all circumstances, whatever Zionists do.
Vote For Genocide Vote Labour.
Vote For Genocide Vote Labour.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy says that UK is suspeding 30 of 350 arms licences to Isreal. He also confirms the UK government's support for Israel's Gaza genocide.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy says that UK is suspeding 30 of 350 arms licences to Israel. He also confirms the UK government’s support for Israel’s Gaza genocide.
Continue ReadingThe Labour Party conference exposed Starmer’s unflinching support for Israeli aggression

Pager and walkie-talkie attacks on Hezbollah look like war crimes – international legal expert

Spread the love
EPA-EFE/Wael Hamzeh

Giacomo Biggio, University of Bristol

Tensions in the Middle East have reached a new high after thousands of pagers and radios used by members of Hezbollah exploded across various cities in Lebanon and Syria over September 17 and 18. The attacks – which have widely been attributed to Israel, which has not commented – have resulted in at least 30 people killed and more than 3,000 wounded.

Many analysts and politicians are now speculating that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, which has been simmering during the 11-month conflict in Gaza, will spiral into open warfare.

Far from taking place in a legal vacuum, the attacks are governed by international humanitarian law (IHL). This is the international legal regime that regulates the conduct of hostilities in situations of armed conflict.

Since the Hamas attacks on October 7 provoked Israel’s ferocious response in Gaza, Israel and Hezbollah have been involved in a series of cross-border hostilities. These qualify as what is called a “non-international armed conflict”, to which IHL applies. This includes the rules set out in, among other instruments, the Geneva conventions.

In pursuing the objective of protecting civilians in wartime, the Geneva conventions rely on the fundamental principles of “distinction” and “proportionality”.

What international law says

The principle of distinction essentially requires belligerents to distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants.

Combatants are lawful targets and can be attacked at all times. But intentionally attacking civilians is prohibited and constitutes a war crime under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. To this end, military commanders are under an obligation to do everything feasible to verify that the target of an attack is not a civilian.

Even assuming that only Hezbollah members were using the radios and pagers at the moment of the attacks, that does not mean that they shall be presumed to be combatants (and, therefore, lawful targets). Under IHL, a combatant is a “member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict”. This comprises “all organized forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that party for the conduct of its subordinates”.

By contrast, whoever is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict is a civilian and subject to the protection of IHL.

There is no doubt that members of the military wings of Hezbollah are “members of the armed forces”, so they qualify as combatants. But those members of Hezbollah’s political wing who are not combatants should be considered as civilians and accordingly, are protected from attack.

Civilians may lose protection from attack for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. This includes conduct like the intentional killing of civilians and carrying out acts which adversely affect the military capacity of a party to an armed conflict – for example, the planning of attacks against Israel.

The pagers were detonated at 3:30, on September 17 in hundreds of locations in Beirut and other Lebanese cities. Abaca Press / Alamy Stock Photo

What about the attacks against members of Hezbollah’s military wing?

In this case, complying with the principle of distinction does not suffice, since the attack must also respect the principle of proportionality. This requires that the expected “collateral damage” (that is, the incidental killing or wounding of civilians) should not be excessive to the “concreted and direct military advantage” anticipated from the attacks.

Launching an attack with the knowledge that it would cause excessive collateral damage also constitutes a war crime.

Collateral damage

In this case, the attacks killed several civilians. These included the nine-year-old daughter of a Hezbollah member, an 11-year-old boy and at least two health workers. Moreover, the attacks injured thousands more, including Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon.

Although we do not know how many of those killed or injured were civilians, it seems logical that the level of collateral damage to be expected from the attacks would be substantial. After all, the pagers and radios were remotely detonated at the same time, exploding in crowded places such as markets and funerals. In these situations, the likelihood of killing and wounding civilians is extremely high.

These elements suggest that the expected incidental damage is excessive to the military advantage anticipated from the pager attacks – which, at the time of writing, remains unclear.

But it’s important to note that what amounts to “excessive” incidental damage is subject to disagreement. On the one hand there are those who, like the International Committee of the Red Cross, believe that extensive incidental damage is always excessive. Others – including the Israeli government – consider that even extensive incidental damage is allowed if the attack results in a high amount of military advantage.

In my opinion, Israel’s interpretation should be rejected. It turns IHL’s aims of protecting the civilian population on its head and allows for unrestricted warfare.

My conclusion, based on the available information, appears to be that the pager and walkie-talkie attacks purportedly carried out by Israel against Hezbollah members appear to violate the principles of distinction and proportionality. In other words, they could well amount to war crimes.

Giacomo Biggio, Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol Law School, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingPager and walkie-talkie attacks on Hezbollah look like war crimes – international legal expert

New wave of Israeli terrorist cyber attacks hit Lebanon

Spread the love

Original article by Aseel Saleh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

A person is carried on a stretcher outside the American University of Beirut Medical Center following the pager blasts on Tuesday, September 17, 2024. Photo: Al Manar

Facing no consequences from the international community on its first series of cyber terrorist attacks in Lebanon, Israel launched a new wave of similar attacks within less than 24 hours

At least nine people were killed and more than 300 others injured when thousands of wireless devices including walkie-talkies were detonated in different parts of Lebanon on Wednesday, September 18. The new blasts took place, while the information regarding the first day’s cyber terrorist attacks through pagers remained largely unknown and subject to speculation.

Preliminary media reports stated that the trademark of Taiwan pager manufacturer Gold Apollo was identified on the remains of the pagers, which detonated on Tuesday and that they were model AR-924. In response to the reports, Gold Apollo issued a statement on Wednesday denying that it had manufactured the pagers used by Hezbollah members, clarifying that its logo was only labelled on the devices, which were manufactured by a Hungarian company called BAC through a licensing agreement with the Taiwanese company.

“According to the cooperation agreement, we authorize BAC to use our brand trademark for product sales in designated regions, but the design and manufacturing of the products are solely the responsibility of BAC,” Gold Apollo said in a statement, while the Hungarian partner BAC has not commented on the incident so far.

Meanwhile, some of the walkie-talkie devices that exploded on Wednesday, were reportedly identified as Icom model V82s, according to media sources. Nonetheless, Icom has not commented on the tragic blasts yet.

Although the United States said on Tuesday that it was not aware of the cyber terrorist attacks on Lebanon in advance, CNN published a report on Wednesday unveiling that Israeli officials informed the US about an Israeli plan to carry out an operation in Lebanon on Tuesday without providing it with further details about the planned operation.

While media outlets have been relying on information provided by anonymous or special sources, as well as analysts to demystify the terrorist attacks that rocked Lebanon on Tuesday and Wednesday, no official statement has been issued on the circumstances of the attacks by Hezbollah yet. However, Hezbollah-run Al Manar news network announced that Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah will deliver a speech via Al-Manar television at 17:00 (Beirut time) on Thursday to respond to the new development.

The United Nations Security Council also announced on Wednesday that it will hold an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss the recent mass explosions of communication devices across Lebanon. The meeting was scheduled after Algeria submitted a request to the Security Council on Wednesday, amidst the near complete silence of the international community, which was slammed by the Belgian Deputy Prime Minister Petra de Sutter. “Silence is not an option. An international investigation is called for. The bloodshed must end,” Sutter wrote on her platform on X, strongly condemning the “massive attack”, which she described as a “brutal escalation of violence.”

Izzat al-Rishq, a senior official in the Palestinian Islamic Resistance movement Hamas, also urged the international community to abide by its legal obligations to put an end to Israel’s actions. Al-Rishq described Israel’s cyber terrorist attacks on Lebanon as an assault that violated Lebanon’s land, its leadership, and its people.

Original article by Aseel Saleh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingNew wave of Israeli terrorist cyber attacks hit Lebanon

Morning Star Editorial: Britain must act against Israel’s attempts to ignite wider war

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/britain-must-act-against-israels-attempts-ignite-wider-war

Civil Defence first-responders carry a man who was wounded after his handheld pager exploded, in the southern port city of Sidon, Lebanon, September 17, 2024

FOLLOWING Israel’s murderous exploding-pager stunt in Lebanon, Labour’s Emily Thornberry is asking questions every Cabinet minister should answer.

It is all very well for the Foreign Office to call for “calm heads and de-escalation” every time Israel bombs or assassinates people in neighbouring countries.

Since Israel faces no consequences for repeated escalation, it will continue to escalate: and, as Iran warned after the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, this means a failure to respond to Israel’s provocations is itself escalatory, likely to lead to wider war.

Iran called on the UN security council to rein Israel in: since Israeli allies Britain, France and the US have a majority on that council, and since all are also involved in supplying arms to Israel and providing logistical support for its war on Palestine, the particular responsibility to act rests with Tel Aviv’s Western backers.

Thornberry, newly elected chair of the foreign affairs committee in the Commons, asks: “Why is this happening now? And what will the result be?

“…Is this the first step, and what will Israel do next? Is it part of a larger plan? It is very worrying and I would certainly be expecting Israel’s friends to be speaking very seriously to them, and saying: ‘What on Earth are you doing’?”

Thornberry could go a lot further. She could call out the pager operation for what it was: a callous act of terrorism committed in a country with which Israel is not at war.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/britain-must-act-against-israels-attempts-ignite-wider-war

Continue ReadingMorning Star Editorial: Britain must act against Israel’s attempts to ignite wider war