Foreign Office War Crimes Scandal gets EVEN MESSIER!

Right, so the fallout from the resignation of Foreign Office diplomat Mark Smith has now got even messier as his reasons for quitting, that his concerns over potential UK government complicity in war crimes, ignored as they were by those higher up in the food chain, notably the Foreign Secretary himself, David Lammy, appear to have now been borne out in legal opinion. Global Justice Now, an organisation which campaigns on, well, global justice as the name implies have sought professional legal opinion and that legal opinion spells bad news for the Israel Lobbied Starmer government, potentially leading them towards a day in court for their ongoing support of Israel’s criminal actions in Gaza.
Right, so that was a Radio 4 interview of Mark Smith himself, the guy at the centre of the Foreign Office storm, a diplomate of 18 years experience, having handed his notice in within 6 weeks of David Lammy taking over his department, during which time Lammy had disappeared off to Israel not once but twice and it was during that second trip of course that Smith handed in his resignation.
Smith’s background includes being a penholder for arms export licences, literally one of the civil service staff in a position of authority sufficient to be able to sign off on such things, so he knows the legalities, the requirements, the strict rules regarding the export of arms and having raised the alarm about such matters with others, it being his job to advise on the legalities of such matters, including with David Lammy himself directly, this led him to quit his post. He wouldn’t say exactly what Lammy said, merely passing comment that the response he got was unsatisfactory, and unsatisfactory to the point he quit over it, and that we should put the pieces of that together ourselves, draw our own conclusions from that and it seems reasonable to conclude that upon being advised of potential complicity in war crimes, Lammy didn’t care.
We can of course quite easily do that. Where Smith said we can do that by looking at our TV screens, I would suggest that news sources on social media are a far less sanitised, far more impartial accounting of what is happening in Gaza at the hands of Israel, than certainly British broadcasting corporations. We do have some foreign media on our screens before somebody yells Al-Jazeera which are doing a stellar job, and more people ought to be turning onto for that of course.
Smith’s point is no less valid however, because wherever we seek to learn more of the ongoing events going on in the Middle East, watching that and knowing our own government are arming the Israeli’s, equipping the Israelis, manufacturing parts for the Israeli’s military machine, people can indeed draw their own conclusions and justifiably ask of our government what do you think you’re playing at?
As for the legalities of the actions, most of us appalled at what we’re seeing Israel doing and what our government are aiding and abetting in by helping them could probably surmise that it’s illegal, but getting a legal opinion on such things carries weight. Mark Smith’s resignation was a damning indictment of course, it was his job to assure the legalities were in place and having decided they were not and Lammy’s department refusing to change tack, to avoid being complicit himself he chose to quit. But independent verification and checks is necessary too, otherwise it’s one civil servants opinion versus that of other civil servants or ministers and this is why things have got messier for the government, because that is exactly what Global Justice Now have sought.
Global Justice Now, if you haven’t heard of them, have been around for a long time, they were previously known as the World Development Movement until they rebranded in 2015 but have been around since 1970, campaigning on global justice issues, which have included opposition to TTIP, that chronic Tory trade deal from a few years ago that you might remember that would have sold out our NHS wholesale to US health conglomerates, instead of carrying on the privatisation by stealth that’s still happening now, but also does a lot of research and develops options to develop parts of the world not getting a fair crack and supporting global movements such as in free trade and fair trade.
Well they have sought this independent legal opinion following the resignation of Mark Smith and this got published in full just yesterday, Global Justice Now having commissioned Sam Fowles of Cornerstone Barristers to provide a legal opinion on whether the UK could be in breach of international law for wrongs committed by the Israeli state and Fowles has delivered and found against the UK government in an advisory finding titled ‘Legal Consequences of the UK’s Relationship with Israel in Relation to Israel’s Actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.’
The full ruling is 28 pages long I am not going to repeat all of that, feel free to google it and read it yourself, but the crux of this ruling centres around something called vicarious liability, in other worlds can the UK find itself legally liable for what Israel is doing in violation of International Law, as a result of aid and assistance it is giving to Israel? Is the UK responsible in part for the actions of Israel?
The remit Fowles conducted his work under was against the background of the ICJ’s recent rulings both on the 19th July, where The ICJ ruled the occupation of Palestinian territory was illegal, on the basis as that ruling was of racial discrimination, land seizures by force and violating the rights of Palestinian people to self determination and also the ICJ ruling of the 26th January, where the court ruled in favour of South Africa, finding Israel ‘plausibly’ guilty of the crime of genocide. Fowles also took note of another report which I’ve not covered previously, this one concerning the 23rd May Independent Commission of Inquiry that was commissioned by the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, which found that Israel had committed multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity during the investigation period, which in that case was between October 7th and December 23rd of last year. The full report is a not too onerous read, 28 pages, frankly that’s not bad for a legal paper, it’s also not to technical to understand either, but the conclusion reached is the bit we all invariably skip to to read first, at least I do, what are the findings, what is the legal opinion requested and it reads:
‘Based on the above analysis, it seems reasonable to conclude that the UK (including individuals within the UK government) may be in breach of international law by reason of vicarious liability for wrongs committed and/or allegedly committed by the State of Israel:
(a) There is a real prospect that the UK has provided aid and assistance to Israel which facilitated its violation of peremptory norms of international law. Namely, the right to self-determination and the prohibition of obtaining territory by aggression. It is at least possible, therefore, that the UK is vicariously liable for Israel’s breaches of these rights.
(b) There is a real prospect that the UK provided aid and assistance to Israel which facilitated its (alleged) commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is also a real prospect that the UK had the requisite knowledge of the facts of these (alleged) crimes and that the assistance provided was, in the ordinary course of events, almost certain to facilitate the relevant crime. It is at least possible, therefore, that the UK could be vicariously liable for Israel’s (alleged) war crimes and crimes against humanity (should such crimes be proved).
(c) There is a real prospect that individuals (including ministers and/or civil servants) may have facilitated the commission of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is also a real prospect that the UK had the requisite knowledge of the facts of these (alleged) crimes and that the assistance provided was, in the ordinary course of events, almost certain to facilitate the relevant crime. It is at least possible, therefore, that individuals within the UK could be vicariously liable for war crimes committed by Israeli personnel (should such crimes be proved)’
What about Hamas though some of you might be thinking? Well the ruling here is in relation to the UK’s involvement and legal liabilities and given it only has a relationship with Israel and not Hamas, to be guilty of vicarious liability, it can only be as a result of crimes committed by Israel, so Hamas, actually don’t come into the picture as far as this legal ruling is concerned even if they are obviously one side in this conflict.
Fundamentally, it seems if someone chose to take the UK government to the ICJ therefore, they’d have considerable reason to be in a spot of bother. I wonder if anyone will in which case?
Meanwhile, just to compound the UK’s potential role in all of this, journalists who choose to report on what is actually happening in the Middle East, as opposed to peddling the government line now risk being held on terrorism charges, God forbid we discover what is really going on and what is being done by our government in our names with our public money, eh? Get the details of this latest atrocity in this video recommendation here and I’ll hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.