Keir Starmer given the PERFECT excuse to continue Israel arms sales.

Right, so for a short while there had been hope that the days of UK arms sales to Israel would be numbered, would actually soon come to an end once Starmer’s new attorney general, Richard Hermer took up his new post, given the guy has been a critic of Israel and is Jewish himself, plus he has never held any particular political position previously so was seen as unsullied and would be something of a breath of fresh air. This was the guy who would ensure Starmer didn’t overstep some thought. The guy who would make sure that Starmer followed international law. Well it would appear Hermer has instead handed Starmer a get out of jail free card with regards to Israel arms sales, because instead of blocking arms sales to Israel outright, Hermer has intervened to say he wants a distinction drawn between weapons that can be considered offensive or defensive where it comes to arms sales to Israel and until foreign office official can be certain that weapons sold to Israel would be used to violate international humanitarian law, he won’t ban arms sales at all.
Right, so we had such high hopes for the new attorney general Richard Hermer when we saw the incumbent in that position during the General Election campaign Emily Thornberry shuffled off to the backbenches instead of being kept in post. She had gone along completely with Starmer’s narrative in continuing to support Israel, so the introduction of Hermer, a guy who had been demanding Israel observe international law in response to the Hamas incursion of October 7th and was himself Jewish, was himself also unsullied by any political position prior to coming into Starmer’s government was unusually good optics, there was hope that this was exactly the right sort of guy to ensure that Starmer was also made to observe international law and on the matter of ongoing arms sales to Israel, which the Tories had been typically shady over as much as they were adamant they were going to continue. Well, it seems arms sales are going to continue and Hermer has handed Starmer what seems to be a really crazy excuse to ensure they continue.
And it comes back to who’s really being observant of international law. Now I’m not a lawyer, I’m no legal expert, I don’t pretend to know better the law here than Richard Hermer or even Keir Starmer for that matter, but the optics of this decision are nuts, in light of international legal decisions that have already been made.
The International Court of Justice has already made the ruling that there is a plausible case for genocide being committed by Israel against Gaza. Gaza has been razed to the ground, one end to the other. There is also the matter of Israel’s occupation of Palestine having been ruled illegal, though only in an advisory capacity. That said, surely that carries some weight still? Does that not matter at all? Shouldn’t it? Should it not be something you factor into your observations and decision making especially when it comes to international law?
Israel as an occupying power has a responsibility, a duty of care towards those it occupies. Whilst it’s occupation was still deemed a legal one – a perverse concept if ever there was one – they flouted that, they enacted apartheid and had done for decades, which is why the legality of that occupation was overturned. As an occupying power, they have no right to blow to bits those they occupy, but those who are occupied have every right to resist that occupation. Palestine has been occupied since 1967. We’re three or four generations into that occupation now, whole generations knowing nothing except being under the boot of Israel, and yet despite all of this, Richard Hermer is not going to ban arms sales until the foreign office has been able to differentiate between what counts as a defensive weapon and what counts as an offensive weapon.
It's ridiculous. How can you differentiate when what truly matters is of course how Israel choose to use what they get given?
Well, I thought I’d have a go. What counts as a defensive weapon and what doesn’t? I found a handy article in Forces News, who better to know the difference than the military itself you might think?
Nowe the article I found applies to Ukraine, but the point still stands, because as the article states, given Ukraine were attacked, were invaded by Russia, notwithstanding the eastward expansion of NATO which is what triggered Russia, but any weapon they choose to deploy can be construed as being a defensive one in which case. But that isn’t helpful when you are trying to draw a line between what can be ostensibly proven in a court of law, as is the case here with Richard Hermer’s intervention, of what counts as a defensive weapon and what counts as offensive. The only items you could prove to be avowedly defensive would be ones that cannot be used in an offensive manner.
An example given was anti-tank missiles. You might think, well they can be used to attack people as well surely? But they have very short range and are designed specifically to take out an offensive weapon, ie a tank. Now just because that is the example the Forces News article gives, doesn’t necessarily mean that can be proven in a court of law, and if we translate that over to selling weapons to Israel, well, Hamas don’t have any tanks. So if that’s the only example this article could come up with, surely this is a silly situation now. Everything else we could sell them could be counted as offensive surely? Any gun, any missile of reasonable range, any parts for jets which obviously are used in offensive combat, the list of what counts as offensive and what doesn’t would appear to be a very one sided one. Surely there is no debate to be had here? The Starmer government clearly doesn’t want to ban arms sales, but also doesn’t want to end up dragged to the Hague over this it seems. They need to find a differentiation that would stand up in court.
But here’s the kicker, if they can’t differentiate, then nothing functionally changes! The argument, as put by the Foreign Office, is on ensuring Israel are upholding international law, when of course that’s a joke, we know they aren’t, they can’t be if they are plausibly seen as the ICJ have ruled, to be committing genocide.
Here's an excerpt from Middle East Monitor addressing the situation:
‘Hermer’s intervention comes after British Foreign Secretary David Lammy launched a review into whether the UK should continue arms sales to Israel amid the occupation’s ongoing offensive on the Gaza Strip and the war crimes Israeli forces are perpetrating there, with a focus on banning the “offensive” weapons while maintaining the supply of “defensive” ones.
According to the newspaper, a spokesperson for the Foreign Office simply stated that the “government is committed to upholding international law. We have made clear that we will not export items if they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”
It highlighted the “ongoing review process to assess whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law, which the foreign secretary initiated on day one in office. We will provide an update as soon as that review process has been completed.”
Although Lammy was expected to announce the results of the review before MPs departed for their summer break, that has been delayed specifically due to the fact that senior government figures are still uncertain over their ability to defend their distinction between offensive and defensive in court.’
So in a sense Starmer is laughing here. Richard Hermer won’t ban arms sales unless the foreign office can prove the difference between what counts as an offensive or defensive weapon when it comes to selling arms to Israel, so arms sales can continue in the meantime. The foreign office doesn’t think it can do this, so the arms sales can continue and Starmer can point to this Hermer legal advice as his justification to carry on selling arms to Israel and nothing ends up changing at all, save Starmer getting himself out of a hole on a technicality. It makes no difference in the yes of the general public though, Starmer will still be despised for not ending arms sales, the humanitarian law decisions, sadly so for all advisory, are ignored as a result of no concrete rulings, but Starmer is still so early into this parliament, he’s still in the zone where he thinks he can afford to be hated and this situation will go away yet for him before he needs worry about how his party is polling too much. I’m sorely disappointed in Richard Hermer here, you’d imagine the scenes of genocide being meted out over the last 10 months in Gaza all off the back of a one night incursion by Hamas, would be seen for the disproportionate and illegal response it is, but quibbling over how to label various armaments is going to excuse more arms sales yet it seems.
And of course whilst he and the foreign office debate the labelling of various weapons, anyone reporting on the situation in the Middle East right now, risks being criminalised. The arrest of independent British journalist Richard Medhurst on this matter, for reporting the truth and not the spin coughed up by our mainstream media proves that as this video recommendation for your next watch goes into the details of and I’ll hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.