Yesterday, a letter from 600 legal experts, including four former Supreme Court judges, was published, arguing that the UK government should impose an arms embargo on Israel, impose sanctions on individuals and entities who had ‘made statements inciting genocide against Palestinians’, and suspend negotiations on a new bilateral trade agreement with Israel. It also demanded the UK review its current trade agreement with Israel and consider the imposition of sanctions more generally.
Some might think, justifiably, that the lawyers’ letter is both one-sided and rather overstated
The signatories believe an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in January, imposing what are known as ‘provisional measures’, meant that there was a ‘plausible risk of genocide in Gaza’. They also noted the UN Security Council’s resolution on 25 March demanding a ceasefire.
The letter contended that at least 32,623 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and that the majority of casualties have been women and children. It also highlighted the issue of food insecurity in Gaza and the need for unhindered humanitarian assistance.
The signatories argue that ‘the provision of military assistance and material to Israel may render the UK complicit in genocide as well as serious breaches of International Humanitarian Law.’ They claim that the UK cannot wait until the ICJ decides for certain whether or not a genocide is being committed, but must act now in accordance with its obligation to prevent genocide.
The call for a suspension of weapons sales was also backed by former UK national security adviser, Lord Ricketts, who has stated that Israel is ‘not paying attention’ to its obligations under international law. It has been reported that officials at the Department for Business and Trade are threatening legal action against the government amid concerns they may be found to be in breach of international law.
Clearly, the current situation in Gaza is a catastrophe. But, some might think, justifiably, that the lawyers’ letter is both one-sided and rather overstated.
In February this year the High Court dismissed an application arguing for the suspension of arms sales to Israel, in spite of the ICJ’s January 2024 ruling on provisional measures.
Respected legal commentator, Joshua Rozenberg, has also argued that the lawyers’ letter is based on a error, since the ICJ did not conclude that ‘there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza’, but rather that the rights of the Palestinians to be protected from genocide were plausible and that there might be a risk of irreparable prejudice to those rights if provisional measures were not imposed. This is a significant difference.
As I have noted previously, despite what some critics of Israel claim, the January 2024 ruling did not conclude that there was a genocide occurring in Gaza. The ICJ did issue provisional measures in March 2024. But these were principally concerned with humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians in Gaza. The court did not order a halt to hostilities.
While the signatories to the letter point to the number of civilian casualties during the war, this is sadly not uncommon in urban warfare. Even if you accept the figures supplied by the Hamas run health ministry (and, as an aside, it seems naïve to accept these figures unconditionally) the simple numbers of civilian casualties is not sufficient to prove genocide. Under Article II of the Genocide Convention, genocide means an ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.’ Israel has been clear that the war is not against Palestinians, but rather the terrorist organisation, Hamas.
There is a risk that Israel is held to a different standard to other countries the UK supplies arms to. Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge and one of the signatories to the lawyers’ letter, argued on the Today programme yesterday that ‘Israel is essentially a western country’ and one is ‘concerned much more about the terrible things that are done by one’s friends than the terrible things that are done by more distant and remote societies.’ That may be the case, but it is hardly a legal test to justify the imposition of an arms embargo.
Equally, the tragic deaths of seven aid workers in Israel this week has triggered justified criticism from the UK, and moved the Gaza war up the news agenda, but it does not really alter the fundamental question of whether Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. As Brendan O’Neill argued earlier this week, there is a danger of double standards if we write off our own errors during armed conflict as ‘friendly fire’ and collateral damage, while Israel’s acknowledged mistake is held up as ‘proof of Israel’s evil, evidence of its malevolence.’
The UK is a major exporter of arms, although Israel is not one of our significant customers. The UK has sold substantial arms to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey who have used these weapons in conflicts in Yemen and Syria. In 2018 it was suggested that nearly a third of arms exported from the UK were to nations identified by the UK government as among the worst for human rights.
Countries which seek to impose an arms embargo might also wish to think about how it would impact Israel’s ability to defend itself against Iran and its terrorist proxies in the region.
In truth, any decisions taken by the UK will have a limited effect on Israel. What will have more impact is if the mood music in Washington changes. It was reported yesterday evening that President Biden had given Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an ultimatum that Israel must take steps to prevent civilian harm and humanitarian suffering if it wanted to continue to receive US support.
If the US government follows through with threats of a change of policy, it could have a significant impact on the outcome of the war. Whatever the views of lawyers, it is international politics which will have the final say. It seems we may now be approaching the endgame in this conflict.
Comments