Foreign Secretary David Lammy meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu. 14/07/2024. Jerusalem, Israel. Picture by Ben Dance / FCDO
Last week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza strip is unlawful. It also found Israel guilty of violating the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. Even though this merely confirms what has already been asserted for decades by Palestinian civil society, human rights experts, legal scholars, and the international solidarity movement, it is a seismic moment in the Palestinian struggle for liberation. Combined with the earlier ICJ finding that the case brought by South Africa against Israel for genocide is plausible, and the application by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for arrest warrants to be issued for senior Israeli leaders, this judgement illustrates the inability of the US to protect Israel from its increasing isolation on the international stage.
Despite the considerable diplomatic pressure imposed upon it, the judgement of the court was clear and unambiguous. It details the illegality of Israel’s policies and actions and the responsibilities that this finding places on both Israel and other governments. The ruling makes clear that Israel is guilty of illegal occupation and annexation. It calls upon Israel, in accordance with these findings, to withdraw from the occupied territories immediately, dismantle its illegal settlements, allow the return of displaced or expelled Palestinians, and pay reparations. For those, like Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), who seek to end all UK complicity with Israel’s system of oppression, the key message concerns the implications for the UK government.
Despite securing a large parliamentary majority, Keir Starmer is under pressure for the position he adopted in opposition in support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. This was undeniably a factor in Labour’s relatively shallow share of the national vote and loss of seats and votes to independent candidates and to the Green Party in the recent election. In response to this, Labour has shifted its rhetoric to a new mantra of calling for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, and aid to be brought into Gaza, as a prelude to working towards a permanent solution based on the two-states formula.
As Foreign Secretary, David Lammy has termed this positioning ‘progressive realism’, which he defines as ‘pursuing ideals without being delusional about what is achievable’ given the balance of power in the world. The litmus test of whether any progressive credentials can be attached to this approach will be the actions taken by the Labour government in the next days and weeks.
Labour’s first three weeks in power do not augur well. Lammy flew to Israel within days of assuming office. The day before he boarded his plane to shake hands with Netanyahu, Israel committed the latest in a series of recent massacres, bombing what it had designated as a safe humanitarian zone and slaughtering over 90 Palestinians, mostly women and children. The atrocity brought new images of horror to the grotesque gallery Isael has created as its genocide has been livestreamed to the world: the severed limbs of children hanging from trees or being collected from the ground in small plastic bags. Days have passed and neither Lammy nor Starmer has made reference to this barbaric act, let alone condemned it. Nor has either condemned the Knesset vote against any establishment of a Palestinian state passed by the 120-seat parliament with only nine votes against. How is Labour going to work towards a meaningful ceasefire and the end of an illegal occupation if it is not prepared to place pressure on an Israeli government that is making clear it has no red lines in Gaza, and will never allow the Palestinian people to enjoy self-determination?
Beyond the condemnatory rhetoric, or lack thereof, the government appears to have backtracked on two key pre-election commitments: first, to abandon the intervention made by Sunak’s government in its dying days to disrupt ICC proceedings against those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including Netanyahu, and second, to publish the legal advice received by David Cameron regarding arms sales to Israel. In relation to both, the implications of the ICJ ruling are seismic.
Regarding the ICC, the case presented by the previous government effectively argued that no international court had the authority to hold Israel to account for its actions in Gaza, no matter how barbaric, as any right to prosecute Israelis had been surrendered by Palestinians during the Oslo negotiations. This very argument has now been directly addressed and demolished by the ICJ, which held that such agreements — between occupied and occupier — cannot deprive people of their rights under international law. Similarly, the ICJ judgment adds extra weight to the demand for an arms sale ban. Following the ICJ’s injunction that states must not aid and abet Israel’s illegal occupation, it is impossible to see how the government can continue to trade arms with Israel. This now sits alongside the responsibility to prevent genocide that flows from the ICJ ruling in January. The same holds with any form of trade that supports these illegal acts. In its judgement, the ICJ also rejected the argument so often used by those who are opposed to pressing Israel to end its occupation — its supposed need for security guarantees — by making clear that security needs cannot justify the acquisition and annexation of territory by force.
Israel is already making clear that it will ignore the judgment just as it ignored the ruling in January and the previous ICJ judgement in 2004 ruling the separation wall to be illegal. It is relying on the standard claim that those calling its occupation illegal and charging it with the crime of genocide and apartheid are liars motivated by antisemitism. It must now convince the world that this argument holds against the ICJ and ICC as well as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the dozens of states who made submissions to the courts. To give any credence to such claims is quite simply not ‘realism’, neither progressive nor any other kind.
The past few months have shown just what the consequences of not holding Israel to account are. At least 40,000 killed in Gaza, the population there on the brink of famine, and as Unicef reported this week, a Palestinian child in the West Bank killed every two days since October. Continuing on such a path, as seems to be the intention of the Labour government, means abandoning any framework of international law. The clarity of the ICJ’s recent rulings makes the test for Lammy’s ‘progressive realism’ very simple — either you stand against occupation, annexation, genocide and apartheid, or you are complicit with it.
Ben Jamal is the Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Source: Tribune