{"id":202357,"date":"2020-02-13T07:41:50","date_gmt":"2020-02-13T07:41:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=202357"},"modified":"2020-02-15T07:09:36","modified_gmt":"2020-02-15T07:09:36","slug":"kissing-international-law-goodbye-to-satisfy-israeli-greed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=202357","title":{"rendered":"Kissing International Law Goodbye to Satisfy Israeli Greed"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Stuart Littlewood \u2013 American Herald Tribune Feb 10, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Palestinian chiefs say that Trump\u2019s so-called peace plan<\/strong><\/span><\/a> contains 300 violations of international law and they will take it up with the Security Council. That\u2019s nearly two violations per page. Given the document was put together by America and Israel, both lawless and criminal to the core, no-one is surprised. It is a brazen expression of criminal intent from start to finish.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the UK our new Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, has shot to prominence.\u00a0 We\u2019re told he spent the summer of 1998 at Birzeit University (in Palestine\u2019s West Bank) working for one of the PLO\u2019s chief negotiators on the Oslo peace accords. That doomed-to-fail initiative began in 1993 and created a form of interim governance and the framework for a final treaty by the end of 1998. So Mr Raab was there at a time when the two sides had been faffing about for 5 years achieving nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n

In October 1998 the US, desperate to keep the charade going, convened a summit at Maryland’s Wye River Plantation at which Clinton with Yasser Arafat, Benjamin Netanyahu, and senior negotiators produced the Wye River Memorandum. Not that this did much good either. But Raab must have learned a lot about Israeli perversity and intransigence, not to mention America\u2019s shortcomings as an honest broker.<\/span><\/p>\n

Before entering Parliament Raab joined the Foreign Office and worked at the The Hague bringing war criminals to justice, then became an adviser on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But you wouldn\u2019t think so when looking at his latest performances.<\/span><\/p>\n

As reported<\/a><\/strong><\/span> in Jewish News<\/em> Raab welcomed Trump\u2019s so-called peace plan calling it \u201ca serious proposal, reflecting extensive time and effort. A peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that leads to peaceful coexistence could unlock the potential of the entire region, and provide both sides with the opportunity for a brighter future. Only the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian territories can determine whether these proposals can meet the needs and aspirations of the people they represent.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe encourage them to give these plans genuine and fair consideration, and explore whether they might prove a first step on the road back to negotiations.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

His boss Boris Johnson said of it: \u201cNo peace plan is perfect, but this has the merit of a two-state solution. It is a two-state solution. It would ensure that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and of the Palestinian people.\u201d A fatuous remark if ever there was one because (a) he clearly hadn\u2019t read it carefully, (b) the Palestinians weren\u2019t consulted, and (c) as Jewish News<\/em> stated, a Palestinian capital would be established on the outskirts<\/strong><\/em> of East Jerusalem while most of Jerusalem, including the sublime and ancient walled city (which is officially Palestinian), would remain under Israeli control. That is perhaps the cruellest part of the Zionist swindle.<\/span><\/p>\n

UK Government a \u2018Force for Good\u2019?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In the Global Britain debate<\/strong><\/span><\/a> on 3 February Raab pompously declared that \u201cthe third pillar of our global Britain will be the UK as an even stronger force for good in the world. Our guiding lights will remain the values of democracy, human rights and the international rule of law\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

But Alistair Carmichael (LibDem) pricked Raab\u2019s pretty balloon, asking: \u201cIf the concept of a global Britain is to have any meaning and value, surely it must have respect for human rights and an international rules-based order at its heart. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the unqualified support he gave to President Trump last week in respect of the so-called peace plan for Palestine? Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the proposed annexation of the West Bank and at long last support the recognition of a Palestinian state?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Raab replied: \u201cI gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think he has read the detail of this. Whatever else he may disagree with, the one thing that the plan put forward by the US included was a recognition of and commitment to a two-state solution. We have been absolutely clear that that is the only way in which the conflict can be resolved\u2026. Rather than just rejecting the plan, it is important that we try to bring the parties together around the negotiating table. That is the only path to peace and to a two-state solution.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019d have expected Raab, by now, to be extremely sceptical of any two-state solution given the many irreversible facts on the ground that Israel has been allowed to create with impunity. And he would know better than most how many times the sides have come to the table for grotesquely lopsided negotiations and how the Israelis never honour the agreements they make.<\/span><\/p>\n

Raab won the Clive Parry Prize for International Law while at Cambridge. So if he\u2019s so wedded to the values of democracy, human rights and the international rule of law, why are these vital ingredients missing from his recipe for peace? It must be obvious to everyone – except Government ministers – that you cannot achieve peace without justice. And justice in the form of UN resolutions and international and humanitarian law has already spoken several times. It waits\u2026 and waits… and waits\u2026 to be implemented.<\/span><\/p>\n

Then we had Dr Andrew Murrison,<\/em> Minister of State for International Development & the Middle East, in answer to a written question: \u201cWe have made clear our deep concern about the suggestion that any parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories should be annexed\u2026. Any declaration of a unilateral border change undermines the rules-based international order and the UN Charter. The UK calls on all parties to refrain from actions in contravention of international law that would imperil the viability of a two-state solution, based on the 1967 lines, and make it harder to achieve a just and lasting peace.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr Murrison can\u2019t have been paying attention. Illegal border changes departing from 1947 Partition lines and 1967 lines, annexations and other actions in contempt of international law and the UN Charter have been going on for 70 years simply because none of those pillars of modern civilisation have been enforced where Israel\u2019s concerned. Rules-based international order has been constantly undermined and is now non-existent in the Holy Land.<\/span><\/p>\n

The question is, what does the UK Government, which is largely responsible for this sorry state of affairs, going to do about it besides mouthing the usual limp-wristed idiocy? Is the Johnson administration happy, in George Orwell\u2019s words, for the US-UK-Israeli boot to stamp on the human face of the Palestinians for ever?<\/span><\/p>\n

BDS targeted<\/strong><\/h2>\n

And as if the Holy Land fiasco wasn\u2019t enough we must put up with crass ministerial utterances on the home front. Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, c<\/a>omplains<\/a><\/strong><\/span> that only 136 of the 343 local authorities in England have agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and insists that all universities and local councils \u201cmust adopt\u201d it. If they don\u2019t, and they fail to tackle anti-Semitism, they can expect to lose public funding.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Jewish Chronicle<\/em> he <\/a>vowed to take action<\/a><\/strong><\/span> against universities and “parts of local government” who have become “corrupted” by anti-Semitism. Writing in the Sunday Express<\/em>, he added: “I will use my position as Secretary of State to write to all universities and local authorities to insist that they adopt the IHRA definition at the earliest opportunity. I expect them to confirm to me when they do so.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Jenrick qualified as a lawyer so should respect warnings by top legal opinion (for example Hugh Tomlinson QC, Sir Stephen Sedley and Geoffrey Robertson QC) that the IHRA definition is \u201cmost unsatisfactory\u201d, has no legal force, and using it to punish could be unlawful. It also undermines Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the UK\u2019s own Human Rights Act 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n

But Jenrick seems to have aligned himself with sinister moves by Johnson aimed at protecting Israel from the consequences of its countless breaches of international law and crimes against the Palestinians by banning public bodies from imposing their own boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions (BDS). What could any decent administration possibly fear from BDS? It is simply a peaceful response to Israel\u2019s thuggery. It urges non-violent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law by meeting three perfectly reasonable demands:<\/span><\/p>\n