Once again, UK lets Netanyahu get

away with it
British authorities continue supporting unjust narratives that misinterpret
historical realities and cause suffering.

Net
anyahu has not yet been indicted by an international court, writes Cadman [Reuters]

Toby Cadman-26 Aug 2015

Toby Cadman is an international criminal law specialist. He is a

barrister member at Nine Bedford Row International Chambers in London
and a member of the International Criminal Bureau in The Hague.

@tobycadman

The British government used the "civilising" narrative to deny sovereignty, justify the
colonisation process and build an empire. It argued that there was a "majority of

German-speaking" population to allow the surrender of the Sudetenland to Nazi

Germany in 1938, and it defended the fallacy of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
to support an illegal war.
These civilising or "national security" justifications were wrongful foreign policy
narratives that have brought extensive suffering and had disastrous and long-term
implications.
However, current British authorities continue supporting unjust narratives that
misinterpret historical realities and cause untold suffering.
The British government has recently responded to a popular petition to arrest the
prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, on charges of war crimes when he
arrives in London - a petition that has already gathered more than 75,000 signatures.
The government highlighted that Netanyahu, as every head of state, enjoys
inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction, an unjust remnant and
privilege of international customary law that impedes any foreign court to judge
Netanyahu for his crimes.
Nevertheless, this argument was expected as it follows a traditional and restrictive
interpretation of international law.
What was received with surprise was the rest of the response in which the British
government made clear that it recognises "Israel's right to take proportionate action to
defend itself" and condemns "the terrorist tactics of Hamas who fired rockets on Israel,
built extensive tunnels to kidnap and murder, and repeatedly refused to accept
ceasefires".

Object 1

'Close friend of Israel'

In case the message was not clear, the government ended the answer stressing that
"the UK is a close friend of Israel, and we enjoy an excellent bilateral relationship built

on decades of cooperation..."
These words seem to completely misunderstand the reality of what happened in Gaza
in the summer of 2014.
Defining the attack on Gaza as an act of self-defence by the Israeli authorities is a jibe
to history; an insult to the memory of the 2,100 people, including 500 children, killed by
the Israeli army.
It is also an act of hypocrisy, with few antecedents, from a country that claims to be a
firm defender of human rights and accountability.
The UK government's answer completely neglected the fact that Gaza is a population
under blockade and occupation, whose human rights are violated constantly, and
where discrimination prevails.
The government's words fail to take note of the fact that the UN Independent
Commission of Inquiry on Gaza (COI)concluded that Israeli authorities committed war
crimes during Operation Protective Edge, and that Israeli soldiers from the
NGO, Breaking the Silence, reported that the Israeli army committed serious violations
of international humanitarian law.
It seems like the government has quickly forgotten the killing of four Palestinian
children playing on a beach, the bombardment of UN schools, the roof-knockings and
the declarations of certain Israeli leaders - all clearly pointing to international crimes.
Finally, the government remained silent about the impunity that these crimes have
received in the Israeli jurisdiction: "Accordingly, the Military Advocate General ordered
that the investigation file be closed without any further legal proceedings - criminal or
disciplinary - to be taken against those involved in the incident", is the common
final decisionin Israeli military investigations against its soldiers.
The rationale behind the invasion of Gaza remains unclear at the very least. The
disproportionate use of force resulting in so many civilian casualties and the intensity
of the attack between both forces invite us to believe that the invasion was unlawful
and unjustified - the last attempt from the Israeli government to debilitate and
demoralise Gaza's population, weaken its government and intensify its iron grip on the
area.
What is appalling is that British authorities who could have limited themselves to
providing a purely legal response have decided to support a foreign policy narrative
that is not only partial, but also factually and ethically wrong and limited to Israel's right
to security.

This artificial narrative attempts - once again in British foreign policy - to justify the
unjustifiable: an exchange of human suffering for power accumulation. In this case, the
abandonment of Gaza - a defenceless and oppressed population in need - in
exchange for the stability of British international relations.
Palestinians evacuate a survivor of an Israeli air strike that hit a building in southern
Gaza Strip in August 2014 [AP]

The Palestinian population residing in Gaza continues being collectively punished one
year later, unable to reconstruct their homes, their water and power plants, their
hospitals and their lives.
This is a population whose physical survival is threatened each day due to the
shortage of basic services and infrastructure - a population whose calorie intake has
been limited by Israeli authorities to the minimum dispensable to avoid malnutrition.
The UN already considered that Gaza would not be habitable by 2020.
It is interesting to draw a comparison between this and the situation in Sudan and its
president, Omar al-Bashir.
Bashir is also suspected of the commission of war crimes and crimes against
humanity to such an extent that the International Criminal Court (ICC) took the
decision to issue a warrant for his arrest.
Would the UK government maintain its position that, as the head of state, Bashir would

be immune from arrest and detention in the UK should he take the decision to travel,
and thus flout the order of the ICC?
It is hoped not - but it remains a legitimate concern.
What must be understood, however, is that there is a distinction between national and
international jurisdiction.
In the case of Bashir, there is an international arrest warrant in force, issued by the
ICC - an institution to which the UK is a state party and, therefore, obligated to act
should he arrive in the UK.
Double standard
The situation concerning Netanyahu is wholly domestic at this stage in that, as much
as there may be evidence to give rise to allegations of war crimes, he has not yet been
indicted by an international court, and, therefore, the UK government is correct in that
he does enjoy head of state immunity and, thus, could not be arrested in the UK.
It is a double standard, and it does smack of inconsistencies; however, that is the legal
position.
But, the UK must review its foreign policy since, at present, there are clear double
standards insofar as to which regimes are supported despite allegations of
international crimes being committed, and which regimes it seeks to criticise for the
same reasons.
The civilising theory and the British colonisation efforts brought misery and tragedy to
the Middle East and are intrinsically related to the conflicts and the instability of the
region.
However, the British government fails to learn from its past mistakes - this new
incorrect narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict constitutes a new foreign policy
flaw that will likely perpetuate the long-lasting injustice of the area, obviate further
atrocities, and prolong the suffering of entire populations.
Once again, the British government prioritises power and stability over justice and
human dignity, and it is time for the British public to wonder whether this is the position
they want to represent them.
Toby Cadman is an international lawyer and is currently advising the government of
the Republic of Maldives on legal and constitutional reform. In particular, he is
assisting the government in responding to the allegations made to the UN by former
Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed concerning his conviction for an offence of
terrorism.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera