Evoking international law to shield genocide and complicity in genocide

The UK has suspended 30 out of 250 arms licences for exports to Israel over concerns that the weapons may be used in violation of international humanitarian law. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy was, however, quick to reassure us all that, “The UK continues to support Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance with international law.” The ban exempted parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel uses in its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. In June, Israel’s Defence Ministry signed a $3 billion deal for 25 F-35 fighter jets, which Defence Minister Yoav Gallant described as reflecting “the strength of the strategic alliance between Israel and the United States.” The UK’s decision to exempt parts for the jets from the suspension reflects the same “strategic alliance”.

The assessment upon which the suspension was implemented rested upon Israel’s treatment of Palestinians taken prisoner by the occupation state and the near absence of humanitarian aid. Gaza’s destruction by Israeli bombs didn’t feature in the equation. This explains why the parts for F-35 fighter jets were excluded from the suspension. The UK, one can add, has no objection to Gaza’s destruction and remained safely ensconced within international humanitarian law violations that have been pointed out repeatedly even before the ongoing genocide.

This is a clear example of how normalising violations of international law works for Israel.

Referencing international law really aids Western powers and Israeli colonialism. Palestinians have been referring to international law and seeking recourse to international institutions for decades, on proven grounds of colonialism and ethnic cleansing, but to no avail. On the contrary, the West has turned Palestinian demands into symbolic actions that fit into the humanitarian paradigm invented after the 1948 Nakba.

When the West refers to international law, there is always a violation behind the reason from which it seeks to divert attention. The tactic only works because diplomacy looks after itself. Lammy’s statements, like those of other Western diplomats, serve as an example.

All weapons can be used in violation of international law, not just a select few.

Lammy cites “a clear risk” of the selected 30 arms that can be used by Israel in its genocide in Gaza. At this point, almost a year into the genocide, speaking of risk allows Israel ample room for denial, while granting the UK the same privilege. Genocide has been happening and all weapons are being used by the genocidaires.

Moreover, what right to self-defence is Lammy talking about? Israel the occupation state defending itself from a defenceless, forcibly displaced, ethnically cleansed population living under its occupation? Why the perpetual support for Israel’s security narrative when anti-colonial resistance is legitimate in international law, including “armed struggle”? And how does Israel’s security feature when Palestinians are being butchered by a Western-supported colonial power that wants to empty Gaza and replace the existing population with its settler-colonists?

According to the UK government’s assessment, the F-35 parts were excluded to prevent a negative “impact of the global supply chain”. So, Palestinians are being killed for the Zionist concept of “Greater Israel” and for profit. A settler-colonial genocidal entity that is massacring Palestinians cannot speak of security concerns, and neither should its allies. The former is carrying out the genocide; the latter are complicit.

Evoking international law to shield genocide and complicity in genocide