Mailwatch(ed) Forum

This is where it comes from. Talking about the previous point but the same points are made.

https://www.declassifieduk.org/icc-must ... ar-crimes/

With the difference that the UK doesn't supply F-35 parts to Israel any more, except that doesn't make any difference, they say it about Starmer anyway.

Count em, 6 IDF soldiers are doing some courses with the UK military. That's where "training the IDF" comes from. Not likely to take up too much of the ICC's time, you'd think.

The government and its predecessor have said the "spy flights in support of Israel" are to locate hostages, which would have a political and diplomatic logic at least. Whereas "telling Israel where the civilians are to kill", as I've seen, doesn't have any.

We've mentioned before how the left does British exceptionalism just as well as the right.

The ICC has legitimacy in investigating British ministers since they are shielded legally and politically at the domestic level.
There is almost no chance the UK system will hold ministers accountable for aiding war crimes, particularly since they are protected by “crown immunity”.
This deems that ministers cannot commit a legal wrong and do not act as persons but as agents steeped with Crown authority, and are therefore untouchable under the law.
The very purpose of the ICC is to investigate and prosecute the commission, including aiding and abetting, of the most serious crimes when domestic authorities refuse to act.

And yet the ICC shows no sign of investigating UK ministers.

This isn't what "Crown immunity" means either. The Government, Starmer and Lammy can be prosecuted.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:43 pm We've mentioned before how the left does British exceptionalism just as well as the right.

So do the most vocal EU enthusiasts, ironically. `JUST REJOIN NOW.

I think there was something on one of the Radio 4 news programmes yesterday explaining precisely what involvement the UK had with respect to Israel, Gaza, F-35s and the RAF out of Cyprus.

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:52 pm I think there was something on one of the Radio 4 news programmes yesterday explaining precisely what involvement the UK had with respect to Israel, Gaza, F-35s and the RAF out of Cyprus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz09k48z9v0o

Since Israel began its military campaign in Gaza after the 7 October attacks, significant public attention has focused on the issue of assistance provided by the UK. Much of the weaponry used in Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) strikes on the strip has been built or sold by Western nations.

But information around the extent of the UK's military support to Israel often remains unclear or classified, and some MPs have called for a public inquiry into the extent of the assistance.

Independent MP Shockat Adam has warned that Sir Keir Starmer could become the Prime Minister “to see Britain answer at The Hague” for its role in arming Israel amid accusations of war crimes in Gaza.

There've been quite a few people indicted over the years. People who've supplied very small percentages of arms or had a small number of soldiers do a course don't seem to get hauled in very often.

Lord Coaker - a minister of state at the UK MoD - said in April that "fewer than 10" IDF personnel have been trained on non-combat military academic courses in the UK every year since 2020.
He declined to say exactly how many IDF troops had taken part in courses over that time, or what classes they had taken "in order to protect personal information". But ministers have insisted that the courses emphasise the importance of complying with international humanitarian law.

You'd expect training courses to comply with the law, whoever was doing them. Just because some people from the IDF are there doesn't mean that they'd be learning how to shoot civilians in the back. Might have been a useful diplomatic move to stop them taking these courses though.

This has had a fair bit of attention as "punching down", seeing it involves a focus on areas with "asylum hotels".

But surely it's in response to what Macron said about the UK's shadow labour market being a big pull factor, and therefore central to the agreement signed? If you accept that "boats" are central to the Farage pitch, then the alternative is either what we're doing with France or safe routes. I find it hard to believe Farage wouldn't make hay with safe routes too.

Who is going to deliver the crates of Strongbow Dark Fruits to Tommy's (is it Farage's, now?) stormtroopers on the front line?

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:06 pm

Boiler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 2:52 pm I think there was something on one of the Radio 4 news programmes yesterday explaining precisely what involvement the UK had with respect to Israel, Gaza, F-35s and the RAF out of Cyprus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz09k48z9v0o

Since Israel began its military campaign in Gaza after the 7 October attacks, significant public attention has focused on the issue of assistance provided by the UK. Much of the weaponry used in Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) strikes on the strip has been built or sold by Western nations.

But information around the extent of the UK's military support to Israel often remains unclear or classified, and some MPs have called for a public inquiry into the extent of the assistance.

This was what I heard - from 18:38 to 30:10. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002g4fs

This person gets quite a lot of media attention, mainly on her speciality of asylum, and fair enough. Here she broadens her repertoire to.. doctors should just get whatever pay rise they ask for, or something. One of the differences with the Tories she can't see might be that Labour settled the previous strike, but alas that eludes her eagle eyes. Another might be climate policy, not exactly obscure. It's quite incredible how everything- including quite literally the future of the planet- can be forgotten about if it makes it easier to hammer Labour. Note the "arming Israel" point makes an appearance.

You'll be amazed to hear she's obsessively supportive of Zach Polanski. When presented with evidence that Zach's wealth tax is a bad policy, she replies that it's "necessary".

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 12:18 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 12:05 pm Jonathan Portes thinks we should kick out their ambassador which is one of the better ideas on Bluesky.

Might be too much for Trump? Grim though it is to consider this.

Strangely I think that recognizing Palestine might be something sellable to him. "They used to have nice hotels in Gaza, I'm sure they'd love a Trump Hotel"

Here are Portes's ideas in full.

Not sure it affects Israeli political dynamics very much really. But, yeah, do it.

Hang on, I thought we had suspended trade deals, and we've imposed sanctions on some ministers and some of those settlers. So kick out the ambassador and recognise Palestine.

Just finished watching the improbable Mr Attlee by David Reynolds on the Attlee government on BBC4. A fascinating documentary that stripes away a lot of the myth and shows what the government was really like.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... -mr-attlee

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 9:49 pm Hang on, I thought we had suspended trade deals, and we've imposed sanctions on some ministers and some of those settlers. So kick out the ambassador and recognise Palestine.

We have, but he means much fuller economic sanctions. I'm not sure any country is waiting for a lead from Britain on that though.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:10 pm

Independent MP Shockat Adam has warned that Sir Keir Starmer could become the Prime Minister “to see Britain answer at The Hague” for its role in arming Israel amid accusations of war crimes in Gaza.

There've been quite a few people indicted over the years. People who've supplied very small percentages of arms or had a small number of soldiers do a course don't seem to get hauled in very often.

There does seem a serious lack of knowledge about what the ICC does from these types. What slightly concerns me about all of this is that some of them seem more interested in waving a flag, intimidating any musician that doesn’t “speak out” on their terms and getting one at Starmer who has only overseen one year as PM regarding this. Some were calling for the ICC to have him in The Hague prior to being elected.

They are unserious.

It's reheating the "Blair in The Hague" trope. With considerably less justification.

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 11:00 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jul 23, 2025 3:10 pm

Independent MP Shockat Adam has warned that Sir Keir Starmer could become the Prime Minister “to see Britain answer at The Hague” for its role in arming Israel amid accusations of war crimes in Gaza.

There've been quite a few people indicted over the years. People who've supplied very small percentages of arms or had a small number of soldiers do a course don't seem to get hauled in very often.

There does seem a serious lack of knowledge about what the ICC does from these types. What slightly concerns me about all of this is that some of them seem more interested in waving a flag, intimidating any musician that doesn’t “speak out” on their terms and getting one at Starmer who has only overseen one year as PM regarding this. Some were calling for the ICC to have him in The Hague prior to being elected.

They are unserious.

Agreed.
Very telling that, as you say, prior to the election there were calls for Starmer (as LOTO) to be tried for war crimes but not Sunak (as PM).
There's also an ignorance of what actions constitute war crimes.
Also that, in order to even consider a prosecution, the ICC require some evidence that a crime has been committed and unsubstantiated claims in social media posts are not evidence. That's why the ICC are investigating Netanyahu but not Starmer.