UK Media's Desperate Spin: Pushing the Lie That Britain Will Arrest Netanyahu. It Won't

The UK Propagandists are trying hard to convince you that they will obey the ICC's ruling. They have no intention to.

It seems the UK government are in a bit of a tailspin. During the past week, Keir Starmer engaged in an act of war against Russia, promised bits of the UK to BlackRock, the largest wealth asset management fund in the world, while his MPs have pushed for young people to either work or lose their benefits i.e. starve, and for terminally ill people who express a wish to die - even if they were pressurised, abused or coerced into it - should be helped on their merry way and damn the safeguards.

I think people may be getting a tad fed up. A UK government petition calling for a new general election has already been signed by nearly 3 million people. That’s nearly a third who bothered voting for him. I actually ran for Parliament, so I can say with complete conviction that people voted Starmer because they didn’t want the Tories. ‘Labour or Reform,’ they’d say, ‘but Reform won’t win.’ I’m a BAME, Muslim woman, and I told these people if they were going to vote one of those two only, then vote Reform, as I believe Keir Starmer is the most dangerous man in Britain. Considering his government has pledged British troops - the lives of British citizens - to help genocidal, apartheid Israel, in the same week he engaged in an unprovoked act of aggression against Russia, I think my estimation was on point.

What is baffling is how desperately the UK mainstream media is trying to make out the UK is a respectable country and that it intends to ‘respect’ international law and thus arrest Netanyahu if he arrives on UK soil. Be under no illusion, the UK is not a respectful country looking to ‘respect’ international law. The pretence of international law is, however, important, as it keeps the world in the status quo believing the current Western hegemony and international ‘legal’ structures will bring some form of fair and equitable justice. They won't, and the ICC is just another part of that structure which is smoke and mirrors - an illusion intended to ostensibly promote justice and human rights, while in reality letting people get away with literal genocide and murder. The ICC has only ever indicted Africans. Israel and the US - the two biggest murderers on earth - are not even signed up to it. You can read all about it here.

Just to recap my position, which you can read in full here. I said:

1). The UK government has consistently said, “We respect international law” and “We respect the ICC’s decision”

2). However, Labour Friends of Israel Parliamentary Supporter PM Keir Starmer, nor his Labour Friends of Israel Parliamentary Supporter David Lammy nor his MPs, including Labour Friends of Israel Parliamentary Support Yvette Cooper have used the word, “arrest” and have never said they will “arrest” Netanyahu.

3). Instead, the PM has talked about the UK courts being “independent” and MPs have spoken of a “domestic legal process” that needs to be followed to arrest Netanyahu.

4). The mainstream media has reported the above as meaning that the UK government would arrest Netanyahu should he come to Britain. I disagreed.

I concluded that rather than arrest him, the UK government had a plan to use domestic courts to bypass the decision of the ICC. As domestic law takes precedence over international law, the UK would be bound by the UK court’s decision, and the government would say their hands were tied and that they could not go against the UK courts.

Yesterday, France let the cat out of the bag. They too were reported as saying they would ‘respect the ICC decision’ and ‘international law’. Again, the word arrest did not come out of their mouths. Instead, yesterday they published the following on their Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs website:

France will comply with its international obligations, it being understood that the Rome Statute demands full cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and also stipulates that a State cannot be required to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the immunities of States not party to the ICC. Such immunities apply to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other ministers concerned and will have to be taken into account should the ICC request of us their arrest and surrender.

In accordance with the long-standing friendship between France and Israel, two democracies committed to the rule of law and to respect for a professional and independent justice system, France intends to continue working in close cooperation with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security for all in the Middle East.

France has said it will not arrest Netanyahu because Israel is not a party to the ICC. This is despite the ICC rejecting this argument on the grounds that it does very much have jurisdiction in this case, as Palestine is a signatory to the ICC and the crimes alleged were committed on Palestinian territory.

France’s argument of course is utterly stupid. It suggests that a criminal can simply choose whether or not to accept the jurisdiction of the court. If they refuse, they can continue their criminal actions without consequence. Imagine if this logic were applied across all criminal law and to ordinary citizens! War criminal Netanyahu has entered Palestinian territory, committed war crimes and murder, and then claimed he doesn't want to be held accountable under the criminal justice system. And France has acquiesced to this and has given him full immunity from the criminal justice system and the law.

The UK in the past, has used immunities to protect Israeli war criminals from being arrested on UK land, including by changing the law to prevent the police from enacting arrests without permission from the DPP.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs then goes into complete gaslighting mode, where it says that both France and Israel are ‘democracies’ (an apartheid state by definition, cannot be a ’democracy’), and committed to the rule of law, though both have refused to obey the ICC’s judgment on jurisdiction and have admitted the rule of law does not apply to Israel because Israel does not want it too. The announcement goes on to say that both countries have respect for a ‘professional and independent justice system,’ which is a veiled dig at the ICC and implies it is neither professional nor independent. France then completes its announcement by committing to support war criminal Netanyahu and other ‘Israeli authorities,’ thus announcing to the world that it is a full and active participant in this genocide. Other ‘Israeli authorities’ presumably include Mossad and Shin Bet, who they allowed to roam around the streets of Paris, putting their own citizens at risk from Israeli violence.

It is of course no surprise that this pathetic announcement was made. Macron was chastised for saying that he would respect international law by the genocidaire-in-chief himself, Mr. Joseph Biden. Macron, of course, had no choice but to bow even further, his head scraping the ground in a grovelling apology to the Israelis. He did this by publicly declaring that Netanyahu was, indeed, safe from justice.

In response to France’s public reveal of what should have remained a secret, the mainstream UK media, acting as propagandists, jumped into action, desperately attempting to convince us that the UK would not follow France's lead. The headline in ‘The I’ screamed:

“David Lammy: UK would have to arrest Netanyahu if he visits Britain”

But just like before, that is not what David Lammy said. The word, ‘arrest’ never came out of his mouth. What he did say was:

“There is an obligation on me to transmit to the courts should those named seek to come in to our country.

“That doesn’t allow me any discretion – I will issue that, transmit that to the courts and then the courts will make their determination under our law, recognising that we are signatories to the Statute of Rome and these are very, very serious issues indeed.”

The fact that MPs are talking about the domestic process shows that the UK very much intends to bypass the ICC arrest warrant. In fact, Keir Starmer’s official spokesperson said:

“When it comes to the ICC judgment, as we’ve said previously, we’re not going to comment on specific cases, but we have a domestic legal process in the UK that follows the ICC Act of 2001 that includes various considerations as part of that process, including immunities.

“And that’s exactly why… we aren’t going to pre-empt the domestic legal process, which… has not been used in the UK before, as an ICC indictee has never travelled to the UK.”

Despite the the PM’s official spokesperson admitting that immunities would be something they would be looking at should Netanyahu land on UK soil - the exact same premise France is using - the article went into to complete gaslighting mode and tried to paint out the UK as a bastion of justice who would enact the ICC ruling:

The equivocal position has left the UK as an outlier among leading western nations on the matter, after the US, Germany and France all said the warrant would not be enforced in their countries.

It is hard to see the UK as an outlier when it has not committed to the arrest warrants, has brought up the topic of immunities, has said that it will be the UK courts who decide whether to arrest Netanyahu and has admitted that the ICC warrant is not sacrosanct nor will it be necessarily followed.

Most damning in the article was this:

Asked whether Israel had had clarity from the British government on whether Netanyahu would be arrested, Israeli government spokesman David Mencer said: “I have seen no such thing.”

I hate to break it to you, but Starmer and Lammy are right. They can indeed ‘respect international law’ and the ‘ICC ruling’ whilst simultaneously ignoring it. Because domestic law - the International Criminal Court Act 2001 itself - says exactly that. Immunities are granted to non-signatories to the Rome Convention for those who have diplomatic immunity, such as heads of state. In such a case the state in question would have to give a waiver to the ICC that it would allow its citizen to be subject to the ICC: i.e. Israel, lead by Netanyahu, would have to agree that Netanyahu could be arrested for him to be arrested. If not, the UK can choose to take no action against him. It is section 23, subsection (4) in particular:

And there you have it. Germany, France, the US and the UK, have refused to arrest Netanyahu, confirming international law is a joke and was never intended to be followed for actual war criminals aka themselves.

But the media needs to make you believe that is being followed, because if people realise how much they’ve been conned, how much these systems have been created as theatrics and not for actual use against the most depraved and heinous of crimes, they may, just maybe, begin to resist.