TNT Radio guest host Basil Valentine speaks with former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to discuss the UK Labour Party’s major U-turns on its plans to oppose the ICC Warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over Gaza War Crimes in Palestine. They also discuss the Labour Party’s opportunistic ways, describing the UK’s decision to drop plans to oppose the ICC’s application for an arrest warrant, as a political move to appease Muslim communities, unionists and activists, whilst seriously doubting that Keir Starmer will take any practical action, such as arms boycott or limitation on arms sales to Israel.
More from Peter: 21stcenturywire.com
ATTENTION: The Patrick Henningsen Show MON-FRI will be on summer hiatus for the next few weeks. Appreciate all of you who have been tuning in. We’ll see you all in due course.
With a compelling perspective on global politics, this is the Patrick Henningsen show on today's News Talk TNT. And this is Banger Valentine sitting in Perpetric today, Monday the 29th of July. I'm honestly thrilled to say I'm joined on the line by former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford. Peter on Friday Downing Street confirmed that it would not submit a challenge to the jurisdiction of the ICC over the Israel Gaza conflict, a noble decision, but a Jewish communal bodies have issued a joint statement condemning that decision, saying that they are concerned the new government has made a significant shift in policy away from Israel being a key UK ally. Meanwhile, the business and trade secretary Jonathan Reynolds has confirmed that discussions are being held with Israel and a host of other countries, including India, the Gulf Cooperation Council, et cetera, focused on creating new opportunities for UK firms in trade. These are very mixed messages, aren't they, Peter? Indeed. Well, several things are going on at the same time here and the new government are basically all over the shop on the issues of Palestine and Israel. On the one hand, they don't need, now they've won, they don't actually need to be quite so subservient to Israel and its supporters. That's bear in mind that the leadership of Labour, I believe, don't hold any personal strong views about the Middle East one way or the other. They are opportunists, career politicians who will drift with the wind whichever way it is blowing and they rode to power on the coattails of Israel, basically, by being the opposite of Corbyn and riding the wave of all the Huhar about anti-Semitism, but all that is now in the past. They don't have to cow-tow quite so much to Israel. Israel still has powerful friends in the mainstream media and to some extent Israel must still be placated, the Murdoch media empire in particular, but the power of balance has changed. Labour don't have to be absolutely in thrall to Israel and its supporters. At the same time, Labour has to look over its shoulder at its Muslim voters in Britain. They had a bit of a scare in the general election, one or two of their top honed shows either lost their seat. Johnson-Ashworth won in Leicester, okay, very close to losing their seats, I'm thinking of that other powerful figure, West Street thing, and many MPs, Labour MPs, will now be looking forward to the next general election, maybe five years away, but they plan on being reelected and they now have to think a bit more about their Muslim voters. And at the same time, there's an added complication because it looks like we're having a hot summer in the sense that things are kicking off in the streets. We saw riots in Leeds involved in the first instance, Romani families, but in the popular perception Muslims were involved and now more recently, last week, we had the Manchester Airport incident, today we have the Southport incident. Now, the Labour government do not want to see blood running in the gutters of Southport or Leeds or Rochdale, and therefore they must think carefully before they make any pro-Israeli gestures, and for that reason, I believe they are tacking with the wind here and there. It was an easy one, really, for them to decide not to proceed with the dirty trick, the conservative government bequeathed to them in the shape of the approach to the ICC, not to proceed with its case against Netanyahu. That doesn't cost them very much and they can justify it in terms of Labour's consistent support for international law. The Daily Mail may be a haram thing about it and some Jewish groups, but these can be shrugged off. More importantly, we have coming down the track, the issue of arms sales to Israel and Labour here are a bit hoist with their own petard, they demanded when they were the opposition that the Tories show the legal advice that they were receiving about the legality of providing arms to Israel at a time when Israel is carrying out massacres in Gaza. Labour cannot ask for legal advice and then be ready to publish that advice and it is certain that that advice will show that providing arms or certain arms to Israel would be illegal. Therefore, the ground is being prepared for an announcement in the coming days that Labour is going to restrict arms sales to Israel. It will be a fudge and as I say, what is going on is Labour all over the sharp tacking here there and trying to juggle these different balls, placate the pro-Israel lobby, but more importantly now the pro-Palestine lobby. You say pro-Palestine lobby, it is really simply respecting international law, Professor Philip Sands, King's Council, who is a member of Palestine's legal team. In the case against the occupation of the ICJ, a case that had been moving through the courts for years before October 7 said that the most immediate issue now is the obligation in the advisory opinion on the states which includes the United Kingdom not to aid or assist in the maintenance of the current situation in the occupied territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. I would venture to suggest that trade talks with Israel because of the way to annex the territories in the West Bank also serve, in fact, to give sustenance to the occupation indirectly. The legal occupation precludes sales of military material which could be used directly or indirectly to assist Israel in maintaining its unlawful occupation of the Palestinian territories, and David Lamy, of course the new foreign secretary, has said that his officials are on his instructions carrying out a comprehensive review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law. We've had the rulings from the ICJ, and that just sounds like kicking the can down the road to buy a bit of time. We need to see action from this government, Peter. Well, the government will probably play for time, and lawyers can argue the toss on this. The ICJ may have given a ruling on the illegality of Israel's occupation, but how to interpret that ruling in terms of the legality of carrying out this or the other bit of trade with Israel will give lucrative employment to lawyers on both sides for probably years to come. I think the government will take the line of least resistance and a relatively early issue, an announcement that they are suspending the provision of certain so-called offensive arms, ignoring, of course, that virtually any weapon, even those supposedly defensive, can be instrumental in carrying out massacres, but this will provide a lot of work for lawyers as the government will probably receive advice to the effect that they can probably get away with a fudge. Getting away with a fudge is one thing, but getting away with murder or genocide is quite another. Frankly, I was startled at this communique from Labour Friends of Israel, which branded the decision to withdraw Britain's objections to the ICC as deeply disappointing and called Karim Karl's most morally suspect and legally dubious, they went on to say, it undermines international law when both the chief prosecutor draws an equivalent between the actions of terrorists and those of democratically elected leaders. Well, the so-called democratically elected leaders have inflicted far more terror than the so-called terrorists who, you know, effectively is in a pinprick compared to the complete erasure of a society and the mutilation of hundreds of thousands of people. I mean, personally, I think the Labour Friends of Israel are utterly morally bankrupt, Peter. I totally agree, morally bankrupt indeed, cynical and cruel, and it's happening not only on the front that you've mentioned, the ICJ and guys there, but it's also beginning to happen on the Lebanon front. We have seen Labour's reaction to the, whatever it was that happened, the explosions that happened in national shams in the Syrian occupied territories, and Labour's response was in a typical foreign office weasel-worded statement to imply that they thought Hezbollah were responsible and to condemn the attack on national shams. In the same statement, they managed to avoid actually mentioning that the territory that saw this tragedy was Syrian territory or even occupied territory. Labour could not bring themselves to mention these words Syria or occupied, but they could bring themselves to condemn, by implication, Hezbollah, when they have never used in the same sentence, the words Israel and condemn. This is a red line for Labour since the massacres began in October, they have studiously avoided condemning Israel, but they're ready to condemn the Palestine resistance and its allies. Yes, the senior Israeli defense officials have told Reuters that Israel wants to hurt Hezbollah, but not drag the region into an all-out war. On the other hand, Netanyahu has said his response will be harsh, but there are questions as to who was actually responsible for this attack, those words, false flag have been wafted around again, Pisa. Possibly, I think that theory is at least, well, in fact, it's a lot more credible than the Israeli theory, but Hezbollah planned it and carried it out. The idea that Hezbollah, I mean it's so absurd, it's even difficult to put it into words, but Netanyahu is claiming that Hezbollah wanted to kill Dru's kids, it's even formulating it in words shows how stupid it is and how stupid people are in the British media to swallow it. You have papers like The Sunday Times with headlining Hezbollah attack on northern Israel. Today, Daily Mail, Hezbollah kills Israeli kids, 12 Israeli kids. This is a grotesque distortion of the truth, it's with Syrian Arab children. And not Israeli citizens at all, which is, you know, as you say, you know, absolutely sort of off the charts in terms of a distortion. Pita, unfortunately, we've run out of time, but please join us again on today's news, today's news talk very, very soon.
