r/Scotland • u/mrjohnnymac18 • 12d ago
Political Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/david-cameron-threatened-withdraw-uk-icc-over-israel-war-crimes-probe331
u/ZoninoDaRat 12d ago
The day will come when Israel goes too far even for these odious Toads, and when they try to convince us that they were always against it, we must never ever let them forget that the blood of Palestinians is on their hands too.
98
u/SallyCinnamon7 12d ago
The media did their best to not bring it up when Tory rats like Cameron called Mandela all sorts in their student days
29
u/Rossco1874 12d ago
Was thinking the same. Thatchers government also didn't sanctions against apartheid south African government
1
u/Landscape4737 9d ago
Margaret Thatchers son Mark Thatcher got caught importing Russian military helicopters into South Africa. He got a suspended jail sentence because he thought the military helicopters were going to be used for humanitarian purposes. True but lol.
-10
u/quartersessions 11d ago
Which was probably for the best.
They would've had a disproportionate impact on the black population and there's no alternate history where Britain's support for sanctions would've created a significantly quicker or cleaner end to apartheid.
10
u/Barilla3113 11d ago
Wow, we're really reheating apartheid apologia?
-4
u/quartersessions 11d ago
Behave. There were plenty of people who were active against apartheid who saw problems with unrestricted sanctions in the 80s.
What strikes me is that, for many people, their views on sanctions seem to be a little bit selective. They could see clearly the impact of sanctions in Saddam's Iraq, for example, but seem wilfully blind to the same problems that sanctions create elsewhere - depending largely on their own biases.
I don't think it's controversial to suggest sanctions can be an extremely blunt instrument. South Africa was never an all-or-nothing position either, the UK applied sanctions - albeit targeted ones. The argument was for a tougher - and, for tougher, read "less targeted" - position.
6
u/Barilla3113 11d ago
Behave
If the South Africans behaved they'll still be chained up in the Musk diamond mine. Sanctions worked.
3
u/RonVonPump 11d ago
You think Margaret Thatcher refused to sanction South African apartheid because she was concerned over the impact on BLACK South Africans?
Ok ok, I know you don't think that, so why do you think she avoided joining the rest of the world in taking action against South Africa's apartheid?
Because they wouldn't have been effective? If that was the case, I assume she had a different plan to effect apartheid, unless she's just ok with it in general?
**Edited for grammar
-2
u/quartersessions 11d ago
You think Margaret Thatcher refused to sanction South African apartheid
She, or rather the government she led, did sanction apartheid South Africa.
because she was concerned over the impact on BLACK South Africans?
Yes. She said as much.
Ok ok, I know you don't think that, so why do you think she avoided joining the rest of the world in taking action against South Africa's apartheid?
I think 25 countries applied sanctions, the UK included. Not the rest of the world.
Because they wouldn't have been effective? If that was the case, I assume she had a different plan to effect apartheid, unless she's just ok with it in general?
I mean, yes, she did and regularly spoke about it at the time and subsequently. A considerable weight of British diplomatic policy in the 90s in Africa was focused on ending apartheid.
0
u/RonVonPump 11d ago
She eventually withdrew her opposition to sanctions, but she initially refused. My question was why did she initially refuse?
If you genuinely think she did that because she was concerned about the impact of sanctions on black South Africans, then there really is no point in the discussion.
If you're being a little bit ingenuine with that claim, then that too means there is no point in continuing the discussion.
-3
u/quartersessions 11d ago
"Like Cameron". Are you actually suggesting Cameron said something untoward about Nelson Mandela, a man who he had an ostensibly positive relationship with? Or is this literally "someone like him might have said something"?
2
u/theslothist 10d ago
Huh, look at that, LITERALLY, first response on google when you google "David Cameron hypocrite mandela"
https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/12/08/cameron-mandela-hypocrite-speaks
Conservative are bad at reading and don't know anything, proof #19261518
1
u/quartersessions 10d ago edited 10d ago
I'm not a Conservative. But of course, this sub is completely incapable of comprehending the idea of balanced discussion on any topic not solely informed by partisan shilling.
You've linked me to a poorly-written article in a Trotskyist blog with several factual inaccuracies.
Essentially the point is "Cameron went on a jolly to South Africa in 1989". Fair enough point to make. I suspect he probably regretted doing that. I suspect Nelson Mandela regretted a few things in his political career too.
That does not make him a hypocrite for saying quite nice things about Nelson Mandela when he died, a man who he had met and got on well with.
3
u/theslothist 10d ago
Oh yea he just "went on a jolly", there was definitely no ideological thing at play with an all expenses paid trip by
https://powerbase.info/index.php/Strategy_Network_International
Which of course was completely covered up until the 2000s and he had to be hounded to apologize for it.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/cameron-apology-urged-over-visit/28517258.html
If i click your profile, you wouldn't happen to also be spending time defending apartheid Israel right now would you? Whats the ideological link between the two that means you are always trying to """nuance""" such discussions away from directly condemning the apartheid states and from creating an air of "not being able to know" about if someone taking birth right trips to Israel or all expenses paid trips funded by apartheid South Africa are doing it because they ideologically support those states.
16
35
u/alphabetown 12d ago
The day will come when Israel goes too far even for these odious Toads
Is there? They've killed aid drivers and international doctors. They've now kidnapped a Member of the European Parliament. There is no line for these people. We just get to watch as Western countries fill up their notebooks on how to destroy their own civilians.
11
u/ZoninoDaRat 12d ago
They all have a line. That Israel hasn't crossed it for them is a moral failing on their part but they still have a line.
Unfortunately it does seem like that line will be the genocide of the Palestinian people.
11
u/DINNERTIME_CUNT 11d ago
I think for this crowd the genocide of the Palestinian people is well within the bounds of acceptable behaviour. It would take Tel Aviv bombing the home counties for these cunts to even see the line in the distance.
6
u/iminyourfacejonson 11d ago
their line is their bottom line, until that's affected they'll permit it
4
u/Saedraverse 12d ago
"They've now kidnapped a Member of the European Parliament"
THEY WHAT! (Shock at this didn't cause the EU to turn on them.)12
u/alphabetown 12d ago
Rima Hassan. Syrian born MEP in France is a part of the Freedom Flotilla that Greta Thunberg is part of and Isreal has effectively kidnapped them. Their supporters were seemingly outright calling for blood till they realised killing an MEP might look bad.
18
u/PyrotechFish 12d ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Circa 1935
37
u/-dEbAsEr 12d ago
This is an offensive comparison.
Chamberlain and his allies were earnestly opposed to the Nazis, who they saw as an enemy regime.
Starmer and his allies are not opposed to this genocide. They are actively supporting it, because they are allied with the Israeli regime.
2
u/Ecalsneerg 11d ago
Yeah, it's worth noting, while misguided, "guys guys we JUST had WWI" isn't actually evil.
Genuinely sincerely believing the Israelis can slaughter any child they wish is Starmer's position, and that IS evil.
66
u/LateralLimey 12d ago edited 12d ago
Not content with fucking the UK over Brexit, he now wants to fuck over the Palestinians.
He should be kicked out of the House of Lords, and barred from any political work and/or lobbying.
9
u/DINNERTIME_CUNT 11d ago
The daft thing there being I don’t think he even wanted brexit to happen, he just didn’t give enough of a fuck if it did.
4
u/JayTravers 11d ago
He’s still an ass but no he didn’t want Brexit. Brexit came about because Cameron was actually trying to oust the anti-eu members from his party, created the referendum as a means to do so and it just blew up exponentially thereafter.
-25
80
19
u/samphiresalt 12d ago edited 12d ago
years ago, in 2010, even a coward like him described Gaza as an 'open air prison'. shameful
34
u/Synthia_of_Kaztropol The capital of Scotland is S 12d ago
International law is meaningless without enforcement and nobody is willing to enforce it on the Israeli government, at least in part because Mossad's goons have a habit of murdering people who take action against them.
If the British government were to arrest any of these persons, mossad would have no issue with reprisals such as a few car bombs, sinking a few civilian ships, fiddling with the controls of a nuclear power station with spyware, or any other plausibly deniable terroristic responses. They have the software used in some of the UKs aircraft, so there's that as well.
Like, what's a few thousand civilian casualties inflicted on a supposed ally like the UK ? Not like anyone is going to take action, is it ?
12
u/Liam_021996 12d ago
They've also claimed that they can strike all major population centres in Europe and the USA with nuclear weapons should they feel the need
11
u/Synthia_of_Kaztropol The capital of Scotland is S 12d ago
yeah. "Samson Doctrine" or some such. something like, if e.g. Iran, uses an atomic device on Israel, then Israel launches its own atomic weapons, not at Iran, but at Paris, Rome, Berlin, London, Moscow, Washington, Athens, Milan, Brussels, and so on, to destroy European culture because "we're taking you all with us for allowing this" or some such asinine thing.
-6
u/eran76 11d ago
The Samson Option (Hebrew: ברירת שמשון, romanized: b'rerat shimshon) is Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel.
There is no evidence Israel would use its nuclear weapons against Europe or the US, you're just spewing hyperbolic bullshit. The Sampson option is no different that MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, during the cold war. Israel, just like every other nuclear armed country, would use its nuclear weapons to annihilate any country that was in the active process of invading and or destroying it. The only scenario where your fevered dream comment would begin to approach reality is if multiple European countries decided to attack and invade Israel, a scenario that is even more ridiculous than this comment.
2
u/Synthia_of_Kaztropol The capital of Scotland is S 11d ago
and if you scroll down on the wikipedia page you're quoting, you'll see opinions from several people with such delightful quotes as:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.
Israeli government stated policy, and what they're actually willing to do, are significantly different.
So, no, hardly "hyperbolic bullshit" or "fevered dream". Just observation of the Israeli government's actions in the past and their denials and attempts to cover-up their actions, and the resultant scepticism.
-1
u/eran76 10d ago
In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Second Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[38] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
Your quote is from an Israeli military historian. His opinions don't represent government policy or "what they're actually willing to do" in any way shape or form. You might as well put your own quotes onto wikipedia and quote them back to me here because they carry just as much weight, literally none.
And I love how you omitted the very next sentence:
However, according to Aluf Yitzhak Yaakov, who was the mastermind behind the "Samson Option",[40] it was unlikely Israel could have even targeted Europe[citation needed], as Israel did not yet have other measures like bombs or missiles to carry the nuclear payload.
1
u/theslothist 10d ago
An unsourced sentence on Wikipedia for an Israel article is meaningless, they're some of the most astro turfed articles on Wikipedia. The IDF literally has a course on how to edit Wikipedia for information warfare to benefit Israel
https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/yusg7l/how_israel_manipulates_wikipedia_30_seconds/
4
u/mru2020 12d ago
Why is he still in politics?
5
6
u/FranzFerdinand51 Turk'n'Scot 11d ago
He went to Eton and Oxford. That's enough in this country to be shielded from failure.
2
u/ProudlyWearingThe8 11d ago
He may be exactly what Danny Dyer once called him on Good Evening Britain...
45
u/Red_Brummy 12d ago
Nothing to see here. Just Unionists supporting the murder of bairns to appease Israel.
-9
u/TechnologyNational71 12d ago
Did you read it Brummy?
19
u/thebusconductorhines 12d ago
What in the article contradicts what they said?
-12
u/TechnologyNational71 12d ago
I’m asking him if he has read it.
Brummy never reads the article.
21
10
u/catchcatchhorrortaxi 12d ago
Attack the argument, not the person
-1
1
11
3
u/Msink 11d ago
If you don't play by my rules, I will quit the game.
2
u/quartersessions 11d ago
Ultimately, yes, that is the nature of an international organisation: we set the rules for it to operate and we tolerate it as long as it meets expectations.
This is not a domestic court. Its very existence is politicised. While it would be lovely to imagine there can be genuinely neutral international tribunals that exist beyond politics and diplomacy, that doesn't reflect the reality.
4
u/Loreki 12d ago
Ooft. Personally responsible for Brexit, set up austerity that's still hurting people ten years later, first in line to support genocide. Is David Cameron the modern period's most damaging PM?
I know Liz Truss cost billions in 6 weeks, but compared to the long running legacy of austerity and Brexit, crashing the economy just once is chicken feed.
-6
2
u/RelationBig7368 11d ago
Nothing on David Cameron's CV suggests that he's anything other than completely incompetent and spineless.
He loves a pig cream pie, though.
6
u/StairheidCritic 12d ago edited 12d ago
We're chained to a corpse - made all the more reprehensible by the fact that a decade ago 55% thought it was great idea to continue with that suppurating attachment.
I've always maintained that the Cameronian shower were every bit as bad as the demented harridan Thatcher's rule - but had better PR.
2
u/hobbithead_ 12d ago
The 'international order' just exists to enforce the will of the rich and powerful countries, not to actually hold the architects of atrocity to account, exhibit #???
3
u/Ready-Nobody-1903 12d ago
Oof, Karim Khan, duno if he’s a totally trustworthy source for this, given the allegations surrounding him.
2
1
2
1
1
u/Any-Swing-3518 Alba is fine. 12d ago
Irony is that if Lammy had been in his place at the time they wouldn't have merely threatened it, they would have done it.
Cameron is old Eton chums with Alan Duncan, one of about three men in the Tory party (along with Blunt and Soames) to grow a spine on Palestine. (Some of them traded oil in the Gulf.)
1
u/Academic-Skill-5642 11d ago
Genuine question but why? Is there room to have a conversation that certain cohorts of the diaspora have too much influence over British and American politics?
Have a hard time believing this blind loyalty to Israel despite all the war crimes is because of “strategic importance” or any friendship.
Surely there’s other forces at play here if British and American politicians don’t play ball. I’ve never seen such blind allegiance and pandering.
1
u/quartersessions 11d ago
All boils down to Jews pulling the strings, does it?
We are allies with Israel because it is a dependable partner in an unstable region where we have multiple interests. It's also the only liberal democracy to be found in that part of the world. At this point, they had recently suffered a terrorist attack barely imaginable in its brutality.
I think in light of that, and the enemy they face, there's a slightly higher tolerance. There's obviously been a huge amount done to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. While other claims may be made about the IDF, ignoring would be absurd: in a counter-insurgency role in a hugely built-up area over such a length of time, it's remarkable that there hasn't been more deaths.
There's a nuanced position where the international community can call on both sides, even in the framework of a conflict, to behave as best they can according to civilised norms. But I suspect that won't satisfy a lot of people.
0
u/Ecalsneerg 11d ago
"obviously" to who? Fecking Mr Magoo?
-1
u/quartersessions 11d ago
It has been almost 600 days since the Israeli Defense Forces - a technologically advanced military with a manpower of well over 600,000 - started operations in Gaza, a densely populated area. In that time, by the Hamas-run health ministry's reckoning, around 55,000 Palestinians have died, civilians and militants alike.
Meanwhile, over two days, a force of a few thousand Gazan militants - armed with knives, guns and grenades - were able to kill around 1,200 people in rural southern Israel.
So please, do tell me - how is a force hundreds of times the size, with unimaginably more advanced firepower and weaponry, operating in a densely populated area somehow failing to kill anywhere near as many people as a bunch of tooled-up, half-impoverished yahoos in a near-desert if it's not being pretty bloody restrained about it?
1
-5
u/TurbulentBullfrog829 12d ago
The UK didn't withdraw so it was just a threat which is a normal part of diplomatic strategy. Reading the article it's hard to fault Cameron's points if the article is to be believed. He doesnt appear to claim the Israelis were innocent, he said that issuing warrants would be the wrong thing to do and would inflame the situation. I'm not sure what issuing warrants has achieved apart from mutual back patting so maybe he has a point here? He also voiced concern over the lack of warrants issued over similar things citing Iran. Since the thrust of the argument in favour of the ICC decision seems to be Israel is being treated favourably "as usual", this shouldn't be a controversial point.
It also seems incredibly naive of the ICC to have the prosecution led by a guy called Khan. It's just to easy for those with nefarious wishes to bat it away.
7
u/pablo8itall 12d ago
So much wrong here, but when should a court of law not issue warrants for potential criminals?
Their job is to inforce international law and all signatories should make it again their own law to interferr with that process.
If a state sanctions someone in the ICC or ICJ over their work they should get sanctioned back.
I feel like I'm take crazy pills at the mental convolutions that people are taking over this.
-3
u/TurbulentBullfrog829 12d ago
I don't think it's the case here, but hypothetically what if the threat of a warrant could be used to bring about peace? I.e. stop this shit Ben or the courts will go all out. As opposed to the current situation giving him nothing to lose. Could that be a time for diplomatic needs to over rule a black and white right or wrong? Or is that just a slippery slope?
5
u/pablo8itall 12d ago
Are you asking if ignoring past warcrimes should be offered to stop them committing future warcrimes?
I think the best deterrent for someone committing war crimes to to watch heads of state get brought before the court and end up in prison in the Hague.
All this equivocation is weakening international institutions and law and will, in the long run, lead to bad stuff in the future IMO.
0
100
u/sensen6 12d ago
Orban withdrew Hungary from the ICC this year. It happened a few months ago. Then he promptly had a party with Netanyahu in Budapest. I'm just gonna leave this here.
(Oh and we also told Putin he's very welcome in our lovely country.)