Global Research: 02-01-2025,
While international law can, at times, seem an ephemeral creature, vulnerable to manipulation, neglect and outright dismissal, its strictures can surprise. The evolving body of law stripping back the immunity of heads of state for gross human rights abuses, the potential complicity of third parties and powers in aiding such heads of states and their armies, are salutary reminders to politicians and officials the world over: mind your obligations, abide by your duties.
Few more onerous obligations exist in this canon than the prevention and punishment of genocide, as outlined by the United Nations Genocide Convention. While claims that it is taking place against the Palestinians as a feature of Israeli policy have been dismissed by the United States and a core group of ministers in the European Union, the human rights fraternity are increasingly convinced: genocide is, and has taken place, in Gaza.
Even if genocide were not ultimately found to be taking place by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the South African lawsuit against Israel, the broader scope of war crimes and crimes against humanity would be hard to rebut, from policies of deprivation and starvation, to the hefty civilian death toll.
This makes the continued arms sales to Israel not only problematic, but potentially criminal in a secondary liability sense. As with the United States, the EU adopts a preferential approach to Israel on the issue of imposing arms embargoes,