Share.

    10 Kommentare

    1. TimesandSundayTimes on

      The UK does not consider Israel’s actions in Gaza to be genocide, David Lammy has said in a significant shift in position on the issue.

      Until last week the UK government had maintained that the question of whether Israel had committed genocide was a matter for the courts and not for national governments to determine.

      However, in a letter to the chair of the international development committee last week Lammy said that an assessment carried out by the Foreign Office had concluded that Israel’s actions did not constitute genocide

    2. -------7654321 on

      Even if it does not fit a textbook definition of genocide that does not make Israels actions right. Even the fact that it is in doubt if it is genocide or not should have anyone who cares about justice sound alarm.

    3. Zestyclose_Jello6192 on

      That doesn’t disprove that a lot of their actions are simply wrong

    4. PrettyCreative on

      While all other human rights organizations have concluded otherwise. Like who are you fooling? Lol

    5. False headline. His exact words were „The government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.” Which it hasn’t. The government has not concluded that it is and it has not concluded that it isnt. This is exactly what he said before, which was, „This government is not an international court. We have not — and could not — arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian law.”

      I expect we’ll see some clarification soon from the government explaining what it means that they haven’t concluded anything yet. No matter what the papers may try to pretend, the decision about genocide is not a matter for the foreign office, it’s for the courts. A government department can’t just declare something isn’t genocide. It has no authority to do that.

    6. So a minister who previously said just a few months ago that [executive] government can’t make a determination of genocide (that it’s a matter for the courts) sends out a memo on his way out that actually his branch of government can make that determination, so it’s actually totally fine to keep selling weapons used in that conflict, in a way that doesn’t elaborate on how they came about that determination other than just listing the definition and saying ’nu-uh, doesn’t apply‘?

      Consider me skeptical.

    7. Immediate_Gain_9480 on

      Long and short of it. They say they dont believe intent has been establised as meant in the genocide convention. But it stinks of a political decision.

    8. Deep_Head4645 on

      Yeah

      We know.

      Who said it though? Is this an official government statement and conclusion? Sorry its just paywalled

    Leave A Reply