We begin our journey with The Guardian newspaper and Sarah Al-opinion Husseini’s piece titled “Welcoming Benjamin Netanyahu to the British Government Headquarters is an Insult to British Palestinians like Me,” which she wrote as the director of the British-Palestinian Committee.
The rallies against the Israeli Prime Minister during his recent visit to London were organized by human rights advocates, including Amnesty International, Palestinians and Solidarity with Them, and the British Jewish group “Na’moud,” as the author mentioned in the first paragraph.
Sarah al-Husseini argues that these demonstrations are appropriate because Netanyahu’s right-wing government has pushed for the annexation of occupied territories and the development of illegal settlements, as has been documented by numerous governments, attorneys, and human rights organizations. In the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, at least 231 Palestinians, including roughly 40 children, were killed by Israeli troops between January 1 and March 13 of this year.
The author is of the opinion that these developments are not a result of a sudden turn of events because Netanyahu heads a regime that has been developed over many years and in the context of numerous alliances. This regime gives systematic advantages to the Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians in all the territories under his control, which is illegal under international law and amounts to apartheid. Several global, Israeli, and Palestinian human rights organizations concur.
“Yet the British government adopted a roadmap for bilateral relations with Israel, committing to certain areas of the economic partnership and the two nations’ political collaboration, instead of engaging with the Israeli government accordingly.”
The author finds it disgraceful that Britain’s opposition to an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories was doubled as a result of the agreement. In addition to promising to “examine the matter of barring Israel in the Human Rights Council,” the London administration criticized the International Court of Justice’s ruling as “inappropriate.” — presumably by excluding Israel from international law and singling it out.
The author compared London’s position regarding Russia’s violations against the Ukrainians and its position regarding Israel’s violations against the Palestinians, and made reference to some “verbal and selective” criticisms leveled by Britain at the Israeli government, but considered them “insufficient.”
She also believed that, given the current situation, Britain’s stance actively worsens the situation there in the Palestinian territories, and that constantly defending one of the criminals “destroys Britain’s credibility as a responsible international actor and insults the intelligence of the British people.”
We have been let down twice as British Palestinians, she wrote. “The repercussions of this British approach are significantly harsher for Palestinians in Palestine,” the author writes. Key acts necessary to build settlements are war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in addition to being violations of international humanitarian law, according to Amnesty International in 2019.
Why do Palestinian victims of war crimes not also need urgent accountability and legal redress? Why is it so unclear that freedom and self-determination are the only paths to peace when it comes to Palestine?
She stated, “The Israeli leadership must remain persona non grata (in Britain) until the end of the apartheid regime if we wish to be on the right side of history. The Hague (International Court of Justice) is the only European destination Netanyahu must visit.”
We switch from the protests that Netanyahu encountered abroad to those he encounters at home. A report by “Abe Chezman” from Beirut that was published in The Telegraph newspaper was titled “Netanyahu risks a mutiny within his party opposing judicial changes.”
The subject of the report is the firing of Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant following his insistence that contentious proposals to alter the legal system be withdrawn.
After months of widespread protests, Yoav Gallant publicly left the government coalition on Saturday and demanded an end to the judicial reform that has divided Israel and been criticized for harming its defense.
“Security services and the (IDF) are affected by the growing polarisation in our society. The state’s security is clear, immediately, and tangibly threatened by this. I won’t offer assistance with that “Added Gallant.
Senior Likud party member Yuli Edelstein stated in support of postponing the proposed court amendments to allow for discussions and evaluations on Sunday.
Although Edelstein added, “We don’t want to bury the reforms, putting them to a vote before it is obvious that there is support for them would be a risk best avoided.”
Unprecedented nationwide protests over the reform package persisted for more than three months in Israel. The Netanyahu administration also disregarded all requests to cancel the change, including one from the Israeli president, the Telegraph reported.
