UK Government's alliance with Zionism
On Netanyahu's forthcoming visit to UK and appeal for his arrest
I thank the UK Government for responding to our petition. This response is now on public record and it will stand forever as irrefutable evidence of its discriminatory support for Israel and collusion in Israel's gross violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
With regard to Israel's Operation Defensive Edge, it says:
“the Prime Minister was clear on the UK’s recognition of Israel’s right to take proportionate action to defend itself, within the boundaries of international humanitarian law.”
The above statement has no relevance to what actually happened during Operation Protective Edge and it is clearly designed to divert attention from the true disproportionality of the blitz on Gaza. The Israeli violence laid waste whole city blocks and the entire world has seen ample photographic evidence of this. That the Israeli offensive was disproportionate is undeniable; OCHA (United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs), noting the enormous amount of fire-power that Israel had used against the Gaza Strip, sums it up thus:
2,205 Gaza residents were killed of whom 521 are children.
71 Israelis were killed including 66 soldiers. A security co-ordinator and four civilians. One foreign national civilian was also killed in Israel.
Over 100,000 Palestinians remain displaced.
Approximately 18,000 Palestinian housing units were either destroyed or severely damaged.
Having covered for Israel by trying to play down the disproportionality of Operation Protective Edge, the UK Government response then went on to blame Hamas, claiming that Israel had “the right to ensure its own security, as its citizens also have the right to live without fear of attack.” The Government has never acknowledged the right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves against belligerent military occupation and crippling blockade, nor has it ever admitted the right of Palestinians to “live without fear of attack”.
The response also made the preposterous claim that Hamas had “repeatedly refused to accept ceasefires”. Israel's loyal allies, including the UK Government, have succeeded in persuading the mainstream news media to report Operation Protective Edge as a justifiable Israeli response to intolerable provocation by Hamas. The record actually shows that Israel has done its best to provoke Palestinian retaliation by continually attacking the Gaza Strip, even when no Palestinian missiles have been fired.
In the lead-up to the 2014 carnage that began with serious escalations in June 2014, the record of violence over the territory that occurred in the preceding month of May is revealing. For nine days, from the 14-22 May 2014, inclusive, no Palestinian missiles were fired from the Strip, in accordance with the ceasefire agreement. On those nine days, Israel continued to enforce its economically crippling fishing zone on Gaza's coastal waters. Fishing boats were hijacked and Israeli Army and Navy gunfire and missiles wounded Palestinian fishermen and residents on farmland. After nine days, Israel finally achieved its objective and on the evening of 23 May 2014, a number of missiles were fired towards the Green Line, causing no damage. But there were more Israeli attacks to come, many more, with none of them reported by the mainstream news media. The events in May (see full account) laid the foundation for the spiralling escalation in June that, in turn, resulted in the wanton death and destruction being visited by Israel upon the people of Gaza known as Operation Protective Edge. Had Israel used the nine days of Palestinian ceasefire to reinforce the suspension of violence, it could then have gone on to end the blockade of Gaza altogether.
This year alone, there have been over 500 Israeli Gaza ceasefire violations as opposed to three by the Palestinian resistance. The Palestinian death toll from Israeli ceasefire violations up to date now totals six, with 29 wounded. The cost to Palestinian agriculture and the Gaza fishing industry of Israeli attacks is devastating.
The response then went on to admit that:
“The UK is a close friend of Israel and we enjoy an excellent bilateral relationship, built on decades of cooperation between our two countries across a range of fields.”
Well that alliance is undeniable, of course, and very profitable for the UK arms industry. In thrall to Zionist ideology, the UK Government could not even feign a degree of friendship towards the Palestinian people in its response – “close” or otherwise. One year on from the latest Gaza massacre, the UK Government has lifted its remaining restrictions on weaponry it admits may have been used by Israel in the 2014 Gaza offensive.
The UK Government's response to petitioners ended with the claim that:
“Our priority for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the achievement of a two-state solution, based on 1967 borders. We continue to believe that negotiations will be necessary in order to achieve this, and that both parties need to focus on steps that are conducive to peace.”
The requirement that a people, who are living and dying under belligerent military occupation, should have to negotiate directly with the occupying power to achieve their liberty is an indefensible injustice. The insistence upon the necessity of the so-called 'peace process' not only ignores glaring historical realities but also turns a blind eye to the ideological objectives of the occupying power – Israel. In law, a contract is unenforceable where the terms are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favour of the party which has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. What is there about belligerent military occupation that could possibly demonstrate 'good conscience'? The negotiations process has served Israel well, buying it time to seize ever more territory and illegally transfer more of its population into occupied territory. Of course, the UK Government is well aware of this. It would appear that governments and politicians who avoid such questions of principle also have difficulty themselves in demonstrating good conscience.