Lord Cameron says Israel is and isn't committing war crimes

The foreign secretary was remarkably coherent

David Cameron, who was made a lord so he could return to government when Rishi Sunak couldn’t find enough MPs to fill his cabinet, and was put under investigation for tax evasion while serving as foreign secretary, proved he is one of the finest legal minds in the country yesterday.

Among many highlights, Lord Cameron accidentally admitted Israel committed a war crime, after refusing to say if they are breaching international humanitarian law; said it’s not his job to make a judgement on whether a genocide is taking place, even though it is his job to make that call; explained he is unable to say if it’s Israeli policy to demolish Gaza, but he’s supplying the weapons regardless; admitted he’s concerned Israel may have broken international humanitarian law, but it’s totally wrong for South Africa to take action at the International Court of Justice. I don’t know about you, but I think these are perfectly coherent positions that show the kind of leadership we need during an international crisis.

Yesterday, Lord Cameron was asked questions in parliament by a bunch of people I didn’t recognise who were probably MPs or something. One know-it-all human rights fanatic asked if government lawyers have told the foreign secretary Israel is in breach of international humanitarian law and Lord Cameron gave this super-convincing answer:

“Well, I’m going to give the exact same answer all over again, um, which is what my role is, right.”

There was a little back and forth and Lord Cameron was asked:

“So you’ve never had a piece of paper put in front of you from a foreign office lawyer that said Israel is in breach of […] international humanitarian law?”

“Um, look [exhausted sigh] I, I [shakes head] the reason I don’t want to answer this question is I can’t recall every single piece of paper that’s been put in front of me.”

Yes, Lord Cameron of Greensill really went with the defence that he can’t remember if lawyers advised that the people he is sending weapons to might be doing a “genocide” (sorry for the legal jargon). It’s one of those minor details that’s incredibly easy to forget when you have important things to focus on like making lots of money.

In Lord Cameron’s defence, he is deeply concerned that Jeffrey Epstein might have recorded him getting intimate with a pig and he was simply protecting himself by looking like a useless dickhead. This really was the lesser of two humiliations.

Lord Cameron was asked what the UK’s current legal position is on whether Gaza is occupied (sorry for the jargon again) and he explained:

“Um, our position is that, um, [unintelligible mumbling] Israel is, um, fighting a campaign against Hamas. We have to check regularly whether that is in compliance with international humanitarian law and assess that. Um, I don’t think Israel regards itself as an occupying force, but whether that is correct, I would want to take legal advice because I think this comes to this issue of aid where I think Israel needs to do more, a lot more, to get more aid into Gaza which perhaps we can come onto.”

Wasn’t that brilliant? In one fumbling paragraph, Lord Cameron admitted he has a legal obligation to take advice on whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law, but that he hasn’t bothered to take that advice, presumably because he wouldn’t like the answer.

Unfortunately, the annoying human rights fanatic wouldn’t leave Lord Cameron alone and for some reason, security didn’t remove her from parliament.

“Forgive me, we know that Israel does not consider itself to be an occupying power, but British law currently does consider Gaza to be an occupied territory. Can you just confirm that on the record?”

Thankfully, Lord Cameron expertly dodged the question by admitting he doesn’t know the most basic details about the thing it’s his job as foreign secretary to be an expert on.

“I, I, don’t know the precise legal definition of that. I’d have to go back and check.”

“I think we all know that the foreign office does know what the official legal position is.”

“We refer to them as the occupied Palestinian territories, um, but obviously Gaza was left by Israel, um, but I think the question you’re asking now is what Israel’s done, is that technically an occupation and therefore they have [unintelligible]. The point I would make is, look, whether or not they are de facto occupying Gaza and therefore when it comes to this issue of aid delivery, we need them to do more.”

That was as perfectly articulated a legal position as I’ve ever heard. It’s like Lord Cameron was reading from a script written in crayon by world-renowned intellectual Liz Truss. You would think such a fine answer would make the interrogators give up, but sadly not.

At one point during the interrogation, a man who sounded horribly Scottish scared the life out of me when he jumped into the conversation:

“Isn’t turning water off and having the ability to turn it back on but choosing not to, isn’t that a breach of international humanitarian law?”

“It’s just something that they ought to do in my view.”

“Of course they should do it! Every human being would say you don’t cut people’s water supply off, but I’m asking […] if Israel has the power to turn the water back on that they turned off, surely that is a flagrant breach of international humanitarian law?”

“Well, I’m not a lawyer.”

I don’t know about you, but I think the “I don’t know how to do my job” approach is proving highly effective. It’s surprisingly hard to reply to a person who keeps telling you they don’t know the answer. It’s like trying to win a debate with your dog who just wants to bark at pigeons. Just look at this exchange:

“What assessment have you made of the Israeli ambassador’s claim that every school, mosque, and every second house in Gaza has access to tunnels and ammunition? Now she said that in a television interview, and when pressed on whether that means the complete destruction of Gaza by Israel, she said, and I quote, ‘Do you have another solution?’

“So in your opinion, was she freelancing when she was speaking to that television interviewer, or was she speaking for the Israeli government?”

“I don’t agree with that approach, um, look, if you’re asking-”

“I’m not asking you about the approach, I’m asking do you think she was speaking for the Israeli government or was she freelancing?”

“I don’t know.”

You will be reassured to know that although our foreign secretary has no idea if our ally is planning for the total destruction of another country, he is going to supply the bombs anyway.

Lord Cameron was unreasonably asked to remember something from when he had the minor role of prime minister a whopping ten years ago:

“During the hostilities in 2014 in Gaza, your government decided to review licences for arms exports to Israel and you committed not to grant any further licences until hostilities were ceased.

“Why has there been no review, cessation, pause, despite the fact there should be an automatic trigger that exists within the department to immediately suspend when there’s a significant change on the ground?”

“Well, the way this works, as I’m sure you know, is that th-the grant of licences is-is done by the department of trade on the advice of the foreign office, and the foreign office has to look at, um, compliance with international humanitarian law based on an assessment of the, um, commitment that Israel has, the, um, capability that they have and they actually deliver on this capability and their compliance and that assessment is carried out on the sort of rolling basis and it is sort of permanently reviewed and were the circumstances to change and us to reach a different view, we’d have advised the department of trade accordingly.”

Okay, I’m going to level with you, I have absolutely no idea what Lord Cameron of Greensill said there, but thankfully, the interrogation moved on so he could focus on the real villain of the story: South Africa.

The foreign secretary was asked about South Africa’s legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and he said:

“I don't think that is helpful. I don't agree with it. I don't think it's right. I don’t think we should bandy around terms like genocide in this case.

“That doesn’t change our long-standing position that it’s ultimately for the courts to define genocide, not for states.”

Mr “I’m not a lawyer” was suddenly confident enough in his legal expertise that the country he wasn’t sure was breaching international humanitarian law with its clear violations of international humanitarian law is definitely not committing a genocide and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong so it’s fine for him to keep sending bombs to help continue the not-a-genocide.

Are you convinced? I’m convinced.

Under the Genocide Convention it is incumbent on states to decide when a genocide is taking place and then take action to stop that genocide. But Lord Cameron’s position is to take action against the state that took action to stop the not-a-genocide which means he is going above and beyond what international law expects of him. What a hero x

---

Thank you so much for letting me vent! If you enjoyed this article, you can buy me a coffee below or simply share this article with a friend. It helps me more than you realise x