Sea Swimmer

.@MikeTappTweets, nine questions. Each yes or no. 1) Did the International Criminal Court issue arrest warrants on 21 November 2024 against Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare? Yes or no. 2) Is the United Kingdom a state party to the Rome Statute, legally obligated to arrest Netanyahu if he enters British territory? Yes or no. 3) Has the UK government continued to license arms exports to the State of Israel since those warrants were issued? Yes or no. 4) Has the UK government continued diplomatic and political cooperation with the government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu since those warrants were issued? Yes or no. 5) Does the United Kingdom's existing criminal legislation, including the International Criminal Court Act 2001, contain offences applicable to those who provide assistance to persons under ICC arrest warrant for war crimes? Yes or no. 6) Could a UK government minister who has personally and publicly endorsed the continuation of arms exports and political cooperation with a government headed by an ICC indictee face individual legal exposure under those same provisions? Yes or no. 7) Is it the case, as documented by the Campaign Against Arms Trade and Transparency International UK, that the United Kingdom maintains an extensive and ongoing revolving door between government and the arms industry, including the movement of former ministers and senior Ministry of Defence officials into companies that profit from continued UK arms exports to the State of Israel? Yes or no. 8) Does Section 53 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 require the consent of the Attorney General, a political officer of the government, before any prosecution under that Act can be brought? Yes or no. 9) Does the availability of procedural or constitutional defences to government ministers acting in their official capacity alter the underlying factual conduct of those ministers? Yes or no. If the answer to each of the above is yes, the following should be happening under the United Kingdom's own legal and policy framework. The Strategic Export Licensing Criteria requires the government not to issue or maintain licences where there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. The government has already made that assessment for around thirty licences. The ICC arrest warrants, and the charges they contain, materially strengthen the case that this risk applies more broadly. Full suspension of the remaining relevant licences is the only position consistent with the UK's own published rules. Continued authorisation of exports in these circumstances also raises serious questions about potential ancillary liability under the International Criminal Court Act 2001. An investigation by the Attorney General into ministerial decision-making, with knowledge of the ICC warrants, would be the appropriate next step. Parliament has a duty to hold individual ministers to account for these decisions. None of this is happening. Tell us, Tapp, why none of this is happening?

Join the "One Million Voices for the Free of Hussam Abu Safieh" campaign. Reply with 🇵🇸 or even a dot.

For those who are interested, there are 64,600 orphaned children in the Gaza Strip, and 22,000 children were killed during the war of extermination. If you're passing by... just drop a dot