The British prime minister's argument, made while representing Croatia at the ICJ in 2014, prompts further scrutiny of his position on Gaza

Last week, Starmer was asked in parliament to share his definition of genocide and to outline what action he was taking to save the lives of people in Gaza.

In response, he said he was "well aware of the definition of genocide" and that this explains why he has "never described or referred to [the situation in Gaza] as genocide".

As a human rights lawyer, Starmer was part of the legal team representing Croatia before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a case where both Serbia and Croatia accused each other of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In his 2014 speech before the court, Starmer made the same arguments that people today use to describe Israel's conduct in Gaza as genocide.

The total death toll in the Serbia-Croatia conflict of 1991-1995 was 20,000 people, mostly Croatians

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    ·
    2 days ago

    The ultimate goal is for their governments to recognize the genocide convention and immediately halt arms shipments to Israel. Primarily the US, the UK and Germany.

    I do agree. But I also think these countries never will because it's not in their interests to do so.

    The more of this evidence comes to light the more obvious it becomes to the layman their government is lying through their teeth.

    I also fear that the layman doesn't give a shit either. If they did, MPs would be flooded with complaints 24/7 until the genocide was admitted and stopped. But as it happens people are more concerned about getting on the housing ladder and farmers trying to save inheritance tax.

    Again, I wish it weren't the case but it is. And I'm sorry there's not a more palatable answer to this. It fucking sucks 😞.