<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-top-anchor"></div>
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" lang="en-US" dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<a class="gmail-domain gmail-reader-domain" href="https://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/21/craig-murray-medhurst-the-right-to-armed-resistance/">consortiumnews.com</a>
<div class="gmail-domain-border"></div>
<h1 class="gmail-reader-title">Craig Murray: Medhurst & the Right to Armed Resistance</h1>
<div class="gmail-credits gmail-reader-credits"></div>
<div class="gmail-meta-data">
<div class="gmail-reader-estimated-time" dir="ltr">August 21, 2024<br></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><div>
<p><strong><span>It is legal in U.K. law to support Israel’s
genocidal and illegal acts of colonial occupation, but illegal in U.K.
law to support Palestine’s legal acts of armed resistance to colonial
and racist occupation.</span></strong><br>
<span><span id="gmail-more-116647"></span></span></p>
<div id="gmail-attachment_116655" class="gmail-wp-caption"><p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-116655" src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-08-20-at-5.29.54-PM.png" alt="" width="396" height="221" class="gmail-moz-reader-block-img" style="margin-right: 0px;"></p><p id="gmail-caption-attachment-116655" class="gmail-wp-caption-text"><span>Richie Medhurst on his X feed on Aug. 19, 2024, announcing details of his arrest. <span>(X)</span></span></p></div>
<p><span><strong>By </strong><a href="https://consortiumnews.com/tag/craig-murray/"><span><strong>Craig Murray</strong></span><span><br>
</span></a><em><a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/08/we-are-the-bad-guys/"><span>CraigMurray.org.uk</span></a></em></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><strong>W</strong></span>e were waiting for Richard Medhurst to arrive and join our panel at the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful_Days_(festival)#"><span>Beautiful Days festival</span></a><span>, when he was arrested and imprisoned for 23.5 hours last Thursday. Obviously we were all worried sick about him.</span></span></p>
<p><span>It is now becoming easier to list the truly dissident U.K.
journalists who have not been arrested for terrorism than those who
have! This fascist ploy of labeling journalists as terrorists is
incredible. </span></p>
<p><span><span>Richard’s case is slightly different to that of other
journalists including myself, John Laughland, Vanessa Beeley, Johanna
Ross, Kit Klarenberg and many more to suffer the same treatment, in that
Richard was specifically held under </span><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12"><span>Section 12</span></a><span> of the Terrorism Act — which outlaws support for a proscribed organisation.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Yes, you are reading that right. You can go to jail for 14 years for <strong>e</strong></span><b>xpressing an opinion</b><span> in support of a proscribed organisation.</span></span></p>
<p><a href="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Terror-Act-terms.png"><img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Terror-Act-terms.png" alt="" width="396" height="299" class="gmail-moz-reader-block-img" style="margin-right: 0px;"></a></p>
<p><span><strong>UK v. International Law</strong></span></p>
<p><span>We now have an extraordinary conflict between U.K. domestic law and international law. </span></p>
<p><span><span>The International Court of Justice has just last month </span><a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf"><span>stated definitively</span></a><span> to the U.N. General Assembly that the Israeli occupation is illegal and it is the duty of states not to support it.</span></span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span><span>“Moreover, the Court considers that, in view of the
character and importance of the rights and obligations involved, all
States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation
arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or
assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal
presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. </span></span></p>
<p><span><span>It is for all States, while respecting the Charter of the
United Nations and international law, to ensure that any impediment
resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its
right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the
States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation,
while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international
law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law
as embodied in that Convention</span><i><span>.”</span></i></span></p>
</blockquote>
<div id="gmail-attachment_116018" class="gmail-wp-caption"><p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-116018" src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-08-08-at-12.06.42-PM.png" alt="" width="396" height="222" class="gmail-moz-reader-block-img" style="margin-right: 0px;"></p><p id="gmail-caption-attachment-116018" class="gmail-wp-caption-text"><span>Members
of the International Court of Justice on July 19, the day they
delivered they opinion on the legality of Israeli policies and practices
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. <span>(ICJ)</span></span></p></div>
<p><span>Yet it is perfectly legal in U.K. domestic law for Zionists to
state that they support the Israeli Defence Force and they hope that the
IDF kill every Palestinian in Gaza. </span></p>
<p><span>Indeed Zionists state this all the time, supporting an action
that is entirely illegal in international law, and no action is ever
taken against these Zionists by the U.K. state.</span></p>
<p><span>Members of the IDF who have actually participated in the genocide are able to come and live in the U.K. unmolested.</span></p>
<p><span>In stark contrast to the illegal acts of the occupying power,
the Palestinian people do have the right of armed resistance in
international law. </span></p>
<p><span>This right is founded on the right of self-determination in the
U.N. Charter and is encapsulated in the First Protocol of the Geneva
Convention (1977) Article 1 Para 4:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span><span>“The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph
include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial
domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the
exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the
Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of
International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Yet under U.K. law it is legal to express support for the
completely illegal operations of the IDF (illegal even without
considering the question of Genocide!) while it is illegal to express
support for completely legal acts of resistance by certain Palestinian
groups.</span></p>
<p><span>Let me spell this out again. </span></p>
<p><span>It is legal in U.K. law to support Israel’s genocidal and
illegal acts of colonial occupation, but illegal in U.K. law to support
Palestine’s legal acts of armed resistance to colonial and racist
occupation.</span></p>
<p><span>The Protocol to the Geneva Convention makes clear that those
engaged in armed resistance against occupation are both entitled to the
same humanitarian protections, and obliged to respect the same
humanitarian law, as other combatants.</span></p>
<p><span>There is a fascinating twist here from the days when Robin Cook
was foreign secretary and I was deputy head of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office’s Africa Department. In 1998 the First Protocol of
the Geneva Convention was incorporated into U.K. law, and the United
Kingdom made a very telling reservation. </span></p>
<p><span>British law stipulates that the First Protocol’s recognition
that a person not wearing uniform may still be a lawful combatant, and
entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Convention provided he
carries his arms openly, applies it only in occupied territory or when
engaged in fighting colonial or racist occupation.</span></p>
<p><span>Let us look at that more closely. </span></p>
<p><span><span>Schedule H of the U.K. Geneva Conventions Act </span><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/1754/made"><span>(First Protocol) Order 1998</span></a><span> states that </span></span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span><i><span>“</span></i><span>ARTICLE 44, paragraph 3</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>It is the understanding of the United Kingdom that:</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>the situation in the second sentence of paragraph 3 can
only exist in occupied territory or in armed conflicts covered by
paragraph 4 of Article 1;”</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Which means that this provision of the First Protocol:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span><span>“Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed
conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed
combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a
combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms
openly:</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>(a) During each military engagement, and</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary
while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of
an attack in which he is to participate.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span>Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered </span><i><span>as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).”</span></i></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span><span>Only applies </span><b>in U.K. law</b><span> where:</span></span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span><span>“The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph
include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial
domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the
exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the
Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of
International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span><span>So, and it is absolutely important this is understood,
the right to fight against colonial domination and alien occupation and
against racist regimes is not only an absolute right in international
law, </span><b>it is also a specific right in U.K. law.</b></span></p>
<p><span>And U.K. law further specifically recognises that when fighting
colonial domination, alien occupations and a racist regime you do not
have to wear uniform.</span></p>
<p><span>Applying this to Oct. 7 means that those armed Palestinian
combatants who were not members of a proscribed organisation (see below)
were engaged in legal armed struggle in terms of U.K. law, provided
they respected international humanitarian law in so doing. </span></p>
<div id="gmail-attachment_101435" class="gmail-wp-caption"><p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-101435" src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Isr_vs_pla_war.jpg" alt="" width="396" height="297" class="gmail-moz-reader-block-img" style="margin-right: 0px;"></p><p id="gmail-caption-attachment-101435" class="gmail-wp-caption-text"><span>Hamas rocket attack from Gaza into Israel, Oct. 7, 2023. <span>(Tasnim News Agency, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0)</span></span></p></div>
<p><span>Which makes the recent clarifications that the majority of
civilian casualties were killed by the IDF and that the mass rapes and
beheaded babies stories were a total fabrication, still more important.</span></p>
<p><span>Every colonial or racist power that has ever faced armed
resistance has always characterised the native peoples resisting as
“terrorists,” “savages” or similar. Asymmetric warfare is by nature
unconventional. The systematic and often legalised atrocities of the
coloniser will indeed often spark uncontrolled acts of rage that rightly
fall outside what international humanitarian law will condone.</span></p>
<p><span>So we now have the situation that Richard Medhurst is arrested
for allegedly supporting armed resistance that is not only undeniably
legal in international law but is also specifically legal in British
law.</span></p>
<p><span>The source of this conundrum is the extraordinarily arbitrary power of proscribing an organisation.</span></p>
<p><span>Now to proscribe an organisation the government does not have
to prove its actions were illegal, either under international law or
U.K. law. An organisation is proscribed simply on the basis that the
government says so.</span></p>
<p><span>If the government proscribed the Girl Guides, you could get up
to 14 years in jail for expressing support for the Girl Guides, and no
amount of argument in court that the Girl Guides is not in fact a
terrorist organisation would help you.</span></p>
<p><span>Hamas and Hezbollah are acting legally in U.K. law in terms of
the Geneva Convention First Protocol Order of 1998, but expressing
support for them is nevertheless illegal because the proscription of an
organisation is an entirely arbitrary power of the executive.</span></p>
<div id="gmail-attachment_104913" class="gmail-wp-caption"><p><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-104913" src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/mandela.jpeg" alt="" width="396" height="264" class="gmail-moz-reader-block-img" style="margin-right: 0px;"></p><p id="gmail-caption-attachment-104913" class="gmail-wp-caption-text"><span>Nelson Mandela statue outside the Union Buildings in Pretoria. <span>(South African Tourism, Flickr, CC BY 2.0)</span></span></p></div>
<p><span>When I ran the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices</span><span>’s
South Africa political desk in 1985, it was the firm position of the
Thatcher government that the ANC was a terrorist organisation and that
Nelson Mandela was rightly and correctly imprisoned as a terrorist.</span></p>
<p><span>The notion that governments can fairly and impartially designate “terrorists” is very obviously nuts.</span></p>
<p><span>It is important to add that this analysis of the legal position
in no way implies that I do, or do not, approve of Hamas or Hezbollah.
In general I am not in favour of mixing the state and religion, so I
come from a very different place and have my criticisms.</span></p>
<p><span>But it is also important not to be scared to state that the
proscription of Hamas as a terrorist organisation does not align with
the U.K. legal position in the First Protocol Order that specifically
recognises the right of an occupied people to armed resistance. </span></p>
<p><span>It also causes great confusion. It is, for example, only the
military wing of Hamas that is a proscribed organisation. So far as I
can tell, it would not be illegal to state that Hamas did a very good
job of running Gaza’s schools and hospitals. </span></p>
<p><span>But it is very difficult to be sure — the law and its application are arbitrary and not forseeable.</span></p>
<p><span>When I stood for election in Blackburn, I had the specific
endorsement of the Palestinian Foreign Ministry which had been engaged
with the South African delegation in the ICJ Genocide case against
Israel at the Hague.</span></p>
<p><span>I was then also (unsolicited) offered the endorsement of Hamas.
This caused some head-scratching and I consulted an eminent lawyer. He
advised that while it would be illegal for me to endorse Hamas, it would
not be illegal for Hamas to endorse me. </span></p>
<p><span>Particularly so if it came from the political and not the military wing.</span></p>
<p><span>I thought this sounded great fun, but perhaps not great enough
fun for me to spend several years of my life fighting the case from
inside a prison cell. So I did not take up the offer.</span></p>
<p><span>Any law which states you can be jailed for 14 years simply for
expressing an opinion is a very bad law, no matter what that opinion may
be. </span></p>
<p><span>To use such arbitrary power to seek to silence those who are
opposing a most dreadful genocide, is the action of an over-mighty state
led by evil people. </span></p>
<p><span>I think it is most important that we are not silenced. Hence
this article. Most of my friends are advising me I should travel abroad
for a while once again, and I am trying to make up my mind about this. I
should be grateful for your views. </span></p>
<p><span>The U.K. is plainly not a safe place for political dissidents.</span></p>
<p><span>The reason for this galloping authoritarianism is of course
panic by the political class that they have lost popular consent,
particularly for Zionism in view of the appalling genocide in plain view
by the terrorist settler state.</span></p>
<p><span><b>Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights
activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to
October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. </b><b>Subscriptions to keep this blog going are </b><a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/support-this-website/"><b>gratefully received</b></a><b>.</b></span></p>
<p><span><span>This article is from </span><a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/"><span>CraigMurray.org.uk</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<p><span><i><span>The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of </span></i><strong>Consortium News<i>.</i></strong></span></p>
<p><span></span> <span>Post Views:</span> <span>4,147</span>
</p> </div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>