The fan is rotating rapidly and the shit is spreading fast. Old policies have collapsed and policy makers are still talking incoherent nonsense.

Events are moving too rapidly to keep up and I need to catch up before keeping up.

But here’s a quick preview of my tentative opinions on what must be done, right now.

1. Somebody has to run Gaza, not just for humanitarian relief, but exercising a “Responsibility To Protect” in what is currently a “Failed State”.
2. Whoever does take responsibility will need both money and guns. Lots of money and lots of guns.
3. The only plausible candidate is the European Union, and in particular the two former colonial powers that still have a military capability to launch an expeditionary force and govern an interim civil administration in a foreign country – France and Britain.
4. They will need to use their navies to break the blockade of Gaza and protect humanitarian workers entering both by sea and by land from Egypt. The Gaza coast does not have adequate ports so floating docks will need to be used. They are not going to fight their way in against Israel. So it has to be from the coast and from Egypt. It is up to the fascist regime in Egypt and the ultra-Zionist apartheid regime occupying Palestine whether they want to fight the military escorts of a humanitarian relief intervention.
5. Both Egypt and Israel have blockaded unarmed relief convoys. That is a war crime and a crime against humanity. There is no point negotiating with the war criminals. Dealing with it requires a well armed escort. Those forces must be assembled now and must be sufficiently large that their opponents choose to just complain instead of fighting.
6. The costs will have to be shared widely. Negotiations about that will take time. So Britain and France are stuck with having to act immediately and collect compensation later. Delay will cost each of them more as well as costing the rest of the world more.
7. They are currently bogged down in negotiations with other countries that are basically irrelevant. Whatever discussions are held with the US and Israel may or may not eventually prove useful but obviously cannot speed up assembling a functional intervention force. Likewise for Egypt and other Arab states.
8. A short, sharp decision is required to break through the fog and make it clear to the world that the cavalry is actually on the way.

Lawyers?

1. Not my preference for making things happen quickly. But necessary in the current confusion.
2. The UN and EU will be central to long term funding and progress from the interim administration of Gaza towards a democratic administration of both Gaza and the West bank and later, for long term solutions affecting the entire region. France and Britain will require a legal framework for their operations.
3. But instead of delaying things while sorting out the legalities, lawyers should be used to cut through the confusion.

Indict the war criminals NOW

1. The systematic mass slaughter of civilians is not just a “war crime” it is also a “crime against humanity”. That is a legal term of art which confers “Universal Jurisdiction”. The domestic courts of any country can exercise jurisdiction to prevent and punish such crimes, without regard to the territory or nationality of either the victims or perpetrators.
2. Lawyers in countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and Spain could file charges within days. Getting to trial could take years. But the charges could and should be filed NOW.
3. Charging both the leadership of Hamas and the Israeli war cabinet with the notorious war crimes the whole world knows they have flagrantly committed could cut through the confusion.
4. While Britain and France get on with interim administration and protection of Gaza from both lots of war criminals, people delaying things with “noise” about who started it and elaborate explanations of why the mass slaughter of civilians is justified can just be told to submit their arguments to the courts that are trying the cases against the people they are defending.

As background information for above I am relying heavily on the following source, which I strongly recommend to others and should already be familiar to Australian journalists:

Excerpt from CNN interview of US National Security Advisor 17:50-25:35

Cut through the waffle

There is no obligation to condemn either side for anything. Such arguments only delay carrying out the clear obligations every country is under.

The obligation is to prevent and punish. That requires armed intervention NOW.

The defences must be heard at fair trials – after the crime has been stopped. The charges must be laid immediately to speed up stopping the crime. The shouting merely confirms there is a case to be tried.

Enough with the wimpy calls for a ceasefire.

Protests must explicitly demand armed intervention. The charges must be filed now to speed that up.

More legal background:

GENEVA (16 November 2023) – Grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making, UN experts said today. They illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation”, loud calls for a ‘second Nakba’ in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.

Statement from UN rapporteurs warning risk of genocide requires immediate prevention – November 16

Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan KC from Cairo on the situation in the State of Palestine and Israel | International Criminal Court – October 30

1948 Convention imposing duty to intervene and prevent genocide in force as international law binding on all States since 1951

Article I The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article III The following acts shall be punishable:

( a ) Genocide;

( b ) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

( c ) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

( d ) Attempt to commit genocide;

( e ) Complicity in genocide.

Article III ( c ) is key to the obligation to prevent, by imposing punishment before the direct public incitement becomes an actual attempt.

Any competent criminal lawyer should be able to collate the direct and public statements by Israeli cabinet ministers and military commanders that are punishable by the courts of any country. Their consuls and other representatives abroad may be more cautious in their language but that should be carefully checked. There is no diplomatic immunity from charges under the Genocide Convention.

I think it is likely the trials would be transferred to the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute

But the charges should be filed in local courts of as many countries as possible, NOW.

While falling short of genocide, the existing levels of systematic mass slaughter of civilians and other crimes are also sufficient to invoke “universal jurisdiction” as “crimes against humanity”.

Charging both sides immediately could significantly speed up the necessary and inevitable intervention.

In Australia the Criminal Code Act 1995 confers external jurisdiction for “Offences against humanity and related offences” in Chapter 8 of the Criminal Code (in Volume 2), especially Division 268.

Actual prosecution in Australia requires a decision by the Attorney-General:

268.121 ( c ) However, a person may be arrested, charged, remanded in custody, or released on bail, in connection with an offence under this Division before the necessary consent has been given.

If the Attorney-General gets in the way of complying with Australia’s obligations under international law, the rather limp attempt at a privation clause in s268.122 to exclude judicial review would not inhibit the:

Original jurisdiction of High Court

In all matters:

1. arising under any treaty;
2. affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries;

Constitution of Australia, s75