| | The arrest warrant issued by a Westminster magistrate against Tzipi Livni (pictured, left, with David Miliband), the former Israeli foreign minister, for war crimes committed during Israel’s savage bombardment of Gaza in Dec 2008-Jan 2009
|
has caused a flurry of lobbying to pressure the British government to restrict the use of ‘universal jurisdiction’ from applying to Israeli officials, whether serving or former government ministers. Proving the extent to which the UK is willing to buckle to pressure from Israel and allow her officials to stand above the law, the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is said to have telephoned Livni from Copenhagen, where he is currently attending the climate change summit, to inform her that he was “completely opposed” to the issuing of the arrest warrant.
And the Jewish Chronicle reports that foreign secretary, David Miliband, writing to the Jewish Leadership Council, which raised the matter with the FCO, wrote to say:
“I am determined to protect the ties of friendship that bind the UK and Israel as well as the relations between our two governments. For those links to flourish it is critical that Israeli leaders can visit freely.”
“I can assure you that, with the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues, I am urgently reviewing what measures we need to take to stop this sort of situation arising again.”
David Miliband said in a statement: "The procedure by which arrest warrants can be sought and issued without any prior knowledge or advice by a prosecutor is an unusual feature of the system in England and Wales. The government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed in order to avoid this sort of situation arising again."
The proposed change to the law is to subject arrest warrants to the authorisation of the Attorney General. The move signals not only the manipulation of the legal process to assuage Israel, but a dangerous politicisation of the independence of the judiciary, not least given that the AG is a member of the Cabinet.
As the Guardian editorial points out:
‘Who is a prime minister, foreign secretary, or any other member of the executive to apologise for the actions of another organ of state over which they should have no control?’
The PM’s move to apologise for the Westminster court’s actions and to reassure the Israelis that it will not happen again indicates the extent to which, in standing by Israel, the government is willing to jeopardise the integrity and independence of our judicial system and our adoption of universal jurisdiction to support the victims of war crimes.
It begs the question of why our response to those terrorist groups and individuals who seek to advance their political goals outside the democratic process, by engaging in indiscriminate violence, is to reject them outright, but when it comes to state sponsored terrorism and the contempt shown by Israeli officials for international law and the legal process, our response is to adapt our legal system to suit their requirements.
George Walden, former diplomat and Conservative MP, employing the anti-Semitism ruse that is frequently brandished when the perpetrator happens to be an Israeli, writes today in The Times:
'The move to get her [Livni] arrested is part of the climate of creeping anti-Semitism in this country. We do not go in for the hard stuff yet, but whether it is subtly but relentlessly bent TV reporting of the Middle East conflict, or attempts in British universities to deny Israeli academics the freedom of expression notionally protected at the UN by countries such as Cuba or Libya, institutionalised anti-Semitism, assisted now by the law, is gaining ground.'
Walden's logic is flawed and only serves to exacerbate dissonance between those that want to see the law upheld and universally applied, irrespective of the alleged criminal’s identity, and those that want the law to discriminate in favour of Israelis.
Crying 'anti-Semitism' to evade scrutiny of Israeli officials is a disgrace to the law and misses the point that what is at issue is not a Jew or the Jewish state, but the actions of those that have abused the laws of war and deserve to be challenged and prosecuted for their crimes.
The speed with which the FCO has responded to the outcry of Israelis is in stark contrast to our own experience of correspondence with the foreign office at the height of the Gaza conflict and the murderous behaviour of Israeli soldiers. It contrasts sharply too with the UK’s fudging over the endorsement of the UN’s Goldstone Report in Geneva and New York earlier this year. The entire episode makes a mockery of our commitment to upholding international law and Baroness Kinnock’s assurance that ‘from the very start of the conflict we called for …allegations of human rights abuses and war crimes to be investigated’. Words that will be interpreted, given the Livni episode, as nothing short of pious nonsense.
Ivan Lewis, foreign office minister with responsibility for the Middle East, told Israeli TV that the arrest warrant was the result of "unintended consequences of law" and that the British government is "determined to take whatever action is necessary so that Israeli leaders can visit us at any time."
Lewis, during the Gaza conflict, attended a pro-Israel rally in Manchester where he declared "It is essential that we send a clear and responsible message from the great city of Manchester that this community stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel.”
Is adapting the British legal system to provide Israeli officials immunity from the law what Lewis meant by 'stand[ing] shoulder to shoulder with Israel'?
And of course, this is the same Lewis who castigated former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for publishing an interview with Khalid Mish'al in the New Statesman magazine saying:
“Hamas has not only breached international law by firing rockets at civilian populations in Israel but continues to violate the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza.”
Strange irony this, that the FCO should be working to protect Israeli officials from facing prosecution in British courts for breaching international law, while speaking out against crimes committed by Hamas and criticising British periodicals for carrying articles that include contributions from its officials.
As Seumas Milne points out in the Guardian today:
‘…for the British government, it seems, it isn't the compendious evidence of war crimes during the Gaza bloodletting – including the killing of civilians waving white flags, the use of human shields and white phosphorus attacks on schools – that is insufferable. It's the attempt to use the principle of universal jurisdiction Britain claims to uphold to bring to book the politicians who ordered the onslaught.’
See also Sir Geoffery Bindman, chairman of the British Institute of Human Rights, in The Independent, 'Livni has no right to claim immunity from prosecution' Update: Read the legal opinion prepared by Lord Pannick QC, of Blackstone Chambers, and sent to the Government by the Jewish Leadership Council.
|
