The story concerning the potential arrest of Tzipi Livni is unravelling. Unable to keep quiet Hamas brag of their involvement.

Diya al-Madhun, head of a Hamas committee, boasted:

“We provide documents, reports and evidence of crimes to all international bodies aiding the Palestinian people in bringing Israeli civilian and military leaders to trial and issuing warrants for their arrest,”

“We have provided a group of independent lawyers in Britain with documents, information and evidence concerning war crimes committed by Israeli political and military leaders, including (Tzipi) Livni.”

Now we should not imply that the British lawyers are colluding with Hamas, but it is a bit rich of Hamas to complain about human rights, lest we forget:

• Hamas staged a coup d’etat in Gaza in June 2007.
• Hamas shot and killed Fatah members in Gaza.
• Hamas threw a handcuffed Fatah cook off of a building, killing him.
• Hamas have indulged in torture and recriminations against political opponents.
• Hamas have attacked striking teachers.
• Hamas went on a fundraising mission to the Arab states.
• Hamas spent sordidly needed money on building up their military capacity.
• Hamas had continued to allow or organise rockets to be fired at Israeli civilians, which is a war crime.

There’s that and a lot more. I would hope that the British lawyers would know about Hamas, but in case they don’t here’s a clip from the Hamas covenant:

”With their money they [Jews] stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.”

Or

”The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

Yes, that’s right. Hamas believe that Jews are behind the French and Russian Revolutions.

Not only that, but Hamas are convinced that Jews started the First World War to break up the Ottoman Empire, and instigated WW2 to make money. Also, that Jews control the media and world finance. All basically antisemitic filth, that any neo-Nazi would feel happy with, that’s what Hamas believe.

I just wonder how these British lawyers reconciled themselves assisting to a genocidal antisemitic organisation, Hamas?

PS: Lest we are told that Hamas have changed and don’t really hate Jews, perhaps those British lawyers would like to explain away the Holocaust revisionism recently pushed by a Hamas leader?

Livni War Criminal Edna Spennato 2008.

Photomontage made on 28 December 2008.

Click on image to enlarge

Originally published at Auntie Ziona as We Give our Light to Gaza on Hanukkah Shabbat

Also published at these links: Tlaxcala, Kenny’s Sideshow, Uprooted Palestinians, The People’s Voice.

HOME

Almanar

21/12/2009 Hamas admits to being behind the legal proceedings initiated in Europe in which arrest warrants were issued for Israeli public figures for committing war crimes.

The British newspaper The Times spoke with Diya al-Din Madhoun, who heads the Hamas committee set up to coordinate the campaign, in occupied Jerusalem.

About a week ago, an arrest warrant was issued against Israeli Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni, who served as foreign minister during Operation Cast Lead that killed more than 1400 Palestinians, including 420 children and injured over 5300 others. It seemed as if the effort to put Israeli leaders on trial was continuing full force ahead. Madhoun told the Times, “All the political and military leaders of the occupation in our sights”, although he did not specify its future targets. “This has absolutely become our policy,” he said.

The Hamas committee, which was formed after Operation Cast Lead, is composed of legalists and experts. The team put together 1,500 cases in just a few months and has encouraged victims to submit complaints against Israeli leaders in countries like Britain, Spain, Belgium, and Norway.

Their objective is to facilitate between these victims of crimes and the legal institutions of Europe, which could help file complaints. “We do this as a government trying to protect our people and prevent these massacres from recurring,” said Madhoun.

“These reports show that it is not human rights that drive these suits but an anti-Israeli campaign at the service of Hamas,” Yigal Palmor, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said.

Hamas Aiding Foreign Lawyers Trying to prosecute Israelis

 Uprooted Palestinian

Almanar

21/12/2009 Hamas admits to being behind the legal proceedings initiated in Europe in which arrest warrants were issued for Israeli public figures for committing war crimes.

The British newspaper The Times spoke with Diya al-Din Madhoun, who heads the Hamas committee set up to coordinate the campaign, in occupied Jerusalem.

About a week ago, an arrest warrant was issued against Israeli Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni, who served as foreign minister during Operation Cast Lead that killed more than 1400 Palestinians, including 420 children and injured over 5300 others. It seemed as if the effort to put Israeli leaders on trial was continuing full force ahead. Madhoun told the Times, “All the political and military leaders of the occupation in our sights”, although he did not specify its future targets. “This has absolutely become our policy,” he said.

The Hamas committee, which was formed after Operation Cast Lead, is composed of legalists and experts. The team put together 1,500 cases in just a few months and has encouraged victims to submit complaints against Israeli leaders in countries like Britain, Spain, Belgium, and Norway.

Their objective is to facilitate between these victims of crimes and the legal institutions of Europe, which could help file complaints. “We do this as a government trying to protect our people and prevent these massacres from recurring,” said Madhoun.

“These reports show that it is not human rights that drive these suits but an anti-Israeli campaign at the service of Hamas,” Yigal Palmor, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said.

Hamas Aiding Foreign Lawyers Trying to prosecute Israelis

 Uprooted Palestinian

English courts issuing an arrest warrant for Israel’s former Foreign Minister, then defining for its Jews who shall and shall not be one of their number. Just another week for the Jews of England.

These decisions were so short-sighted – not to say absurd, discriminatory, and even dangerous – that they don’t merit my time (though Melanie Phillips is always worth a read). And then readers of melchett mike will ask why I choose to live in Israel!

True, this blog highlights often disagreeable excesses of life here. But they are also largely comical. And I certainly wouldn’t swap them for life back in Blighty, which is proving even less ‘my’ country than I had already thought.

Then, in the early hours of Friday morning, to cap off another wonderful week for European Jewry, Auschwitz’s “Arbeit Macht Frei” sign (right) was half-inched.

Without questioning the sign’s symbolic import, some of the immediate Israeli reactions to the theft struck me as more than a little exaggerated or, at the very least, over-hasty. One of Israel’s Deputy Prime Ministers (we need two just in case one feels an irresistible urge to embezzle or to rape a member of staff), Silvan Shalom, said it was “an abominable act” that “demonstrates once again hatred and violence against Jews”, while Director of Yad Vashem (Holocaust memorial), Avner Shalev, went as far as to brand it “a true declaration of war”.

Am I alone in cringing when I hear such knee-jerk pronouncements? And if they sound extreme and ill-conceived to me, what must the average non-Jew make of them? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t give a hoot what anti-Semites think about us, but why invite ridicule amongst right-thinking people who have no such propensity?

Did Shalom or Shalev even stop to consider that the sign might well have been nicked by a couple of Polish vodka louts? That would not have excused the act, of course, but it would have deeply impacted on its significance. (Indeed, early questioning of the five suspects arrested late last night suggests that they did not have racial or political motives. And I am not being wise after the event – I wrote this on Saturday.)

Still, you have to commend the efforts of the Polish police to recover the sign. They offered 5,000 zloty – equivalent to $1,700 or £1,050 – for information leading to its return. In spite of the sum not being too being too far off Poland’s GDP, there were reports of down-and-outs across southern Poland being overheard discussing whether the reward merited an afternoon off from collecting empty bottles of Żubrówka.

You’ve gotta love the Poles.

Anyway, for anyone who was more concerned about a piece of wrought iron (for which a replica already existed) than the far-reaching ramifications of last week’s Court decisions for Anglo – and, in the case of Tzipi Livni, world – Jewry, might I humbly suggest that they give their priorities a little rethink.

One of the side benefits to blogging is seeing someone take an idea or thought and doing it real justice, expressing it in a fashion that it deserves, with lucidity and a certain pointed edge, so I was very pleased to read IsraeliNurse’s recent post at CiF Watch pointing out the weaknesses in a Guardian editorial on arrest warrants and international law.

As an aside, I wonder how many Guardian editorials have been written criticising only Israelis, compared to the other 190+ nationalities in the world?

Below is a translation of the communiqué published by Netanyahu in response to the British warrant for former Foreign Minister Livni’s arrest.

Note what it does not assert: That “IDF commanders and soldiers” operated lawfully during the Gaza war. The statement does assert that the initiation of proceedings is tantamount to condemnation, i.e. Israelis cannot get a fair trial outside the country.

The omission and assertion together comprise a radical statement — Israel has removed itself from the international law system. This might seem trivial because it reflects the de facto situation. It does appear, however, to diverge significantly from much of Israeli messaging to date, which argues that the IDF generally acted legally and that internal investigations have addressed incidents where this is in doubt.

Statement from PM Netanyahu’s bureau

Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser, December 15 2009

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views with utmost gravity the attempt to issue an arrest warrant in Great Britain against Opposition Leader MK Tzipi Livni.

The Prime Minister said this morning (Tuesday), 15.12.09: “We will not agree to a situation in which Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the defendant’s bench.  We will not agree that IDF commanders and soldiers, who – heroically and in a moral fashion – defended our citizens against a brutal and criminal enemy, will be condemned as war criminals.  We reject this absurdity outright.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu instructed National Security Adviser Prof. Uzi Arad to deliver a clear message on this issue to British Ambassador Tom Phillips.

Accordingly, Dr. Arad spoke with Ambassador Phillips and made it clear to him that the Government of Israel expects the British Government to act against this immoral phenomenon which is trying to impair Israel’s right to self-defense.

Silver Lining

Silver Lining

Every Friday I point you to some recommended reading around the blogosphere:

1. I’m not usually much for New Years Resolutions, but as an impatient and impulsive person, I quite liked this list of 7 Healthy Tips For The Impatient and Impulsive by Charlotte Hilton Andersen at the Huffington Post. I especially liked the admonition to “Call your sister!”

2. I love the concept behind Seth Godin’s new, free e-book What Matters Now where he asks a bunch of popular bloggers to offer their thoughts on, well…what matters now.

3. If you haven’t yet seen this, it’s worth reading blogger James Chartrand – of Men with Pens fame – come out as a woman and explain why she chose to write as a man.

4. And speaking of lady writers, I was saddened to hear that the NYT.com columnist Judith Warner would be ending her blog Domestic Disturbances, which has frequently given me food for thought on this blog. Read her farewell column here.

5. If you’ve ever sat through a children’s Nativity Play, you’ll laugh out loud with recognition at this account by the (London) Times On Line’s Caitlin Moran. Equally engrossing are these depictions of the Nativity story by various modern artists at The Guardian.

6. Finally, for those who are interested, here are my pieces in PoliticsDaily.com this week:  one on the feasibility of high speed rail in the U.S. and another on how British Courts nearly arrested a former Israeli official on charges of war crimes.

Follow me on Twitter.

In my latest piece in Zeek Magazine, I take to task activists who take actions blindly without a sound political strategy. While I use as my foil left-wing, pro-Palestinian activists, it’s true for so many involved on all sides of the issue.

he UK government has denounced an arrest warrant against Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister.

On Sunday, a UK court issued the warrant against Livni for her role in alleged war crimes during the War on Gaza. The Israeli government has criticised the move.

Britain’s foreign office says it is investigating the incident which is straining relations between the two countries.

Al Jazeera’s Barbara Serra reports

PIC

[ 17/12/2009 - 11:36 PM ]

GAZA, (PIC)– Hosam Ahmed, the head of Hamas’s refugee affairs office, said Thursday that the British government’s intention to change its judicial system in order to revoke the arrest warrant issued against Tzipi Livni brings to mind the British role in the displacement of the Palestinian people.

In a press release, Ahmed added that barring courts from issuing arrest warrants against Israeli war criminals is another violation of international law committed by Britain against the Palestinian people.

Ahmed underlined that Britain’s allegations about its role in the peace process is of no value because this process, since its launch in Madrid in 1992, has been providing a cover-up for the criminal Zionist policy in the region especially in Palestine and led to the escalation of Judaization and settlement activities.

He considered that Britain’s bias in favor of the “peace process” at the expense of international law and justice represents its persistence in adopting the same wrong policy it pursued in 1917 when it issued the Balfour declaration.

Ahmed: Revoking Livni arrest warrant reminds us of Balfour declaration

PIC

[ 17/12/2009 - 11:36 PM ]

GAZA, (PIC)– Hosam Ahmed, the head of Hamas’s refugee affairs office, said Thursday that the British government’s intention to change its judicial system in order to revoke the arrest warrant issued against Tzipi Livni brings to mind the British role in the displacement of the Palestinian people.

In a press release, Ahmed added that barring courts from issuing arrest warrants against Israeli war criminals is another violation of international law committed by Britain against the Palestinian people.

Ahmed underlined that Britain’s allegations about its role in the peace process is of no value because this process, since its launch in Madrid in 1992, has been providing a cover-up for the criminal Zionist policy in the region especially in Palestine and led to the escalation of Judaization and settlement activities.

He considered that Britain’s bias in favor of the “peace process” at the expense of international law and justice represents its persistence in adopting the same wrong policy it pursued in 1917 when it issued the Balfour declaration.

Ahmed: Revoking Livni arrest warrant reminds us of Balfour declaration

Link

December 17, 2009 Posted by Elias

The British Government’s recent reaction in the Tzipi Livni case is only just the latest episodes in a series of shameful European surrenderings against the mighty power of Israel and its lobbies. Belgium succumbed to Israel in 2003 in nearly the same conditions when a case was lodged against Ariel Sharon in its courts. Sharon has under his belt the masterminding of Sabra and Shatila amongst the mildest of his atrocities.  Later described by Bush II as a “man of peace”, the man is now in a coma on his way to death, denying thousands of people their right to justice with the full complicity of Europe. Spain followed suit earlier this year and amended its laws to make it impossible to put Israeli subjects to trial on war crimes. This week, Britain’s Miliband apologises: “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 “.

Evident is the fact that Israel and its lobbies in European countries have for long known that a proper court is no venue for propaganda. The standard arsenal of deceit and bold lies cannot navigate the rough landscape of evidence, reason and the law. One would think that a reasonable legal system would hold every defendant to the same law and the same treatment. One would believe that accused defendants clear themselves in court. Not in Europe.

Netanyahu charges: “We will not accept a situation in which [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert, [Defence Minister] Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the defendants’ chair”, publicly declaring that any Israeli politician is beyond the law, beyond questioning for any war crimes or crimes against humanity. Such a nefarious statement comes from the same man who continues, just as arrogantly and shamelessly, to license building settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, to order routine raids on the Palestinian territories and to effectively give the peace process the death sentence at a time when an American administration just might be looking for a real end to the conflict.

Europe and America cannot expect Israel to work for peace while pretending that she is beyond the law. Europe and Obama are being humiliated by Netanyahu who refuses to react positively to their calls for a solution, appearing powerless without anything to bargain for. But now British politicians would rather castrate any power that could hold sway over Israel, even the law itself. Israel will again give them the same treatment that can be expected from a nation that doesn’t stand to lose anything by doing as she wishes, from building more settlements to murdering thousands of civilians and anything in between.

Israel sympathisers speak of Palestinians and people working for their cause “hijacking the courts” for their own gains. What they really mean is that the Palestinians do not deserve justice and that the courts should by default not uphold them as equal humans. The self-evident fact that the the law is the text and the text is non-negotiatable for anyone is suddenly forgotten. Benedict Brogan in the Indepedant does one step better and singles out all muslims who sought justice in British courts as unworthy of it. “Britain’s judicial system is being used to help the bad guys”  he thinks. To him, any muslim victim is a bad guy by nature. Nothing will appease these guys apart from codifying into law the exclusion of Muslims from any right to justice. Anyone seeking justice for these “bad guys” is a terrorist sympathiser or an anti-Semite, words that for all intents have long been emptied of any meaning.

With the principle of Universal Jurisdiction now dead, buried and forgotten next to the tomb of the seperation of powers the war criminals of Israel and the world, with blood still fresh on their hands, can rejoice and party with the forgotten rights of those they oppress and the glory of the friendship and approval of western powers.

Tzipi livni Israeli borned Polish and a leader of kadeema party was smaked around at the national press conference in Washington D.C , when she was asked simple questions about the killing of innocent civilians, blocking the humantarian aid and not allowing journalists to go into Gaza strip.

Journalists’ microphones turned off when Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni challenged.

The reality of gaza masacre is leaking on media now and US is trying to protect Israel even in a press conference. Israel is a terrorist state and American government is trying to hide its position globaly. She and other leader are war criminals and should be tried in International Criminal court.

“Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism” Tzipi Livnis Father was a Terrorist” Astonishing claims in the House of Parliament. SIR Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Labour MP, yesterday compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland.

During a Commons debate on the fighting in Gaza, he urged the government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: “My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

“My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants “was the reply of the Nazi” and added: “I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.”

He accused the Israeli government of seeking “conquest” and added: “

They are not simply war criminals, they are fools.”

The British government’s panic over the recent warrant issued by a British magistrate’s court for the arrest of former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and its subsequent determination to change the law to prevent a similar situation arising again, reveals a lot about the sincerity of much of the official propaganda we have been subjected to over the past decade.

As a member of Israel’s war cabinet during the Gaza massacre, Livni ‘played a key role in decisions made before and during the three-week offensive‘. That ‘offensive’, recall, was launched after Israel unilaterally violated two separate ceasefires, both of which were adhered to by Hamas, and rejected repeated offers from Hamas for a third (in the words of former President Jimmy Carter: “Hamas had offered to extend the cease-fire in December, but the Israelis were not willing to do it”). In the course of the massacre, which involved [.pdf] the “systematic destruction of civilian buildings” and indiscriminate and “intentional attacks on civilians”, including with flechette shells and white phosphorus, more than 1,400 Palestinians were killed, the vast majority of them civilians, including hundreds of children.

Subsequently, numerous independent investigations of Israel’s conduct during the ‘Cast Lead’ attack – most notably the UN inquiry [.pdf] chaired by Richard Goldstone, the Arab League inquiry [.pdf] chaired by Prof. John Dugard, and the detailed investigations by Amnesty International [.pdf] and Human Rights Watch – have accused Israel of perpetrating war crimes, possibly amounting to “crimes against humanity”. The Goldstone report also explicitly and repeatedly accused Israel of practicing terrorism:

“the treatment of these civilians constitutes the infliction of a collective penalty on those persons and amounts to measures of intimidation and terror. Such acts are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and constitute a war crime”

“the rounding-up of large groups of civilians and their prolonged detention under the circumstances described in this Report constitute a collective penalty on those persons … [and] amounts to measures of intimidation or terrorism prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”

“[Israel] viewed disproportionate destruction and creating the maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve not only military but also political goals [i.e. terrorism]“

This isn’t a verdict that should surprise the British government. ‘Cast Lead’ was, after all, governed by the same logic as that underpinning the now nearly four-year old siege of Gaza, which the Department for International Development [.pdf], for instance, has long recognised to be “collective punishment” as “part of a political strategy to get Hamas to sign up to the Quartet principles”, with the prolonged border closures intended to further the “political objective” of “isolating Hamas”. In other words, terrorism.

During the massacre Tzipi Livni engaged in “intensive diplomatic activity” aimed at, in her words, “deflecting the pressure for a cease-fire” – pressure that was coming from, among others, Hamas. She rejected calls for a reciprocal ceasefire on the grounds that “[t]here is no intention here of creating a diplomatic agreement with Hamas”. Prior to the attack, while Hamas was offering to agree another truce with Israel, Livni argued strongly for a military offensive and pledged regime change through military and economic as well as diplomatic means. She rejected a truce with Hamas, maintaining that an extended ceasefire “harms the Israel[i] strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement”, and promised a campaign of political assassinations against Hamas officials. During the massacre, Livni spoke proudly of Israel’s “wild” attacks in Gaza, and after it was finally over she criticised Barak and Netanyahu for being too soft on Hamas:

“There are those sitting with the Hamas regime who want to reach understandings with the group, and there are those [referring to herself] working to bring an end to the Hamas regime. A settlement with Hamas would give it legitimacy, and those working for that with the Egyptians [to reach a long-term ceasefire agreement] need to understand that”.

Just a couple of weeks after the attack had finished, Livni was agitating for renewed military action in Gaza, and to this day, despite the multiple detailed studies (see above) documenting the extensive economic and human devastation caused by Israel’s attack, she remains “proud of all her decisions regarding Operation Cast Lead“.

Livni is, in short, an unrepentant terrorist. Hence the arrest warrant.

There is no legal basis for the British government’s interference in what is supposed to be an independent judicial process in order to shield Livni from justice. As Sir Geoffrey Bindman, who represented Amnesty International and others in the case against General Pinochet, points out, Livni is a private citizen and who was not visiting on diplomatic business. David Miliband’s apology to Livni is particularly galling in light of the fact that he just last week signed an EU document pledging “to promote an international order where no state or individual is above the law and no person is outside the protection of the law”. Neither have I encountered any remotely plausible non-legal argument defending the government’s approach. Interestingly, no one is arguing that the arrest warrant is (er) unwarranted because Livni is innocent – Israel’s actions in Gaza, actions that Livni bears direct responsibility for, are indefensible, and everyone knows it. Thus in his appearance on Newsnight Stephen Pollard focused on issues of legal process, ignoring the substance of the charges against Livni completely, and even the Times, which branded attempts by human rights activists to use the justice system to actually secure justice “repugnant“, restricted itself to the observation that the Gaza massacre was “not the genocide at Srebrenica”, surely a new benchmark for faint praise.

The other justification offered for the decision – that arresting Livni would somehow damage the “peace process” and Britain’s involvement in it – is no more convincing.  One, because as an opposition figure Livni isn’t part of any peace process; two, because Livni is on record as rejecting the international consensus two-state settlement; and three, because no meaningful peace process currently exists, thanks in no small part to the British government’s strong support for Israeli rejectionism and its ongoing complicity in the siege of Gaza, which continues to prevent any real reconstruction from taking place.

As men who themselves bear direct responsibility for wars of aggression and the appalling human rights abuses that followed, it is understandable that Brown and Miliband are hostile to the concept of universal jurisdiction. Indeed, Livni’s grandiose claim that the warrant for her arrest amounted to a warrant against all democracies fighting terrorism was pointedly directed at the architects of Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, in their eagerness to welcome Livni and protect her from judicial investigation Brown and Miliband have once again illustrated the bankruptcy of the official propaganda underlying the “war on terror”. As long as they’re our terrorists, the British government is positively delighted to receive them.

All this aside, the arrest warrant for Livni is an important victory for Palestinian solidarity activists. We are not yet at the stage where the actual prosecution of Israeli officials is a realistic prospect, but the achievement is significant nonetheless because, in the context of the British government’s decision to advise supermarkets to indicate where produce has been grown or manufactured in an Israeli settlement and the continuing growth of the BDS movement, it represents further evidence that Israel is losing the argument. As Juan Cole comments,

“Israeli militarism and expansionism have jumped the shark when it comes to European public opinion, and this sea change will have real world effects as boycotts spread against this growing Apartheid”.

Livni will escape justice for now, but Israeli officials will not be able to keep running for ever (deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon also recently turned down a visit to Britain fearing arrest). Until then, it’s up to us to keep the pressure on, through active solidarity, boycott and, most importantly, organising to end our government’s support for the occupation.

======

For reference, below is the response of the (Israeli) Coalition of Women for Peace to Livni’s arrest warrant:

Coalition of Women for Peace to Tzipi Livni:

“Cooperate with any international investigation against you”
This morning (Wed. 16/12/09), the Women’s Coalition for Peace sent a translation of the Goldstone Report to Knesset Member Tzipi Livni (head of the opposition and Foreign Minister during the “Cast Lead” offensive), who received notice of a warrant for her arrest in Britain this week. In a letter attached to the report, Coalition members wrote: “we are convinced that if you refer to the report you will understand why British citizens and organizations have turned to the courts with a request to issue a warrant for your arrest.”

The report directly refers to remarks by senior political figures in Israel which encouraged indiscriminate attacks on civilians, in contradiction of international law. It is in this context that MK Tzipi Livni is quoted as saying, on 13 January 2009, that “we have proven to Hamas that the equation has been altered. Israel is a state that, when its citizens are shot at, will respond insanely. And that’s a good thing.”

Furthermore, runs the letter, “the Goldstone Report details a long list of indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations […] In addition, the report surveys the extent of the damage to industrial infrastructure, food production, water facilities, sewage infrastructure and residential buildings; the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields and the targeting of medical staff. The testimony of Israeli soldiers corroborates the allegations made in the Report that during Cast Lead heinous war crimes were committed.

“The attention of the Goldstone Commission was drawn to the way the military operations affected women particularly adversely. The responsibility of women towards their homes and children forced them to deal for a period of weeks with extraordinary difficulties caused by impossible conditions which denied them of the means of sustenance – including access to food, water, heating supplies and protection against the rain, shelter, intentional attacks on civilians, destruction of infrastructure and denial of medical attention. Women suffered most of all from the attack which you helped lead, and for which you served as the international spokesperson.

“As a feminist organization active in Israel, we consider that only a process of legal investigation and prosecution of war criminals by the international community has the power to bring a measure of justice to the women and men of Gaza. In our opinion the correct reaction on your part to the Goldstone Report would be a coming to terms with the wholesale murder with which you collaborated freely as a senior minister in the Israeli government as part of an election campaign. We call on you to cooperate with any international investigation that may be opened against you and to counsel your colleagues in the government and military to do the same.

Chris Marsden, wsws.org, Dec 17, 2009

Link
You are here: Home » Regional » Palestine » Gaza »

By Daniel Machover* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
According to news reports, David Miliband plans to call the leader of the Israeli opposition, Tzipi Livni, to explain the British government’s stance on the grant of an arrest warrant against her when she had been due to speak at a Jewish National Fund meeting in Hendon.

One reasonable version of this call to Livni is as follows:

“I am calling to explain why it would be wrong for me to apologise publicly or privately for the apparent decision by one of this country’s independent judiciary to issue an arrest warrant against you.
“I should first explain that the British legal system has a strong tradition of fairness. All people under criminal investigation or criminal charge are entitled to the presumption of innocence: that is, they are presumed innocent unless and until convicted through a fair trial on the criminal standard of proof (that is, beyond reasonable doubt). Therefore, nobody here is saying you have been found guilty of any offence and any comments of this kind would be unacceptable.

“It does seem, however, that a judicial decision was taken that there exists a reasonable suspicion that you committed a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is a criminal offence under our Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Of course, I have not seen any of the evidence that a court would have seen when making that decision. This is entirely right and proper: British ministers cannot interfere in such individual judicial decisions, as we must respect our ancient democratic tradition of non-interference with our independent judiciary. I hold the utmost respect for our independent judges.

“I am sorry, but I hope you understand that it is not my job as foreign secretary or any part of this government’s job to second-guess a judge’s decision or to interfere with it. I can tell you, however, that no charges could be brought against you without a decision by the attorney general. We very carefully guard the legal role of the attorney general, as the senior law officer, in making such decisions. The attorney general would first need advice from the head of our independent prosecution body, the director of public prosecutions, that the evidential test of the code for crown prosecutors was thought to be met (ie that there was more than a 50% chance that a jury would convict a defendant, having found on the evidence that it was beyond reasonable doubt that she had committed the alleged offence). If this evidential test was met, the independence of the UK legal system from the executive and the rights of victims of alleged crimes to see a just outcome to their complaints would be seriously undermined if the attorney general made a decision that it was against the public interest to bring charges of war crimes against a foreign national, who did not otherwise enjoy immunity from prosecution.

“Moreover, the attorney general would have to take into account this country’s solemn treaty obligations under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states that we are ‘under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed … grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before [our] courts’. The mandatory wording (ie ’shall’) creates a presumption that it is in the public interest for criminal charges to be brought under our Geneva Conventions Act 1957 if the evidential test is met. I cannot say what the attorney general’s decision would be in your case, as it must be a matter for her, on advice from the DPP.

“I understand that this may be a difficult position for you to accept. However, it is only appropriate that I also draw to your attention to some very disturbing aspects of the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict, headed up by the respected independent international judge Justice Richard Goldstone. As you know, the Goldstone report was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in October and further endorsed at the general assembly in November. While the British government did not participate in the vote when the council adopted the report, we cannot ignore its conclusions that, from the facts that it gathered, grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention do appear to have been committed by Israeli armed forces in Gaza, including wilful killing. Also, at paragraph 1975, the Goldstone report recommended that ’state parties to the Geneva Convention … should start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches … where so warranted following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with internationally recognised standards of justice’.

“In the light of all this, Her Majesty’s government must therefore carefully weigh everything in the balance when considering whether it would be appropriate to prevent alleged victims applying for judicial arrest warrants. As I have great faith in the standards of justice in this country and in the quality of our judiciary, the political embarrassment that is sometimes caused by standing by our legal traditions will have to be endured. Changing these provisions would undermine our strong democratic values and the rights of victims of alleged serious crimes to access to justice. I hope that the assurance that I have given you that criminal charges will only be brought for grave breaches if the most senior prosecutor in this country thought there was sufficient evidence to justify charges, will satisfy you that only where there appears to be a case to answer will someone be charged with such offences in this country.

“I implore you to join calls within Israel for compliance with the rule of law and for the establishment of an immediate and urgent independent and effective judicial investigation, which can conclude whether or not any of the Israeli leadership that made operational decisions during Operation Cast Lead, including you, should face criminal charges under your own laws. The same applies to the Gaza authorities. Alternatively, if you are concerned that Israel cannot meet this challenge, then Israel could refer itself to the only fully independent international body that has the resources and the ability to resolve such matters, namely the international criminal court.

“Only once the matters set out in the Goldstone report are brought to a just and satisfactory resolution, which may include the need for some individuals on both sides of the conflict to be held accountable for their alleged individual criminal responsibility, the whole region can perhaps benefit from a durable and lasting peace. Without justice there cannot be peace.”

Unfortunately, it seems that Miliband is unlikely to make the above phonecall to Tzipi Livni, but instead will repeat his statements of recent days, which implicitly criticise the role of our independent judiciary, and which fly directly in the face of this country’s international legal obligations to “search out and prosecute” all those alleged to have committed war crimes. This sends a message that Britain is in fact a safe haven for suspected torturers and war criminals, especially if they come from a country which is identified as an ally of the United Kingdom. This is particularly alarming given that just one week ago, with his fellow EU foreign ministers, David Miliband endorsed a document promoting compliance with international human rights law which concluded with the promise that “The European Union will continue to do its utmost to promote an international order where no state or individual is above the law and no person is outside the protection of the law.”

* Daniel Machover is chair of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights and a partner at London lawfirm Hickman Rose

Link
You are here: Home » Regional » Palestine » Gaza »

By Daniel Machover* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
According to news reports, David Miliband plans to call the leader of the Israeli opposition, Tzipi Livni, to explain the British government’s stance on the grant of an arrest warrant against her when she had been due to speak at a Jewish National Fund meeting in Hendon.

One reasonable version of this call to Livni is as follows:

“I am calling to explain why it would be wrong for me to apologise publicly or privately for the apparent decision by one of this country’s independent judiciary to issue an arrest warrant against you.
“I should first explain that the British legal system has a strong tradition of fairness. All people under criminal investigation or criminal charge are entitled to the presumption of innocence: that is, they are presumed innocent unless and until convicted through a fair trial on the criminal standard of proof (that is, beyond reasonable doubt). Therefore, nobody here is saying you have been found guilty of any offence and any comments of this kind would be unacceptable.

“It does seem, however, that a judicial decision was taken that there exists a reasonable suspicion that you committed a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is a criminal offence under our Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Of course, I have not seen any of the evidence that a court would have seen when making that decision. This is entirely right and proper: British ministers cannot interfere in such individual judicial decisions, as we must respect our ancient democratic tradition of non-interference with our independent judiciary. I hold the utmost respect for our independent judges.

“I am sorry, but I hope you understand that it is not my job as foreign secretary or any part of this government’s job to second-guess a judge’s decision or to interfere with it. I can tell you, however, that no charges could be brought against you without a decision by the attorney general. We very carefully guard the legal role of the attorney general, as the senior law officer, in making such decisions. The attorney general would first need advice from the head of our independent prosecution body, the director of public prosecutions, that the evidential test of the code for crown prosecutors was thought to be met (ie that there was more than a 50% chance that a jury would convict a defendant, having found on the evidence that it was beyond reasonable doubt that she had committed the alleged offence). If this evidential test was met, the independence of the UK legal system from the executive and the rights of victims of alleged crimes to see a just outcome to their complaints would be seriously undermined if the attorney general made a decision that it was against the public interest to bring charges of war crimes against a foreign national, who did not otherwise enjoy immunity from prosecution.

“Moreover, the attorney general would have to take into account this country’s solemn treaty obligations under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states that we are ‘under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed … grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before [our] courts’. The mandatory wording (ie ’shall’) creates a presumption that it is in the public interest for criminal charges to be brought under our Geneva Conventions Act 1957 if the evidential test is met. I cannot say what the attorney general’s decision would be in your case, as it must be a matter for her, on advice from the DPP.

“I understand that this may be a difficult position for you to accept. However, it is only appropriate that I also draw to your attention to some very disturbing aspects of the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict, headed up by the respected independent international judge Justice Richard Goldstone. As you know, the Goldstone report was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in October and further endorsed at the general assembly in November. While the British government did not participate in the vote when the council adopted the report, we cannot ignore its conclusions that, from the facts that it gathered, grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention do appear to have been committed by Israeli armed forces in Gaza, including wilful killing. Also, at paragraph 1975, the Goldstone report recommended that ’state parties to the Geneva Convention … should start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches … where so warranted following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with internationally recognised standards of justice’.

“In the light of all this, Her Majesty’s government must therefore carefully weigh everything in the balance when considering whether it would be appropriate to prevent alleged victims applying for judicial arrest warrants. As I have great faith in the standards of justice in this country and in the quality of our judiciary, the political embarrassment that is sometimes caused by standing by our legal traditions will have to be endured. Changing these provisions would undermine our strong democratic values and the rights of victims of alleged serious crimes to access to justice. I hope that the assurance that I have given you that criminal charges will only be brought for grave breaches if the most senior prosecutor in this country thought there was sufficient evidence to justify charges, will satisfy you that only where there appears to be a case to answer will someone be charged with such offences in this country.

“I implore you to join calls within Israel for compliance with the rule of law and for the establishment of an immediate and urgent independent and effective judicial investigation, which can conclude whether or not any of the Israeli leadership that made operational decisions during Operation Cast Lead, including you, should face criminal charges under your own laws. The same applies to the Gaza authorities. Alternatively, if you are concerned that Israel cannot meet this challenge, then Israel could refer itself to the only fully independent international body that has the resources and the ability to resolve such matters, namely the international criminal court.

“Only once the matters set out in the Goldstone report are brought to a just and satisfactory resolution, which may include the need for some individuals on both sides of the conflict to be held accountable for their alleged individual criminal responsibility, the whole region can perhaps benefit from a durable and lasting peace. Without justice there cannot be peace.”

Unfortunately, it seems that Miliband is unlikely to make the above phonecall to Tzipi Livni, but instead will repeat his statements of recent days, which implicitly criticise the role of our independent judiciary, and which fly directly in the face of this country’s international legal obligations to “search out and prosecute” all those alleged to have committed war crimes. This sends a message that Britain is in fact a safe haven for suspected torturers and war criminals, especially if they come from a country which is identified as an ally of the United Kingdom. This is particularly alarming given that just one week ago, with his fellow EU foreign ministers, David Miliband endorsed a document promoting compliance with international human rights law which concluded with the promise that “The European Union will continue to do its utmost to promote an international order where no state or individual is above the law and no person is outside the protection of the law.”

* Daniel Machover is chair of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights and a partner at London lawfirm Hickman Rose

By Rabbi Dow Marmur

JERUSALEM–An estate agent told me the other day that many sellers miss opportunities because they don’t accept an early offer which is near enough to the asking price in the hope of getting more by hanging on. In most cases, more doesn’t happen and in the end the property is sold for much less than originally expected.

 I thought of my informant when I read about the recent reported encounters between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Leader of the Opposition in the Knesset, Tzipi Livni. 

 After the elections early in 2009 it became obvious that Livni wouldn’t be able to form a government, even though her Kadima party had one more seat than Netanyahu’s Likud. In order to create a broad coalition, Netanyahu invited Livni and her party to join him, not in a commanding position but with considerable influence. She refused by arguing that, having one more seat, she wasn’t prepared to play second fiddle.
 Since then Netanyahu has shown himself to be a skilled operator who gradually and realistically has moved government foreign policy to the centre while keeping the more extreme right-wing coalition parties in check. Livni, on the other hand, has had to contend with a lot of internal strife, mainly because of the machinations of her deputy Shaul Mofaz, who wants her job as well as a seat in the government (which would make him the third former Chief of Staff in the cabinet, beside Barak and Ya’alon).
 In the meantime, Netanyahu and his team were exploiting the tensions in Kadima by seemingly successfully trying to lure some of its Knesset members back to Likud (from whence many of them originally came) by offering them government positions above their station. The matter came to a head earlier this week. In order to keep her party together, she may now agree to join the government and get a very subordinate role (minister without portfolio). Hence the allusion to my encounter with the estate agent.
 The only alternative open to Livni, as suggested by several pundits, is to call a party convention and have an election for the Kadima leader. If she wins, she’ll probably be able to keep the party together and stay in opposition awaiting the Netanyahu government to stumble or worse. More likely, however, she’d lose and Mofaz will become leader – and take his party into the government.
 I’m among those who believe that this may be a good thing for at least two reasons: (a) I’ve never thought of Livni as a great politician and her tenure in opposition hasn’t made me change my mind; (b) Kadima joining the government will make the Prime Minister less dependant on the right wing and thus more able to pursue the pragmatic politics that the situation and President Obama demand.
 Kadima may even find a face-saver, and thus help to deal with the settlers and the aftershock from the outcome of the Gilad Shalit negotiations. Livni insisted that she’d only join if the Prime Minister accepted a two-state solution. He has. (Now it’s Abu Mazen who’s the awkward one, which, of course, is in Israel’s diplomatic interest, because whatever each side says, it doubtful whether either wants a two-state solution. But that’s for another time.) It could be used as an excuse for accepting the lesser price.
 Israeli politics could do with a Christmas break, but Christmas doesn’t figure in this culture. So while much of the rest of the political world hibernates for the next week or so, Israel will be at it full steam with Tzipi Livni having the lion’s share of tsores.