The international league of war criminals

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

The international league of war criminals
17 December 2009

The issuing of a British arrest warrant for former Israeli Foreign
Minister and current leader of the opposition Tzipi Livni is only the
latest event confirming an international body of legal opinion that
Israel should be tried for war crimes over its treatment of the
Palestinians.

Livni was a member of the war cabinet during Operation Cast Lead, the
offensive against Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18 this
year. Some 1,400 Palestinians—the majority of them civilians,
including 400 women and children—were killed, at least 5,000 people
were injured, and 21,000 homes and other vital infrastructure were
destroyed.

In October, the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed a report
by South African Judge Richard Goldstone stating that the war was “a
deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and
terrorise a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic
capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it
an ever-increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.”

The warrant against Livni was issued by Westminster Magistrates' Court
at the request of lawyers acting on behalf of 16 Palestinian
plaintiffs. Livni was due to address the Jewish National Fund
conference on December 13, but it is claimed she had cancelled her
appearance some time ago due to a “scheduling conflict.” However, the
New York Times reported Thursday that Livni was tipped off about the
warrant and the threat of arrest.

This is far from the first time that an Israeli political or military
figure has faced the threat of prosecution. In 2001, a warrant was
issued in Belgium for the arrest of former Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon, former Army Chief-of-Staff Raphael Eitan and former head of
the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Northern Command, Amos Yaron, for
their roles in the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982.

In September 2005, former head of IDF Southern Command Doron Almog
faced arrest in the UK for ordering the demolition of 59 civilian
Palestinian homes. The arrest warrant was supposedly issued secretly
under UK law, but Israeli diplomats were tipped off and Almog refused
to leave his plane for two hours until it took off again for Israel.

An arrest warrant was also issued by Spain for seven Israelis involved
in the July 2002 bombing of an apartment building in Gaza City that
killed Hamas military leader Salah Shehadeh and 14 civilians,
including his wife and several children. Moshe Ya'alon, the Israeli
deputy prime minister and strategic affairs minister, and the former
defence minister, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, were amongst the accused.

In September, the Westminster Court was asked to issue an arrest
warrant for Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, under the 1988
Criminal Justice Act, for his involvement in the Gaza War. The court
accepted the assertion by the Foreign Office that he was a serving
minister who would be meeting his British counterparts and therefore
enjoyed immunity under the State Immunity Act of 1978.

Ex-ministers, not on official business, such as Livni, enjoy no such
immunity. For this reason both Ya'alon and Avi Dichter, the public
security minister and head of the Shin Bet security agency, have
turned down invitations to events in Britain.

The government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has
mounted a campaign to end all possibility of future arrests under
universal jurisdiction provisions of the Geneva Conventions and other
international laws. As far as Israel’s allies are concerned, however,
Tel Aviv is kicking against an open door.

Whenever there has been a prosecution threatened against an Israeli
official, Washington has brought pressure to bear to prevent it. This
led to the dropping of Belgium’s charges against Sharon, et al and
changes to Belgian law to lessen the possibility of similar
prosecutions in the future. In June this year, a Spanish court shelved
its investigation into the Gaza City bombings. In addition, the US led
a block of six nations that voted against acceptance of the Goldstone
report, while Britain and France abstained.

Britain’s response to Israel’s official protests against the warrant
issued for Livni was more than merely fawning. It led to promises by
Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Prime Minister Gordon Brown to
change the law allowing non-citizens to be brought before British courts.

In the naked language of imperialist realpolitik, Miliband declared,
“Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend of the United
Kingdom. We are determined to protect and develop those ties.” So much
for Western claims to uphold international law and democratic rights!

As with the position taken by the US, much more is involved in the
UK’s response than mere loyalty to an ally. There is a basic issue of
self-preservation.

Time and again Israeli spokesmen have warned that the leaders of the
major powers—including George Bush and Tony Blair over Iraq and Brown
and President Barack Obama over Afghanistan—are threatened with
prosecutions under universal jurisdiction provisions. Netanyahu
himself warned, regarding Goldstone’s report, “It’s not just our
problem… If they accused IDF officers, IDF commanders, IDF soldiers,
IDF pilots and even leaders, they will accuse you too. What, NATO
isn’t fighting in various places? What, Russia isn’t fighting in
various places?”

The concept of universal jurisdiction allows prosecution by
international or national courts when the case is deemed to be a crime
against humanity and not likely to be tried in the allegedly guilty
party’s own state. It underlies the creation of a range of
institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC),
established in 2002, the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The
US and other major powers have been happy to see these bodies utilized
against those regimes they have targeted as hostile to their
interests, such as Serbia. But like Israel, the US opposes universal
jurisdiction over itself and therefore endorses neither the ICC nor
the ICJ.

When Obama gave his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize last
week, he argued explicitly for war as an instrument of US foreign
policy, defending military action whose purpose “extends beyond
self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor.” He
insisted that such pre-emptive imperialist wars—of the kind already
conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan—were essential to the US maintaining
its position at the centre of the “architecture to keep the peace” set
up in the aftermath of World War II.

This supposedly included abiding by “certain rules of conduct” and the
US acting as “a standard bearer in the conduct of war.” To this end,
he made great play of having personally reaffirmed “America's
commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions” and “other
international laws of war.”

This is one lie amongst many. Some newspapers have claimed that Spain
and Britain pioneered the concept of universal jurisdiction, with the
1998 extradition warrant by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon for former
Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. In point of fact, the concept is
rooted in the Geneva Conventions, adopted on August 12, 1949.

Regarding war crimes, the Conventions require signatory nations, such
as Britain and the US, to pass the necessary laws and “provide
effective penal sanctions” for persons “committing, or ordering to be
committed” any “grave breaches” of the Conventions. Article 129 goes
on to state that each signatory “shall be under the obligation to
search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be
committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons,
regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.”

That is why the Goldstone report made an explicit call to countries
that are signatories to the Conventions to use their “universal
jurisdiction” to search for and prosecute those Israelis, as well as
leaders of Hamas, it accused of war crimes.

In reality, the imperialist powers and their allies operate as a de
facto international league of war criminals—dedicated to their mutual
defence and self-preservation. That is why the US rejects universal
jurisdiction when it comes to its friends, as well as its own
politicians and military personnel.

Now Brown and Miliband have made clear that they too will abrogate the
independence of the courts in order to prevent any prosecution for war
crimes that runs contrary to the strategic interests of British
imperialism. In doing so, they may hope to save themselves from the
possibility of being brought to justice. But they should know that
some crimes are too great for prosecution to be avoided forever.

Chris Marsden

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/pers-d17.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********