Sometimes, you don’t know whether the Israeli cabinet is a governing body or a 3-ring circus. The latest circus act set up its tent at Der Spiegel, where minister Rafi Eitan, a veteran of many a Mossad special ops project, intimated that Israel might kidnap Iran’s president and send him to the International Court:
Eitan: It could very well be that a leader such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suddenly finds himself before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
SPIEGEL: Do you mean that seriously?
Eitan: Absolutely. Those who spread poison and want to eradicate another people has to expect such consequences.
Do I take any of this seriously? Not really. That’s why I called it a circus. But the fact that an Israeli minister is willing to allow such accusations to escape his unbuttoned mouth indicates the level to which political discourse has sunk.
Even if Israel could kidnap him–which is a highly dubious proposition–what charge would Israel claim before an international tribunal? That Ahmadinejad said nasty things against Israel? Crimes usually require action. So what crimes has he committed? And even if there were proof that he personally had committed any does anyone in their right mind think that Israeli generals and political leaders haven’t been equally culpable in ordering military attacks that caused terrific mayhem on innocent civilians? Where do such charges get Israel? They only focus the spotlight ever more brightly on its own misdeeds.
So if Eitan wants to “go there” he’s got my blessing. I’ve always said I’m in favor of Nasrallah going to the Hague as long as Olmert and Halutz accompany him for the mayhem all three caused in Lebanon.
Chances are this is just political posturing on Eitan’s part as he knows national elections are right around the corner and his Pensioners Party has lost almost all its popularity. A spicy statement like this may be just what the political spin doctor ordered in terms of drumming up interest in a failed political program.
It’s just a shame that Israeli politicians are so selfish about their political power that they are willing to abuse their own nation’s international good name to score a few points.
Iran has rightly complained to the UN about Eitan’s goofball statement. Israel’s response was outlandish:
Israel’s new U.N. ambassador, Gabriela Shalev, called Iran’s complaint “absurd”:
Iran’s president repeatedly denies the Holocaust and calls — again and again — for the destruction of the state of Israel…. [Ahmadinejad leads a country] that develops nuclear capabilities endangering the entire world…. As such, Iran is under United Nations sanctions for its non-compliance with the international community…. Furthermore, Iran openly and actively supports and arms terrorist organizations.
What claim above–even if they were all accurate, which is debatable–is actionable under international law? It’s simply ludicrous. The truth of the matter is you can’t have government ministers going around the world shooting their mouths off about kidnapping the presidents of other countries. If this was an everyday occurrence then pretty soon you’d have the prime minister of Israel kidnapped too (or at least an attempt to kidnap him would be made). Does Israel really want to go there? Does it want its former IDF generals subject to kidnapping under similar circumstances? Because you see that two can play this game.
Just to fill in the background here, Rafi Eitan is the spook who brought the world not only Adolph Eichmann’s capture, but Jonathan Pollard. Yes, he “ran” Pollard and we have Eitan to thank for that tawdry affair. You’ll notice that Eitan won’t be appearing at any fundraisers in the U.S. If he did he’d likely end up in the federal clink, and rightfully so. So this is the sterling character Israel is allowing to dictate its “diplomatic” approach to Iran.
It is astonishing how willing Israeli politicians are in demanding the use of “international laws and sanctions” against others and how reluctant they are themselves to obey the international laws, behaviour standards and demands. It is like an irresponsible parent demanding the children not to behave as he does. How can an Israeli leader demand Hizbollah to respect UN resolutions, when they on the same time violate the same resolutions. Even more hypocritical is the Israeli “opinion” of nations creating in secret nukes. Certainly the Israeli nukes are not in more safe “hands” as the hypothetical Iranian nukes would be.
If we would have a neutral study of the use of threats in political speeches and “analyses” Israeli and US politicians, generals and different think-tank analysts would certainly outperform Iranian counterparts by hundred to one. Daily we can read news how US and Israeli “circles” are demanding violent actions and sometimes even speak more or less directly of using nukes.
One thing is certain that if Ahmadinejad, Bush or some Israeli past or present PM would have to face an international court, Ahmadinejad would most probably get the smallest (if any) punishment.
what charge would Israel claim before an international tribunal?
How about public incitement to genocide? Many are so happy to cite the Geneva Convention and the United Nations in support of their criticisms of Israel. Well, turns out that in 1951 the United Nations passed a resolution on the ‘prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.’
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm
See 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
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=470&IID=1495
Ahmadinejad’s statements are a public incitement to genocide and thus contravene international law. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide came into force on 12 January 1951. It has been ratified by 138 states, among them Iran. As Justus Weiner noted,
The Genocide Convention defines the crime of genocide, and stipulates that certain acts related to genocide are punishable. One of these prohibited acts is incitement to commit genocide. By including this as a crime the drafters sought to create an autonomous breach of international law, which is an inchoate crime—a crime in the absence of any substantive offence having been committed or consummated. Thus, in order to succeed in a case of incitement, a prosecutor need not prove that genocide has in fact transpired. It is sufficient to prove that incitement to genocide has occurred.
You can question the wisdom of intimating that Ahmadinejad should be brought before the International Tribunal. But don’t be so smug in your assumptions that there’s no reason to seek his extradition and prosecution.
David Brumer
@david brumer: What have you proven, David? That you can quote the UN provisons about genocide. That’s nice.
Now can you connect them in any way to any actual statements by Ahmedinejad? I don’t mean distorted translations provided by MEMRI either. I mean legitimate translations from the Farsi of what he’s said about Israel. That would mean you could verify the translations were accurate. Saying that you hope Israel will disappear from history, as Ahmedinejad has done, is FAR from genocide. It’s nasty stuff to be sure. But if Israel kidnapped him using this as evidence the world & the court would scoff at the entire enterprise.
All you’re doing here is taking an anti-Iranian line & unfortunately little you say has much in the way of credibility.
It’s true that the Iran pres didn’t call for Israel to be destroyed that one time, although he has made many such calls (such as that Israel is a “cancer” and a “filthy microbe”) that all overlap and paint a picture of wanting physical destruction. When he said that Israel must be erased from the pages of time, then by itself that one statement can mean that he wants the regime to disappear through political means, as his defenders correctly argue. Problem is, he was saying that as missiles were being paraded down the street with the word ISRAEL written on them. Furthermore, other Iranian leaders have said that Israel can be destroyed with one atomic bomb, while Iran will only be partially damaged by an Israeli nuclear response. Iranian leaders are willing to sacrifice millions of their own citizens to destroy the Jewish state.
Thus, everything combined proves that he has indeed called for the physical destruction of the state of Israel through military means and can be tried for incitment to genocide: the murder of another 6 million Jews paradoxically based on the denial of the Holocaust.
@Yoni: Ahmedinejad has been misquoted so often, I only trust claims about what he’s said when they’re based on legitimate translations. Where did you find the claim that he called Israel a “cancer” and “filthy microbe?”
And even if he did, while it’s certainly deeply disturbing rhetoric, where does it rise to the level of genocide, the threat of genocide or “wanting physical destruction?” I repeat: find me any statement in which he has actually said Iran should physically wipe out Israel or that its weapons would be used to do so. Until you do, yr claims fall flat.
And you & we know this how? You have an image to verify this claim?
Which ones said this? And what precisely did they say?
That’s rich considering that so far they’ve sacrificed precisely none of their own citizens & have only harmed the Jewish state indirectly by supplying weapons to Hezbollah.
Dream on, buddy. You can flap yr mouth all you want. But if you & yr chevra are so convinced I’d urge you to bring a case before the International Court of Justice. You’ll be laughed out of town, but go right ahead. Don’t let me stop you.
I don’t have time to respond to everything you wrote, and the links I would provide you probably wouldn’t accept anyway (an article at jcpa.org). But there’s one thing that all accept, and has nothing to do with Israel: In the Iran-Iraq War, Iran sent thousands of civilians into minefields, including children, to clear the mines to make way for Iranian tanks. They were known as the “martyrdom seekers”. So here you have a vivid illustration of Iran sacrificing thousands of their own people, so they are certainly capable of it. Only an extremist society would be able to do such a thing, a society led by maniacs who believe they must ignite global thermo-nuclear war to force the Shiite redemption into taking place.
@Yoni: Iran was fighting a desperate battle to the death with its neighbor & arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. So it did desperate things. And that was in 1988 quite some time ago.
Can you point to anything else than Iran has done that would give you the idea that Iran would specifically be willing to commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel??? Nah, of course you can’t.
You’re level of racist Islamophobia is extraordinary. Thanks, you give my readers a great sense of what a Jewish Orthodox right wing pro-Israel Arab hater looks & sounds like.
Or do you see this as more “intellectual thuggery?”
david brumer
International Conference on
State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide:
What Can Be Done
Tuesday, Sep. 23, 9 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Hyatt Regency, Washington
(To attend, send RSVP by email to xxxx)
[email address removed per comment rules]
An unprecedented coalition of victims of genocide, including representatives from Darfur and Rwanda, will be speaking out against the dangers of state-sanctioned incitement to genocide on the same day that Iranian President Ahmadinejad will be addressing the UN General Assembly. Speakers will include:
Amb. Richard Holbrooke (architect of Dayton Accord on Bosnia)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs)
Salih Mahmud Osman (Member of Parliament-Sudan, human-rights advocate on Darfur)
Esther Mujawayo (Survivor of the Rwanda genocide in 1994)
Prof. Gregory Stanton (founder Genocide Watch and the Cambodian Genocide Project at Yale University)
Prof. Irwin Cotler (former Canadian Attorney General and Minister of Justice)
Prof. Gregory Gordon (former Legal Officer, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda)
Amb. Dore Gold (former Israeli Ambassador to the UN)
Please visit [URL removed per comment rules] on Tuesday, Sep. 23 to view the live broadcast of this conference.
Sponsored by Genocide Watch, International Association of Genocide Scholars, Yale University’s Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
@david brumer: Dore Gold is an intellectual thug. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is the Likud’s party think tank. So am I surprised that Dore Gold & Ileana Ros Lehtinen, 2 ardent supporters of both George Bush & Bibi Netanyahu are shreying about Iranian incitement to genocide? No. Do I think that there is any intellectual legitimacy in this exercise? Not much.
All Dore Gold is doing is gussying up his own militant political views in intellectual finery so they’ll appeal to a more refined crowd than the typical Likudnik far right.
In future, pls. do not insert links to JCPA in yr blog comments. I do not allow my blog to be used to promote such sites.