22 thoughts on “Israeli Deputy PM, Dan Meridor, Cancels London Trip Fearing Arrest – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Well, I’m sure it’s all going to be straightened out, just as it was for Tzipi Livni. Unfortunately. I’d love to see some spine on the part of just one country where it comes to Israeli war criminals.

    1. If you want spine from David Cameron, you may be disappointed.

      He has so far shown an unerring instinct for the sellout. However, to change the law to prevent prosecutions, he would have to get fresh legislation through both houses of Parliament and, given that it would be extinguishing a centuries-old safeguard against governments doing precisely this sort of thing: letting felons off for temporary political advantage, Parliament might be very reluctant. My estimate is that he would want to, but almost certainly cannot guarantee enough support in the Commons and is very frightened of being seen to present legislation that fails to pass.

      The chances of such a bill passing the Lords on a first reading are nil. The Commons would have to pass it at three readings over two years to force it through the Lords, and I cannot see a fragile coalition playing that game.

  2. I don’t know how they can reconsider an outstanding warrant based on changing the laws for standing in that jurisdiction. That is to say, they would have to show on record, that the grievances filed which produced successful warrants were never qualified or appropriate in the first place by referencing the record and being specific. Then again, who am I kidding? LOL Laws are at convenience for those in power anyway…

  3. Mary,
    I have always wondered why Muslim groups don’t demand arrest warrants put out for Indian military and political leaders because of Indian policies which have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Kasmiri Muslims in the last 20 years, far more than the number of Palestinians that have been killed.

    1. Can you prove that? I doubt it. B’Tselem says 6,300 Palestinians have been killed by Israel since 2000. Wikipedia says that 47,000 have been killed in Kashmir overall (going back to the beginning of the conflict there–not sure what year that is but it would probably go back earlier than yr 20 yr cutoff date). So given that there are more Kashmiris than Palestinians I’d guess that per capita the killing rate might be comparable.

      1. Proof is irrelevant. B’Tselem doesn’t offer proof – they offer evidence. There could be a lot of evidence towards bar_kochba claims. Yet somehow, Muslim leaders prefer to inquire in court about some evidence yet not other. Personally, I’ve never expected much from a bunch of antisemitic hypocrites.

        The entire universality clause is preposterous. Why won’t Israel adopt such a clause and than arrest Tony Blair for some evidence Wiki-leaks will undoubtedly uncover in Iraq? Or for that matter, every NATO country is (at least indirectly) responsible for bombing some civilians in Afghanistan using UAVs.

        1. Which “Muslim leaders” are you referring to, Yakov? Are any of them not under the thumb of the US or locked in a treaty with Israel?

          As usual, the finger-pointing which is the rest of your comment has no relevance to the subject.

          1. Well, someone had to file a complaint in order to have Meridor arrested.

            The “finger-pointing” meant to illustrate that Britain or any other single country don’t have the moral authority to persecute suspects in war crimes. Doing so would be pure hypocrisy on their part.

            That’s the reason the ICJ exists and I suggest Britain leave this job to it.

          2. International law says that if a state does not investigate and prosecute war crimes by its own citizens then signatory states OR ICJ may do so. There is no prohibition under international law fr. a state investigating war crimes of other states.

        2. B’Tselem doesn’t offer proof – they offer evidence.

          That’s a tautology. Proof is evidence.

          Why won’t Israel adopt such a clause

          It can’t because it would have to become a signatory to the ICJ treaty, which would ripen it further for war crimes prosecutions.

    2. I suppose the biggest difference compared to the Israel/Palestine situation is the fact the inhabitants of each Kashmir’s region have citizen rights of the occupier state. Something the Palestinians do not have or will ever be given if its up the leaders of Israel. So the difference between Kashmir original inhabitants and the ruling “master race/religion/ideology” is not so big than it is in Israel/Palestine.

      It is amusing how these pro-Israeli extremists who take personal credit for every Nobel price a Jew (even for those who hate the occupation) ever has won, can in terms of Israeli human rights and foreign policy skills find as their only defence argument to compare Israel to the darkest places in our time. If Israel is a real western democracy (which it is not) the countries with which Israel should compete in human rights and equality comparisons are other western democracies. Naturally we know that such comparisons can not be made because the gap is so big and no amount of propaganda could fill that “gap”.

      1. Yes, let’s bait & switch – let’s NOT talk about Israel’s crimes, let’s talk about Kashmir instead. Or Somalia, or Darfur, or Afghanistan, or Iraq. As though these other travesties somehow excuse Israel from what it has done, and what it still does daily, to the Palestinians.

        Gentlemen, you should know better by now than to take the bait, it’s just a tactic to hijack the comment thread.

      2. Simohurtta I think you should check your country’s past history with jews, you will find that your country was second last country in Europe to give jews basic citizen rights. Not very democratic behaviour. How about red against white civil war.

        They tried to ban kosher butchery and now are talking about brit mila, which would mean also that it is against muslim rights. Try to ban basic religious rights.

        Somalis and other minorities have been been blamed for various issues. Democratic country doesn’t allow homosexual the same basic rights then to the majority. Up untill 2002 gays and lesbians were not allowed to get “married” or not to even inherit their shared wealth. Homesexuality was illegal up untill 1971. 30.000 members abanded the churches just recently in a perioud of weeks in a protest because of the evil rhetoric against this specific minority group. Your country is still very racist and so is much of Europe and so call western “democracies”. You dont have to read about it in the newspapers just listen what the person next to you talks about minorities.

        1. you should check your country’s past history with jews

          OFF TOPIC. Way off topic. And such deft hasbarist deflection. Pls. don’t respond Simohurtta. Don’t feed the trolls.

          If you continue violating the comment rules you will face consequences.

    3. A policy that leads to a death is probably not specific enough. An operational command or decision that leads to a death is another matter, and there’s no reason in English law why they couldn’t mount a private prosecution for that if they wanted to and had enough evidence to convince a magistrate to issue a warrant.

      (Private prosecution: you must apply, preferably but not necessarily through a solicitor, to a magistrate for an arrest warrant, which is what the police (via the CPS), customs, trading standards or other official bodies also have to do. Then the defendant can apply to that magistrate for an examination of the evidence before it proceeds to a committal hearing. To stop the process at that stage, the defence would have to show there was something wrong with the evidence, or that the charge was so wrong in law that a Crown Court shouldn’t even consider the matter. If that happened, whoever was bringing the private prosecution could appeal to a High Court Judge for a review, so the odds are that only a genuine deficiency of evidence would stop the defendant being committed to the Crown Court for trial. The Crown Court will not handle a private prosecution, if it arrives there, in any way differently from an “official” one, because the courts were there for many centuries before there was such a thing as a full-time police constable, ministry of Justice, Home Secretary or Prime Minister.

      Usually these days, the police refer matters other than those requiring an immediate arrest, to the Crown Prosecution Service, and they then handle every legal stage from the application for a warrant onwards. But Trading Standards prosecutions are often brought directly. But neither they nor the CPS actually have any status in the eyes of the courts that a private citizen does not. If Mr Cameron attempts to change this, it’s most unlikely that he will succeed, or pass any other legislation at all in the meantime.

      The other possible path is: a citizen or a group of citizens can employ a solicitor to prepare a file on a case and forward that to the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no law that reserves this course of action to the police.
      The DPP should then consider the matter, and direct the Crown Prosecution to initiate further investigation, or bring charges, as appropriate.

      Only one piece of legislation, that creating the offence of inciting racial hatred, has ever excluded the right of private prosecution. In fact, what happens there, is that only the Attorney General may bring authorize such a prosecution. But that doesn’t exclude private citizens from having their lawyer submit a file for his attention, or that of the DPP, who would be a better choice as he has the machinery to investigate further before presenting the matter to the Attorney General.)

  4. Meanwhile, Ayatollah Khamenei just reenacted the opening credits to Austin Powers down Trafalgar Square while Mahmoudy posed next to his wax statue at Maddame Tassaud’s.

    Ask the Israelis: WHO is more isolated?

  5. The principle of universal jurisdiction that allows for anyone alleged guilty of war crimes to be detained and brought before the International Criminal Court is essential to Britain’s democratic society and should not be tampered with to appease a political lobby.

    The report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, dated 15th September 2009, stated, inter alia, regarding attacks by Israeli forces on government buildings and persons of the Gaza authorities, including police, that the facts
    ‘indicate the commission of the grave breach of extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.’

    Regarding the illegal use of white phosphorus as a weapon, the report states:
    ‘the Israeli forces directly and intentionally attacked the Al Quds Hospital in Gaza City and the adjacent ambulance depot with white phosphorous shells. The attack caused fires which took a whole day to extinguish and caused panic among the sick and wounded who had to be evacuated. The Mission finds that no warning was given at any point of an imminent strike.’

    The report concludes that,
    ‘From the facts ascertained in all the above cases, the Mission finds that the conduct of the Israeli armed forces constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons and as such give rise to individual criminal responsibility. It also finds that the direct targeting and arbitrary killing of Palestinian civilians is a violation of the right to life.’

    ‘To the International Community
    The Mission recommends that States Parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Where so warranted following investigation, alleged perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted in accordance with internationally recognised standards of justice.’

    ‘To the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
    • With reference to the declaration under article 12 (3) received by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC from the Government of Palestine, the Mission considers that accountability for victims and the interests of peace and justice in the region require that the legal determination should be made by the Prosecutor as expeditiously as possible’.

    ‘In view of the gravity of the violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity that it has reported, the Mission recommends that the United Nations Human Rights Council request the United Nations Secretary-General to bring this report to the attention of the United Nations Security Council under Art. 99 of the Charter of the United Nations so that the Security Council may consider action according to the relevant Mission ’s recommendations below’.

    ‘The Mission further recommends that the United Nations Human Rights Council formally submit this report to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.’

    In view of the above grave allegations of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity, it would seem inappropriate in the extreme for the government to suggest altering the law on universal jurisdiction in such a manner as to possibly allow anyone alleged guilty of war crime to enter the United Kingdom unrestricted.

  6. Well Mary I must say your comment about the “topic” a bit unfair. Of course those who defend Israel use comparisons to other countries and to history as do those defending Palestinians. That is normal in a discussion which a comment thread normally is. I only pointed out the main difference in those two occupations – giving and not giving the citizenship rights to the “slaves”. I did not begin to “analyse” Kashmir problem.

    To that unfair accusation of Jews’ rights in Finland I have to comment shortly even with to risk of being banned. Until 1809 Finland was a province of Sweden. Between 1809-1917 Finland was part of Russia. The rights of Jews were decided in Stockholm and St. Peterburg by the monarch, not in Helsinki. One of the first laws of the independent Finland was giving full citizen rights to Jews (law given on December 22. 1917, Finland got independence on December 6. 1917). It took less than three weeks to give the citizen rights to Jews. It has passed over 60 years in Israel and the equal rights of Muslims and Christians are still “missing”.

    1. You’re misdirecting your comment. I said nothing about Finland.

      And I do consider the attempt to deflect the argument from the subject of Israel to that of other countries’ behaviors disingenuous.

      1. I did not claim you did, chapter 1 was an answer to your comment. Chapter 2 an answer to “yahoo’s” comment, but I did not want to give credit to “him” by mentioning “his” name. I favour “google” before “yahoo”. So no hidden free marketing to “yahoo”. :).

    2. No, I wouldn’t ban you. I merely wanted to point out that the hasbarist trolls WANT us to take the bait & diverge into the thicket of their choosing. But I think you acquited yrself admirably in answering the provocation posed to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link