Legal Rule of the Mob 4

From IMED:

David Miliband has stated that the procurement of an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni will not happen again.

This follows anger from pro-democracy, pro-Israeli groups and the Israeli government itself at this outrageous use of unjustified and perverted ‘legal weapon’.

This is not the first time that anti-Israeli campaigners have attempted to use such a tool:

•                October 2009: Former military chief Moshe Yaalon was forced to cancel a visit to the UK after being warned that he might face arrest.

•                October 2009: An attempt to obtain an arrest warrant for the Defence Minister Ehud Barak failed after the court ruled that he had diplomatic immunity

•                September 2005: An arrest warrant was issued for former IDF head General Doron Almog. He received warning before leaving an aircraft at Heathrow Airport, and was forced to fly straight back to Israel.

While we at IMED of course believe that there is no justification for such a warrant, and that to accuse Israeli leaders of war crimes is tainted with great hypocrisy and irrational hatred; we are more alarmed at the mob’s increasing acquisition of legal powers.

The state of Israel demonstrated great foresight when she declared that she would not be part of the International Criminal Court. Anti-Israeli groups and Governments immediately decried this decision as that of a guilty party. And so what an impeccable decision Israel made in view of recent events.

What fragments of sovereign statehood remains when an international court – answerable to no-one – has jurisdiction over all countries and peoples? And as Israel foresaw, abuse of such power is rife; what could be more important to the State of Israel than that of sovereignty? – it is the fundamental tenet on which she subsists; the guarantee that a Jew can be protected is promised by Israel’s existence. This unchallenged power, that of these deified international law courts, that allows the arrest and trials of persons anywhere, clashes with the very principles of liberty and democracy.

It is eerily reminiscent of the fall of the Roman Republic – a once proud democracy brought to its knees by the sham trials of its leaders – legal executions by the mob, egged on by cruel, ambitious dictators-to-be.

In what sane world can an individual be tried for a crime based on evidence provided by terrorist groups and circulated by the unwitting media? This is what has happened – Hamas weeps crocodile tears for one lost Palestinian child, while forcing another child at gunpoint to carry their weapons.

As Sam Westrop wrote in an earlier IMED post:

Mashaal may visit Britain without worry – despite his personal involvement with countless murders, including the barbaric slaughter of Holocaust survivors – while Barak faces the prospect of arrest.

Here is an excellent article on the subject in the Jerusalem Post:

The latest episode in which, to paraphrase Karl von Clausewitz, law is used as the continuation of war by other means…

Israel’s enemies still come away with a propaganda victory because reports that a high-ranking Israeli was accused of such heinous charges chip away at Israel’s legitimacy. Note that al-Jazeera on Monday headlined the Livni warrant story instead of immediately going live to Gaza for Hamas’s anniversary rally…

The British legal system adheres to “universal jurisdiction” in the matter of war crimes. A magistrates’ court need only be convinced to issue a warrant – based on claims by advocacy groups supporting the Palestinian Arab cause – for an Israeli official to be taken into custody for events that had nothing to do with Britain…

Some suggest Brown and Miliband have purposefully not fulfilled this promise to chastise Israel. Others say they simply lack the political capital to face down their own rabidly pro-Palestinian backbenchers and – just months before national elections – do not want to be dependent on the Tories to pass a law.

Whatever the explanation, this has not been Britain’s finest hour.

We also recommend this article by Joshua Rozenberg in Standpoint magazine:

There is an important safeguard against inappropriate use of the Geneva Conventions Act. English law says that criminal proceedings in respect of alleged offences occurring after August 2001 cannot be instituted without the Attorney General’s consent.

But that safeguard does not extend to arrest. Anyone may obtain a warrant from a magistrate without notice by producing information, substantiated on oath, that a named person is suspected of a serious offence. Broadly speaking, the police must then arrest the person concerned.

Brown and Miliband have both frantically contacted Livni and the Israeli Government, reassuring them that Israeli politicians and representatives are welcome in the UK, but unless the law is changed, Britain will let the law be perverted in the name of a supreme international authority that so cynically claims to uphold the law, while it discharges only injustice.

Posted under Israel, Law, Terrorism, United Kingdom by Jillian Becker on Friday, December 18, 2009

Tagged with , , , , ,

This post has 4 comments.

Permalink
  • asechines – thank you! You are one of those very rare people who know that Mandela is no hero. Perhaps you know that he was trained to be a terrorist in Libya. Although jailed after his trial, he was as responsible as his wife and other ANC leaders for their appalling policy of murdering fellow blacks by hanging tires round their necks and setting them on fire.

    Re this article: British Jews could demand similar warrants – with real justification – for the arrest of visiting Hamas leaders, but they don't. They think they're being superior by not 'sinking to the same level' ( and are always afraid to be thought disloyal to Britain) but they're merely being weak and foolish.

    • samwestrop

      But should British Jews be demanding similar warrants? Does that not just add credence to the idea that an 'international court' – one that is being manipulated by the tyranny of dictatorial majority (just like the UN) – is an acceptable idea?

      If they were not such limp, pathetic and ultimately self-destructive creates, should British Jews not rather be fighting for an end to the ultimate legal powers that lie in the hands of the mob?

      • I agree with Sam about not giving credence to the idea of an international court [of 'human rights'].

        But 2 points:
        One way to make the absurdity of this kind of international hounding by threat of arrest both obvious and obviously unworkable, is to strain it to the utmost until it breaks. Everyone who has the whim to do so could get out warrants against every politician, general, admiral – and why not every soldier and sailor and airman? – who acts in defense of a country he doesn't like.
        Secondly, Hamas is in fact not a government but a terrorist organization (even if 'elected' by the stateless population of Gaza), and is designated as such I think even in Britain, so there must be longer-established and more respectable means of keeping its leaders out, and they should be made use of every time it is necessary and without fail.

  • aeschines

    …and yet Nelson Mandela was never arrested in Britain for the horrible offenses he committed.

    In fact, that shit even has a statue in his honor in London.

    I'd like to see him take a long walk to freedom off a plank.