'The UK is not a banana republic'

[BunkerHill24]

'The UK is not a banana republic'

By Daud Abdullah


David Miliband, the UK's foreign secretary, has apologised to his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, after the humiliation and embarrassment caused by the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister.

The arrest warrant was issued over Livni's suspected war crimes role during Israel's war on Gaza, but was later withdrawn after she cancelled her visit to London.

Miliband also promised to begin work immediately to change UK laws to ensure that no such warrants would be issued for Israeli officials in the future. As an added sweetener to the act of contrition, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, also personally called Livni to assure her she would always be welcomed to visit the UK.

All of this is easier said than done. Already there is a huge outcry in Britain over the mere thought of changing UK laws or reneging on treaty obligations simply to protect Israeli officials involved in the serial breach of international law.

In their deluded fantasy the Israelis claim that the judicial order in London will seriously impair bi-lateral relations between London and Tel Aviv, jeopardise the Middle East peace process and undermine Britain's image in the region.

Historic Middle East role


Human rights groups have accused Livni of crimes against humanity
What a gross distortion. Britain's historic relationship and role in the Middle East is unquestioned. Even though it has on many occasions acted against the national interests of the people of the region and the Palestinians in particular, it would be wishful thinking to suggest that it could be excluded from future negotiations.

Instead of being eternally grateful to Britain for creating their state in Palestine, Israeli officials are today attempting to bite the very hand that fed them.

To claim that Britain is in trouble or would be the loser because of the court order is disingenuous. Actually, the only losers are those who planned, commissioned and executed the war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.

They are the ones in hot water, so to speak, and the greatest service Brown could make on behalf of universal jurisdiction is to leave them to stew in it.

These sentiments were expressed by his former cabinet colleague Clare Short, a member of the Labour Party and an independent MP, while addressing a conference organised by the Palestinian Return Centre, in London.

A former minister for international development, Short said the crimes committed in Gaza during Israel's Operation Cast Lead last year marked a defining moment in the conflict. She criticised how Israel has undermined the international system by its cavalier breach of conventions and established norms in an apparent attempt to tell the world that there are special laws for certain states and that it is a state above the law.

She derided the hypocrisy of those who seek to prosecute Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, while at the same time they refuse and obstruct efforts to investigated and prosecute Israeli criminals.

Violations of international law

The groveling apology to Israel, after the British ambassador was summoned for a reprimand by the Israeli foreign ministry, is the type of reaction expected from a banana republic, not from Great Britain.

Should the foreign secretary entertain Lieberman, a Jewish settler himself and a resident of Nokdim, a West Bank settlement considered illegal under international law? What a contradiction.

The official policy of the UK government is that all settlements in the lands occupied in 1967 are illegal and violate UN Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is poignant to point out that Livni's father and mother were regarded as "terrorists" by the British Mandate authorities in Palestine in the 1940s and were both captured and locked up. Under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Britain still has an obligation to "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".

What is at stake in this imbroglio is the independence of the British judiciary, an institution that for hundreds of years has been a source of national pride and emulated by many nations.

It is for this reason there is anger and outrage over the government's declared intent to succumb to Israel. The implication, of course, is the fear that in future Britain would not be able to lay any claim to be a bastion and guardian of international law. The rhetoric of 'rule of law' will run hollow if there was any change of the law for no other reason except to protect war criminals who happen to be members of the club.

Compelling evidence

It must be recalled that these laws came into being because of the Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity. Only last month there was great satisfaction and hubris when John Demjanjuk was brought before a German court more than 60 years after allegedly committing his crimes.

The message was clear: that war crimes and crimes against humanity are so repugnant that they must not go unpunished.

The case against the Israeli minister and her accomplices was made not by Richard Goldstone only.

A number of independent reports including the report of Independent Fact-Finding Committee on Gaza to the Arab League, the Martin Commission report to the UN secretary-general on attacks on UN premises, and reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights and the National Lawyers Guild, all support the conclusion that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Israeli military in its Operation Cast Lead.

It was because of this compelling evidence that a British judge issued the warrant for Livni's arrest. To present the matter as if it were a malicious witch hunt is simply beside the point. Surely it would be a travesty of justice if what occurred in Gaza was not investigated and prosecuted.

Peace in the region has remained elusive precisely because of this failure to be even-handed in the application of international law, always at the expense of Palestinian rights.

If Palestinians do not have recourse to the law, one wonders what other options are left to them when their legitimate grievances are ignored.


http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/2009121851441467459.html

[LeftishBrit]

1. Of course it isn't.!

But that is all missing the point. The point is that this is not a policy of the British government or of the High Court in Britain, but of one particular judge. I had not realized until this case the extent to which an individual judge is permitted to issue an international arrest warrant, and I think that the law does need to be changed just to avoid chaos. This time, it was an Israeli leader that Abdullah regards as the enemy. Next time, it could be another judge issuing an arrest warrant against a Palestinian leader; or another judge issuing an arrest warrant against a leader of some country that has criticized Britain (never underestimate the silliness of some judges in Britain, or in any country if it comes to that).


In order to be effective, an arrest warrant has to be agreed by the country as a whole - or still more, internationally.

For the rest, Britain will have more moral authority to arrest foreign leaders when we have arrested our own war criminal ex-leader Tony Blair.

[azurnoir]

2. I was under the impression that the warrent issued

only pertained to the UK and not outside

Earlier this week the Guardian reported that a warrant for Livni's arrest had been issued by a British court, but was rescinded once it was discovered that she was not in the country. The warrant was issued following a complaint that the former foreign minister had been responsible for war crimes during the Israeli operation in Gaza about a year ago.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3821212,00.html

[LeftishBrit]

3. That is correct; when I said 'international' I meant warrants applying to citizens of other

countries, not warrants for arrest in any country. I realize I wasn't very clear on this point. In any case, this is one reason why such arrest warrants will not be very effective, as the leaders in question can simply avoid visiting Britain.

[azurnoir]

4. Yes they are more for show

I have wondered though given what happened concerning Ehud Barak recently if this whole thing was not a means of "putting the UK to the test" so to speak really it could not have been much of a surprise

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Are you sure that's what you mean?

I would have thought that the most important distinction was where the crime was committed, not where the criminal was a citizen of?

[shaayecanaan]

7. Im quite surprised...

you seem to be suggesting that the issue of an arrest warrant in this instance should be handled as a political decision rather than a judicial one. I wouldnt consider that to be compatible with the rule of law - although it certainly is suggestive of a banana republic, it must be said.

I replied later down the thread giving my thoughts in general on this issue and the reasons for my opposition to the issue of these types of warrants. However I dont think politicising the decision to issue a warrant would improve things　- indeed it would serve to only make things worse.

[shira]

5. Arresting Politicians – British Hypocrisy

The media is full of stories concerning Tzipi Livni and a potential arrest warrant issued against her in the British courts.

That is, I think, a little bit unusual?

I can’t remember of any other nationality, or nation, being subject to these ad hoc arrest warrants, from British courts.

Even when General Pinochet, the murdering ex-dictator of Chile, was in Britain, he was only held under house arrest on a Spanish warrant, not a British one.

Further if we think of the variety and intensity of dictators, potentates and other assorted politicians who have graced Britain with their presence in the past 30 years it is hard to remember which of them were subject to warrants issued by British courts, or even the threat of arrest.

Was Vladimir Putin indicted for Russian barbarism in Chechnya ? Certainly not.

Was Robert Mugabe chastised for brutalising, starving and murdering Zimbabweans? No, not really.

Were King Fahd or his successor, King Abdullah II ever prosecuted for having the worst human rights record in the Middle East? Not at all.

You could go through the list of state visits from 1955 onwards and find any number of rogues, villains and the culpable, but what is surprising is that no one in Britain has seen fit to even **attempt** to acquire a warrant or two in the British courts, except when it comes to Israelis.

Moreover there are people in Britain who consider that Tony Blair is a war criminal for his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent bloodshed which ensued.

But as far as I know, not one single Brit has taken the trouble to apply for warrant arresting Tony Blair, even though some of them consider him a war criminal, which seems to suggest that their indignation is rather selective.

I can only suppose that if Tony Blair were an Israeli that there would be a stampede to the Law Courts, pleading for an arrest warrant at great haste.

Yet none of the political windbags that attack Blair would even dare to venture near the Law Courts where he is concerned, or they would have long since done it.

My bet is none of this top twenty worst human rights offenders have anything to fear in visiting Britain, Amnesty reports:

Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Algeria, Sierra Leone, Egypt, North Korea, Sudan, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, China, Libya, Burma, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Chad and Congo (Republic).

However, should their leaders decide to visit Britain then, no matter how much blood is dripping from their fingers, they will probably receive a warm welcome in Blighty, and be patted on the back in true imperial fashion.

As long as they are not Israelis.

Countries may come and go, but there is one constant in history, good old British hypocrisy.

http://cifwatch.com/2009/12/17/arresting-politicians-british-hypocrisy/

[shaayecanaan]

6. Im not British...

but I am aware that in Australia at least (which has its own version of Britain`s universal jurisdiction law) most of the prosecutions have involved Nazi war criminals. There was one named Polyukovich who was involved in war crimes in the Ukraine as well as a couple of others.

Various groups have attempted to have warrants issued for other categories of war criminals. I vaguely recall one such effort against a Japanese person thought to have been active in Unit 731 - the Japanese organisation in WW2 that conducted notorious medical experiments on Chinese prisoners. I can`t recall whether there might have also been an attempt to arrest Henry Kissinger. As far as I know all these efforts have been unsuccessful.

About 5 years ago, a former American Army officer visited Australia and gave a number of talks in which he criticised the conduct of the Iraq war. Ironically, this same officer was implicated in war crimes during the Vietnam conflict due to an expose by the Toledo Blade newspaper, which was published around the same time.

Of course, that officer was never arrested or tried, and as far as I know no Israeli has been threatened with arrest in Australia.

I am not sure whether you seriously contend that no Israeli has ever committed war crimes, which obviously is a ridiculous assertion. I think many of Ariel Sharons actions during the Lebanon war would easily qualify. From what I can tell you seem to be saying that unless states apply these policies fairly and equally they shouldnt apply them at all.

Fair enough, and I agree with that. I am very tired of the way that western countries selectively recognise and apply international law. But you should realise that if that were the case a few old Nazis scattered throughout the globe (admittedly there are not many of them left) would probably be sleeping a lot more soundly at night.

[shira]

8. the only reason Israel is singled out like this is hate/bigotry

check this out...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x292775#292776

If Israel were really and truly as bad as the Goldstone report would have us believe, I wouldn't have a problem with Israel being singled out. Singling Israel out would still be antisemitic, but IMO it would be the right thing to do and I'd be all for it, if Israel were really as bad as depicted by its enemies.

The fact Israel is singled out despite the facts presented in the link above (reality being the opposite of what Goldstone claims) leads me to believe pure bigotry/antisemitism is the sole reason for Israel being singled out (with Hamas being encouraged to continue to maximize Palestinian suffering, incite people to hatred and murder, celebrate the deaths of Jews). I'm at a loss as to how any liberal can find common cause with such haters and their very regressive, anti-democratic and anti-HR/peace agenda.

[shaayecanaan]

10. The only reason for any country being singled out...

is that other countries/people have an axe to grind. The Arab countries undoubtedly criticise Israel to provide a distraction for their own brutality and incompetence. But then again, the African countries did the same with respect to South Africa. And at least the South Africans didnt exile half the Zulus to Rhodesia and then threaten to shoot them if they attempted to return, which is what Israel did to the Palestinians.

You could say the same for the American hypocrisy with respect to Serbia or Tiananmen square. America has the blood of over 70 armed interventions in various states on its hands during the last fifty years. It killed over 16% of an entire country`s population in Vietnam. It had Milosevic indicted for alleged indirect involvement in the massacre of about 5000 people, for which the evidence was pretty flimsy, to be perfectly honest.

The problem is, if you want Nazi war criminals indicted, unfortunately you have to run the risk of other war criminals (some of whom might be Israeli or Jewish) being indicted as well. Which is it to be?

[Violet_Crumble]

11. And it's that last point of yrs that I think is important...

The problem is, if you want Nazi war criminals indicted, unfortunately you have to run the risk of other war criminals (some of whom might be Israeli or Jewish) being indicted as well. Which is it to be?

I have little patience for arguments against Israeli leaders being arrested for war-crimes because apparently that should only happen after Tony Blair and a long list of other people are arrested, or the *Everyone's Picking On Poor Little Israel* line gets trotted out. Neither of those are any sort of argument as far as I'm concerned. Precedents have to be set at some point and I couldn't care less which arrest of a war criminal gets the ball rolling. And the first argument about not charging a leader with war-crimes until a long list of others are charged just means the people making that argument are forgetting they should be out there right now protesting against the arrest of war-criminals from the Nazi era and a whole lot of others. Of course they aren't doing that coz I suspect they really do believe that there's no such thing as an Israeli who's ever committed war crimes, and they're fine with anyone else being arrested, just not an Israeli...

[shira]

14. so then Israel should at best be singled out for real, not imagined, war crimes

Fair enough?

Once again...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x292775#292776

You've gotta admit singling out Israel due to the Goldstone illusion is quite stinky.

[shaayecanaan]

17. Absolutely...

but I must warn you, in these types of situations one cannot choose one`s own referee. And regrettably, the referee`s decision is final.

The Fourth Geneva Convention states quite clearly that civilian populations cannot be transferred to militarily occupied territory. Quite arguably, then, the establishment of settlements in Palestine constitute crimes against humanity.

I quite agree with you that the Americans and British have killed many civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. But to state that the Americans and British are just as bad or worse does not constitute a defence.

[shira]

18. undoubtedly

The Fourth Geneva Convention states quite clearly that civilian populations cannot be transferred to militarily occupied territory. Quite arguably, then, the establishment of settlements in Palestine constitute crimes against humanity.

LOL.

The 4GC is talking about forcible transfer, which would be illegal. There is nothing illegal, however, WRT voluntary immigration. In fact, what if a 3rd party (Jordanians) wanted to voluntarily move into the W.Bank? Would that be illegal? Of course not...but according to your understanding of the 4GC, Israel is obligated to stop Jordanians from voluntarily immigrating to the WB. Let's say Israel is obligated, should they also be obligated to prevent Israeli Arabs (Palestinians) from voluntarily immigrating to the WB too?

So much for those crimes against humanity, hmm?

I quite agree with you that the Americans and British have killed many civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. But to state that the Americans and British are just as bad or worse does not constitute a defence.

The defense is quite simply that Israel's intent has not been to indiscriminately and intentionally kill civilians. All evidence points to the fact that the IDF during OCL did its best to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties while Hamas did its utmost to maximize them (which incidentally makes Hamas responsible for the bulk of civilian casualties, not Israel). No other military in modern history, given the circumstances, has performed better during a defensive war. An impartial court that wouldn't allow itself to be compromised by politics would easily rule in favor of Israel.

Again, if Israel were singled out for REAL and not imaginary crimes, I'd be in your corner.

[shaayecanaan]

19. That is a complete misreading of the Fourth Geneva Convention

To start off with, I`ll quote Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in full:-

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

The first passage refers quite clearly that forcible transfers of protected persons are not permitted. Protected persons are people subject to occupation, and the provision basically exists to prevent the occupier from transferring the occupied population to its own territory - not the other way around. A historical example of this might be the transfer of Seminole Indians from Florida to the Indian Territories in Oklahoma. The provision then goes on to detail a number of instances in which protected persons can be moved temporarily.

So in other words, pursuant to the 4th Geneva convention Israel could voluntarily resettle Palestinians in Israel, but it couldnt do so forcibly (of course it shows no indication of doing so either way).

The last provision which Ive highlighted is quite different. It says that the occupying power cannot deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied territory. Note that the `forcible` qualifier does not appear here as it does in the case of the earlier provisions dealing with protected persons. The provision prohibits this kind of transfer whether voluntary or involuntary. The settlements in the West Bank are therefore illegal.

In fact, what if a 3rd party (Jordanians) wanted to voluntarily move into the W.Bank?

Then those Jordanians would be obliged to apply to the relevant agency of the protecting power, which in this case would be the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior. In that case it would constitute lawful and routine migration pursuant to the laws of the protecting power and would not constitute a transfer according to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Of course any Israelis wanting to migrate to the West Bank would need to do the same, and it would be the sovereign decision of the protecting power as to whether to permit that migration or not. After all, thats what `voluntary migration` generally entails - both the migrant and the destination country need to agree before it happens.

[shira]

21. no it's not

1. The 4GC could have simply stated that voluntary immigration of any sort is illegal. There is no such law, however, as it would have been ridiculous to implement for reasons given already.

2. Unless I'm mistaken, the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior didn't exist until at least the 1990's when Arafat's PLO agreed to a declaration of principles with Israel, and there was no agreeement between the parties then that settlement activity was illegal (in fact, settlement areas were left for final status negotiations). If it were illegal, it would have been addressed then and there. There certainly wasn't any such thing as a Palestinian Ministry of the Interior back in the late 1960's or early 1970's to decide whether to allow third party citizens, like Jordanians, to immigrate - if that's what they wanted to do. Jordan illegally ruled the W.Bank from 1948 to 1967 so there was no such thing as a Palestinian Ministry of anything to make any such rulings. The fact is, if Israel allowed Jordanians to immigrate, or for Israeli Arabs to voluntarily immigrate into the W.Bank no one would have an issue with it, right? Think about that one and you tell me what's really going on here. The main point, however, is that nothing in the 4GC prohibits Jordanians, Syrians, or Sudanese from voluntarily immigrating into the W.Bank. The same applies to Israeli Arabs and Jews. To drive the point home even more, what if Israel transferred 3 million Sudanese refugees seeking asylum years ago before any Palestinian Ministry of the Interior and sent them into the W.Bank to live? Nothing illegal about that one, right? Then what would be wrong with transferring 3 million American Jews who would want to voluntary immigrate into that territory?

3. It's common knowledge that transfer according to the 4GC was banned due mainly to the fact that transfer was intended to displace the native population. Settlement activity does not displace anyone. Also the 1949 armistice lines were never legally accepted as borders and furthermore, UNSCR 242 doesn't call for Israel to pull back exactly to those armistice lines. If your view was correct, voluntary immigration would be explicitly forbidden in the 4GC and UNSCR 242 would call for Israel to pull back behind the armistice lines and give up every inch of land taken after 1967.

4. Settlement activity was legal and valid throughout the W.Bank before the formation of Israel in 1948 and that right was never rescinded or terminated.

League of Nations, Article 6...

"The administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State land not required for public use."

So there is legal precedent for settlements, and this right was never revoked - was it?

[shaayecanaan]

22. Complete and utter gibberish...

1. The 4GC could have simply stated that voluntary immigration of any sort is illegal. There is no such law, however.

There is such a law, and it is stated in quite clear terms. I`ll quote it for you again:-

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Israel is an occupying power.
The West Bank is the territory that it occupies.
Therefore Israel must not transfer parts of its civilian population into the West Bank.

`Unless I'm mistaken, the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior didn't exist until at least the 1990's when Arafat's PLO agreed to a declaration of principles with Israel, and there was no agreeement between the parties then that settlement activity was illegal.`

It doesnt matter. Somalia, for instance, did not have an effective government until three or four years ago (it doesnt really have one now). That doesnt mean that any other state could occupy part of it and transfer part of its population there, instead it simply meant that no one could lawfully migrate to Somalia during the time it was without a government. And saying that there was no agreement between the parties that settlement was illegal is a stupid argument. If there is no agreement between the two of us that murder is illegal, does that mean I can lawfully kill you?

League of Nations, Article 6...

"The administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State land not required for public use."

The section doesnt confer rights on anyone to migrate to Palestine independently. It simply allowed the British mandate (`the administation of Palestine`) to resettle Jews in Palestine. If you are seriously contending that this provision is still in force (notwithstanding that the League of Nations is long dead) then I take it you are contending that the British should still be in charge of mandatory Palestine?

Again, I would refer you to my remarks above about not being able to choose your own referee. Imagine yourself in the position of an English judge - do you really think such arguments as your babbling above are going to sway him or her?

[shira]

24. but you can't refute the 'gibberish'...you ignored most of the arguments that prove you wrong

1. I explained in the previous post why your view of 'transfer' is absurd. No need to repeat it.

2. As for agreement between the PLO and Israel back in the early 90's, why didn't the PLO see to it that the 4GC was followed from that point onward by Israel and that further 'transfer' would be illegal? Even if you're right and settlement activity has been illegal ever since the League of Nations Mandate expired (whenever that was) the PLO agreed to 'allow' it until final status negotiations. If they agree to that 'transfer', how is does it remain illegal or a war crime? They agreed to deal with settlements until final negotiations, which makes sense since UNSCR 242 makes it clear that Israel would not have to retreat from every inch over the 1949 armistice lines (which were never considered borders).

3. The League of Nations mandate WRT settlement was never revoked. The British voluntarily gave up control of mandatory Palestine so that argument fails. In your opinion, when should the mandate on Jewish settlement have expired?

4. As for my own referee, I was clear before that any Judge uncompromised by politics would rule in Israel's favor. I believe you know that as well. If it were left up to the ICC, no amount of facts or evidence would be enough to convince that political court.

Again, I'm all for holding Israel responsible for real crimes. You appear content on demonizing and prosecuting Israel for imaginary and fictitious crimes not covered by international law.

Tell me, are the best legal cases you can bring against Israel all imaginary?

[azurnoir]

20. Well let's try these

Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_I._Provisions_common_to_the_territories_of_the_parties_to_the_conflict_and_to_occupied_territorie

now I suppose the argument could be made that"transfer" means forcibly, but nowhere does it say by force and the fact that the Israeli government supports the settlements does imply transfer

[shaayecanaan]

23. I think that transfer simply means moving something from one place to another...

and the International Court of Justice seems to agree:-

The second major issue involved the legality of the barrier in light of international humanitarian law. The court rejected Israel's argument that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply in the Occupied Territories because the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never part of a sovereign state. On this point, the court held that, insofar as the territories fell into Israel's hands as a result of war with two states that are party to the Convention, the state must exercise control over the said territory in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Specifically, the court found that the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

[Ken Burch]

12. It's too cold to grow bananas in the UK...everyone knows that.

:sarcasm:

It could be a strawberry monarchy.

[Ken Burch]

13. Then again, why is Milliband apologizing to Avigdor Lieberman

Lieberman is one of Tzipi Livni's fiercest opponents. He probably laughed his head off when he heard about the warrant.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Lieberman's a fascist and bigoted Arab-hating piece of dogshit...

Says a lot about the low standards of the British govt that they'd even consider apologising someone as disgusting as him...

[Ken Burch]

16. And especially that there's no an arrest warrant for HIM as well.

n/t.

[aranthus]

26. Becasue he's the Israeli foreign minister.

The apology is to the country.

[aranthus]

25. Let's be honest and serious for a moment.

If the people who obtained the warrant had actually wanted to arrest and prosecute Livni, then the warrant would not have been made public until she was in the UK. This was not about prosecution for war crimes (which they almost certainly couldn't prove against Livni). It was about making an anti-Israel political statement, and causing and incident and embarrassment. The perpetrators abused the judicial system for political purposes, and the judge misused his office by allowing it (he had to have known what was up).

Second, the law which allows British courts to unilateral, universal jurisdiction has to be changed. There are other international norms besides the prohibition on war crimes, however. Norms that are far older and far more important to the ongoing health of the international system. Among them are the concept of sovereignty, the limits of sovereignty, and how those concepts are related to the concept of a court's jurisdiction. Sovereignty is the legitimate authority of a state, and it is normally limited to the territory of that state. There is a term for the attempt by one state to exercise sovereignty in the territory of another. That term is war. War is any attempt by one state to interfere with the sovereign rights of another. Although that generally involves some use of force, judicial action is a precursor to use of force by the state (they would have arrested Livni, which is an act of force). That's why the prosecutors of war crimes have almost always been participants in the war where the war crimes are supposed to have been committed. When the Nazis were prosecuted it was by the victorious Allies. The Serbian war crimes trials were brought by the nations that had intervened in that war. Also, the prosecution was not brought by one country in its own name and jurisdiction, but under the banner of many countries in the jurisdiction where the crimes occurred: Germany for the Nazis; the former Yugoslavia for the Balkans. The Act of Parliament which granted the UK court authority to issue an arrest warrant allows British courts alone to prosecute supposed crimes that occurred elsewhere, where the UK has no actual involvement. It is essentially a statement that the UK has the right to interfere in the sovereignty of any other country. It completely overturns the norms that have been developed to handle war crimes, extends UK sovereignty everywhere in violation of the sovereignty of every other country (creating a precedent for chaos if other countries do the same), and can only be enforced by acts of war. Considering that the charges against Livni are political stunt, the stunt itself is a far greater challenge to the international system and peace of the world than anything Livni has done.