PDA

View Full Version : Israel condemns UK attempt to arrest Tsipi Livni



MIKEMUN
15 Dec 09,, 13:42
Israel condemns UK attempt to arrest Tzipi Livni

Ms Livni was foreign minister during Israel's Cast Lead military operation
Israel has condemned as "cynical" the issuing of a war crimes arrest warrant in the United Kingdom for former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

The warrant, issued by a London Court on Saturday, was revoked on Monday when it was found Ms Livni was not visiting the the UK.

Ms Livni was in post during Israel's controversial Gaza assault last winter.

It is the first time a UK court has issued a warrant for an Israeli former minister.

Pro-Palestinian campaigners have tried several times to have Israeli officials arrested under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

This allows domestic courts in countries around the world to try war crimes suspects, even if the crime took place outside the country and the suspect is not a citizen.

Israel denies claims by human rights groups and the UN investigator Richard Goldstone that its forces committed war crimes during the operation, which it said was aimed at ending Palestinian rocket fire at its southern towns.

The Palestinian militant group Hamas has also been accused of committing war crimes during the conflict.

'Cynical act'

"Israel rejects the cynical act taken in a British court," against Ms Livni, now the head of the opposition Kadima party, "at the initiative of extreme elements," Israel's foreign ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

It called on the British government to "act against the exploitation of the British legal system against Israel".


Addressing a conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday, Ms Livni did not refer specifically to the arrest attempt.

But she said: "Israel must do what is right for Israel, regardless of judgements, statements and arrest warrants. It's the leadership's duty, and I would repeat each and every decision," Israeli media reported.

Israel says it fully complies with international law, which it says it interprets in line with other Western countries such as the US and UK.

On Monday Ms Livni's office denied the reports that a warrant had been issued and that she had cancelled plans to visit the UK because of fears of arrest.

It said a planned trip had been cancelled two weeks earlier because of scheduling problems.

'Strategic partner'

The British foreign office said it was "urgently looking into the implications of the case".

"The UK is determined to do all it can to promote peace in the Middle East, and to be a strategic partner of Israel," it said in a statement.

PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO ARREST ISRAELI OFFICIALS
October 2009: Former military chief Moshe Yaalon cancelled a UK visit because of fears of arrest for alleged war crimes
October 2009: Filed attempt to raise warrant against Defence Minister Ehud Barak. Court ruled he had diplomatic immunity
September 2005: Arrest warrant issued for a former head of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip Gen Doron Almog. He received warning before disembarking from an aircraft at Heathrow Airport, and flew back to Israel
"To do this, Israel's leaders need to be able to come to the UK for talks with the British government."

Palestinians and human rights groups say more than 1,400 people were killed during Israel's Cast Lead operation between 27 December 2008 and 16 January 2009, more than half of them civilians.

Israel puts the number of deaths at 1,166 - fewer than 300 of them civilians. Three Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli soldiers were also killed.

The BBC's Tim Franks says that, privately, senior Israeli figures are warning of what they see as an increasing anti-Israeli bent in the British establishment.

In turn, our correspondent adds, there is clearly concern among British officials that should further arrest warrants be issued, relations with Israel could be damaged.

In October, Israeli minister and former military chief Moshe Yaalon cancelled a UK visit because of fears of arrest for alleged war crimes.

Pro-Palestinian groups in Britain want Mr Yaalon to face trial over the 2002 killing of a Gaza militant, in which 14 others also died.

A similar attempt a week earlier failed to get an arrest warrant issued for Israel's Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

The court said he was accorded diplomatic immunity because of his official role.

In 2005, an arrest warrant was issued for a former head of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip, Major General Doron Almog, over the destruction of Palestinian homes.

He received warning before disembarking from an aircraft at Heathrow Airport, and flew back to Israel, avoiding possible arrest.


BBC News - Israel condemns UK attempt to arrest Tzipi Livni (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8413234.stm)

Merlin
15 Dec 09,, 15:09
This is exactly why the Israeli PM and other Ministers are worried when they have no more immunity after they step down.

zara
15 Dec 09,, 15:40
Wouldn't they get diplomatic immunity?

Merlin
15 Dec 09,, 16:06
They have no more diplomatic immunity 'after they step down'.

zara
15 Dec 09,, 16:17
it would set a huge precedent. Almost any senior British Minister could be arrested under universal jurisdiction too in that case.

Merlin
15 Dec 09,, 16:36
I think a judge has to accept the issue of such a warrant. After this, if the country affected is strong, it can apply diplomatic pressure on the issuing country to have the warrant withdrawn. If the country affect is weak, the other country would not care.

Israel: British arrest warrant threatens ties (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTqdQWror3SGh5NBgEr9XYIGoqYgD9CJPD600)

1 hr ago [AP] JERUSALEM — An arrest warrant issued in Britain against Israel's former foreign minister was a "diplomatic offense" against the country, a Cabinet minister said Tuesday, warning that attempts in Britain to pursue war crimes charges against Israeli leaders was harming relations between the two countries.

The minister, Yuli Edelstein, urged the British government to revise a law that has allowed Palestinians to try to go after Israelis in British courts for alleged crimes committed outside Britain.

The law has caused several Israeli officials and retired military commanders to call off trips to Britain, and was most recently invoked to issue a warrant against former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. ....

HillTribe
15 Dec 09,, 17:26
Lets turn this upside down....

Hypothetically, say an Iraqi files a case in an Israeli court charging Blair of war crimes in the "illegal" invasion of Iraq. The Israeli court sees enough in the case to merit an indictment and issues a warrant for Blair. How would the British Government react?

Blue
15 Dec 09,, 22:08
This is the first I have heard of this. Have the Brits gone effing insane? What the hell is this to accomplish?

bonehead
16 Dec 09,, 06:50
More appeasement. Doubtful Israel would bomb the U.K. but Muslim extremest already have.

zara
16 Dec 09,, 12:21
This is the first I have heard of this. Have the Brits gone effing insane? What the hell is this to accomplish?


I don't think there was a government decision. It was a judge who issued there warrant. If anything I think the British government would try to reverse this.

bigross86
16 Dec 09,, 12:47
The article itself says it clearly:

PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO ARREST ISRAELI OFFICIALS
October 2009: Former military chief Moshe Yaalon cancelled a UK visit because of fears of arrest for alleged war crimes
October 2009: Filed attempt to raise warrant against Defence Minister Ehud Barak. Court ruled he had diplomatic immunity
September 2005: Arrest warrant issued for a former head of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip Gen Doron Almog. He received warning before disembarking from an aircraft at Heathrow Airport, and flew back to Israel

There have been a lot of attempts over the past couple years

Merlin
16 Dec 09,, 16:39
This news article below shows clearly the current British government's view on this matter.

British premier says Livni welcome (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTqdQWror3SGh5NBgEr9XYIGoqYgD9CKF2700)

1 hr ago [AP] JERUSALEM — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has phoned former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to say she is still welcome in Britain despite a warrant issued for her arrest.

Livni's office says the British premier phoned her Wednesday afternoon and said he intends to act to change a law that allows non-citizens to be brought before British courts.

A statement quoted Brown as saying Livni is welcome in Britain, regardless of the arrest attempt. ....

Several Israeli officials have canceled visits to Britain because of similar warrants issued through efforts by Palestinian activists. ...

YellowFever
16 Dec 09,, 19:38
"...Livni's office says the British premier phoned her Wednesday afternoon and said he intends to act to change a law that allows non-citizens to be brought before British courts..."


Wouldn't it be much easier just to get rid of idiot judges that would issue such warrants? :mad:

HillTribe
17 Dec 09,, 03:28
"...Livni's office says the British premier phoned her Wednesday afternoon and said he intends to act to change a law that allows non-citizens to be brought before British courts..."


In the UK, as in other democracies, the judiciary is independent of the executive. And obviously in this case the judiciary and the executive do not see eye to eye. Thus, Gordon Brown's (The Executive's) attempt to stymie the Judiciary by attempting to change the law itself through the Legislative (The Parliament). Once the law is changed, the Judiciary will be forced to defend that (the changed) law.

The Muslim constituency has grown formidable in the UK to even have this brought to court.

captain
17 Dec 09,, 17:49
In the UK, as in other democracies, the judiciary is independent of the executive. And obviously in this case the judiciary and the executive do not see eye to eye. Thus, Gordon Brown's (The Executive's) attempt to stymie the Judiciary by attempting to change the law itself through the Legislative (The Parliament). Once the law is changed, the Judiciary will be forced to defend that (the changed) law.

The Muslim constituency has grown formidable in the UK to even have this brought to court.

I don't think it is just the Muslim community.

A great deal of the anti Israel sentiment comes from academia and the loony left.
IIRC, British academia have been the most vocal in demands for sanctions, boycotts etc against anything Israeli.
Then there is the loony left like MP George Galloway who would cheer anything remotely anti Israel.
The MSM (guardian) is also not shy about similar thoughts.

Cheers.

maximusslade
17 Dec 09,, 19:22
"...Livni's office says the British premier phoned her Wednesday afternoon and said he intends to act to change a law that allows non-citizens to be brought before British courts..."


Wouldn't it be much easier just to get rid of idiot judges that would issue such warrants? :mad:



Probably not, they probably have laws in place that prevent the firing of judges, much like here in the states. In fact, here in the States, we promote our judges who make fool decisions to the US Supreme Court!

zara
18 Dec 09,, 10:14
Theres a broader issue here though, the concept of universal jurisdiction.

Is this something that can be selectively applied to those that western governments decide or is it truly universal?

How can it have any validity when we refuse to let our own leaders be subjected to it?

Parihaka
18 Dec 09,, 13:14
Theres a broader issue here though, the concept of universal jurisdiction.

Is this something that can be selectively applied to those that western governments decide or is it truly universal?

How can it have any validity when we refuse to let our own leaders be subjected to it?

Lets put it this way.
Should everyone in the world be subject to Robert Mugabe?
Should our leaders be subject to us or him?
Men have the capability of being evil, any time, any place.
Should we have laws that bind us to authority irrespective of the nature of the weilder of that authority, or should those weilders be subject to us.

zara
18 Dec 09,, 13:34
Of course, Im not saying scrap Universal Jurisdiction, but why should our leaders be able to act with impunity?

Blue
18 Dec 09,, 15:35
Of course, Im not saying scrap Universal Jurisdiction, but why should our leaders be able to act with impunity? Power corrupts...universal juris= a hell of a lot of power. See the relation there?

zara
18 Dec 09,, 16:04
Power corrupts...universal juris= a hell of a lot of power. See the relation there?

Yes, I guess it frightens those in power.

Realistically any leader that has committed troops (or taken military action) anywhere could probably be arrested if the precedent was set.

Officer of Engineers
18 Dec 09,, 16:07
Or any UN soldier.

Blue
18 Dec 09,, 16:43
Yes, I guess it frightens those in power.

Realistically any leader that has committed troops (or taken military action) anywhere could probably be arrested if the precedent was set.

Point is though, when power is distributed then there can be balance. Besides, the real power should come from the people, not the govt.

bigross86
18 Dec 09,, 22:29
I got to be honest. The UN, fine I can accept. Despite all their crap and stupidity, they've mediated many a conflict and do a lot of humanitarian stuff. Good on them.

The world court, why not? If you've been a real schmuck, yes, we'll kick your ass for it.

But someone please explain to me what the courts in England have to do with anything happening in Israel?! As soon as I start blowing up trains in London, you can try and arrest and indict me, until then, piss off. What I do in my backyard is not your concern, it concerns the first two sets of cry babies I mentioned in my post. This Universal Jurisdiction stuff is crap. I should go to the courts here in Australia and indict Clinton for sending Tomahawks over Iraq. See how he feels about that. He may never have wanted to come here in the first place, but now even if he wants to he won't have the chance.

Roosveltrepub
19 Dec 09,, 22:43
Could any of the british anti Israeli attitude be a result of zionist terrorist attacks agaist the british? I find it ironic Bonehead mentioned Israel would never bomb Britain when in fact founding Father's of the Israeli state did bomb british territories didn't they? If the reports of the Israelis using white phosphorus in residential areas are true isn't someone guilty of war crimes?

Irgun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun)


UN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli 'white phosphorus' shells - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece)

If she authorized the use of white phosphorus in a civilian area isn't she a war criminal?

UN headquarters in Gaza hit by Israeli 'white phosphorus' shells - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece)
That said one sympathetic judge shouldnt be able to create an international incident.

I find it hard to really be sympathetic toward a state that causes so much suffering. Not that I feel a lot of sympathy toward Palestinians they are their own worst enemy but Israel's settlements in the west bank stand on stolen land.

Parihaka
20 Dec 09,, 01:28
Could any of the british anti Israeli attitude be a result of zionist terrorist attacks agaist the british?

Of course, how could I have been so silly. That'll be the same reason why the Israelis have an anti-Palestinian attitude.

Roosveltrepub
20 Dec 09,, 03:25
Of course, how could I have been so silly. That'll be the same reason why the Israelis have an anti-Palestinian attitude.
I think the israelis come by their emnity honestly same as the palestinians. Their is so much blood everyones hands are bloody. What would you do if a foriegn people started claiming your lands? What is the right response? What can they do to stop the expansion of the settlements? Is the west bank now israeli? It's not a simple problem over there and Israel is no victim. Their are two victimizers one with power one without.

Parihaka
20 Dec 09,, 04:13
Their are two victimizers one with power one without.

I'd disagree, the Palestinians and their supporters have enormous power and wield it consummately. How many UN resolutions have focused on Australia's treatment of the Aboriginal tribes? Or the iwi of New Zealand? How much aid is poured into the Sudan, and when was the last time the protagonists in the Spanish-and-Native-American Mexican wars in the Chiapas were invited to Camp David with a photo-op shaking hands on the White House lawn?

In this world you get far more attention, power and plaudits if you fight against the Jews than for any other cause.

bigross86
20 Dec 09,, 09:24
To give a very brief background:

If you look at the bible as nothing more than history source, putting god aside, then you'll recognize that the Jews are the only one existing nation that can actually claim to have been the first settlers of the land. Their desire to return to what they call home was for nationalistic purposes only, not based on any religious claim. Even in the Israeli Declaration of Independence god is not mentioned anywhere.

After it became apparent that the Jews and Arabs both wanted the land, the UN decided to partition it in 1947. Every single Arab state refused the proposal, and on the eve of the British mandate expiring in 1948, 5 armies attacked Israel and many other nations sent troops. in 1949 a cease fire was finally reached. No truce nor treaties were signed, so all sides were technically still at war. An interesting side note of the 1948 is the Arab refugees. It was the Arab armies that told the Palestinians to leave their homes for a while so the army could "push the Jews to the sea", and then the Palestinians could come back and claim their land, and the Jews' land as well. What really happened was that the Israeli's stayed exactly where they were, and the Palestinians didn't want to come back, even though they were invited back by Israel.

In 1967, after almost 20 years of existence under the Arab threat, after numerous Fedayeen terrorist attacks, and after a valid Cassus Belli by Egypt, (closing the Tiran straits to Israeli shipping) Israel launched a surprise attack against Egypt, and once Syria and Jordan joined, Israel launched against them as well. In the 1967 Six Day War Israel successfully captured the Golan Heights, the Sinai Desert, the Old City of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

It was after 1967 that the Palestinians started crying about how they wanted everything back. As long as the Israeli's had a smaller state, at some points which was only 8 miles wide, they were content to keep attacking innocent civilians (something they still have no problem with). Once they realized the Israeli's weren't going anywhere, that's when they decided to start raising international chaos.

----------------------------------------------

Have the Israeli's been innocent in all of this? Probably not. But out of the two, Israel has definitely been the one playing according to the rules (most of them, anyway). Israeli's have always put much importance in human rights, and even disallowed certain tactics (for example, Neighbor Procedure: in which civilians, referred to as 'the Johnnie' were used to enter buildings ahead of soldiers, warning the occupants to give up), which have put Israeli soldiers at more risk but have upheld human rights.

The attack on the UN facility was actually outside the UN building, after it had been proven that there were armed militants and gunmen in the vicinity of the building. To put it in perspective, the USA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and narrowly missed the French Embassy in Libya in 1986. After apologies, the issue was dropped.

All in all, it is definitely right to say that the Israeli's have been the ones who have been playing fair, but the Palestinians have a better PR machine, and a secret weapon, a deep seated nearly worldwide hatred of Jews.

Mihais
20 Dec 09,, 10:23
All in all, it is definitely right to say that the Israeli's have been the ones who have been playing fair, but the Palestinians have a better PR machine, and a secret weapon, a deep seated nearly worldwide hatred of Jews.

The sad irony is that the Jewish national state was founded when nationalism started to decline somewhat,at least in the first world nations.On the other hand there is hardly a doubt that world public opinion was and still is sympathetic towards the existence of Israel(again I'm talking about the first world).Now,don't you think the sympathy the Palestinians receive is due,at least in part,to the fact that they're perceived as underdogs?I'm not convinced that the pro-Palestinian PR campaign is directed against Israel just because you're Jews.

p.s I remember having a discussion with another member on such a topic here on WAB and I was always curious to hear someone that is involved in the fight.And I apologize in advance if I'm touching sensible issues.I'm neutral in your fight,because there is no national interest involved.

bigross86
20 Dec 09,, 12:57
I'm more than welcome to answer any questions you might have, and I'll point out the difference between my personal opinions and the realities of the situation as far as I perceive it and remember the facts.

The IRA were the underdog, but they didn't get half the press the Palestinians do. The refugees in Darfur are nothing but a passing fad. How much had you heard of the Tamil Tigers before they disbanded? The FARC? Liberation fighters are a dime a dozen. How many of them do you actually remember though, or have gotten as much air time as the Palestinians? How many downtrodden people have a permanent representative in the UN?

Roosveltrepub
20 Dec 09,, 19:22
To give a very brief background:

If you look at the bible as nothing more than history source, putting god aside, then you'll recognize that the Jews are the only one existing nation that can actually claim to have been the first settlers of the land. Their desire to return to what they call home was for nationalistic purposes only, not based on any religious claim. Even in the Israeli Declaration of Independence god is not mentioned anywhere.

After it became apparent that the Jews and Arabs both wanted the land, the UN decided to partition it in 1947. Every single Arab state refused the proposal, and on the eve of the British mandate expiring in 1948, 5 armies attacked Israel and many other nations sent troops. in 1949 a cease fire was finally reached. No truce nor treaties were signed, so all sides were technically still at war. An interesting side note of the 1948 is the Arab refugees. It was the Arab armies that told the Palestinians to leave their homes for a while so the army could "push the Jews to the sea", and then the Palestinians could come back and claim their land, and the Jews' land as well. What really happened was that the Israeli's stayed exactly where they were, and the Palestinians didn't want to come back, even though they were invited back by Israel.

In 1967, after almost 20 years of existence under the Arab threat, after numerous Fedayeen terrorist attacks, and after a valid Cassus Belli by Egypt, (closing the Tiran straits to Israeli shipping) Israel launched a surprise attack against Egypt, and once Syria and Jordan joined, Israel launched against them as well. In the 1967 Six Day War Israel successfully captured the Golan Heights, the Sinai Desert, the Old City of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

It was after 1967 that the Palestinians started crying about how they wanted everything back. As long as the Israeli's had a smaller state, at some points which was only 8 miles wide, they were content to keep attacking innocent civilians (something they still have no problem with). Once they realized the Israeli's weren't going anywhere, that's when they decided to start raising international chaos.

----------------------------------------------

Have the Israeli's been innocent in all of this? Probably not. But out of the two, Israel has definitely been the one playing according to the rules (most of them, anyway). Israeli's have always put much importance in human rights, and even disallowed certain tactics (for example, Neighbor Procedure: in which civilians, referred to as 'the Johnnie' were used to enter buildings ahead of soldiers, warning the occupants to give up), which have put Israeli soldiers at more risk but have upheld human rights.

The attack on the UN facility was actually outside the UN building, after it had been proven that there were armed militants and gunmen in the vicinity of the building. To put it in perspective, the USA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and narrowly missed the French Embassy in Libya in 1986. After apologies, the issue was dropped.

All in all, it is definitely right to say that the Israeli's have been the ones who have been playing fair, but the Palestinians have a better PR machine, and a secret weapon, a deep seated nearly worldwide hatred of Jews.

Actually in the Bible they took the land didn't they? I am sure the Palestinians include more than a few descendants of converted jews. I'd be interested in any genetic testing. Many Russian jews are likely Khazar descendants aren't they? It was the most powerful Jewish state in history. Do the greeks have a right to the Asia Minor? I would agree the State of Israel deserves to exist with in it's borders. Do the Palestinians deserve no state? You speak of jewish civilian casualties. That's horrific and I couldnt imagine the stresses of raising a family in an area subject to those rocket attacks. How many civilians died in that invasion of Gaza? An accidental bombing is one thing but was it accidental to use phosphorus? How long does an attack go on before it's no longer an accident? http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/090115_Gaza.doc.htm From a historical persective I think it really serves the Israeli peoples wellbeing to reach a real accord with the Palestianians. I don't get the sense your goverment has any desire to given the situation in the west bank. To say the Palestinians were welcome to comeback is misleading. The Knesset passed laws effectively seizing the lands of anyone who had fled the war zone. What were they welcome to comeback to? For that matter all their terrorism has done is create a Leadership that needs the conflict to maintain power. It's a shame the people on both sides suffer because of intractable Leadership. I believe there is no honest broker to deal with from either side at this time. The Palestians founded the terror organization Fatah in 54 not 67. An organization I'd compare to Irgun. I agree Israel has been the better Player but it's by degrees of evil not the degree of goodwill. I think the current situation is untenble for the state of Israel over the long run. Too many people to close who will eventual have the capability to cause massive suffering and have shown the willingness to sacrifice their own people to harm yours. Just so you are clear I support your countries right to live peacefully within it's 1948 borders. I don't support the right of return to long has gone by and it's just duplicate the original wrong by giving away someones land to someone who'd never seen it. I am not anti semetic but do agree a lot of it still exists in the west. I don't get people like that but they hate arabs more:rolleyes: so it's not like they support the Palestinians either. I think the west should be bribing both sides with the resources to find peace because in the end I believe the problem comes from 2000 years of western persecution creating the zionist movement and the need for a place of refugee to escape christian persecution.

Stan187
21 Dec 09,, 10:10
Actually in the Bible they took the land didn't they? I am sure the Palestinians include more than a few descendants of converted jews. I'd be interested in any genetic testing. Many Russian jews are likely Khazar descendants aren't they? It was the most powerful Jewish state in history. Do the greeks have a right to the Asia Minor? I would agree the State of Israel deserves to exist with in it's borders. Do the Palestinians deserve no state? You speak of jewish civilian casualties. That's horrific and I couldnt imagine the stresses of raising a family in an area subject to those rocket attacks. How many civilians died in that invasion of Gaza? An accidental bombing is one thing but was it accidental to use phosphorus? How long does an attack go on before it's no longer an accident? PRESS CONFERENCE ON GAZA HUMANITARIAN SITUATION (http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2009/090115_Gaza.doc.htm) From a historical persective I think it really serves the Israeli peoples wellbeing to reach a real accord with the Palestianians. I don't get the sense your goverment has any desire to given the situation in the west bank. To say the Palestinians were welcome to comeback is misleading. The Knesset passed laws effectively seizing the lands of anyone who had fled the war zone. What were they welcome to comeback to? For that matter all their terrorism has done is create a Leadership that needs the conflict to maintain power. It's a shame the people on both sides suffer because of intractable Leadership. I believe there is no honest broker to deal with from either side at this time. The Palestians founded the terror organization Fatah in 54 not 67. An organization I'd compare to Irgun. I agree Israel has been the better Player but it's by degrees of evil not the degree of goodwill. I think the current situation is untenble for the state of Israel over the long run. Too many people to close who will eventual have the capability to cause massive suffering and have shown the willingness to sacrifice their own people to harm yours. Just so you are clear I support your countries right to live peacefully within it's 1948 borders. I don't support the right of return to long has gone by and it's just duplicate the original wrong by giving away someones land to someone who'd never seen it. I am not anti semetic but do agree a lot of it still exists in the west. I don't get people like that but they hate arabs more:rolleyes: so it's not like they support the Palestinians either. I think the west should be bribing both sides with the resources to find peace because in the end I believe the problem comes from 2000 years of western persecution creating the zionist movement and the need for a place of refugee to escape christian persecution.

Wow, you didn't just bring up the Khazar Myth asa serious point in discussion did you?

Arabs and Jews are actually closer to each other genetically than any other different groups, partcularly Arabs from the Levant.

I think ypu're wrong in saying the Israelis don't want to reach an accord. How much they've reached out and offered is well documented. The Palestinians have an all or nothing attitude which doesn't leave much room for negotiation. And their renouncement of terrorism was done on a "for show" basis. Now, many Fatah officials are saying they never renounced it at all. Prior, Arafat used it as soon as his popularity got too low so that he wouldn't get overthrown. The approach from both sides is definitely not matching the other, and I see it a hard turn of logic to blame the Israelis for it equally.

bigross86
21 Dec 09,, 11:45
You'll note I said the only existing nation. Can you find me a Canaanite, a Jebusite or a Hittite?

Bigfella
21 Dec 09,, 12:22
I'm more than welcome to answer any questions you might have, and I'll point out the difference between my personal opinions and the realities of the situation as far as I perceive it and remember the facts.

The IRA were the underdog, but they didn't get half the press the Palestinians do. The refugees in Darfur are nothing but a passing fad. How much had you heard of the Tamil Tigers before they disbanded? The FARC? Liberation fighters are a dime a dozen. How many of them do you actually remember though, or have gotten as much air time as the Palestinians? How many downtrodden people have a permanent representative in the UN?

Bigross,

Double standards or at the very least unequal ones abound in the way we treat the present & the past. Israel is sometimes the victim & sometimes the beneficiary, just as other groups are sometimes get the gold mine & sometimes get the shaft.

If we all sat down & thought about it we might be able to work out some general principles. As it is everyone thinks 'their' particular cause gets the worst of it & the other side does better than it should. This is often taken to be proof of something nefarious. There may be nefariousness attached, but there are most likely a bunch of more mundane reasons.

I'll offer a few examples, some relate to your examples, some don't.

On the issue of Israel & the Palestineans:

1) are you so sure that no one else similar has (or has in the relevant period had) UN representation? I thought the East Timorese did & I'm also not sure about Polisario/SADR. There may be others. Otherwise curios & inequities abound at the UN - the Khmer Rouge held its UN seat long after the Vietnamese ended its murderous reign; and then there was the whole mess with Communist China up to 1972.

2) As a follow up, what nation the size of Israel has the pull in the US that Israel does? If I get to choose between good PR & one of the most effective lobbies in the most powerful nation in the world I know which I'm taking.

3) They may get more air time than the FARC, but last time I checked the backwoods of Columbia hadn't been the site of a string of wars & a faultline in several of the bigger conflicts in the post-WW2 era.

4) Any conflict involving the US & one of the most strategically voilatile areas in the world is going to get more attention than a civil war in Sri Lanka.

On broader issues you raised:

*The IRA got at least as much coverage here, despite a much lower body count & much lower global stakes than the Israel/Palestine mess.

*I knew who the LTTE were when I was in high school in country Australia & so did quite a few of my schoolmates (this is well over 20 years ago).

On just some broader issues:

The points you make about unequal coverage could just as easily be made by muslims. They might rightly ask why any violence committed by muslims is immediately deemed to reflect on Islam, while similar or worse acts carried out by christians are rarely seen in the same way. Conflicts among Christians are thus driven by strategy, politics, ethnicity or tribalism.

Thus events in Sth Thailand costing a few thousand lives get disproportionate coverage compared to 6ish million dead in the Congo. Islamist suicie bombers are proof that Islam is a 'death cult', while Hindus doing the same (or sacrificing children to Kali for that matter) are not seen in the same light, presuming they are seen at all.

All of this could be used to point to bias of some sort (and I suspect is), but it is a bit more complex than that.

On the big historical issues:

Godwin is going to pop up some time soon, so I'll jump in. The holocaust gets a lot more attention than numerous mass murders of comparable or larger size. It is not hard to find people who resent this or see it as the result of some sort of Jewish plot/manipulation etc. etc.

You & I both know that they are wrong at best & nasty at worst. There are a bunch of perfectly sensible or sometimes unfortunate reasons why people in the west know much more about this than the fate of the Congolese (under Leopold or more recently); Armenians; victims of communism; bangladeshis; victims of Soetharto etc. etc. None of these reasons has anything to do with Jews being nasty, manipulative or secret rulers of the world, but it is not hard to line up a series of comparisons to make the way history treats this event look any way you want.

If you want equity & fairness in this world follow a sport. The past & present don't get covered that way, no matter which perspective you choose to take.

bigross86
21 Dec 09,, 12:56
Mate, I saw your message, and when I have more time I'll be able to sit down and give you a proper coherent answer. (Un)fortunately, Christmas is right around the corner and there are plenty of Australians who need to buy my cosmetics products and therefore I'm way too busy. Extra long shopping hours in the mall, you see. Give me a couple weeks after the fervor to calm down and formulate a proper response. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to pinch hit for me, feel free.

Bigfella
21 Dec 09,, 13:08
Mate, I saw your message, and when I have more time I'll be able to sit down and give you a proper coherent answer. (Un)fortunately, Christmas is right around the corner and there are plenty of Australians who need to buy my cosmetics products and therefore I'm way too busy. Extra long shopping hours in the mall, you see. Give me a couple weeks after the fervor to calm down and formulate a proper response. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to pinch hit for me, feel free.


No worries mate. You have my sympathy. Having done my shopping I have pledged myself to avoid retail areas until after Christmas. I worked in a shopping centre for years & saw the bunfight every christmas. If you want your war crimes, try subjecting someone to f**ing christmas carols fot 12 hours at a stretch (I only evey got 6-7 & that damn near drove me crazy). Just curious, where are you based?

Anyhoo, best of British & we'll lock horns after the great unpleasantness is over :).

zara
21 Dec 09,, 15:28
Sounds like this might become a regular this for the Israelis

link (http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15136684&source=hptextfeature)


ISRAELI bigwigs may not be visiting Britain much in the months ahead following the near arrest on December 13th of Tzipi Livni, the leader of the opposition, for alleged war crimes. A London judge issued an arrest warrant for Ms Livni for her role as foreign minister in Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead”, the assault on the Gaza Strip earlier this year. The order was withdrawn when the judge learned that Ms Livni would not be in Britain as planned.

It is the highest-profile case since Britain arrested General Augusto Pinochet more than a decade ago, and has understandably left the Israelis feeling as if they have been singled out. It drew apoplectic protests from Israel and much abject apologising from the British government. Both sides said it was inconceivable that Israeli officials might fear to set foot in England. But the Israelis set little store by assurances that the British “system” would be changed to prevent such cavalier deployment of universal jurisdiction. They said Britain had been promising to change it for years. They were now being told informally that no change was likely before the general election, given Israel’s unpopularity in British public opinion. Gordon Brown is said to be looking for some administrative stopgap, meanwhile.


Israelis have had narrow escapes in Britain before. Doron Almog, a former general, would have faced a warrant when he landed in London in 2005. He stayed on the plane and headed back to Tel Aviv. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister, and Moshe Yaalon, a minister and former army chief of staff, cancelled visits rather than risk arrest. Ms Livni, as foreign minister, badgered the British government to change the law, at least by requiring consultation with the attorney-general before such arrest warrants can be issued. Israeli lawyers say Britain is the only country exercising universal jurisdiction where no such government “filter” is in place.

There was speculation that the warrant for Ms Livni’s arrest might have been requested by Daniel Machover, possibly acting for other clients. He is an Israeli-born, London-based lawyer and a founder-member of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, a pressure group. He has been involved in gathering evidence for possible war-crimes charges against Israeli army officers involved in the assault on the Gaza Strip. But if he meant to pillory Israel’s hardline policies, going for Ms Livni missed the mark. Today, she is the leader of the peace camp and has been strident in her attacks on the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for his partial settlement freeze and his failure to resume peace talks with the Palestinians. Indeed, the incident forced Mr Netanyahu to show rare solidarity with his political foe. It was “absurd”, he said, that she should be hounded so.

Despite the indignation, well-placed Israeli observers said Israel, like other countries, would have no choice but to take account of the growing internationalisation of criminal justice when they plan their campaigns and their travels. A report by Richard Goldstone on the Gaza war for the UN Human Rights Council, published in September, and now Ms Livni’s brush with Britain’s legal system, were examples of a trend that Israelis could not ignore.

Bigfella
21 Dec 09,, 21:00
oh, on the subject of the thread, the charge is BS. Leave it to the World Court & get back to banging up crooks.

Roosveltrepub
21 Dec 09,, 21:27
You'll note I said the only existing nation. Can you find me a Canaanite, a Jebusite or a Hittite?

Is Greece entitled to the Asia Minor? The claim that a jewish nation stood there 2500 years ago so it's our land now is BS. The claim Jews live there now is a valid one and like I said I support Israel's right to it's 1948 borders. Continueing to expand into the west bank is disasterous over the long run. It prevents a palestinian nation. Do you believe they deserve a nation?

zara
22 Dec 09,, 10:43
Is Greece entitled to the Asia Minor? The claim that a jewish nation stood there 2500 years ago so it's our land now is BS. The claim Jews live there now is a valid one and like I said I support Israel's right to it's 1948 borders. Continueing to expand into the west bank is disasterous over the long run. It prevents a palestinian nation. Do you believe they deserve a nation?

Really the ideal solution (although unrealistic) is 1 secular nation shared by all. Unfortunately too many religous looneys on both sides to make it work.

Bigfella
22 Dec 09,, 21:14
Really the ideal solution (although unrealistic) is 1 secular nation shared by all. Unfortunately too many religous looneys on both sides to make it work.

Not just religious loonies Zara, nationalists too. A single nation was unviable long before religious nuts on either side were a powerful part of the equation.

zara
22 Dec 09,, 23:20
Not just religious loonies Zara, nationalists too. A single nation was unviable long before religious nuts on either side were a powerful part of the equation.

yes but the nationalists can be reasoned with. They can compromise. The religous nutters just say 'god gave us this land' and nothing you can do or say will move them.

Roosveltrepub
22 Dec 09,, 23:39
Really the ideal solution (although unrealistic) is 1 secular nation shared by all. Unfortunately too many religous looneys on both sides to make it work.
Isn't that the truth.

Castellano
23 Dec 09,, 15:23
Really the ideal solution (although unrealistic) is 1 secular nation shared by all. Unfortunately too many religous looneys on both sides to make it work.




Since according to you, there are too many religious loons in Israel, and given the "ideal solution" you propose (which, funny, almost certainly entails destroying Israel as a Jewish State), by implication, that makes Israel a non secular nation - which is a total lie.

Israel IS a secular country, with equal rights for everybody regardless of their ethnicity or religion, the ONLY nation in the middle east that can really say so. Yet, if I´m not wrong, it is also the only nation in the ME that deserves your inventive "solutions".

Since it is not based on Israel´s legal/political system, that makes your observation a mere sociological one: you derisively accuse the Israelis (and by this you mean Jews) of having too many loons within its population (from your clear minded viewpoint, also by implication). But I´m not sure what credibility to concede to your sociological observations, since if I remember correctly you had been in Sudan or Darfur, or you were somehow connected to the UN activities there, but it was my impression that you don´t have a clue of what was actually going on there.

Additionally, I don´t know exactly what´s the problem with these people in Israel, since the State of Israel has repeatedly offered Territories for Peace, the few violent ones are universally condemned by Israeli society, and they don´t engage in things like the mass rape of children like they do in Ireland, either.


Let´s have a few examples of this religious nutters in both sides thingy, as I think you have serious misconceptions on the reality of the situation there:

- in Israel (that country you claim that attacks hospitals), homosexuals can form civil unions with all rights allowed to heterosexual marriages and civil unions.

vs

- in all Arab countries homosexuality warrants prison. And then you have Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran (that country the you claim to be "peaceful"), or Gaza itself, where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.


- Israel´s legal system and courts are without a doubt one of the most advanced liberal Democracies in the World, with the enormous merit of having achieved it under dire security threats


vs

- In Gaza, 3 days before Israel launched Cast Lead, HAMAS passed a legislation based on the Koran that among other things imposed amputation of hands to thieves, 40 lashes for alcohol drinkers (with additional 3 months in prison if consumption was public), or the death penalty for homosexuals and those who "weaken the spirit of resistance in the people", which could be used to murder pretty much whomever they wanted.

You were saying religious nutters in both sides make your "ideal solution" impossible, huh?

zara
23 Dec 09,, 15:34
oh go away

Mihais
23 Dec 09,, 15:36
oh go away

Bad dream?:biggrin:

Castellano
23 Dec 09,, 15:40
Not just religious loonies Zara, nationalists too. A single nation was unviable long before religious nuts on either side were a powerful part of the equation.


For the record:

Israel nationalism (Zionism) is mainly the work of humanists, and it remains so to this day.

Arab nationalism and specifically the "Palestinian" one (though the term as used today is anachronistic until at least 1967), was mainly a Nazi-like ideology and practice. And with the Islamist addition, it remains so to this day.

This is an inconvenient truth for those desperate to draw moral equivalence where there is none, and it is probably the cause why I was insulted by this guy (by the way, with impunity) on the relevant thread (a thread where we talked extensively about the notorious Mufti al-Husseini)

You know what? I think I´m going to resurrect that particular thread in the following weeks, I left some interesting stuff unsaid.

Castellano
23 Dec 09,, 15:44
oh go away

Stop lying about issues you don´t have the slightest clue, ignorant.

zara
23 Dec 09,, 15:52
Bad dream?:biggrin:

Lol, cant be doing with the headache this close to Chrimbo

Castellano
23 Dec 09,, 15:55
Bad dream?:biggrin:

No, Reality getting in the way of an upside-down, truly degenerated universe.

...we don´t want to think she´s not such a cute teddy bear after all, do we?

Castellano
23 Dec 09,, 16:11
Or any UN soldier.

Or any nation that mistreats immigrants, as it is the case in just about every single Arab Police State. It is not necessary to wage War to warrant prosecution under the principle of Universal Jurisdiction.

This is a sham, in a British Court or in the International Criminal Court. And the reason it is a sham is not because for sure the IDF didn´t perpetrate War Crimes in Gaza (though NONE have been proven yet), but because it violates the cardinal principle that must govern all international prosecutions: namely, that the worst must be prosecuted first.



Which puts the IDF very much in the bottom of the list. And Palestinians organizations very much on the top.

Roosveltrepub
23 Dec 09,, 18:03
Since according to you, there are too many religious loons in Israel, and given the "ideal solution" you propose (which, funny, almost certainly entails destroying Israel as a Jewish State), by implication, that makes Israel a non secular nation - which is a total lie.

Israel IS a secular country, with equal rights for everybody regardless of their ethnicity or religion, the ONLY nation in the middle east that can really say so. Yet, if I´m not wrong, it is also the only nation in the ME that deserves your inventive "solutions".

Since it is not based on Israel´s legal/political system, that makes your observation a mere sociological one: you derisively accuse the Israelis (and by this you mean Jews) of having too many loons within its population (from your clear minded viewpoint, also by implication). But I´m not sure what credibility to concede to your sociological observations, since if I remember correctly you had been in Sudan or Darfur, or you were somehow connected to the UN activities there, but it was my impression that you don´t have a clue of what was actually going on there.

Additionally, I don´t know exactly what´s the problem with these people in Israel, since the State of Israel has repeatedly offered Territories for Peace, the few violent ones are universally condemned by Israeli society, and they don´t engage in things like the mass rape of children like they do in Ireland, either.


Let´s have a few examples of this religious nutters in both sides thingy, as I think you have serious misconceptions on the reality of the situation there:

- in Israel (that country you claim that attacks hospitals), homosexuals can form civil unions with all rights allowed to heterosexual marriages and civil unions.

vs

- in all Arab countries homosexuality warrants prison. And then you have Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran (that country the you claim to be "peaceful"), or Gaza itself, where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.


- Israel´s legal system and courts are without a doubt one of the most advanced liberal Democracies in the World, with the enormous merit of having achieved it under dire security threats


vs

- In Gaza, 3 days before Israel launched Cast Lead, HAMAS passed a legislation based on the Koran that among other things imposed amputation of hands to thieves, 40 lashes for alcohol drinkers (with additional 3 months in prison if consumption was public), or the death penalty for homosexuals and those who "weaken the spirit of resistance in the people", which could be used to murder pretty much whomever they wanted.

You were saying religious nutters in both sides make your "ideal solution" impossible, huh?
I stilll think neither Likud or Hamas or Fatah are honest brokers. Pull out of the west bank it isn't Israel then you truly will have the moral high ground not just a relativist high ground. Palestinians in the west bank are most definetly not treated equal to Israelis in those settlements. Being less wrong is not right. I do agree the positions of the arab states around you is genocidal and medival in some cases. How do you modify that should be the question because eventually some extremists near by will have the means to cause mass suffering not just terror. Firing phosphorus into civilian areas is evil and is not productive in the long run for your own state's well being.

Bluesman
23 Dec 09,, 19:51
Yep. From PowerLine:


Hamas Behind Livni Arrest Warrant
December 20, 2009 Posted by John at 8:36 PM
Paul noted here that a British judge had issued an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, Israel's former Foreign Minister. The warrant charges that Livni was guilty of "war crimes" in the course of Israel's effort to defend itself against missiles launched from Gaza by Islamic terrorists.


The London Times now reports that Hamas was behind the warrant:

The Islamist group Hamas is masterminding efforts to have senior Israeli leaders arrested for alleged war crimes when they visit European countries including Britain, a top Hamas official involved in the effort has told The Times.

The claim comes amid continuing diplomatic fallout after a British arrest warrant was issued last week against Tzipi Livni, who served as Foreign Minister during Israel's Gaza offensive last winter. ...

The campaign by Hamas takes advantage of an aspect of law in England and Wales that allows anyone to apply for an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes without the need for a prosecuting lawyer. The identity of the person or organisation that applied for Ms Livni's warrant has not been made public, but Hamas says that it initiated the move. ...
The statute is a stupid one, and Britain's government is talking about changing it. But Hamas is pursuing the same strategy across much of Europe:


Diya al-Din Madhoun, who heads the Hamas committee set up to coordinate the campaign, said that it had "all the political and military leaders of the occupation in our sights", although he did not specify its future targets. He told The Times: "This has absolutely become our policy." The committee of legal specialists was established after the Gaza offensive to investigate allegations of war crimes carried out by Israeli forces. It compiled 1,500 cases over several months and started to encourage alleged victims to file charges against Israeli leaders in countries such as Britain, Spain, Belgium and Norway, according to Mr Madhoun. ...

The Israeli daily newspaper Ma'ariv said that lawyers acting for the committee "go into action each time an Israeli senior official arrives in a European country in which they are operating. The 'incrimination file' formed by Hamas on the respective senior official is then dispatched to them, and from there it is sent to the court with a request for an arrest warrant."

Other organisations have tried to use European legal systems for a similar purpose. In 2003 a Belgian court ruled that Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli Prime Minister, could be tried in Belgium for war crimes over his role in the notorious Sabra and Shatila massacres of 1982.

In July this year the National Court of Spain issued arrest warrants against six Israelis including Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a former Defence Minister, over war crimes allegations dating back to 2002. Several other Israeli politicians and officials are believed to have avoided travelling to Britain because of the threat.

This is, obviously, an obscenity. But it isn't hard to see where the Europeans are coming from. They have lots of Muslim inhabitants who demand to be placated, and very few Jews, since they killed or drove out nearly all of them a generation ago.

Bigfella
24 Dec 09,, 01:19
yes but the nationalists can be reasoned with. They can compromise. The religous nutters just say 'god gave us this land' and nothing you can do or say will move them.


Again, overly simplistic. Nationalists can be just as stubborn & unreasonable about what is theirs. If you doubt me, read up on the LTTE. Similarly, religious nuts do actually learn about compromise & negotiation once they get involved in politics.

Bottom line, any chance of a single, secular nation died in 1948 at the hands of nationalists. Until the 80s much of the Israel/Palestine conflict was conducted by left wing secular nationalists on both sides. Everyone wants everything they can get until they can't get it anymore. Then most of them will take less, even the religious nuts. Well, most of them, the remainder will cause trouble out of proportion with their numbers, but the numbers will still be small.

p.s. I see you have a 'Castellano' infestation. I suggest a product called 'ignore'. The problem will just dissappear.

eclectic-cynic
26 Dec 09,, 07:04
It is not just Israel.
International Law is supreme.
Remember Pinochet.
A court in any country which has signed up to the international conventions can issue a warrant if a reasonable case can be presented.
Serving Government members and officials have diplomatic immunity.
There is significant expectation that once one T. Bliar relinquishes any official role he will be indicted. (This might explain why he is so keen to retain roles such a Euro-pres.)

Bluesman
26 Dec 09,, 07:58
International Law is supreme.

No, it dam' well is NOT.

bigross86
26 Dec 09,, 09:14
Whose version of International Law do you think we should follow, yours or mine?

Parihaka
26 Dec 09,, 10:00
I say we have a kind of revolving presidency, where each country gets to set the international laws for a year. So when Zimbabwe gets the chair we kick all white people off the land, when China gets it every couple can only have one child, when America gets it universal health care must be privatised, when Saudi Arabia gets it, women can't drive on pain of death, when New Zealand gets it everyone has to smoke a joint and chill out, et cetera, et cetera.

International law, oooh yep.

eclectic-cynic
26 Dec 09,, 11:32
International law is supreme in those countries which have signed the conventions.
The precedent is the Nuremberg trials.
I understand that the US has not signed.
A number of people have been arraigned under these laws: Pinochet in UK through a Spanish judge; former Serbian leaders; someone from Sudan.
I would give you greater chapter and verse but my attention is currently on Viva Palestina and the intransigence of the Egyptian government in impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Bluesman
26 Dec 09,, 11:45
International law is supreme in those countries which have signed the conventions.
The precedent is the Nuremberg trials.
I understand that the US has not signed.
A number of people have been arraigned under these laws: Pinochet in UK through a Spanish judge; former Serbian leaders; someone from Sudan.
I would give you greater chapter and verse but my attention is currently on Viva Palestina and the intransigence of the Egyptian government in impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ah. Well, do not let our silly little message board keep you from your vital work, saving all Mankind (or at least that portion that has caught your eye). We understand that an august person such as yourself is ever so busy, what with this sad ole world of ours needing salvation, an' all. So if we don't hear from you for awhile, we'll just assume you're putting your powers where they'll do the most good.

Do not let us detain you a moment longer. Save us, we beg you.

On your way, now.

Shoo.

Bluesman
26 Dec 09,, 11:46
Where do they come from, fellas? Are we linked to selfrighteouspretentiousegomanics.com, or WHAT?

Parihaka
26 Dec 09,, 11:51
International law is supreme in those countries which have signed the conventions.
The precedent is the Nuremberg trials.
I understand that the US has not signed.
A number of people have been arraigned under these laws: Pinochet in UK through a Spanish judge; former Serbian leaders; someone from Sudan.
I would give you greater chapter and verse but my attention is currently on Viva Palestina and the intransigence of the Egyptian government in impeding the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

So why hasn't Blair been arrested then?

Roosveltrepub
26 Dec 09,, 12:04
Where do they come from, fellas? Are we linked to selfrighteouspretentiousegomanics.com, or WHAT?

Man take a look in the mirror:rolleyes:

eclectic-cynic
26 Dec 09,, 12:46
Bliar's arrest: he currently has diplomatic immunity but stay tuned,

StevoJH
26 Dec 09,, 13:36
Bliar's arrest: he currently has diplomatic immunity but stay tuned,

Wont Happen :))

Parihaka
26 Dec 09,, 17:47
Bliar's arrest: he currently has diplomatic immunity but stay tuned,

Splendid, splendid, how about Gerry Adams?

eclectic-cynic
26 Dec 09,, 18:47
Ditto

Parihaka
27 Dec 09,, 01:29
Ditto

Cooool, by those standards and levels you're going to have, say, in the hundreds of thousands of politicians to issue arrest warrants for? Then of course there are their direct political supporters, the militiary who undertook their orders in what were plainly illegal acts, et cetera, et cetera. You're either going to be very busy, or a laughingstock, or both. Good luck with that.

Bluesman
27 Dec 09,, 02:50
Fun to be righteously-indignant, though, isn't it?

Parihaka
27 Dec 09,, 03:11
Fun to be righteously-indignant, though, isn't it?

I think I might ask for an arrest warrant to be issued for George Galloway as a supporter of genocide....



http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/galloway_meets_saddam.jpg

Parihaka
27 Dec 09,, 03:22
Then of course there's dear old Nelson. If Gerry Adams goes then Mr Mandela is obviously far more directly culpable...

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Nelson-Mandela-1918-to-2007-human-rights-302205_730_800.jpg

I'll be interested to see that arrest warrant posted by a British court and supported by English liberalism....

Bluesman
27 Dec 09,, 05:17
THOSE are excellent, well-made points. I bet the Electro-Chronic won't perceive it, though.

Castellano
29 Dec 09,, 18:50
I stilll think neither Likud or Hamas or Fatah are honest brokers. Pull out of the west bank it isn't Israel then you truly will have the moral high ground not just a relativist high ground. Palestinians in the west bank are most definetly not treated equal to Israelis in those settlements. Being less wrong is not right. I do agree the positions of the arab states around you is genocidal and medival in some cases. How do you modify that should be the question because eventually some extremists near by will have the means to cause mass suffering not just terror. Firing phosphorus into civilian areas is evil and is not productive in the long run for your own state's well being.


Israel offered to end of the occupation in exchange for Peace in 1967, and the same plus a Palestinian State in Taba 2001. Details are emerging about Olmert´s offer in 2008, and while it might be to soon to judge its seriousness, it seems an incredibly generous offer to me:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum (http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/12/olmert-details-his-offer-to-abbas)

All this proves conclusively Israel´s good faith as a Nation to reach a Peace agreement.

As for Netanyahu, he made an offer to reach a Peace deal just few months ago: We can see what the "chances" are by the reaction from the 'palestinians'. Netanyahu hadn't even finished his speech before the 'palestinians' declared the peace process over.

It seems having a state without the use of weapons to attack Israel with, is a bone of contention for them.

If I was desperate for a homeland and was offered one on condition that I couldn't have weapons, armed militias/clans/tribes - I'd bite their hand off. However, we all know the real goals of the 'palestinians'.


On the issue of the use of white phosphorus, there is no evidence that Israel intentionally used white phosphorus as an anti-personnel incendiary weapon, and seems to have been used to create a smoke screens to conceal the movement of ground troops:



Background on the Use of White Phosphorus and Controversy Surrounding it



Ignited white phosphorus is used to create a smoke screen to conceal the movement of ground troops. Used in this way in open areas, it is not considered an incendiary or anti-personnel weapon and is not subject to the restrictions that apply to incendiary weapons. The American Federation of Scientists fact sheet on white phosphorus describes it as having "low lethality" when used as intended. The fact sheet adds that "under that qualification, WP [White Phosphorus] is not necessarily considered an ‘incendiary weapon’ if it incidentally sets buildings on fire."

The accusations against Israel are similar to those lodged against American troops fighting in Fallujah in 2004. The charge against American troops received extensive publicity after an Italian documentary film, "The Hidden Massacre" claimed that white phosphorus was used not only as a smoke system but also as an incendiary anti-personnel weapon. The use of incendiary weapons in civilian areas is proscribed by conventions. Although neither the US nor Israel has signed on to these conventions, both generally abide by their admonitions.

There is no evidence that Israel intentionally used white phosphorus as an anti-personnel incendiary weapon, but Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claim that Israel was reckless and showed wanton disregard for innocent life by using it in densely populated regions where civilians could be harmed by it. Israel claims that it used white phosphorus strictly according to accepted practices and took measures to minimize civilians casualties. It further asserts that military necessity required its use in densely populated areas, because this is where Hamas fighters congregated and threatened Israeli troops.

The International Red Cross has taken a more cautious position than Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. The IRC web site published a statement on Jan. 17, 2009 in which it states that it has not determined whether Israel’s use of white phosphorus was legal or not. The web site contains no further update to this original statement.

The rest of this report looks at charges lodged by Amnesty International, in its July, 2009 report and Israel's response to these charges that was published on July 29, 2009.

You can read the whole thing here:


CAMERA: Did Israel's Use of White Phosphorus Constitute a War Crime? (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1723)



Roosevelt, I´m not sure if you use "you" assuming that I´m Israeli or Jewish - I´m not, I just play one on Internet.

Castellano
29 Dec 09,, 19:42
Again, overly simplistic. Nationalists can be just as stubborn & unreasonable about what is theirs. If you doubt me, read up on the LTTE. Similarly, religious nuts do actually learn about compromise & negotiation once they get involved in politics.

Bottom line, any chance of a single, secular nation died in 1948 at the hands of nationalists. Until the 80s much of the Israel/Palestine conflict was conducted by left wing secular nationalists on both sides. Everyone wants everything they can get until they can't get it anymore. Then most of them will take less, even the religious nuts. Well, most of them, the remainder will cause trouble out of proportion with their numbers, but the numbers will still be small.

p.s. I see you have a 'Castellano' infestation. I suggest a product called 'ignore'. The problem will just dissappear.

You wish that it disappeared.

Your days spreading lies about Israel and inventing excuses for islamo-nazis are over - finita la comedia. In reality, they have been over for quite a while for those with some knowledge.

"any chance of a single, secular nation died in 1948 at the hands of nationalists"


It is really remarkable how can so many falsehoods be packed in so little words:


First of all, what happened in 1948 was that 5 Arab Armies invaded nascent Israel with the explicit objective of exterminating the country and the Jews who lived there. In turn, this invasion was the mere continuation of the War that really began the day after the approval of the Partition Plan in November 29, 1947. So Arabs were the Aggressors and Jews were the Victims of Aggression. Got that?


Second, had the Arabs succeeded, apart from perpetrating a genocide, there is no chance in hell that the Arab countries would have created an independent country, let alone one named "Palestine"; and the Arabs in that area didn´t consider themselves "Palestinians" but Syrians.


Third, these dreams of genocide were not a sudden syndrome, either. They began with massacres in the 1920s lead by Hajj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974), which was later an ally of Hitler, and who was refered to by Arafat as his "hero": which proves that the national arab palestinian movement was born nazi, and never conducted a self critique about it.


Fourth, since it was Israel who won the War forced on them by the Arabs, what did they do with their victory? They created a democratic, SECULAR State with equal rights for everybody including their sizeable Arab Palestinian population. One just needs to compare with what happened in the other part of the British Palestine Mandate, Jordan, to spot the difference.

zara
04 Jan 10,, 12:00
p.s. I see you have a 'Castellano' infestation. I suggest a product called 'ignore'. The problem will just dissappear.

An 'infestation' is a very accurate description, cheers for the proscription :biggrin:

Merlin
05 Jan 10,, 15:57
There are some more cancelled UK trips.

War Crimes Fears Force Israelis to Cancel UK Trip (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/05/world/AP-ML-Israel-Britain.html)

5 Jan [NYTimes] JERUSALEM (AP) -- A group of Israeli military officers called off an official visit to Britain last week, fearing they could face possible arrest on war crimes charges, officials said Tuesday.

The four unidentified officers, holding ranks from major to colonel, are the latest in a string of Israeli politicians and military officials to be forced to call off travel to Britain because of fear of legal prosecution.

Britain is one of the European pioneers of universal jurisdiction, a broad legal concept that empowers judges to issue arrest warrants for nearly any visitor accused of committing war crimes anywhere in the world.

Pro-Palestinian activists have sought to use this concept to press charges against Israelis involved in military operations in Palestinian territories, particularly since last year's Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. British officials have vowed to change the law, which has severely strained relations with Israel.

The Israeli delegation had been invited to visit by the British army. But officials said they were forced to call off the trip after their British counterparts could not guarantee that they would not be arrested. ...

Castellano
14 Jan 10,, 15:22
An 'infestation' is a very accurate description, cheers for the proscription :biggrin:


I guess that this can very aptly be called..."The Alliance of the Ignorants"


...And I noticed the teddy bear is gone