Israel has demanded a change in British law

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Feb 28, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/28/wisr28.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/28/ixworld.html

     
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Sad state of affairs and bordering on the ridiculous, IMHO. I wonder how many other country's staff could be in the same boat?

    I take it US have immunity?

    Any lawyers out there who could comment?
     
  3. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Bliar's government has failed to do anything about Israel's many contraventions of UN resolutions; he does not criticise the IDF when they shoot children, launch rockets at residential areas or bulldoze homes; he does not criticise the way Israel restricts some of its citizens access to education or healthcare, or its policy of detention without trial.

    In the matter of an IDF officer visiting, Bliar will no doubt take advice from Lord Levy, his special adviser on the area, and from Lord Cronysmith, his adviser on putting soldiers before courts. I doubt the Brigadier need lose any sleep over the possibility of being nicked.

    In any case, if he's innocent he has nothing to fear, has he?
     
  4. The Israeli defence minister is deliberatly twisting fact with fiction as part of a PR stunt. Look here:
    Is the UK, that's to say the state, taking legal action, or threatening legal action, against these people? NO!

    So, Shaul Mofaz, you're talking bollaaaarkksss!!!

    However, private individuals, or groups, are bringing cases that the UK legal system (supposedly independant of the government) is obliged to look into. That seems to me to be perfectly right and proper. If the Israeli Government thinks it and it's armed forces have acted quite properly, morally and legally (as in international legal terms not their own), then let them come to the UK and make a case in front of a independant judiciary that will (I trust) base their judgment on purely legal not political terms.

    If you're not confident of this, then discourage your personel from visiting the UK and do your best to make a PR song-and-dance of the problem and create a political storm.

    Open offer/suggestion to Shaul Mofaz: If you think you're doing the right, just and legal thing, come and prove it in court!
     
  5. US citizens do not have blanket immunity. Certain government officials have diplomatic immunity, as do many officials of the Israeli government. Lecturers and students at the Royal College of Defence Studies do not have diplomatic immunity.

    Edited in deepest shame. :oops:
     
  6. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    It's a quandary, isn't it. If the UK is minded to prosecute soldiers who rough up some youths for lobbing grenades at them, what could happen to an officer whose army routinely uses live rounds against stone throwing children (though this could, of course, be ok in the IDF's ROE)?
     
  7. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    .....and be held for the period in nick until you do with passport removed? B0ll0x to that. Think I can see his point in not coming.

    And of course UK personnel aren't ever going to be placed in the same position by some sm@rtarrse policitical posturing in another country, are we? :roll:

    we need to be careful here
     
  8. Get real!

    The legal action taken was based on international law that our Dear Leader has been very keen to promote - the prosecution of war criminals. Presented with prima facae evidence, UK courts are obliged to issue an arrest warrent. Now, and this is an important factor which old Shaul seems to conveniently forget, is that in the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, it is inconceivable that anybody arrested would not be granted bail, and it is almost certain that, given Israeli Government guarantees, any individual would also be permitted to sit out their bail term in the Israel if they so choose. So forget about all that nonsense about spending lengthy periods in the nick. Don't forget, the ICTY has allowed just such a thing with alleged Serbian war criminals!

    Is it not obvious, that the Israeli Government is not so much concerned about a General missing a dinner date, or a semester studying at KCL, it's worried about having to defend and justify its own policy in the Occupied Territories and elsewhere.

    We do indeed. Under these very same international provisions a Spanish (for example) court could issue an arrest warrent and pick up any Tom getting off a plane on his way to hols on the Costa Blanka!
     
  9. A country is much more than its government Merkator. Moreover, is what General Mofaz said a translation from Hebrew or did he speak in English, not his first language? So he may not be talking boIIocks.

    As for proving his innocence, Brigadier Aviv Kochavi may not fancy spending an unspecified part of his life under house arrest waiting to do so, or not. He certainly won't have any American Generals who use sledgehammers to crack nuts in Iraq (or command troops who do so) keeping him company. Nor any other 'nasty' police or army General from (excuse me if I don't compile a list) States a tad more brutal than Israel. ( As suggested by in the cheap seats )

    I would like to see the IDF/State of Israel be less nonch about running their troops that deliberately shoot children and I'd like to see Bliar say so. Killing the innocent on purpose is the opposite of the stated IDF code of ethics.

    Philosopher wrote.

    Is there anywhere that lectures do have diplomatic immunity and is this Royal Collage of Defence Studies in line for a Turner Prize?
     
  10. Oops. Some of my points are being posted by others while I compose.

    Merkator roared

    General Pinochet.
     
  11. True. It could be that a translator has done Shaul an injustice. But I doubt it.

    But let me reiterate. These cases are being sought by pro-Palestinian groups - NOT HMG. In fact, because of the nature of it, they would actually like them NOT to be brought. However, the UK still has a relatively free and independant judiciary, and when presented with primae facae evidence of wrong doing it is obliged to act. It's called 'the law'.


    Who says he will be under house arrest? Some ICTY indictees are roaming quite freely in their own country under licence. They presented themselves at the Hague voluntarily, sought bail, and after guarantees from their Government, were realsed on bail to reappear at time XYZ. Please don't confuse the European justice system with that prevalent in the Middle East or, for example, Gitmo!


    Haven't got the slightest idea what you're rambling on about here. Can only assume you're trying to go off at a tangent to avoid discussing the question.


    Errrmmm! I think you'll find that he did received bail, was NOT under house arrest, but was unable to return to Chile because thee then Chilean Gvt did NOT offer the guarantees. And so, for both legal and medical reasons, decided to fight his case from the UK. Which, as you are I'm sure aware, he effectively won and went home and not to Spain. So, good attempt, but not the best example.


    I do NOT have an opinion on whether these Generals are guilty or not of anything, domestic, international or ???. I am also not voicing any opinion on whether Israel as a state is, or is not, pursuing a correct, moral, just or legal policy. I am simply suggesting that they come and test their beliefs in a court of law - and let the law decide - instead of playing a PR/political game to avoid it.
     
  12. Blairs government has actually repeatedly critisised the IDF and Israel, whilst treading a tightrope of trying to maintain relations with the country to help push the peace process that has lead to Israel moving out of areas of the gaza strip. The IDF is not firing missiles into buildings for no reason, their tactics, even though they are over the top, too indiscriminate and involve too much collateral damage (intention or otherwise :p) are actually less severe than what they are on the end of from the Palestinians.
    Mr brigadier should only be worried if he personally broke ROE and commited what would be classed as a war crime or he was directly in charge of and either condoned or ordered a war crime.
    I'm not condoning blair or israel but you've failed to see any type of context or the other side (hopefully we'd arrest a Palestinian if he hadn't blown himself up).

    p.s You lot on arrse are turning me into a bloody blair sympathiser with your narrow mindedness!!
     
  13. Merkator wrote

    Who says he won't? I didn't say he would. I said;

    If I was him I'd stay at home and not take the chance.

    .

    Some? And the rest? If I was him I'd stay at home and not take the chance.

    But; you managed to engage me on 'the question' with two post tangent quotes of mine and your ripostes (right or wrong). I referenced in the cheap seats, another poster. Read his posts without the red mist in your eyes and you may get my drift.

    You are giving me a contrary impression.

    If you have no idea, it isn't appropriate to make assumptions. Brigadier Kochavi will be really screwed if a juror with no idea makes an assumption.
     
  14. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    [/quote]Please don't confuse the European justice system with that prevalent in the Middle East or, for example, Gitmo!
     
  15. Who is this Aviv Kochavi?

    http://www.counterpunch.org/nevegordon1.html