Israeli Generals Fear Of War Crimes Cases By British Lawyers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mora, Jun 1, 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. A thread from Tue Feb 28, 2006

    Israel has demanded a change in British law
    Now there is update...

    British Lawyer who Filed Suit against Israeli General Was Barred from Israel

    The Court initially allowed Kate Maynard a limited stay in Israel till Sunday, although she had planned to stay longer, but later decided to turn the ruling into a recommendation to the state. The State Prosecution, on its part, decided not to act on the Judge's recommendation and to order Maynard to leave the country. Maynard intends to take legal measures in Britain, in order to make sure her entry to Israel is not prevented in the future.

    When she landed at Ben-Gurion International Airport , she was questioned by members of the security establishment, and refused to answer some questions, citing legal immunity. Close to midnight she was told she would not be allowed into the country.

  2. Liel Leibovitz? It is OK for him to write this. But imagine that somebody else would write exactly these words. What would be a reaction? - "Notorious anti-Semitism!"
  3. Tzipi Livni, Israel’s minister of foreign affairs, has denounced the cases filed against Israel as politically motivated.

    “England is turning into an address for lawsuits that do not deal with its own citizens,” she said in a recent statement. “This may undermine its war on terrorism.”

    It's worse Mora, terrorists are free to walk our streets whilst soldiers are prosecuted on the flimsiest of evidence and as we ourselves have recently discovered, purely for political rather than legal reasons!

    Welcome to The Suck!
  4. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    What 'change your laws so we can carry on committing acts against the Geneva Conventions, or we'll bulldoze your houses too'? How ironic that Israel, a country the that breaks numerous international laws, should think that others change their laws.

    The solution is stunningly simple - if these Israelis don't want to get lifted for committing crimes, either don't commit the crimes in the first place, or stay in Israel.
  5. The Israelis are not committing a war crime ffs. If a house has been used to prepare weapons (motar, rocket, suicide bomber) then they destroy the house so it is not used again. Simple.

    As Warrior_Poet alluded to in his post above, it is one rule for them (muslim terrorists) and another rule for us (people who think it is wrong to walk into a cafe crowded with women and children and kill them all because of their religion). How long was it before Abu Hamza was arrested? A man convicted in 2 countries for accessory to murder and terrorism? About 6 years.

    A visiting senior officer of a (sometimes) friendly state visits and an arrest warrant is issued immediately. Why are all the apologists, fundraisers and recruiters for the palestinian terrorists still allowed to peddle their filth in the UK without let or hindrance? The law must be applied to all, and in equal measure.
  6. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Not quite so simple. The houses are often on land that is not Israeli, and the IDF regularly kill entirely innocent people in the process. If Israel considers it has proof that a house has been used for terrorist purposes, then (if on Israeli land), they should detect, arrest and try the offenders; if it's on Palestinian land, they should press the PA to take appropriate action - this may not be easy, but that's what diplomacy is all about.

    Now you are talking about the way in which the UK deals with people accused of supporting terrrism, not the actual topic under discussion. I happen to agree with you, however. Terrorism can never be justified, but the way to deal with it is neither to sink to the same level as the terrorists (Israeli-stylee), or to fail to deal with it for reasons of political correctness or vote-catching (New Labour stylee).

    If a citizen of any state who has allegedly committed an offence for which he or she can be arrested then it is right that this should happen; the individual will have their day in court. If they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, or run the risk of arrest, they can stay away - their choice.

    Of course there should be equality in the way in which the law is applied. I doubt, however, that the Israelis will really get a rough ride whilst people like Pansy Mandelson and the Lords Levy, Sainsbury, Goldsmith et al have such influence, whilst New Labour relies so much upon the votes of both muslims and the lefty handwringing apologists for terrorism, and whilst the government maintain their policy of appeasing terrorists in Northern Ireland.
  7. Dread. The law is applied equallyby the police...This was a private arrest warrant. I do beleive if you could have shown that there was an evidential burden that Abu Hamza had commited war crimes you could have had a magistrate issue an arrest warrant too. You are confusing separate laws. I take it that you would have approved if the Army had mortared a house that was a bomb factory for PIRA. It does not prevent this happening again it simply radicalises those involved further. Furthermore the terriory involved is of disputed ownership and therefore if the situation is to be viewed as a cionflict then all of the rules of the Geneva convention apply. I am not pro terrorist, nor do I approve of the murder of Israelis. I do believe that the rule of law has to apply. Why kill those involved arbitrarily? Go in and arrest them and try them in an Isreaeli court. If the case won't stand up to scrutiny then I very much doubt that the killing could have been lawful.
  8. VB, whilst I am uncomfortable about some of the actions and tactics of the IDF, the right of Israel to defend herself against organisations whose avowed aim is her complete destruction should not be ignored.

    Given recent events International Law is hardly designed to take into account the new threats to our lives and liberties and threatening soldiers with prosecution as War Criminals often under the flimsiest of excuses or evidence merely plays into the hands of our mutual enemies.

    Bulldozing the homes of terrorists and suicide bombers to prevent them being utilised in further attacks is a justifiable and proportionate response to a clear and present danger and therefore cannot possibly constitute a war crime.
  9. As I'm aware Israel stopped practice of demolitions of houses of suicide bombers. Probably because it is ineffective.
  10. According to your opinion. Does it apply even if the bulldozing also removes the homes of the children or other families in the street who are not terrorists? Gov'ts alway seek to secure everything totally if possible and by the argument that destroying the houses of all in the area for the actions of some is a very slippery slope. By that token our Gov't should microchip all of its citizens and any visitors and have all fingerprints and retina scans on file irrespective of our actions. That way they could track everyone / kill any not chipped since they must be illegal and this would prevent all crime.
  11. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Israel has the right to defend itself against its enemies, but should do so lawfully. Whether or not rocket attacks on civpop, bulldozing homes, and shooting stone-throwers, press and peace protestors is either justifiable, proprotionate or lawful has yet to be tested in court. The UN seems to think Israel is wrong, however, though it has failed to take action to deal with it - or to deal effectively with Palestinian terrorism. All the same, I can't help feeling that Israel leaving the land it illegally occupies would be a great step forward.
  12. No the problem is COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT which is prohibitted under the GC. The Israeli's automatically bulldoze the residence of all suicide bombers, irrespective of whether any other persons lived in the property. (Saddam and other arab state would give money to the families as the way of showing solidarity with the Palestinians). During WWII the Germans regularly used collective punishment and were rightly held accountable.

    HADITHA (if proved) could be seen as either as Murder or pointedly in terms of comd as Collective Punishment. We (and I assume that the US) do teach the Law of Armed Conflict.

    They also systematically bulldoze property and farmland that might be exploited by militants to attack military posts, I understand they do this without compensation.

    It is even simpler, Mag to Grid GET RID...Gaza and most of the W Bank is a shithole. Whether you like your neighbours or not the best thing is to give them it back let them use a port/airport/border crossings so they can trade and have nothing to with them.....
  13. I agree that Israel should leave the occupied territories (Not that Hamas would stop its terror campaign) however because of the issues of "Joint endeavour" can bulldozing suicide bombers houses be considered collective punishment? I suggest not, these bombers have the full support of their families, there is usually no attempt made to prevent the bomber from wreaking carnage amongst the cafe's of Tel Aviv. The bombers supporters are happy to sow the seeds, they should also be prepared to reap the whirlwind.
  14. The policy used to be demolition of a terrorist family's house, usually by detonation, this policy having been learned from the British in Mandate days. This had been a deterrent but not a wholly successful one. It is alot quicker and more precise to get a dems team and force protection onto the objective then getting a D9 onto the objective.

    The destruction of other property, is usually due to the fact that the terrorists would use them for firing platforms and cover and this had to be stopped.

    The situation is a very difficult one, and all calculations are made and planned, considering that these areas are very highly populated. VB the issues are not as simple as you make it out to be.
  15. Why go to this extreme? It would have been the equal of us levelling half of Belfast. It's very easy to destroy buildings as a symbolic action against terrorism, but does'nt it really smack of the spiteful actions of a bully? Is it really just a case of we couldnt catch the real perpetrators so lets teach them a real lesson and bulldoze their homes?