Israel's Growing Problem: Will Its Ministers Be Arrested?

Israeli Army Radio reported on Tuesday that Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon will not cut short his trip to Britain, despite warning from activists that they will press war crimes charges against him. Last month, British authorities rejected a petition to arrest Defense Minister Ehud Barak, saying that Barak was Britain's diplomatic guest.

Still, lawyers in Britain and other European countries such as the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and Norway have been collecting testimonies of Palestinians regarding the alleged war crimes committed by Israel Defense Forces during the Gaza War. If the alleged crime is proven in court, individuals charged will be arrested as soon as they enter these countries.

On Wednesday, the former IDF chief of staff and Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, whose trial has been sought over the assassination of senior Hamas activist Salah Shehadeh in July 2002, said he is "willing to forgo visits to European capitals and to allow the Israel Defense Forces the freedom to act." He added:

Israel is transparent. The IDF has recently conducted five serious probes, the criminal investigation division opened an investigation into credit card theft. There is a team that will respond to the report without having to stop the army in order to do so.

Israel-Palestine: UN Council Endorses Goldstone Report --- What Now?

Israel-Palestine: No UN Progress on Goldstone Report on Gaza
Transcript: The Palestinian Authority Draft to UN Human Rights Council (15 October)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Friday the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the Goldstone Report, which found evidence of war crimes by both Hamas and Israel in the Gaza War. The vote was 25-6 with 16 abstentions. The US opposed the resolution while Britain and France did not vote. (The full list is at the bottom of the entry.)

The five-page resolution was remarkable for two reasons. First, it not only condemned Israeli crimes during Operation Cast Lead but also, beyond the war, denounced Israeli human rights violations in east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Second, although Goldstone Report cites both Hamas and Israel, the resolution explicitly names only Israel as a violator of international law. Goldstone criticized the UN decision to condemn only Israel, saying that the wording of the resolution was unfortunate.

Israel's Foreign Ministry rejected the resolution and called the decision "unjust":

Israel will continue to exercise its right to self-defense and to preserve the security of its citizens.

Israel believes that the decision harms efforts to protect human rights in accordance with international law and hinders efforts to promote the peace process as well as encouraging terror organizations around the world.

Israel thanks the countries that supported our position, and those who, with their vote, voiced their opposition to the unjust decision which ignores the murderous Hamas attacks against Israeli citizens... The decision ignores the fact that the Israel Defense Forces took unprecedented measures to avoid harming innocent civilians, and the fact that terror organizations used civilians as human shields in Gaza.

In contrast, Hamas welcomed the decision and said that they hoped that it would lead to "the beginning of the prosecution of the leaders of the occupation". The Palestinian Authority said that a follow-up on implementation of the recommandations in the report, "to protect the Palestinian people from Israeli aggression", was needed.

This may be the end of the line, however, for the report. The resolution asks that the Security Council forward the findings to the International Criminal Court, but the US, France, and Britain are unlikely to support the move. Indeed, with substantive action unlikely, the resolution may be an unexpected victory for Israel, with the United Nations proving its "one-sided position".

FOR the resolution: Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djbouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Zambia

AGAINST the resolution: United States, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia and Ukraine

ABSTAINING: Belgium, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Korea, Slovenia, Uruguay, Britain, France, Madagascar, Kyrgyzstan and Angola

Britain, the US, and Torture: David Miliband is Still a Liar

Britain, the US, and Torture: Scott Lucas on BBC (16 October)
War on Terror/Torture Breaking News: David Miliband Is a Liar

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

This afternoon a British court issued an important and long-awaited ruling in the case of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident tortured in Pakistan and then detained at Guantanamo Bay. The court ordered the British Government to present documents, demanded by Mohamed's lawyers, that established not only the torture but also US and British complicity in the "enhanced interrogation". The British Government had maintained that, because the documents contained information which originated with their US counterpart, its revelation could jeopardise the US-UK intelligence relationship.

In the last hour, I have heard British Foreign Secretary David Miliband maintain in two radio interviews that he would be happy to release the documents but that Washington has insisted they be withheld. Therefore, before getting into the details and implications of his argument --- for example, that any decision of a British court should be set aside because of the demands of the "intelligence" relationship, indeed that torture must not be investigated if there is a US-UK intelligence dimension --- let's re-state:

Miliband is lying.

Reprinted below is our entry from March 2009, after an earlier court decision reluctantly accepted the withholding of the documents. Then as now, Miliband trotted out the line that the decision was up to the Americans; unfortunately, his cover was blown by a State Department official who revealed that the Brown Government had asked Washington to make that statement to the court. That way, the material would still not see the light of day but the British Government could claim that it was not hiding evidence alleging London's own involvement in the torture of Mohamed.

----
Update (3 March): The Guardian reports....

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is to be questioned by senior MPs over what he and his officials knew about the ill-treatment and secret interrogation of Binyam Mohamed, the former UK resident recently released from Guantánamo Bay. The move was announced yesterday by the Commons foreign affairs committee, which said it also intends to investigate other key issues where recent evidence has thrown up uncomfortable questions for ministers to answer. They are allegations of British complicity in torture in Pakistan, in the US practice of rendering terror suspects to countries where they risked being tortured, and in the transfer of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The foreign secretary will not be able to refuse to testify before the Commons foreign affairs committee, which was set up to monitor the activities of his department.

I thought of using the English euphemism "economical with the truth", but that doesn't capture the brazen statement of the Foreign Secretary yesterday regarding alleged British complicity with the torture of detainees.

Having refused to appear before a Parliamentary committee invstigating the charges, Miliband and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith chose instead to write to The Observer of London. Here's a key extract from the letter:

In the case of Binyam Mohamed, you imply that the government has refused to disclose material related to his case because it would embarrass the government. Again, this is not true. As Mr Mohamed's legal representatives have themselves said, it is through this government's efforts that this material was provided to them for use in Mr Mohamed's defence. We have no objection to this material being disclosed publicly. But we believe that the decision to do so is for the US, because the material is from the US.

Which would merely be a case of passing the buck rather than lying shamelessly, were it not for this revelation by a former State Department official in The Observer two weeks earlier. He commented on the American letter which asked for the Mohamed evidence to be kept secret:

Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]. The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: "Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record." If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court.

Foreign Secretary, if you're going to lie while avoiding an inquiry into torture, could you at least give us enough respect not to do in the same newspaper which busted you in the first place?

Israel-Palestine: No UN Progress on Goldstone Report on Gaza

Transcript: The Palestinian Authority Draft to UN Human Rights Council (15 October)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Wednesday, the United Nations Security Council discussed the Goldstone Report. Any movement, however, was limited by the United States, Britain, and France, who all tried to return the matter of illegal military activity in Gaza to the Israelis.

Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alejandro Wolff underlined Washington's concern over "the unbalanced focus on Israel". He declared, "We take the allegations in the report seriously", but added, "Israel has the institutions and the ability to carry out serious investigations of these allegations and we encourage it to do so." British Ambassador John Sawers supported the American lead, "We urge the Israeli government to carry out full, credible and impartial investigations into the allegations," while French Ambassador Gerard Araud urged both Israel and Hamas to initiate "independent inquiries in line with international standards".

Meanwhile, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Gabriela Shalev criticized the Security Council for even considering the matter, "Instead of discussing the real and worrying questions facing the Middle East, the UN is focusing on the Goldstone report, which Israel believes legitimizes terror organizations."
She returned fire on Libya, which brought the issue to the Security Council:

An ordinary person would think that an emergency UN session would be called when Gazan and Lebanese terrorists fire missiles into Israeli territory, or because of the Iranian nuclear threat.

The pretense of urgency in this session is an attempt to "hijack" the council's agenda to promote the report, a move supported by none other than Libya - a country that has only recently celebrated the return of the Lockerbie bomber.