Laws Written By Foreign Influence?
Having just read this article in the Guardian it has some troubling elements I thought I'd post about. For a long time the actions of the Israeli government and military have been protected in the international arena by the US throwing their veto on any accusation, regardless of how valid or otherwise it may be. Israel in return have gotten used to giving the middle finger to any other country who dares criticise it's policies, declaring legitimate concern or condemnation as "anti-Semitic".
I'd love to see that protection lifted and the Israeli policies being treated with the same rules as everyone else. Where there is evidence to proceed with an investigation and prosecution, that should happen. If that leads to a guilty verdict, then so be it. If that means that Israeli officials and military figures are arrested as part of these trials and investigations, then so be it. I don't trust Israel to conduct those investigations, as the conclusion is "self defence" before it starts. I don't trust either the UK or US to conduct them either for the same reasons, not counting the fact that neither the US or UK have any moral right to try Israeli citizens for alleged crimes carried out outside US or UK territory.
The International War Crimes Court is where it needs to be held, where the accusers can provide their evidence and witnesses, and the Israelis can put their defence, evidence and witnesses. Let the courts decide on the evidence it sees and hears. The problem here is that neither the US or Israel recognise the court, as they feel it's going to be against them for political reasons. The whole point of the International court was that it was there to provide somewhere for justice if the relevant governments either couldn't or wouldn't allow trials of their nationals or accusations of war crimes on their soil. The national governments are always given the first opportunity to investigate and bring to trial if evidence supports it.
This should apply to all nations and their actions, not just Israel, the US and the UK. There are plenty of actions carried out by others too, which should also get the same treatment. Always go with the evidence. The one sided protection of Israel regardless of it's actions is a problem.
This article has no indication of what happened and when, but it's safe to assume this is the agreed outcome of some meetings. So I'll pick out a few quotes that drew my eye.
Israeli leaders have grown increasingly frustrated about the threat of legal action against individuals and said they would be pressing Scotland to change UK law in meetings today in Jerusalem.
Countries and companies lobby each other all the time, often resulting in some laws being changed, but this appears to be an extension of immunity that Israel has enjoyed and sees some reality creeping in to threaten a cosy arrangement. So does it work?
The government is determined to protect high-ranking Israeli officials from arrest in the UK, the attorney general said, as it emerged that a further visit by the Israeli military had been cancelled.
"The government is looking urgently at ways in which the UK system might be changed to avoid this situation arising again," Scotland said. "Israel's leaders should always be able to travel freely to the UK."
I'd say that'd be a yes, although it's still at the "seeking" stage, so who knows. If I were a betting guy, I'd bet on "yes".
"In my view, it is not constitutionally proper to give the attorney general involvment at the arrest stage. We would not have a politician standing next to a policeman who decides whether or not to arrest someone, why should we have a politician standing next to a judge?" - Daniel Machover
I happen to agree with Daniel Machover on that one.
My point is that you either back a system of international justice, or you don't. In the UK the govt claim to back it, but this type of stuff is just another example of "one rule for one, one rule for everyone else". For laws to be taken seriously, they have to be applied equally and without prejudice on which parties are involved. For governments to be taken seriously, they have to let the laws be applied and not interfere when it's their mates facing an arrest warrant or investigation.
If these laws or changes do get written into the statute books in the UK, what does that say about the Ministers who changed them? I'm not sure. I'm guessing the UK are just so used to making demands of foreign governments to have laws changed to suit them that they don't think about it. It's more about returning a favour than anything more serious. Does that show how far MPs are removed from the people that they can't see what they're doing? Well, bell towers and duck ponds were being judged as acceptable things to claim expenses from tax payers money for so maybe it does.
