Crime and punishment
The reverberations of Israel’s act of piracy and brutality against the Freedom Flotilla on May 31st remain in the air.
The reverberations of Israel’s act of piracy and brutality against the Freedom Flotilla on May 31st remain in the air. Waves of condemnation continue across the globe and Israel has shown no signs of remorse. There is an increasing outcry that Israel should not be let off. The UN Security Council’s condemnation was followed by one at the G8 Summit. The Turkish prime minister has made a clarion call to the international community: “It is time to say ‘enough’. Israel should be punished for its unacceptable behaviour.”
International NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UN agencies, are in agreement that Israel has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in their treatment of Palestinians. These voices are gaining momentum, with the demands that those accused of such inhuman policies and behaviour must stand trial and be punished. The Nuremberg trials after World War II created precedence for international justice to come into play. They inspired international laws on such crimes. The Convention Against Torture was adopted in 1975 and the Convention Against War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity was signed in Rome in 1998. These conventions and increasing acts of war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in July 1998, endorsed by 112 nations.
These developments have encouraged an emergence of strong feelings that those responsible for such acts should be brought before the bar of law. In October 1998, General Augusto Pinochet, former dictator of Chile, was detained by Scotland Yard while admitted in a hospital in London. The arrest order was made at the request of a Spanish judge on a petition filed by a Chilean woman accusing him of crimes against humanity. After protracted negotiations, Pinochet was allowed to go back home. A London court in December last year issued warrants of arrest against a former foreign minister of Israel, Tzipi Livni, for her role in the killings of 1,400 Palestinians by the IDF in Gaza in January 2008. Livni cancelled her UK visit to escape arrest.
This issuance of an arrest warrant against an Israeli minister was not the first such instance. In September 2009, a British court was approached to have Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, arrested for war crimes. Barak was in the UK to address a Labour party meeting, but escaped arrest when he cut short the visit. The 1998 Criminal Justice Act gives British courts universal jurisdiction in cases of war crimes. This provision was invoked for arrest of Barak on behalf of 16 Palestinians, survivors of the Sabra-Shatila camps.
These instances have greatly disturbed Israeli leaders. Tel Aviv has asked the British government to “end this absurdity.” The UK has promised a review and reform of the concept of universal jurisdiction. In recent years, courts in Norway and Sweden have also taken such initiatives but due to some legal lacunae, could not follow through. The Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) have miserably failed over the years in playing an effective role on behalf of the besieged Palestinians. I suggest that the OIC, through its secretary-general, explore the possibility and options available for legal action in European courts, as done in the cases referred to above. The initiative, regardless of the outcome, would serve a notice on Israel that there is no longer any immunity or impunity for its inhuman policies. Let this be the starting point.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2010.
International NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UN agencies, are in agreement that Israel has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in their treatment of Palestinians. These voices are gaining momentum, with the demands that those accused of such inhuman policies and behaviour must stand trial and be punished. The Nuremberg trials after World War II created precedence for international justice to come into play. They inspired international laws on such crimes. The Convention Against Torture was adopted in 1975 and the Convention Against War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity was signed in Rome in 1998. These conventions and increasing acts of war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in July 1998, endorsed by 112 nations.
These developments have encouraged an emergence of strong feelings that those responsible for such acts should be brought before the bar of law. In October 1998, General Augusto Pinochet, former dictator of Chile, was detained by Scotland Yard while admitted in a hospital in London. The arrest order was made at the request of a Spanish judge on a petition filed by a Chilean woman accusing him of crimes against humanity. After protracted negotiations, Pinochet was allowed to go back home. A London court in December last year issued warrants of arrest against a former foreign minister of Israel, Tzipi Livni, for her role in the killings of 1,400 Palestinians by the IDF in Gaza in January 2008. Livni cancelled her UK visit to escape arrest.
This issuance of an arrest warrant against an Israeli minister was not the first such instance. In September 2009, a British court was approached to have Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, arrested for war crimes. Barak was in the UK to address a Labour party meeting, but escaped arrest when he cut short the visit. The 1998 Criminal Justice Act gives British courts universal jurisdiction in cases of war crimes. This provision was invoked for arrest of Barak on behalf of 16 Palestinians, survivors of the Sabra-Shatila camps.
These instances have greatly disturbed Israeli leaders. Tel Aviv has asked the British government to “end this absurdity.” The UK has promised a review and reform of the concept of universal jurisdiction. In recent years, courts in Norway and Sweden have also taken such initiatives but due to some legal lacunae, could not follow through. The Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) have miserably failed over the years in playing an effective role on behalf of the besieged Palestinians. I suggest that the OIC, through its secretary-general, explore the possibility and options available for legal action in European courts, as done in the cases referred to above. The initiative, regardless of the outcome, would serve a notice on Israel that there is no longer any immunity or impunity for its inhuman policies. Let this be the starting point.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2010.