War crimes warrants could ‘harm’ UK-Israeli relations

[skag]

http://www.euronews.net/2009/12/15/w...eli-relations/

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Israel is warning that diplomatic relations with the UK could be harmed if there are any more attempts to pursue war crimes charges against Israeli leaders.
The row follows the issue of an arrest warrant for Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni by a British court over Israel’s incursion into Gaza last winter.
The former foreign minister, who did not refer to the warrant directly, said:
“The operation in Gaza was an essential operation. The operation in Gaza achieved its objective, the objective was to restore Israel’s deterrence.”
The warrant has since been revoked, as Livni cannot be arrested, but the Israeli government has condemned the whole process as ‘cynical’.
Yuli Edelstein, Israeli minister of information, said:
“For those of my counterparts who would say it has nothing to do with the relations between the countries, I want to warn, – it is not the first case – and will, in the end, influence relations, the good relations, between the two countries.”
Tzipi Livni was Israel’s foreign minister during operation Cast Lead in which 1400 Palestinians are said by human rights groups to have died.
Pro Palestinian campaigners in London have attempted several times to use the UK’s legal system to bring alleged offenders to book under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

That is a shame !!
Shame on Israel, and shame on UK for turning back on their decision!!

Warcrimes have to be punished ! No matter where you come from, no matter what are the diplomatic relations.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Possibly not a war criminal due to the fact that Israel isn't signed up to the vast majority of agreements controling war. Only an Israeli would tell you their use of White Phosphorus in Gaza in Dec/Jan wasn't criminal, but what can you do? Not Britain's business, really. We need to think about British jobs at BAE Systems, too.

[motiv-8]

Meh, not so fast Ferrets... I'm not particularly perturbed by the use of WP during Phantom Fury in '04. I admit that the two situations aren't exactly analogous, however.

[Saxon wårolord]

If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.
Abba Eban

“I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”
Colonel Richard Kemp, British army

[Katsumoto]

Saxon, that still doesn't explain why they vandalise Palestinian homes and why they fire at a house after telling the locals to go there to avoid harm.

[Saxon wårolord]

Saxon, that still doesn't explain why they vandalise Palestinian homes and why they fire at a house after telling the locals to go there to avoid harm.

Bring proof before assumption.

[Katsumoto]

Well it was a TV news report on the BBC News Channel, I can't find any internet article on it.

EDIT: I found a vid on it:

[Saxon wårolord]

Well it was a TV news report on the BBC News Channel, I can't find any internet article on it.

You believe everything you see on the news?

That's rich

All countries should be accountable for committing war crimes, even if they themselves have not signed on to any such treaties. If certain Israelis are suspected of having committed war crimes and a strong case can be made against them, then they should be all means be apprehended whenever the possibility arises.

Yes, all of that is idealistic talk, since I doubt anyone will bring any Israeli leaders to trial soon.

Then you must understand that proportions count more than anything else:
>Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 40,000 dead (both sides included)
>Darfuri genocide: 600 000 dead

[Stavroforos]

Then you must understand that proportions count more than anything else:
>Israeli-Palestinian conflict: 40,000 dead (both sides included)
>Darfuri genocide: 600 000 dead

Actually, proportions do not matter at all. A crime is a crime, always. One murder is still one murder, and must be punished.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That's why Israel has become the figure of the international Jew.

I'm not convinced it has. It is perhaps the only country permitted to annually invade its neighbours.

[Syriana]

I'm not convinced it has. It is perhaps the only country permitted to annually invade its neighbours.

Silly Ferrets.

They're not "wars"; they are stability-promoting peace-keeping police operations for the greater benefit of the Middle Eastern region and the local populace.

Obviously.

[Romano-Dacis]

I don't get what we're arguing here: the fact that Israel was ethnically cleansed of Palestinians, and those millions of refugees were relabelled as "Arab refugees" rather than "Palestinians", is simply undeniable. That is ethnic cleansing, on a grander scale than what happened in Yugoslavia.

There is no greater symbol of UN failure, of the failure of preventing the aggrandization of nations by force, than Israel's expanded borders.

[Saxon wårolord]

I don't get what we're arguing here: the fact that Israel was ethnically cleansed of Palestinians, and those millions of refugees were relabelled as "Arab refugees" rather than "Palestinians", is simply undeniable. That is ethnic cleansing, on a grander scale than what happened in Yugoslavia.

There is no greater symbol of UN failure, of the failure of preventing the aggrandization of nations by force, than Israel's expanded borders.

Al-Nakba concerned 750,000 Palestinians while the Jewish Nakba concerned 1,300,000 Arabic Jews.
The U.N never pronounced itself on this issue.

[Justinian]

There is no greater symbol of UN failure, of the failure of preventing the aggrandization of nations by force, than Israel's expanded borders.

Surely you mean Israel's shrinking borders?

Have they not been gradually shrinking since the 1948 war?

EDIT: I meant the '67 War.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Well it was a TV news report on the BBC News Channel, I can't find any internet article on it.

EDIT: I found a vid on it:

Of course, if the BBC said that Israel commited war crimes then it must be true!

[Saxon wårolord]

Of course, if the BBC said that Israel commited war crimes then it must be true!

I read the BBC and Al-Jazeera on a regular basis and Al-Jazeera is 500% less biased and pro Israeli than the BBC. (It's comical to say Al-Jazeerah is pro Israel but compared to the BBC it seems like it's run by Zionists).

I also listen to the BBC news on the radio - say that a suicide bomber or a sniper killed an Israeli - you most likely will hear something mentioned 1 time - on the other hand if Israel kills a Hamas militant - it will be in the top news for 1 week.

The BBC even got in trouble and dodged it's internal investigation re it being biased against Israel.

All British workers unions are very anti Israeli, academic institutions are very anti Israeli, the ministry of foreign affairs has terrible relations with the UK.

[Heinz Guderian]

I read the BBC and Al-Jazeera on a regular basis and Al-Jazeera is 500% less biased and pro Israeli than the BBC. (It's comical to say Al-Jazeerah is pro Israel but compared to the BBC it seems like it's run by Zionists).

I agree, 60% of the time they are biased every time.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

Of course, if the BBC said that Israel commited war crimes then it must be true!

Glad you agree.

I was shocked when I heard this, mostly because, usually the British government wouldn't have the moxy to do this. Livni is a horrible human being anyway, defending the use of WP is shocking, and should be banned. Even if it was, israel would still get away with it.

[Stavroforos]

All countries should be accountable for committing war crimes, even if they themselves have not signed on to any such treaties. If certain Israelis are suspected of having committed war crimes and a strong case can be made against them, then they should be all means be apprehended whenever the possibility arises.

Yes, all of that is idealistic talk, since I doubt anyone will bring any Israeli leaders to trial soon.

[Katsumoto]

How do you explain this then? Photoshop?