I find it frankly bizzare that the government is thinking of repealing this law, so basically our allies can be butcherous dictators, but we are not allowed to point this out to them if they visit?

another blow to human rights and free speech in the UK is struck…so much for “new politics” more like “same old bullshit”

My hope is that Ed Miliband will turn Labour away from our previously regressive stance on this area of international human rights, but I also wonder how the LibDems will react to Hague breaking their pledge on universal jurisdiction.

Breaking news from, um, July.

“Coalition plans will safeguard universal jurisdiction over war crimes”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/28/universal-jurisdiction-war-crimes

Unless there’s been a recent reversal in these plans (which fall under the remit of the Ministry of Justice, not the Foreign Office), which I haven’t noticed, and you on’t link to, there are no plans to abolish universal jurisdiction.

This issue puts all three of the large political parties on the spot. The last government and this one have been under a lot of pressure to find a loophole for Israel, but it would be very difficult to find one without damaging the concept of universal jurisidction for war crimes.

@Tim J

As ever Tim, the devil is in the detail. The fact is that at the moment a warrant for arrest can be decided by a magistrate on prima facie evidence brought to them by any private citizen. Clarke’s proposals will invoke the DPP to veto any politically sensitive cases, which – while not ‘abolition’ per se – will make the arrest of alleged war criminals an inherently political, rather than judicial act. That cannot be right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/22/dpp-veto-arrest-warrants-war-crime?intcmp=239

Clarke’s proposals will invoke the DPP to veto any politically sensitive cases, which – while not ‘abolition’ per se – will make the arrest of alleged war criminals an inherently political, rather than judicial act.

Well that’s something of a matter of opinion surely? The aim is to prevent applications for arrest intended solely for political rather than judicial consequences – ie: the aim is arrest and not trial. Restricting arrests to cases where there is a genuine chance of a trial will certainly reduce the scope for ‘message arrests’ but I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing.

Mansfield says “the idea that an arrest should only take place on the basis of evidence that might lead to a successful prosecution is novel and certainly does not apply to the UK domestic jurisdiction”.

His point is presumably that far less evidence is required for an arrest than for a conviction. In domestic cases, further evidence may be obtained between arrest and trial.

But if the DPP thought that sufficient evidence in a case of universal jurisdiction might become available ahead of a trial, consent to an arrest would presumably be given to prevent the defendant fleeing.

It follows that consent would be refused only in the small number of cases in which the DPP believed that the defendant would not stand trial – either because sufficient evidence would never become available or because the attorney general would not grant the consent required for a prosecution based on universal jurisdiction.

What is wrong with that? Why should defendants be arrested in Britain if there is no chance that they will be tried here?

Mansfield has no answer beyond the vague suggestion that fear of arrest in Britain, though not prosecution, would somehow deter war crimes.

It would not. It would simply deter visits to Britain by politicians and former military officers from, to take Clarke’s examples, the US, China and Israel.

Why does that matter? Because, as the justice secretary explains, the current position risks “damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or to pursue a coherent foreign policy”.

He may be married to Melanie Phillips, but I think Rozenberg is talking sense.

Traditionally in the UK suspects are arrested as exactly that – suspects – on what the police see in front of them and evidence is then gathered while remanding the them in custody before a prosecution begins. I do not see why this should be any different here.

However, I agree with you inasmuch as that an arrest should never be political, but the nature of prima facie evidence is such that as a matter of fact the case is almost entirely constructed before any arrest is made, which is why so often magistrates allow the warrant to be persued.

I fail to see why we cannot trust our judges to make decisions based on their knowledge of the law and the necessary abundance of evidence put before them.

The political nature of these reforms are about shifting decisions into a place where they can be leaned on from outside. I don’t know about you, but I trust our centuries old independent judiciary.

I heard William Hague being interviewed about this on Radio4. He sounded coolly dismissive of the Israeli provocation, and in no hurry to do anything about it, insisting it would all unfold “in our own way and in our own time”. My prediction is the Israelis may be left waiting for some time. This actually makes good sense. Hague is clearly frustrated with the Israelis over Gaza, the flotilla, Jerusalem, settlements and other issues, and this threat of arrest over senior Israeli officials, soldiers and politicians arriving in the UK is one of the few cards he has to play.

It’d be a mistake, I think, to expect justice from people who’ve given awards to war criminals.

Seph @6,

Is it possible for cases such as this to have a high burden of proof required to allow arrest? After all, it is unlikely that further investigations after the arrest are likely to reveal much more, since this is not like arresting a suspected burgler and searching his or her house. Effectively, there must be a high level of proof in the first place, because although the law exists it is unlikely any law-enforcement agency can produce more proof.

Obviously in some cases – say the late President Hussain of Iraq – the evidence for crimes was plentiful and clear. But I doubt that this would be possible for Israeli politicians, especially since quite a lot of the accusations are themselves ‘unproven’ (i.e. how do you show a judge conclusive evidence of use of White Phospherous as a weapon?).

‘I trust our centuries old independent judiciary’

If you look at the things the British army was getting up to centuries ago, then it’s clear that back then the judiciary wasn’t operating in the way you (or anyone short of perhaps Mel P) would want it to.

So it seems pretty eccentric to use that as support for some particular position in the here and now. It’s like saying ‘this bridge has taken ox wagons for centuries, it must be capable of supporting a 24-wheeler’.

@watchman 9 – The evidence tends to be formed of recorded decision making processes to form a basis of overall responsibility and on top of that the actions taken themselves (or not taken when it comes to preventing civilian deaths etc). Then there are quite literally dozens of reports from Israeli, Palestinian, NGO and UN sources on the case alleging war crimes in Gaza and elsewhere. With a prima facie case the arrest is what is necessary for the case to be examined fully – like an arrest of any other alleged criminal.

@Soru 9 – Your philosophical point is fair enough, but I like to think our judiciary has had quite some time to develop over the years, and I have faith in it, without the need for political interference.

This is an idiotic post

The Chinese President Hu Jintao was here for the G20 Summit – this is a man who ran Tibet with an iron hand and was annointed by Dend Xiaoping to be Jiang Zemin’s successor for that reason only.

Human rights violations were plenty – and are still going on – and he was part of the central commitee so was jiang zemin in 1989.

Why no concerned citizen went for a warrant for their arrest?

“Diplomatic Immunity” is sacrosanct and police cannot touch someone with diplomatic immunity – or else you are putting British lives in danger. I know its hard to comprehend – but its real life.

I would love to see some coppers from the Met trying to arrest a former or sitting US President or Cabinet members – you want a gun fight in the streets of London – because thats exactly what you would have. Secret Service would shoot to kill – and they would get away with it. Because diplomatic immunity. n And believe it or not so would israeli security services.

And who would be responsible not the idiot in his/her self righteous moment of glory and filed a complaint – but the British government who would have to do business with all these people – or would you prefer us to be international pariahs?

What about tit for tat? Trumped up charges against British diplomats and not even high level ones – but the ones who work in the high commissions – we collaborate with Israel on terrorism and other things – they know identity of our agents – and its easy for Israel to leak that information. But you would not be worried about the lives of British agents who fucking protect your life would you. Who inflitrate and keep you safe?

But what pisses me off most about this post is singling out Israel. Oh but I forgot in the loony world, there are no victims but Palestinians.

GROW UP -

And this is not political interference – judicial jurisdiction has always been defined by the Parliament through the Executive.

And, judicial jurisdiction does not apply to national security – for example if MI5 agents follow their own procedures and kill someone – no court would hear the case.

Can we then put all our former Prime Ministers and Monarch’s on the dock please – for it was under them we colonised and killed millions of people worldwide.

But you are obsessed with Israel – why no warrant for Hamas Leaders or Hezbollah or Ahmadinajad – cause you don’t care about their attrocities – duh my bad. Sorry I forgot when it comes to Israel all pragmatism and sense of fairness goes out of the window right.

This is dumb and dangerous – but the loony left doesn’t care does it

“This is dumb and dangerous – but the loony left doesn’t care does it.”

Not really, no.
The absolute overriding obsession with Israel will continue.

The Israeli government does seem to be veering into incoherence.

They don’t like Britain’s arrest warrants so the Israeli Foreign Office under Lieberman throws a fit and deliberately humiliates the Zionophile Hague – just as he did the then friendly Turkish Foreign Minister.

They cancel at the last minute some high level meetings Hague was due to hold with Israelis officials. Including, presumably, this one:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/british-foreign-secretary-to-hold-secret-iran-talks-while-in-israel-1.322347

A top level meeting meant to coordinate Israeli/British policies against Iran.

@1:

I find it frankly bizzare that the government is thinking of repealing this law, so basically our allies can be butcherous dictators, but we are not allowed to point this out to them if they visit?

Israel isn’t an ally of Britain. It would probably make sense for us not to arrest politicians from NATO countries (who are our allies), as to do so would weaken us militarily. But Israel does nothing for Britain, so it shouldn’t bother us particularly if we offend them.

Furthermore it would be wrong for Britain to back down due to Israeli pressure; if we do, then every tu’penny ha’penny country with an iffy human rights record will be trying it on.

why no warrant for Hamas Leaders or Hezbollah etc.

Because Hamas and Hezbollah are banned terrorist organisations liable to arrest throughout Europe and the US, for instance, and thus tend to stay in their own countries?

I’m sensing you’re not getting how this stuff orks. It isn’t the UK government that’s issuing warrants. No doubt some numbnuts somehere would object if a senior Hamas man were arrested in Britain – some joker always plays up to whatever stereotype. I’d be fine with it though, enthusiastic in fact.

And to be clear, I doubt Israel gave Hague the finger because of the warrants – they’ve publicly and ostentatiously told senior US and French diplomats (Biden, Koucnher) to bugger off in the very recent past too. They did that because they’re crazy, belligerent right-wing lunatics whose authority rests upon the insane notion that the entire planet hates Jews and wants Israel destroyed.

You’ll notice they didn’t snub the equally deranged and ridiculous Bush admin, likely on the grounds that the Bushies were every bit as gung-ho for killing and bombing acceptance of Israeli policy aims into Palestinians as they are themselves.

Flying Rodent -

I actually do know how this stuff works -

– All of you self righteous people – could you please explain why no one went and sought a warrant for HU jintao – Jian Zemin’s arrest.

- Why we haven’t sought an arrest warrant against King Abdullah and his family

- Why we haven’t sought a warrant against Mugabe

- Why we haven’t sought a warrant against Putin

And the answer is they are not Israel. You lot can dream on but none of you have the answers to the questions I have posed earlier.

Why single out Israel – why not Musharraf – why not Burmese Generals –

A lot of you think Geroge Bush is a war monger and war criminal – why don’t you try getting a warrant and enforce it – as I said there would be a gun fight in the streets of London and secret service would shoot to kill.

The simple point is you cannot enforce it – National security trumps everytime. So as I said grow up.

So while technically you are correct that a magistrate would issue the warrant – the fall out would not be dealt by the magistrate – it would have to be dealt by the British government.

I do not in any way support the Israeli government’s approach to Palestine and especially Yahoo but seeking to arrest foreign dignitaries is not the option except for in the minds of the loony left. And no Prime Minister would allow that to happen to British interest – because of many many reasons.

Anyone want to try and ask Ed Miliband what he would do? he would do exactly what Brown did and Cameron is doing. So I know you lot love to get pats on the back from each other in the loony fringe but arresting the sitting Deputy PM is not an option.

So get over it and please don’t take the patronising tone with me. Because if I start you would not like it – trust me on that.

Oops I am sorry but in your minds only the Palestinians are victims – ever thought about the number of children being killed each day and being forced to act as child soldiers in Africa.

Or the continuous human rights violations in China or Russia and even India.

Nah…because you cannot think beyond Palestine. For fuck’s sake grow up

Does any one thing the security detail protecting Hu Jintao or the sitting Deputy PM of Israel or even Livni would just hand over their principal for trumped up charges. That would be unthinkable.

So when obama orders drones to attack its okay (i kind of support that by the way to some extent) and kills civilians with impugnity – Now tomorrow why don’t you go and file a charge against President Obama.

And next time he visits, I would really like the Met Police to try to arrest a sitting or a former US President – you know what would happen. The US Secret Service would consider that a threat to their Principal and you know what would happen – aahh.

What about next time a british diplomat is arrested in a trumped up charge in Russia – or China – ever heard of unintended consequences of actions.

Ooops sorry but your world views don’t go beyond Israel does it? I guess you lot would go and seek a warrant against SIS officers if they helped Israelis kill Hamas terrorists without trial.

could you please explain why no one went and sought a warrant for HU jintao – Jian Zemin’s arrest.

well, either because the entire country hates the Israelis just because we’re bastards, or because the one or two people out of a population of 60m required didn’t apply for a warrant.

- Why we haven’t sought an arrest warrant against King Abdullah and his family …Why we haven’t sought a warrant against Mugabe …Why we haven’t sought a warrant against Putin…

See above. Nonetheless, the point in the post is true – if, say, France or russia had pulled this bullshit on the UK, the Tories would be outraged. That’s incontestible, I think.

You lot… A lot of you… You lot… In your mins… You cannot think…

Ho ho, one of them are you? http://tinyurl.com/37rem39

So get over it and please don’t take the patronising tone with me. Because if I start you would not like it – trust me on that.

And you know kung-fu, too! You must be a serious badass, dawg.

childish rant in response to serious questions – need I say more.

So far, i have not got any coherent responses that challenge my assertions. I am happy to debate but its hard to respond to incoherent diatribes that fail to address any of the questions posed.

There is an art of non answering – its called spinning. But your rant represents nothing but acceptance of the fact that you have no coherent and logical response to my questions.

If we want to play a role – we need to engage. Threatening democratically elected leaders, who are our allies, is definitely not the way to pursue foreign policy.

I am open to changing my mind – but it would require some well thought out arguments not toddler like behaviour.

@22 shamit

Er, how does pointing out that it only requires a couple of people to apply for an arrest warrant not answer your assertions?

Did you even bother clicking through to the linked BBC and Mail articles to find out by who and how those warrants were placed in the first place before proceeding on your ill-informed rant?

errrghhh.. hello..the basic argument seph makes in the post is that the law should not be changed.

My whole point was arguing against the basic premise of the post – which the author in his comments later argued that he trusts the judiciary to make the right call etc etc.

My point is when it comes to dealing with foreign powers – judiciary is not best placedt to be the adjudicator especially when national security issues come into being. The whole point is this law should be changed and there is bi -partisan support for it.

Mine was not a rant but pointing out why the law is stupid and even more the application of it would be very difficult if not impossible – if it was enforced there would be serious repurcussions for Brtiain – so cheerleading that effort through this post is irresponsible.

Sorry probably should have made it clearer and simple.

Anyway just to be clear I was responding to the author’s arguments here and you can find it @ 6.

I fail to see why we cannot trust our judges to make decisions based on their knowledge of the law and the necessary abundance of evidence put before them.

The political nature of these reforms are about shifting decisions into a place where they can be leaned on from outside. I don’t know about you, but I trust our centuries old independent judiciary.”

Hope it makes it easier to comprehend now – or do I need to explain further.

I know its coll to comeback with a clever retort – but it has to be clever mate. Yours is not.

i meant cool in the last sentence -

Flying Rodent @ 21,

“well, either because the entire country hates the Israelis just because we’re bastards, or because the one or two people out of a population of 60m required didn’t apply for a warrant.”

Shamit might appear a bit irate, but the questions he asks deserve a better answer than that.

Don’t you think it’s a teeny bit strange how much attention focuses upon Israel by comparison to other nations?

Put it the other way round and ask: ‘Why is it, given the many alleged and proven offences committed by the Chinese, Russian, Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, American (the list goes on and on) governments have individuals not sought arrest warrants for any of their politicians when they visit the UK?” Why is it Israel?

Please don’t try and dodge the question by joking about the entire country hating Israel – it’s worth asking why is this happening to Israeli politicians and not to politicians from other nations and I’m sure you might have an idea.

childish rant in response to serious questions – need I say more.

Yes well, welcome to the internet sunshine. If you tick people off via mind-reading and start threatening to bomb strangers with the Ultimate Smackdown, people tend to take the piss a bit.

Why is it, given the many alleged and proven offences committed by the Chinese, Russian, Saudi, Syrian, Iranian, American (the list goes on and on) governments have individuals not sought arrest warrants for any of their politicians when they visit the UK?” Why is it Israel?

Tell you what – why don’t you go door to door throughout the UK asking every citizen of the nation why a couple of them objected to this country, but not that? Out of all those tens of millions of people, one or two will be able to tell you why they applied for warrants against Israel. No doubt those people will be horribly biased and unperturbed by Russian human rights violations.

What lessons can we draw from that? Well, it certainly stopped us talking about this kind of thing for a while….

Don’t you think it’s a teeny bit strange how much attention focuses upon Israel by comparison to other nations?

Not really, no. If you’re

a) Following a long-standing policy of deliberately immiserating 1.5 million people with the explicit intention of forcing them to comply with your plans for the region – plans which will be enacted at their considerable expense – or leave, while also

b) Quietly grabbing every bit of unoccupied land you can reach, with the explicit intent of scuppering any future peace deal while also

c) Launching several full-force artillery and aerial assaults on heavily populated urban areas, resulting in mass death while in pursuit of highly dubious military objectives,

d) And doing it all with absolute, bulletproof legal and political impunity, while being constantly resupplied with multi-billions in weapons, munitions and military vehicles, thanks to the patronage of the world’s only superpower…

…Then the excuse But the Iranians are violent and horrible is transparently pitiful, isn’t it? Because let’s be clear – Why Israel? isn’t a killer argument – it’s an excuse and a diversion, and a pisspoor one, at that.

Perhaps you’d be better devoting your time to wondering how a liberal democracy wound up rubbing shoulders with dictators, theocrats and murderers on the world’s human rights shit list, rather than dropping insinuations about the real motives of those who object.

The fact that you might feel that this situation is unfair is neither here nor there; no doubt the Serbs thought they were hard done by, given the then-existing situation in Africa. Sadly for them, that was irrelevant and they were still a bunch of thugs and bastards.

Just to pick one example….

Why we haven’t sought a warrant against Mugabe

Peter Tatchell sought an arrest warrant against Mugabe in Bow Street Magistrate’s Court on 7 January 2004, under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

FlyingRodent @ 28,

Thank you for your reply.

Maybe I’m not a shrinking violet but items A to D sound like what goes on during war – and Israel has been at war since 1948. So we can tut tut Israel as much as we like and support BDS campaigns or seek arrest warrants for Israeli citizens – but it doesn’t go anywhere near to explain why focus on Israel so much worse is being done in the world.

You and I can play LC pingpong regarding this, however it’s worth considering we are probably using computers manufactured in China to do so, sitting in rooms surrounded by Chinese produced goods. Yet I don’t hear you or anyone else suggesting we seek the arrest of Hu Jintao or join campaigns trying to persuade people to boycott Chinese goods? Why is that? Are Israel’s actions with Palestinians worse than the Chinese government’s actions with regard to Tibet? Hardly.

So why the fascination with Israel above all others?

My problem is not so much that arrest warrants are being sought for Israeli citizens but that they are not also being sought for all other nations who carry out comparable or worse actions? The lack of applications for arrest warrant for Russian, Syrian, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Congolese etc etc politicians is what is piss-poor not my questioning why Israel gets so much attention.

I wonder what would your reaction be to attempt to seek arrest warrants for British troops carrying out their duties in Afghanistan or Iraq? Over the past 9 years we British have killed considerably more people in both of those places, with some quite unsavoury or careless incidents – so why not a bit of self flagellation? It’s not as we don’t ‘deserve’ it as much as Israel.

Dunc @ 29,

Thank you for the reminder about Peter Tatchell.
A brave guy, but the only person with sufficient nerve to put “his dick on the griddle”, so to speak.
Where are the rest?

I wonder what would your reaction be to attempt to seek arrest warrants for British troops carrying out their duties in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Maybes aye, maybes naw, would be my reaction. The question would be “Are there reasonable grounds to suspect that these particular British soldiers committed war crimes?”. If the answer is “Yes”, then they should be prosecuted by those with the legal right to do so – if not, then they shouldn’t.. This doesn’t strike me as much of a head-scratcher, I must admit.

items A to D sound like what goes on during war – and Israel has been at war since 1948

“We are at war, ergo we can do whatever the fuck we like” is an interesting concept and one that’s unlikely to fly at, say, the ICC. There are some fairly strict and very reasonable, internationally-agreed restrictions on what belligerents may and may not do in war, with a), b) and c) falling to varying degrees within the “may not do” category. On the other hand, d) – which totally insulates the Israelis from facing the economic and political consequences of their actions* – is one of a number of damn good reasons why Israel/Palestine remains such a hot potato for some folk.

Yet I don’t hear you or anyone else suggesting we seek the arrest of Hu Jintao or join campaigns trying to persuade people to boycott Chinese goods?

I well remember the last time the Chinese premier was in town, not to mention the Beijing Olympics. “Get China” is a cause celbre for Hollywood types in a way that “Get Israel” isn’t. I think we can agree that this isn’t a very good comparison – China gets it in the neck plenty, if you care to look.

So why the fascination with Israel above all others?

I take “above all others” with a pinch of salt and remind you that the answer to the question “Why the fascination with Israel” is “Because of its habit of committing grievous crimes while giving the rest of the planet the finger”.

Again, the Serbs feel they get a pretty bad rap. The Russians worry about “Russophobia”; the Iranians see western plots and subterfuge everywhere. I’m fairly sure that each nation would feel its own crimes are piffling compared to the others’ and to Israels and would be quick to claim bias and victimhood. Nonetheless, they’re still a pretty awful bunch of odious shits. You can see where I’m going with this, I imagine.

(* e.g. paying for their wars themselves out of general taxation which, given the knock-on expense to the public purse and deleterious effect on public services, would vastly increase the domestic political costs of continued wars).

@30

Where are the rest?

“Come, follow me into this bottomless put of whataboutery…”

How many arrest warrants have you applied for against whichever particular example of man’s limitless inhumanity to his fellow man most floats your boat? Or do you just use this to complain that anybody complaining about an example of man’s limitless inhumanity to his fellow man which you aren’t particularly bothered about isn’t really serious about human rights because “SQUIRREL!”?

Is there some internationally agreed-upon list of grievances people are supposed to formally sign up to before they can criticise anything else?

Bottomless pit, goddammit.

Just possibly an update/correction is needed for this post. Because as brutal public snubs go, this seems a bit under-powered:

Impressive advance work from the new British ambassador, Matthew Gould, and the Foreign Secretary’s own abilities have led the Israelis to decide that Mr Hague is a player. So he got the full treatment, meeting prime minister Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, defence minister Ehud Barak and opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8111325/William-Hague-is-an-enemy-of-Iran-and-thats-good-enough-for-Israel.html

Dunc @33,

I preferred bottomless putt as a correction, just because I had an image of a golfer standing watching a ball roll towards a hole for eternity whilst those around him came out with inappropriate and tangential arguments…

Dunc @ 32,

“How many arrest warrants have you applied for …..”

I’m not the one advocating applying for arrest warrants for anyone. I’m merely asking why is it Israel that gets this treatment and is the subject of such attention.

It’s not as if they have done anything unparalleled – so if there is any whataboutery it is by people who refuse to answer why Israel deserves approbrium above and beyond other nations.

Liberal Conspiracy is usually a good site to look at because of the mature way that issues are discussed. However, it’s a shame to see the groupthink that associates Israel with evil is being given an outing on quite a frequent basis.

FlyingRodent @ 31,

“We are at war, ergo we can do whatever the fuck we like” is an interesting concept and one that’s unlikely to fly at, say, the ICC.”

This might sound a bit glib but war is war. It’s not Strictly Come Dancing with a a panel of ICC judges giving out scores between 0 to 10 for conduct, civility, decorum and elegance.

…war is war. It’s not Strictly Come Dancing

Indoodle. If you mess up on Strictly Come Dancing, you don’t get a cell next to charles Taylor and radovan Karadzic. Unsurprisingly, this is because few if any SCD contestants try to win by imprisoning their rivals or by dropping several hunrded tons of artillery shells and cutting-edge guided missiles somehere within a quarter mile radius of their houses.

Still, if you’re insistent that there are no rules in war, I suggest you drop the government of Sudan a line. They’ll be delighted to hear it… Or is this, as bitter experience has taught me to suspect over the years, strictly a white-people only exemption?

FlyingRodent @ 37,

“Or is this, as bitter experience has taught me to suspect over the years, strictly a white-people only exemption?”

It’s rather sad that I can’t even add to a discussion on LiberalConspiracy without some joker trying to play the race card.

Oh I get it, Kojak disagrees with me – therefore he must be a racist.

Makes me think of Rik Mayall calling people ‘racist!’ on ‘The Young Ones’.

I get it, Kojak disagrees with me – therefore he must be a racist.

The point isn’t about race, although from the gleeful tone, I’m sure you’d prefer it if it were – it’s about political partisanship in ye olde one-man’s-freedom-fighter-is-another’s-terrorist sense. It’s not an obscure concept.

To repeat, I’m pointing out that your desired option of cutting the Israelis a whole load of slack re: war crimes is going to have the knock-on effect of validating a lot of the things that much less pleasant regimes do, besides demeaning the entire concept of law in war. This is why it’s usually better to maintain the same standard for everyone, friend or foe, political consequences be damned.

Nuremberg giveth and it taketh away, I think – keep it, and western nations are going to fall foul; reject it, and you’ve just undercut your case against the bad guys. Ain’t that a kick in the head.

FlyingRodent @ 39.

Even though you were the one to bring it up it’s good to hear that you don’t think this about race.

I’m not sure why you think I am trying to cut Israel some slack? The question I’m asking is why is Israel singled out above all other nations for actions it might have done? It’s as if their every action is subject for political unrivalled ‘chugging’.

For a country that has been at war since 1948 I’m surprised at how well they have conducted themselves – but there again that might just be because I’m a practically minded person who notices how frequently the British and Americans seem to have caused unintentional harm in Afghanistan and Iraq in about a 7th of the time.

@Kojak

The question I’m asking is why is Israel singled out above all other nations for actions it might have done?

Well it isn’t for a start, but never mind that, what do you think the answer to your question is?

why is Israel singled out above all other nations for actions it might have done?

This really isn’t the case. It’s unethical and illegal for anyone – russia, China, America – to, say, pen one and a half million people into a tiny strip of land then intentionally immiserate them in order to force their compliance with your political plans. It’s unethical and illegal for anyone to bombard heavily-populated urban areas – bakeries, petrol stations, ports, airpots, supermarkets, apartment buildings – in pursuit of an unachievable military objective.

I know this is difficult for a lot of people to grasp, but designating these activities as war crimes isn’t singling out Israel, nor is it holding to a higher standard. It’s the same standard. They are designated as crimes, not because the Independent hates Jews, but because they are criminal activities.

You’e talking about some Guardian readers being more exercised by Israel’s crimes than Iran’s. That’s not the same thing at all.

Cylux @41,

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

However, to my assertion that Israel is being singled out above other nations you deny that to be the case and asked me why I think it is so. To which all I can do is say what I see before me: successive articles criticizing Israel’s actions (quite often without an explanation of the two sided context of the war they they are engaged in), campaigns to boycott Israeli goods + links with Israeli culture / education, a slow drip drip drip attempt to delegitimize the country. A quick test: have a look at CIF for the number of articles about Israel, the amount of comments they attract – compare them to the number of articles about China, Syria, Russia etc ……….. then tell me again if you don’t think Israel attracts greater attention than other nations who commit comparable or greater acts.

FlyingRodent @ 42,

Thank you for your comment but all you are doing is asserting your belief that Israel has something to answer for – which doesn’t address my question why is it that Israel attracts more attention for their actions than other nations who conduct comparable or acts of a greater magnitude.

I’m going to put this another way, one which hopefully isn’t charged with rage, emotion and righteousness that people drift into when talking about Israel…….:

This might sound silly but bear with me and imagine the ongoing conflicts around the world are likened to volcanic eruptions ………Mount St. Helens, Stromboli, Etna, Eyjafjallajokull, Montserrat, Merapi, Pinatubo etc etc.

One of the volcanoes is referred to more frequently than the others by people who have a passing interest in such things. Why is that?

Is it because epitomises our understanding of what a volcano is, it causes greater destruction than the others, is local to us, causes harm to some place/thing dearer to us than any of the others, has been recorded on film whereas the others haven’t (thinking of the side blowing of Mt St. Helens) etc etc.

We would be able to rationally consider this question and answer it without too much difficulty and without denying that harm had been caused by each of them. It would be relatively simple to compare how frequently one is referred to as opposed to the others and determine wheat this prominence is due to.

So why is it that you are not able to dispassionately attempt to answer my question about why Israel is singled out above other nations for what it has done relative to their actions?

@43

A quick test: have a look at CIF

Let me just stop you there for a moment, CIF has basically become HYS II and should not, under any circumstances, be relied upon for any sort of insight whatsoever.

I would not be surprised if the amount of comments the Israeli – Palestinian conflict garners is inflated by the moron squad braying repeatedly that “Guardian readers” want to abolish Israel, let terrorists run rampant etc etc.

Cylux @45,

What does HYS II mean?

Why do you think that the comments board of Britain’s leading left of centre newspaper (Guardian) “should not, under any circumstances, be relied upon for any sort of insight whatsoever”?

It’s not by any means conclusive, however it shows which subjects are deemed suitable topics for discussion and indicates the amount of traffic of people doing so.

It’s the Guardian’s equivalent of the Daily Mail’s obsession with stories about “scrounging immigrants’ or house price inflation.

@46
HYS II stands for Have Your Say 2, named after the BBC’s have your say section. A comments section which due to the profound intellectual postings of its commenter’s managed to spawn spEak You’re bRanes which regularly takes the piss out of them for their general bigotry and nutbaggery.

In short the Guardian’s CIF pages suffer from the exact same curse, as you point out “the comments board of Britain’s leading left of centre newspaper (Guardian)”, it’s a leading left of centre newspaper. So if you were a fuck-witted right winger, who believes everything Richard Littlejohn writes, and were of a mind to stick it to the “liberal Guardianistas” what comments board would you be more likely to frequent?

In fact it’s easier if I just show you, read the comments on this link and see just what CIF really is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/lloyd-marcus-tea-party-blog/2010/oct/08/lloyd-marcus-tea-party

Anyway that is why using the comments section of any mainstream source is not recommended for building up a view about, well, about anything important really. Apart from the reoccurring frequency of morons of course.

all you are doing is asserting your belief that Israel has something to answer for…

Am I, indeed. You might notice that your own contribution is rather longer on fearful OMG why must non-specific individuals say nasty things than it is on the behaviour that prompts complaints, for some unfathomable reason.

which doesn’t address my question why is it that Israel attracts more attention for their actions than other nations who conduct comparable or acts of a greater magnitude.

Largely because, for reasons repeatedly laid out above, I don’t accept the case. The attention you’re talking about is “some numbnuts internet commenters talking crap”, which I find considerably less worrying than actual war crimes. I don’t think you have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out why so many people would rather we focussed more on, say, some bullshit that a blogger said on ParanoidBollocks.com than on aerial bombardment of heavily populated cities, for instance.

Still, I’ll offer this as a reason why numbnuts internet commenters get more upset about (x) than (y). when the Sudanese government launches a fresh round of atrocities in darfur, the nation’s intellectuals don’t rear up on their hind legs and start furiously barking that those complaining about it are racist Nazis. The world’s only superpower doesn’t step in to shield Al-Bashir from the consequences of his actions, and it doesn’t rush massive shipments of cutting-edge munitions to help Sudan continue blowing shit up.

In short, there’s a 100% accurate perception that the Israelis can wreak mayhem with total impunity thanks to strong international support, and that its public champions suffer from an offensively obvious honesty defecit.

No, that’s a weird situation right there. If you’re more interested in clarity than in muddying the waters, it might be a more profitable line of inquiry than just throwing your hands up and declaring yourself mystified by the awful Guardianistas.

Oh, and while I’m at it – if you must insist on continuing the pretence that the Israelis get a much, much worse rep than they deserve, it’d be nice if you could have a go at answering your question yourself.

Note that the answer implied by the question is “Because Israel’s critics are either quietly pro-terrorist or just have a problem with Jews generally”, and that attempts to kid on that you’re not implying racist or murderous motives are not going to convince.

Cyrus @ 47,

Thank you for your reply.

“Anyway that is why using the comments section of any mainstream source is not recommended for building up a view about, well, about anything important really. Apart from the reoccurring frequency of morons of course.”

Whereas discussing opinions on LiberalConspiracy is a worthwhile endeavour carried out by intelligent people such as yourself, I suppose.

The Guardian’s choice of Lloyd Marcus to explain his participation in the Tea Parties was unusual and taken to counter the prevailing authodoxy on the left about the movement was explained on CIF by Matt Seaton of the Guardian to CIF contributor SoundMonkey on 08.11.2010 at 12.35 pm:

“@ SoundMoney:
Lloyd, I think you’ve been suckered into writing this for the wrong paper.

I don’t think so, SoundMoney. We sincerely want to know what and how the Tea Party thinks, and Lloyd is the real deal. And he’s a smart guy and knows his media. Peronally, I’m going to be fascinated by what he has to say over the next four weeks or so (even if I don’t expect to agree with him on much).”

So, perhaps this is just a case of you selecting the viewpoint of an unusual contributor to CIF to explain that not everything written there stacks up. Which is also the point I was making, albeit in a different way.

FlyingRodent @ 48,

If you don’t think that Israel attracts more attention for it’s actions than comparable ones carried out by other nations you are either seriously in denial or merely trying not to discuss the matter by restating your disapproval of Israeli actions.

So, as you don’t appear to be able to answer a general question, let’s make it a bit more specific so as to be a bit easier for you:

Why is it that Israeli actions with regard to the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict which has resulted in the death of thousands of people attract more attention than the actions of the Democratic Republic of Congo and those of Rwanda in their conflict which has resulted in the death of over 5 million people?

Whereas discussing opinions on LiberalConspiracy is a worthwhile endeavour carried out by intelligent people such as yourself, I suppose.

No, it isn’t, it is just as pointless as CIF, it’s not like me or FlyingRodent have managed to get you to answer your own baited question now is it?

Also:
SoundMoney

8 October 2010 12:19PM

Lloyd, I think you’ve been suckered into writing this for the wrong paper.

Never mind, I shall put my feet up, open the popcorn, and enjoy the fireworks.

BrownOutNow

8 October 2010 12:22PM

lives ruined by the welfare dependency

We need the dignity of self-reliance

Good grief you can’t say things like that on CIF!!!
It’s all about “entitlements” and big, all encompassing government on here.

youcancallmemeyer

8 October 2010 12:24PM

Your story will be unacceptable to the Guardian crowd.

We have Noel Pearson in Australia, an aborigine, who says things like you, and the left can’t handle what he says; so they ignore him.

bfastboy81

8 October 2010 12:24PM

Oh dear, you’re not going to be popular on here.

*awaiting the deluge of white liberals to tell you how you should really feel*

So, perhaps this is just a case of you selecting the viewpoint of an unusual contributor to CIF to explain that not everything written there stacks up. Which is also the point I was making, albeit in a different way.

No just selecting the viewpoints of usual contributors.

Cylux @ 51,

Thank you for your reply.

“No, it isn’t, it is just as pointless as CIF, it’s not like me or FlyingRodent have managed to get you to answer your own baited question now is it?”

We have come on LiberalConspiracy to talk to people about the topics Sunny kindly choses to feature. Obviously there is no obligation on you to answer the question I raised other that the polite convention to talk to people rather than at them.

So I suppose you are correct that it would appear that I’m wasting my time attempting to get either FlyingRodent or you to answer a question that you feel is in some way ‘baited’.

That in itself is a shame as none of us will ever get that time back again and I think that perhaps it might have been a bit more constructive to answer something at face value rather than assign motives to it to excuse your failure to engage with it (or as in FlyingRodent’s message 49 go to the trouble of providing implied answers to the question rather that actual ones so as not to have to answer the question him/herself).

Jesus Kojak, Cat-Bin Lady has had more press than the Congo in the last ten years. Kerry Catona gets a thousand times the coverage, almost all of it negative. Are we now saying that the awful liberals think Kerry Catona is worse than African murder gangs?

This isn’t a sign that Israel gets too much attention for its various sins – it’s a sign that the Congo doesn’t get anywhere near enough. If you’re halfway serious about human rights and the rule of law, the latter should annoy you more than the former.

The idea that I’m avoiding your question is fun, since the whole point of the OMG why must the libruls say more nasty things about Israel than (x) gambit is explicitly to move the topic of discussion from, say, the bombardment of Beirut and onto the more convenient issue of whether the Guardian loves terrorists. It’s an argument that’s entirely designed to muddy the waters and shift blame.

Still, if you really must pretend that I’m ignoring you, I’ll go back to a point I made in the very last comment. Like I say, if news of an appalling massacre in Congo makes the news, the President of the free world doesn’t jump on a plane to Kinshasa for a photo op with Joseph Kabila, declaring the Congolese leader a “man of peace” and inventing excuses for all the deaths he caused. The US doesn’t offer Congo a limitless credit account and every weapons system barring aircraft carriers and nukes; when the UN meets to call for a ceasefire, the Americans don’t veto every resolution on the grounds that the Congolese army needs time to impose a “sustainable ceasefire” by bombarding cities with cutting edge high explosives.

I could go on, but you get the idea. There are many nations which commit grievous crimes around the globe, but there are few indeed who are able to do so with total impunity. There are plenty of long-standing conflicts, but few where one side has such overwhelming military superiority thanks to superpower donations, and few in which the stronger party openly pens a subject population into a tiny area and bombs the shite out of it in order to force their surrender.

Everyone else has to face some kind of consequence, even if it’s only the emnity of the international community and a trade embargo. When Israel revs up the whizz-bang machines, the world’s only superpower offers to hold its coat and fund its expense account. Some feel this isn’t very fair or particularly moral, hence it tends to make headlines.

FlyingRodent @ 53,

Thank you for your reply – it has caused me to reconsider an earlier view in which I suggested there might not be any point discussing things on LiberalConspiracy.

Believe it or not I think we are actually talking about the same thing – it’s just that you have interpreted my comments as being those of an apologist for the Israeli governments.

Yes the situation that Palestinians find themselves in is awful, be that in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, or elsewhere in the Middle East. Where I think we probably differ is that I think they have possibly the worse ‘leaders’ in the world who prefer to play the long game of all or nothing, rather than make unpalatable compromises which are decreasingly less palatable as they recede into the past. The risk of playing for all or nothing is that you might end up with nothing other than sympathy – and that’s the predicament they find themselves in albeit one assisted by the narrative that resolving the I/P conflict will allow many other conflicts to be solved as well.

The Israeli / Palestinian conflict is a useful proxy for other nations to project their own ambitions – be they to seek regional hegemony, preservation of the status quo or to shield themselves from their own failings. I suggest that it is a conflict that many of the supporters of both parties would rather continue than be resolved because it neatly contains many problems which if released would cause considerable trouble to themselves.

Your analogous reference to Warrington’s finest, Kerry Katona, is most helpful because through it we can see the reverse situation of how D-list ‘celebrities’ seek to secure attention within the media – attention that can actually be measured in column inches, web pages and references on the internet. Oh, how Jody Marsh or Alicia Duvall must rile with irritation at the blanket coverage dedicated to Kerry K, coverage that could have otherwise been given to their similar exploits with cocaine, family, loser boyfriends, reality TV shows, bankruptcy, endorsements and enhancements. All of them have sampled many of these things time and again however, like a stubborn ‘floater’ Kerry Katona won’t relinquish the spotlight and do us all a favour and be flushed round the S-trap leaving more space for them to fill.

For Kerry Katona ‘out of sight out of mind’ is a personal tragedy whereas for dictators and authoritarian regimes around the world ‘out of sight out of mind’ really is a welcome concept – they are only too happy for as much attention as is possible as it is directed away from their activities enabling them to kill many more times the number of those killed in the I/P conflict.

But silly me, I naively thought we were not supposed to say the fate of one set of victims is more worthy of our attention than the rest.