Livni’s London trip cancelled: a victory for international justice?
Few would have noticed the absence of former Israeli foreign minister and opposition Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni from a conference in London this Sunday-the visit, or lack thereof, failed to reach the mainstream British media.
Of course many editors might retort that Livni’s UK trip simply wasn’t newsworthy. Would the Israeli press care if David Cameron turned up at a meeting in Jerusalem? Or even less significant, that he failed to turn up. Not likely. That is perhaps, unless he cancelled his travel plans for fear of arrest.
Livni was scheduled to speak at a Jewish National Fund (JNF) conference on Israel’s Future in the Negev. She was also due to meet with Prime Minister Gordon Brown for private talks. But her visit was kept quiet. The JNC did not even tell its own members the location of the venue for the conference until a few days beforehand, and there was hardly a murmur about her alleged meeting with Gordon Brown.
Livni’s office told the Ynet today that, “the invitation to the annual JNF conference was turned down by us two weeks ago because the schedule meetings with the government figures in London could not take place close to the conference and would have necessitated a longer-than-planned absence from Israel.”
But looking at the events leading up to the conference, this excuse seems less than palpable. On 29 September Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak’s attendance at a Labour meeting sparked a media storm when lawyers representing 16 Palestinians attempted to arrest Barak for war crimes committed during the Israeli offensive on Gaza last winter.
The case failed on the grounds that Barak enjoyed diplomatic impunity and would not be able to fulfil his function at the conference if charged. But suffice to say, it was pretty embarrassing for the Defence minister, the Israeli government, and the British government who invited him. And it just may have convinced Israeli officials that persecution in foreign courts was a very real threat.
The Guardian reported in October that according to a UK lawyer working on the expansion of the application of international justice:
“Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister during the Gaza war, would probably face arrest on war crimes charges if he visited Britain…Neither Olmert nor Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister during the Cast Lead offensive, and a member of Israel’s war cabinet, would enjoy immunity from prosecution for alleged breaches of the Geneva conventions.”
Since the UN-backed Goldstone Report accused Israel and Hamas fighters of war crimes, the case for international justice has been strengthened. The report was rejected by the Israeli government, but its recommendations for Israel (and Hamas fighters) to be tried at the International Criminal Court have been taken seriously in the UK and other European nations.
Officers of the Israel Defense Force who took part in the Gaza operation were advised earlier this year to consult legal experts at the foreign ministry before visiting certain countries.
Livni’s trip was leaked to pro-Palestinian activist groups shortly before the conference was due to take place, and rumor spread that UK lawyers were seeking an arrest warrant for her. Suddenly, the JNF site which had previously posted a list of speakers at the event, removed the page on both its facebook account and website. No explanation was given for its removal and there was no reason provided for Livni’s cancellation.
The application of international jurisdiction in the case of war crimes still has a long way to go before it becomes a formidable deterrent to erring world leaders. But if Livni did indeed cancel her travel plans for fear of arrest, it is a clear victory for international justice.
You can view my report on this for Press TV here.
Tags: Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Gaza, Goldstone Report, Israel, Jewish National Conference, Livni cancels London trip, Tzipi Livni, war crimes
Another european anti-semite! Who would have guessed?!!!
Any attempt by any country to invoke universal jurisdiction against people of a democracy is nothing but a attempt to control that countries affairs. It is illegitimate, illegal, and a act of war.
Dear John,
Thank you for your comment. The case for universal jurisdiction supports the application of international law, to which no country, democracy or otherwise, is immune. If there was no system of regulation countries would have no deterrant from comitting crimes against humanity and war crimes. The need for checks and balances internationally far outweighs the argument for national sovereignty, but sadly the sovereignty argument still holds more weight for powerful countries, such as Israel, US, and UK, to avoid punishment. On the anti-semite note, I happen to be an American with Jewish family on my father’s side. I also find it tragic that anyone who criticises Israel is accused of religious intolerance. I do not see the two as synonymous and would love to hear your argument for making this huge generalization.
Thanks again.
Amy