The first anniversary of Israel's large scale military operation in Gaza came two weeks after a judicial arrest warrant was issued in London against former Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. Instead of provoking a timely debate on the serious allegations faced by Tzipi Livni, the embarrassed response of British politicians to the grant of the arrest warrant (e.g. Gordon Brown reportedly rang Ms Livni's office to tell her she would be welcome in the UK) ensured that Israel's concerns about UK courts exercising universal jurisdiction over suspected Israeli war criminals took centre stage. It is no accident, therefore, that the UK's Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, is addressing the Hebrew University on 5th January on the subject of "Lawfare - Time for Rules of Engagement?"
For the last couple of years, die-hard supporters of Israeli policies have adopted and championed the term 'lawfare' in a concerted effort to bring into disrepute the non-violent actions of Palestinians in seeking justice outside the Israeli legal system. Cases in third countries, whether civil or criminal, some consider to be politically motivated 'legal terrorism', with no legal merit whatsoever. It seems that anyone who tries to focus on the substance of such cases is labeled as anti-Semitic and/or supporting terrorism. The lawyers involved are charged with manipulating the legal systems of naïve countries who should know better than allowing pro-Palestinians cheap publicity. Why are foreign courts allowing such cases to get anywhere, say supporters of Israel, when people know full well that as a functioning democracy Israel's legal system can be the fair arbiter of genuine grievances by Palestinians? The word 'lawfare' is thus given darker and darker connotations, while viciously attacking anyone who supports the rule of law in all circumstances, Justice Richard Goldstone included.
Never mind that the Israeli legal system appears to some as being subservient to the grinding machine of occupation and repression, from the illegal wall to the siege of Gaza and alleged war crimes.
In fact, as Palestinians increasingly seek justice abroad it seems that Israel is increasingly threatened by the merits of the cases in question. However, until now, case after case has been defeated by successful political pressure by supporters of Israel, which has shut down access to justice and inflicted procedural defeats on Palestinians seeking a fair hearing of their grievances. It is arguable that Israeli legal successes abroad have had nothing to do with the core merits of the cases concerned. Meanwhile, the alliances created by these Israeli tactics are breathtaking. For example, in a test case coming before the US Supreme Court in March 2010 on the issue of sovereign immunity, Yousuf v. Samantar, some supporters of Israel appear to have joined hands with the Saudi Government to support a Somali defendant (a former defence minister and top official in the regime of President Siad Barre, denounced by international groups for its systematic use of torture and arbitrary arrests, and for the rape and murder of political rivals and dissidents) in a bid to block civil claims against former government officials on procedural grounds. Supporters of a change to the law on arrest warrants in England and Wales will likewise doubtless include the most repressive regimes in the world.
Just as sinister as the 'lawfare' offensive, is the closely connected sustained attempt to create a broad alliance with the USA, its NATO allies and powerful countries such as Russia, in favour of changing the law on the use of force by states against non-state actors. Israeli leaders argue that this needs to be updated to cope with the challenges of the 'war on terror'. Among other things, they want it to become lawful to use disproportionate force against civilians where they are proximate to what state actors identify as legitimate military and quasi-military targets. This is one of the major arguments being used by Israel to block the implementation of the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict, which reported in September ("the Goldstone Report"). As the Jerusalem Post reported on December 31, Israel's military advocate-general, Major-General Mandelblitt, explained to a gathering of the Israel Bar that the true purpose of the Goldstone Report was not to attack Israel, "but against all countries fighting terrorism. The report is not aimed at Israel. It is aimed at the West, at any country fighting terrorism. It is meant to tie their hands and cause them to lose wars." This, he continued, was the main reason he opposed Goldstone's demand to conduct an independent investigation of the military operation in Gaza. He said that by refusing to comply, "Israel was defending the West's war against terrorism".
Of course, this strategy seems to require the blurring of any distinction between peoples fighting for self-determination or struggling against foreign occupation or internal repression and al-Qaeda or similar terrorist organisations. Fusing 'lawfare' and the need for the law to support the 'war on terror' was a significant feature of Tzipi Livni's response to the arrest warrant against her, when she said that "what needs to be put on trial here is the abuse of the British legal system. This is not a suit against Tzipi Livni, this is not a lawsuit against Israel. This is a lawsuit against any democracy that fights terror."
Equality of access to justice and the efficacy of universal justice will be put at grave risk if such arguments hold sway. Victims of alleged war crimes and torture, and crimes against humanity need to not only be able to continue to ask police forces outside their own countries, including the UK, to investigate their cases, when they are denied remedies in their domestic courts and seek the protection of international law, but they also need to be able to seek judicial arrest warrants to secure the chance of investigations leading to prosecutions. The exercise of universal jurisdiction and the arrest warrant procedure in England and Wales has become an increasingly important part of the protection which international criminal law was designed to create. It will have a significant deterrent effect to future regimes which might otherwise resort to mass murder, torture and war crimes.
Close political ties with another government mustn't over-ride the UK's proper duty to enforce the rule of law, nor must Israeli efforts to subvert the law itself be given any support. If Israel succeeds in persuading nations to both change international law along these lines and close down the exercise of universal jurisdiction, the era of rampant state terrorism lies ahead and Palestinian self-determination will be one the first victims, but far from the last.
An earlier version of this article will appear in the forthcoming edition of Red Pepper.
Loading comments… 
Much of the furore seems to be about the warrant being issued against a member of the Israeli government
If a leader of Hamas decides to visit Britain, for whatever reason, there is no reason why (unless the law IS changed) that Israel's proponents cannot equally apply for a warrant for his/her arrest.
Any questions of the legitimacy of the British Courts in such a case would be sorted out in pre-trial arguments, and would be fairly applied in both the case of Israeli or Hamas leaders.
I dfo not recall a single word of protest from anyone even loosely connected to Israel's government
Certainly, the Israeli government
Essentiall
I am relying on memories from (was it?) 1998. Those memories may be faulty, but I don't believe so.
Even if my memory is at fault, the law invoked for Ms. Livni's arrest warrant was the law used in arresting Pinochet. and I cannot recall Israel adversely commenting at the time.
It is the same law that might be invoked for the arrest of (say) a Nazi concentrat
Does Israel's objection to those laws in the case of Ms. Livni mean that Israel believes the camp guard can not be arrested?
I do not want to believe that it might be possible for a camp guard to escape judicial process, being free to travel to Britain, free from fear of arrest, just because Ms. Livni (or anyone else) howls in protest at the law's "unfairnes
I feel no need to embellish my argument.
Either you think it is OK for an alleged war criminal to wander the globe at will, free of any fear of prosecutio
I am, quite honestly, interested
My belief is that almost all of the world thought it was a "good thing" (including me), and Margaret Thatcher really stuck her neck out in publicly supporting the man.
The only countries that have designated Hamas as a terrorist organizati
Canada, USA, Japan, Australia, Israel and 27 EU countries.
So, only 32 out of 200 countries of the world agree.
I don't know why that is, but it probably explains why we hear boths sides of the issue...fr
Go ahead and jump on me...I like it....but stating inconvenie
Well, they target civilians, throw their political rival from rooftops and engage in other form of summary execution, theach their kids (the young ones watching kiddie shows on TV) to kill civilians, and include in their charter portions from the Potocols of the Elders of Zion as a basis for their stated aim of destroying the State of Israel.
So now you have an opening to complain further that their good bits aren't getting the proper press. Have fun.
When the institutio
Israel's assault on Gaza came via USA:
"Washingto
In a 71-page report released March 25, 2009, by Human Rights Watch, Israel’s repeated firing of US-made white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza was indiscrimi
"Human Rights Watch researcher
http://wea
Anyway, this was an interestin
Naughty naughty,
JacksonJon
"When in doubt change the subject and divert the thread"
Oh, no, that must be your lot's #3 apparently
Can you please properly cite the actual laws that are being violated?
For real?
Britain's judiciary, Like the U.S., is supposedly independen
Erm...I am sure you have a good example of that extraordin
Meanwhile a CIA operative who BLEW UP a Cubana Airlines passennger plane in the late '70's) I believe, was allowed to enter the US and is walking around Miami FREE today!
How about the Canadian who was picked up at JFK and sent to Syria for torture and NEVER allowd a day in court because the Bush "Justice Dep't" asserted impunity from prosecutio
A year earlier he had been brought to Britain for debriefing by MI5! Records released 60 years later show that ‘he had “fingered” the traitors, Kim Philby and atom spy Donald McLean’, long before they became "an inseperabl
The record shows that it was their recruiter (Sir) Anthony Blunt who provided a copy of Krivitsky’
The Coroner, while officially declaring the death a “suicide”, was not fully convinced that Krivitsky had taken his own life; stating that ‘if further evidence developed, he would a empower a Jury’.
The time for convening a Grand Jury is now. Blunt’s criminal inaction to come forward as “Witness”, after learning of Krivitsky’
If ‘western public opinion’ is to be weaned from the ‘opium’ purveyed by latter-day myrmidons of “Oriental Despotism”
Karl Huttenbaue
Goldstone'
My opinion is that Hamas missile launchers should be prosecuted for 2nd Degree Murder.
The IDF that targeted schools, hospitals and UN facilities teeming with frightened refugees should face murder one.
War crimes and crimes against humanity should never be ignored and the leaders of both sides should be brought to justice.
However, even if one were to accept your version of events as true (which I don't), I really can't see how you say that Hamas targeting civilians would be somehow less of a crime than Israeli targeting civilians.
The same should apply to many Israeli leaders and members of the IOF.
seems like Tzip forgot to read the gold.stone report...t
(Guardian Newspaper)
So the law that would have been applied in the extremely unlikely event that Ms Livni had actually faced a trial as a result of that warrant (there is a long way to go between an arrest and a trial), would have been British Law, just as the law that was used in the Eichmann trial was Israeli Law, and, had she been arrested in any of the other signatory countries to the Geneva Convention
The sentence above is, at bottom, an argument that a party feeling itself aggrieved should be permitted to shop for a forum in which it's views can prevail, whether or not the country that stands accused maintains an independen
This artcle's premise is much the same as advising minorities in Mississipp
Israel certainly is not special and Israelis are undeservin
No IOF leaders should be permitted anywhere near Europe's borders and Europe should dissolve any preferenti
If they refuse to do it out of simple fear of arrest then I'm fine with that too. Its all good.
So why do you think Israel is so "special" that there should be a special applicatio