By Gerald Steinberg and Anne Herzberg, NGOMonitor.com
As originally appearing in Haaretz
Speaking at a legal conference on January 4, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak suggested that Israel would benefit from participation in bodies such as the International Criminal Court in order to fight for "its positions and justice." In endorsing Barak's recommendation, a Haaretz editorial ("Join the Court," January 6) contended that such participation would "place Israel on the side of the enlightened nations." Similarly, the argument goes, Israel erred in refusing to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone Commission and the International Court of Justice proceedings on the security barrier.
While surely well-intentioned, in practice this line of thinking is pure folly. The dominance of nondemocratic and Islamic nations in international organs, and the increasing politicization of these bodies, virtually guarantees that no justice will be done when it comes to Israel or even NATO countries. In such morally corrupt frameworks, international law and human rights have become political weapons, disconnected from legitimate judicial processes and legal systems in democratic societies.
The ICJ's handling of the 2004 case regarding Israel's security barrier is a telling example. The suit was initiated by the UN General Assembly at the behest of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. European-funded advocacy groups such as B'Tselem, aided by NGO superpowers Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, were central to this effort.
Legal scholars sharply criticized the court for accepting a predetermined political mandate from the UN and for its breach of procedural protocols in deliberations on the matter. The ICJ's resulting advisory opinion negated Israel's right of self-defense and displayed an utter lack of sympathy for terror victims. Its simplistic and troubling legal analysis clearly reflected the influence of the Arab League and politicized NGOs. Hardly an independent judicial inquiry, this distorted proceeding encouraged subversion of the rule of law, rather than its enforcement, by allowing for political manipulation of the judicial process.
Similar problems plague the ICC. Calls for the creation of an ICC were first made in the late 1980s by Caribbean and Latin American countries seeking international support in trying drug traffickers, and were bolstered by the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the mid-1990s. Following a massive push by NGOs, the ICC statute was finalized in Rome in 1998, covering the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the court began operations in 2002.
Some complain that the ICC in practice has become an "African court" that lets Western democracies off the hook, but this claim is unjustified. Although NGOs pressed for the ICC to have wide-ranging jurisdiction, it was intended to be a court of last resort for the very worst crimes, adjudicating only those cases that could not be fairly tried in national courts due to the lack of a competent judiciary.
From the beginning, Israel strongly backed the idea of an international court based on the Nuremberg precedent. But, as happened with other international legal bodies, the ICC process was co-opted by nondemocratic forces. Arab and Islamic regimes succeeding in changing the court's statute at the last minute to define Israeli settlement activity as an international crime while omitting terrorism as an offense. This overt politicization of the court forced Israel to withdraw its support.
Following the Gaza war, the PLO pressured ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo to open a case against Israel, even though "Palestine" is not a state and doing so would be a gross violation of the court's treaty. Moreno-Ocampo has admitted to working closely with the Arab League in this process. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, funded primarily by European governments, is also deeply involved in this one-sided effort, as are Amnesty and HRW.
These same Arab League members have hypocritically and repeatedly offered shelter to indicted war criminal Omar Bashir of Sudan, refusing to hand him over to the court to stand trial. Thus the countries that dominate the UN system use their power to control and manipulate its institutions for their own interests - not in pursuit of universal justice.
The careful balance that Justice Barak developed in Israeli jurisprudence in weighing human rights claims against security needs receives no respect from the Arab League and its NGO allies, whose political demands international institutions are unable or unwilling to resist. Barak's wishful thinking to the contrary, it would have made no difference if Israel had participated in the ICJ case or even the Goldstone mission. The record clearly indicates that any information provided by Israel would have been twisted and discounted to fit predetermined conclusions. Claims that Israeli cooperation could have changed the outcome have no basis.
Refusing to be a party to this sort of legal travesty does not mean Israel is insensitive to international law or human rights, or that the Jewish state does not wish to be a member of the international community. Nor should this principled position be used to claim that Israel is trying to shield itself from critical inquiry - far from it. Israel's Supreme Court is a leading adherent and innovator of international law and is a major proponent of human rights.
To suggest that Israel could exert any influence on bodies where nondemocratic regimes wield excessive power, however, is a pipe dream that has no connection to today's unfortunate reality.
Gerald Steinberg is a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor; Anne Herzberg is NGO Monitor's legal advisor
Showing posts with label Amnesty International. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amnesty International. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Official - Gaza Report 'Biased, Unfair'
by David Bedein
Assessment Of Shootings On UN Sites During Gaza War Draws Ire
An official U.N. report that studied the Israeli shootings at U.N. institutions during Israel’s December/January incursion into Gaza accuses Israel of grave offenses, including disproportionate shooting and deliberately hitting U.N. civilians and institutions.
The special report, written by former Amnesty International head Ian Martin, studied the circumstances surrounding the Israeli fire that was directed at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) institutions in Gaza in the course of the incursion, referred to by Israel as Operation Cast Lead.
Jerusalem is putting heavy pressure on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to delay the publication of the report, or at least reduce the grave charges.
The committee members, headed by Mr. Martin, visited the Gaza Strip in February and met with top Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel Foreign Ministry representatives. The Israelis then showed the members of the U.N. committee detailed findings related to the shooting incidents at UNRWA facilities in the course of the operation.
Israel’s representatives presented aerial photographs, unmanned aerial vehicle photographs and other intelligence material that showed Hamas activities near the UNRWA facilities, which exploited the latter’s immunity.
The IDF carried out a special inquiry in response to the U.N.’s allegations. At the end of the inquiry, Israeli military figures said many measures had been taken to avoid hitting U.N. installations and vehicles, or those belonging to the Red Cross and other international organizations.
Relating to the incident of the shooting at the UNRWA school in Jabalya, the army contended that Hamas fighters fired mortar shells at IDF troops from a point approximately 260 feet from the school.
After identifying the source of the mortar fire with certainty, the information was verified and cross-referenced, and the IDF force that came under fire carried out what it considered was a proportional and minimal counterattack.
The IDF responded to the U.N. comments regarding the strikes against its vehicles, stating: “[1]n one case it was found that a U.N. vehicle was hit as a result of shots fired contrary to orders, and the soldier who opened fire will be court-martialed on disciplinary charges.”
The report reached the U.N. secretary-general’s desk a few days ago, and it is liable to generate a diplomatic earthquake. The report’s authors chose to ignore Israel’s contentions and unequivocally determined that Israel deliberately fired at U.N. institutions even though it knew it was forbidden.
The report accuses Israel of disproportionate fire and excessive use of force. The report also states Israel unnecessarily and excessively shot at Palestinian civilians.
The report is worded in a one-sided manner and includes numerous and grave charges against Israel, while almost entirely ignoring Hamas’ actions during the conflict and the ongoing rocket attacks against Israeli communities.
Some who have seen the report say its authors completely ignored the information Israel passed on to the U.N. after the Gaza incursion.
The report’s main recommendation is liable to get Israel into hot water in the diplomatic sphere and create enormous damage: the appointment of an independent U.N. investigative committee that will thoroughly investigate the operations and other steps taken during the Gaza incursion, which would check whether Israel abided by international laws and charters during the operation.
The independent investigative committee would be sent by the U.N. secretary-general and would take testimony from Palestinians and from UNRWA workers to further investigate whether Israel committed war crimes or deviated from international law.
Such a committee likely would generate a wave of international condemnation against Israel and would open up the possibility of charging top Israeli officials in legal institutions all over the world and drag Israel into deep diplomatic mud.
When the intention to make the report public became known, the new Israel Foreign Ministry director-general, Yossi Gal, left for New York to receive the draft of the report and to hold talks with top U.N. officials.
He hopes to persuade them to delay publication, change some of the sharp language and to obtain a promise the secretary-general will seek to balance the report’s harsh findings in the press conference that will take place after the report comes out.
Israeli officials are very troubled by the timing of the publication - on the eve of this morning’s meeting between President Shimon Peres and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
An Israeli government official said: “The secretary-general’s report is biased, unfair, suffers from blindness and ignores the circumstances that were in place in the course of Operation Cast Lead when Hamas made use of the population as a human shield and fired from inside houses and from inside and close to U.N. installations.”
A member of the French U.N. delegation said if the report’s conclusion are accepted, it could drag Israel into a relentless diplomatic war that was worse than what it underwent during the Second Intifada.
In addition, the report’s conclusion is liable to spark a wave of international repercussions toward Israel and turn it into a main target of human rights organizations.
The chances are increasing that the report will be released next week, which will give Israel a new challenge. It will require it to launch a comprehensive campaign to prevent the conclusion of the U.N. Security Council’s report from being accepted as is.
In addition, it is not out of the question that Israel will be condemned in the U.N. Security Council, since the U.S. will find it hard to veto an official conclusion of a report of the U.N. secretary-general.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Assessment Of Shootings On UN Sites During Gaza War Draws Ire
An official U.N. report that studied the Israeli shootings at U.N. institutions during Israel’s December/January incursion into Gaza accuses Israel of grave offenses, including disproportionate shooting and deliberately hitting U.N. civilians and institutions.
The special report, written by former Amnesty International head Ian Martin, studied the circumstances surrounding the Israeli fire that was directed at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) institutions in Gaza in the course of the incursion, referred to by Israel as Operation Cast Lead.
Jerusalem is putting heavy pressure on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to delay the publication of the report, or at least reduce the grave charges.
The committee members, headed by Mr. Martin, visited the Gaza Strip in February and met with top Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel Foreign Ministry representatives. The Israelis then showed the members of the U.N. committee detailed findings related to the shooting incidents at UNRWA facilities in the course of the operation.
Israel’s representatives presented aerial photographs, unmanned aerial vehicle photographs and other intelligence material that showed Hamas activities near the UNRWA facilities, which exploited the latter’s immunity.
The IDF carried out a special inquiry in response to the U.N.’s allegations. At the end of the inquiry, Israeli military figures said many measures had been taken to avoid hitting U.N. installations and vehicles, or those belonging to the Red Cross and other international organizations.
Relating to the incident of the shooting at the UNRWA school in Jabalya, the army contended that Hamas fighters fired mortar shells at IDF troops from a point approximately 260 feet from the school.
After identifying the source of the mortar fire with certainty, the information was verified and cross-referenced, and the IDF force that came under fire carried out what it considered was a proportional and minimal counterattack.
The IDF responded to the U.N. comments regarding the strikes against its vehicles, stating: “[1]n one case it was found that a U.N. vehicle was hit as a result of shots fired contrary to orders, and the soldier who opened fire will be court-martialed on disciplinary charges.”
The report reached the U.N. secretary-general’s desk a few days ago, and it is liable to generate a diplomatic earthquake. The report’s authors chose to ignore Israel’s contentions and unequivocally determined that Israel deliberately fired at U.N. institutions even though it knew it was forbidden.
The report accuses Israel of disproportionate fire and excessive use of force. The report also states Israel unnecessarily and excessively shot at Palestinian civilians.
The report is worded in a one-sided manner and includes numerous and grave charges against Israel, while almost entirely ignoring Hamas’ actions during the conflict and the ongoing rocket attacks against Israeli communities.
Some who have seen the report say its authors completely ignored the information Israel passed on to the U.N. after the Gaza incursion.
The report’s main recommendation is liable to get Israel into hot water in the diplomatic sphere and create enormous damage: the appointment of an independent U.N. investigative committee that will thoroughly investigate the operations and other steps taken during the Gaza incursion, which would check whether Israel abided by international laws and charters during the operation.
The independent investigative committee would be sent by the U.N. secretary-general and would take testimony from Palestinians and from UNRWA workers to further investigate whether Israel committed war crimes or deviated from international law.
Such a committee likely would generate a wave of international condemnation against Israel and would open up the possibility of charging top Israeli officials in legal institutions all over the world and drag Israel into deep diplomatic mud.
When the intention to make the report public became known, the new Israel Foreign Ministry director-general, Yossi Gal, left for New York to receive the draft of the report and to hold talks with top U.N. officials.
He hopes to persuade them to delay publication, change some of the sharp language and to obtain a promise the secretary-general will seek to balance the report’s harsh findings in the press conference that will take place after the report comes out.
Israeli officials are very troubled by the timing of the publication - on the eve of this morning’s meeting between President Shimon Peres and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
An Israeli government official said: “The secretary-general’s report is biased, unfair, suffers from blindness and ignores the circumstances that were in place in the course of Operation Cast Lead when Hamas made use of the population as a human shield and fired from inside houses and from inside and close to U.N. installations.”
A member of the French U.N. delegation said if the report’s conclusion are accepted, it could drag Israel into a relentless diplomatic war that was worse than what it underwent during the Second Intifada.
In addition, the report’s conclusion is liable to spark a wave of international repercussions toward Israel and turn it into a main target of human rights organizations.
The chances are increasing that the report will be released next week, which will give Israel a new challenge. It will require it to launch a comprehensive campaign to prevent the conclusion of the U.N. Security Council’s report from being accepted as is.
In addition, it is not out of the question that Israel will be condemned in the U.N. Security Council, since the U.S. will find it hard to veto an official conclusion of a report of the U.N. secretary-general.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
