Tag: United Kingdom

British court issued Gaza arrest warrant for former Israeli minister Tzipi Livni

Ian Black & Ian Cobain | The Guardian

14 December 2009

A British court issued an arrest warrant for Israel’s former foreign minister over war crimes allegedly committed in Gaza this year – only to withdraw it when it was discovered that she was not in the UK, it emerged today.

Tzipi Livni, a member of the war cabinet during Operation Cast Lead, had been due to address a meeting in London on Sunday but cancelled her attendance in advance. The Guardian has established that Westminster magistrates’ court issued the warrant at the request of lawyers acting for some of the Palestinian victims of the fighting but it was later dropped.

The warrant marks the first time an Israeli minister or former minister has faced arrest in the UK and is evidence of a growing effort to pursue war crimes allegations under “universal jurisidiction”. Israel rejects these efforts as politically motivated, saying it acted in self-defence against Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza.

Livni, head of the opposition Kadima party, played a key role in decisions made before and during the three-week offensive. Palestinians claim 1,400 were killed, mostly civilians; Israel counted 1,166 dead, the majority of them combatants.

No one involved in the Westminster episode was prepared to confirm, on the record, what had transpired in a chaotic series of highly sensitive legal moves. But a pro-Palestinian group welcomed news of the abortive move as “long overdue”.

The Foreign Office, clearly deeply embarrassed by the episode, said in a statement: “The UK is determined to do all it can to promote peace in the Middle East and to be a strategic partner of Israel. To do this, Israel’s leaders need to be able to come to the UK for talks with the British government. We are looking urgently at the implications of this case.”

Livni’s office said she had decided in advance not to come to the UK but lawyers seemed unaware of that when they approached the court last week. The judge refused to issue the warrant until it was clear Livni was in fact in the country, as he was erroneously informed on Sunday.

The former minister had been scheduled to speak at a Jewish National Fund conference. “Scheduled meetings with government figures in London could not take place close to the conference and would have necessitated a longer-than-planned absence from Israel,” her office told the Ynet website.

It is the second time in less than three months that lawyers have gone to Westminster magistrates court asking for a warrant for the arrest of an Israeli politician. In September the court was asked to issue one for the arrest of Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which gives courts in England and Wales universal jurisdiction in war crimes cases.

Barak, who was attending a meeting at the Labour party conference in Brighton, escaped arrest after the Foreign Office told the court that he was a serving minister who would be meeting his British counterparts. The court ruled he enjoyed immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978.

According to Israeli sources, ministers who wish to visit the UK in a personal capacity have begun asking the Israeli embassy in London to arrange meetings with British officials. These offer legal protection against arrest.

Livni, crucially, cannot enjoy any such immunity as she is an ex-minister. Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, is in the same position.

Because of the potential damage to UK-Israeli relations – and because of legal pitfalls facing those who disclosed information about the application – few people with any detailed knowledge of it were prepared to comment today.

The Ministry of Justice, Scotland Yard and clerks at the magistrates court refused to discuss the matter. A statement issued by HM Court Service implied that there had been no application for an arrest warrant, stating “there is no record of any such hearing”. A spokeswoman maintained that this was not a misleading statement.

Samuel Hayek, chairman of the Jewish National Fund UK, the charity whose conference Livni had been due to attend, said: “I am not at liberty to confirm her precise reasons for not attending.” He added: “In any event, it is regrettable that the British government is unable to conduct free dialogue with Israel’s most senior statesmen and politicians.”

Tayab Ali, the solicitor who tried to obtain a warrant for the arrest of Barak on behalf of 16 Palestinians, said his firm was “ready, willing and able to act for clients to seek the arrest of anyone suspected of war crimes” who travelled to the UK.

Livni’s office described her as “proud of all her decisions regarding Operation Cast Lead”. It added: “The operation achieved its objectives to protect the citizens of Israel and restore Israel’s deterrence capability.”

UK issues new guidance on labelling of food from illegal West Bank settlements

Ian Black and Rory McCarthy | guardian.co.uk

10 December 2009

Britain has acted to increase pressure on Israel over its West Bank settlements by advising UK supermarkets on how to distinguish between foods from the settlements and Palestinian-manufactured goods.

The government’s move falls short of a legal requirement but is bound to increase the prospects of a consumer boycott of products from those territories. Israeli officials and settler leaders were tonight highly critical of the decision.

Until now, food has been simply labelled “Produce of the West Bank”, but the new, voluntary guidance issued by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), says labels could give more precise information, like “Israeli settlement produce” or “Palestinian produce”.

Nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which were conquered in the 1967 war. The British government and the EU have repeatedly said Israel’s settlement project is an “obstacle to peace” in the Middle East.

EU law already requires a distinction to be made between goods originating in Israel and those from the occupied territories, though pro-Palestinian campaigners say this is not always observed.

Separately, Defra said that traders would be committing an offence if they did declare produce from the occupied territories as “Produce of Israel”.

Foods grown in Israeli settlements include herbs sold in supermarkets, such as Waitrose, which chop, package and label them as “West Bank” produce, making no distinction between Israelis and Palestinians. A total of 27 Israeli firms operating in settlements and exporting to the UK have been identified: their produce includes fruit, vegetables, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, plastic and metal items and textiles.

Other retailers selling their products include Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Somerfield, John Lewis and B&Q.

Goods from inside Israel’s 1967 borders are entitled to a preferential rate of import duty under an agreement with the EU. Palestinian goods from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem also enjoy duty-free or reduced-tariff treatment. Settlement products fall outside these two categories.

“This is emphatically not about calling for a boycott of Israel,” a Foreign Office spokesman said. “We believe that would do nothing to advance the peace process. We oppose any such boycott of Israel. We believe consumers should be able to choose for themselves what produce they buy. We have been very clear both in public and in private that settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.”

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, welcomed the public clarification that marking produce from illegal settlements on occupied territory as “produce of Israel” was illegal, but said the government should have gone further.

Barbara Stocking, Oxfam’s chief executive, said: “We support the right of consumers to know the origin of the products they purchase. Trade with Israeli settlements – which are illegal under international law – contributes to their economic viability and serves to legitimise them. It is also clear from our development work in West Bank communities that settlements have led to the denial of rights and create poverty for many Palestinians.”

Dani Dayan, the Argentinian-born leader of the Yesha Council, which represents Israeli settlers, said the decision was the “latest hostile step” from Britain. “Products from our communities in Judea and Samaria should be treated as any other Israeli product,” he said, using an Israeli term for the West Bank.

Israeli officials said they feared this was a slide towards a broader boycott of Israeli goods. Yigal Palmor, Israel’s foreign ministry spokesman, said his country’s produce was being unfairly singled out.

“It looks like it is catering to the demands of those whose ultimate goal is the boycott of Israeli products,” he said. “The message here will very likely be used by pro-boycott campaigners. It is a matter of concern.”

He said the issue of different European customs tariffs should not extend to different labelling on supermarket shelves. “It is a totally different thing and not required by the EU.”

Israel came under intense US pressure early this year to halt construction in settlements, but has only adopted a temporary, partial freeze. Palestinian leaders say they will not restart peace negotiations until there is a full settlement freeze in line with the US road map of 2003.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign said it welcomed the new guidance but urged Defra to go further: “The government must seek prosecutions of companies which smuggle settlement goods in under false labels.

“We have received many calls from people who were distressed when they bought goods labelled ‘Produce of the West Bank’ because they thought they were aiding the Palestinian economy, then realised they were economically aiding Israel’s illegal occupation.

“Particularly following Israel’s massacre in Gaza, consumers have been shocked at Israel’s war crimes and want to take action. They do not want to feel complicit in Israel’s occupation by buying stolen goods.”
‘Customers will now have honest information’

The most recent government figures suggest only about £800,000 of food products, about three-quarters of it olive oil (below right), was imported from occupied Palestinian territories in the three years between 2006 and 2008.

Sainsbury’s, which sells dates and small amounts of basil and tarragon, welcomed “the greater clarity on how to label produce from occupied territories”.

“This allows us to fulfil our commitment of providing customers with clear and honest information about the origins of their food,” the supermarket chain said.”We have full traceability back to settlement and/or grower.”

Waitrose also said it would be following the guidance on the small number of West Bank lines it sold. “We source a small selection of herbs from the West Bank area, grown on two Israeli-managed farms, on which a Palestinian and Israeli workforce have worked side by side for many years,” said a spokesman.

“We are not motivated by politics. Instead our policy is to ensure high standards of farming and worker welfare on the farms from which we source. Our buyers … have visited the two farms in the West Bank to ensure that worker welfare meets the high standards that we insist on. As part of our normal sourcing policy we will be carrying out an audit on these farms in the next six months.”

This year the Co-op began selling Fairtrade olive oil from the West Bank – a move hailed by Gordon Brown, who said it meant British shoppers could help Palestinian farmers make a living.

Toby Quantrill, head of public policy for the Fairtrade Foundation, said farmers in Palestine faced barriers to trade which jeopardised opportunities to trade internationally on equal terms with people making similar products.

U.K. hits Israel with partial arms embargo over Gaza war

Barak Ravid | Ha’aretz

13 July 2009

Britain has slapped a partial arms embargo on Israel, refusing to supply replacement parts and other equipment for Sa’ar 4.5 gunships because they participated in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip earlier this year.

Britain’s Foreign Office informed Israel’s embassy in London of the sanctions a few days ago. The embassy, in a classified telegram to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, said the decision stemmed from heavy pressure by both members of Parliament and human rights organizations.

The embargo followed a government review of all British defense exports to Israel, which was announced three months ago. In total, the telegram said, Britain reviewed 182 licenses for arms exports to Israel, including 35 for exports to the Israel Navy. But it ultimately decided to cancel only five licenses, all relating to the Sa’ar 4.5 ships. The licenses in question apparently cover spare parts for the ship’s guns.

The British said the embargo was imposed because these ships participated in Operation Cast Lead. In so doing, the British claimed, they violated the security agreements between Britain and Israel, which specify what uses may be made of British equipment.

Last week, Britain’s foreign and defense ministries informed the relevant companies that they would have to cease their planned arms deals with Israel’s navy.

Ever since the Gaza operation, British MPs and nongovernmental organizations have been trying to persuade London to impose a complete arms embargo on Israel. However, the British government has rejected this demand.

In February, Amnesty International published a report on arms sales to Israel in which it highlighted Britain’s role in supplying engines for Hermes 450 drones. According to Amnesty, Israel uses these drones to conduct assassinations in Gaza. The report prompted the Palestinian organization Al-Haq to file a suit against the British government, arguing that British arms sales facilitate Israeli operations in Gaza.

In April, Foreign Secretary David Miliband informed Parliament that Britain would reexamine all its defense exports to Israel in light of Operation Cast Lead. An Israeli Foreign Ministry official said that since then, Britain’s military attache in Israel has requested information on the uses Israel made of various types of British-supplied equipment during Cast Lead.

Foreign Ministry officials said that only a small percentage of Israel’s defense-related imports come from Britain. According to data suppled by Britain’s department of trade, these sales total some 20 million pounds – about NIS 130 million.

The British embargo is not expected to have any impact on the navy’s operational capability. However, it has great political significance, and could encourage other countries to halt defense exports to Israel. The country considered most likely to be next is Belgium, which sells Israel equipment used to disperse demonstrations.

In response the British Embassy in Tel Aviv issued a statement saying, “On 21 April 2009 the Foreign Secretary issued a Written Ministerial Statement about U.K. exports to Israel which may have been used by the Israel Defense Forces during the conflict in Gaza. This statement makes clear that all exports are subject to stringent controls.

“The statement sets out clearly the detail of U.K. components in equipment that may have been used in Operation Cast Lead. U.K. equipment was not exported for specific use in Operation Cast Lead and export licenses were issued based on all the evidence available at the time they were granted.

“Future decisions will take into account what has happened in the recent conflict. We do not grant export licenses where there is a clear risk that arms will be used for external aggression or internal repression.

“We do not believe that the current situation in the Middle East would be improved by imposing an arms embargo on Israel. Israel has the right to defend itself and faces real security threats.

“This said, we consistently urge Israel to act with restraint and supported the EU Presidency statement that called the Israeli actions during operation Cast Lead ‘disproportionate.'”

Supermarkets may face action on Israeli labels, say lawyers

Afua Hirsch | The Guardian

7 June 2009

Retailers including UK supermarkets may be at risk of prosecution for misleading consumers by selling goods from the Palestinian Territories under the label “West Bank”, lawyers have warned.

Fruit, wine and cosmetics originating from illegal Israeli settlements are among the goods that lawyers representing Palestinian interests argue are regularly being wrongly labelled, so that buyers might conclude they are actually produced by Palestinians. In a separate issue, they say illegal settlements are also wrongly benefiting from preferential trade agreements with Israel, which are meant only for goods from inside its pre-1967 borders.

“The use of the expression ‘West Bank’ may in many cases fail to give the consumer the full picture,” said barrister Kieron Beal from Matrix Chambers. He added that in other cases, “where goods have come from the occupied Palestinian Territories they should not be labelled as having their place of origin as Israel”.

The warnings come as government proposals for implementing new EU rules on product labelling, which make it illegal to deceive consumers, are expected within a month. Departments including the Office of Fair Trading, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have been grappling with the issue. Under UK law it is already illegal to present food products in a way which is “likely to mislead”, while European rules include strict measures requiring accurate “country of origin” information to be given.

Concerns about consumers being misled have been compounded by claims that Israeli exporters have benefited from preferential trading terms that allow goods from inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders exemption from import duties.

“It is a breach of the agreement for settlement goods to be imported as Israeli products getting preferential tariffs,” said Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford. “The labelling of herbs sold as ‘West Bank’ [for example] seems to me such an abuse. It is up to UK customs authorities to enforce the origin rules.”

“[Officials] should consider referring the matter to the anti-fraud office of the European commission,” said Sarah Macsherry, a lawyer at Christian Khan solicitors and member of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, a UK-based group.

HMRC denied that goods from the Palestinian Territories could take advantage of the system. “Any claim to Israeli preference which is accompanied by a proof of preferential origin indicating production [in a location] brought under Israeli administration since 1967 is immediately refused,” a spokesman said.

But officials are concerned about the issue. “The department is aware … that the location shown on the proof of origin may be that of a head office in Israel, when the goods concerned may have originated in a settlement,” HMRC said.

Who Killed Tom Hurndall? ISM London action in Camden

On the day that the verdict was given in Israel on the killer of Camden resident Tom Hurndall, ISM London held a small action pointing out that systematic Israeli government/military policy is responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians – not just some “bad apples”.

On a busy intersection near Camden High street, we set up a large Palestinian flag-coloured banner with the words “Free Palestine” on it, (borrowed from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign). We had also created a placard for the occasion, questioning the climate in the Israeli military that allows this to happen. Earlier that day, Tom’s father Anthony had told the BBC that there is a “policy which seems to be prevalent in Gaza that [Israeli soldiers] feel able to shoot civilians without any accountability”. (1)

Tom’s family had been out to Gaza themselves to perform their own investigation, after the military had refused to carry one out. It is only because of their relentless pressure that this “small justice” had been brought to bear on this “least link” in the chain of command of the Israeli military. (2)

We used the occasion to talk to the reporter and passers-by who engaged us in conversation.

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4625355.stm
2. Quotes from Tom’s mother Jocelyn, interviewed on ITV London Today, 13:10, 27 June 2005.