Jos
Rookie
- Feb 6, 2010
- 7,412
- 757
- 0
- Banned
- #1
Israeli officials may have less to fear coming to UK but uncomfortable questions remain
Israeli officials may have less to fear coming to UK but uncomfortable questions remain | | Independent Editor's choice BlogsA senior Israeli official speaking to the paper anonymously, claimed that the [British] government promised it would be changed so that only the Attorney General, who is a political figure we can trust, would authorize universal jurisdiction arrests (my emphasis). However, the contentious amendment eventually assigned this responsibility to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The paper also notes that Britains ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, contacted Almog and Livni personally after the law was amended to tell them they could now visit Britain without risking arrest (and at least in Livnis case, on the same day as the amendment).
However, what transpired when the then-Israeli FM answered Foreign Secretary William Hagues invitation proved what Almog now says (and what Livni worried about in an interview even while in London) that the changes could not entirely protect an individual with a case to answer.
As I wrote at the time, Livni only avoided a warrant due to a legal assessment by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) that she was on a Special Mission. In other words, the new law was not actually tested. The Haaretz report supports this version of events, noting that the visit was still defined as official, in order to guarantee her protection under diplomatic immunity (my emphasis).
Uncomfortable questions remain. What was a UK ambassador doing, personally contacting two individuals suspected of war crimes to assure them they would be safe from arrest in Britain? In addition, does the decision to go public about Almog and Israeli disquiet with the status quo presage a new round of pressure on the British government for a further weakening of our universal jurisdiction legislation?