Stalking Tzipi Livni: British Law Emboldens Court in 'War Crimes' Crusade

Just when you thought there might be some glimmer of hope for the Middle East peace process, things got a little more complicated. Earlier this week, the public learned that a U.K. court had issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for alleged war crimes in Gaza earlier this year. A diplomatic conflict between the two nations has been escalating ever since.


It all began when the Westminster magistrates' court issued a warrant for Livni's arrest at the request of lawyers acting on behalf of Palestinians claiming victimhood during a three-week Israeli offensive. The idea was to arrest Livni this past Sunday, Dec. 13, while she was in London to give a talk. Unbeknown to the magistrate who issued the warrant, Livni had canceled her address weeks earlier. The court abruptly rescinded the warrant once it learned she was not in the country, but the damage was already done.

All of this might seem odd if you haven't been following trends in international law of late. Under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, national courts can prosecute serious human rights violations committed anywhere in the world, provided an arrest warrant has been issued. In the case at hand, the ammunition for the "war crimes" allegation stems from the controversial Goldstone Report, which found evidence of such crimes in the Gaza conflict (on both sides) and which was endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly in November.

What makes the U.K. such fertile ground for pursuing these sorts of claims is a curious feature of English and Welsh law. Specifically, although the issuing of criminal charges by judges must involve the attorney general, issuing an arrest warrant does not. Instead, it is up to a magistrate or district judge to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue an arrest. Which means -- as in the famous arrest of former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet here in 1998 -- you can launch a surprise attack. Which is what the judges tried -- and failed -- to do with Livni.

This is first time that an Israeli minister or former minister has faced arrest in the U.K., although it's not the first time it's been attempted. In 2005, Doron Almog, a retired Israeli general, returned to Israel without leaving his plane when he learned he was to be arrested for alleged involvement in the bombing of a Gaza building in which 14 people were killed. This past September, a British court rejected (on grounds of diplomatic immunity) a bid to arrest Ehud Barak -- then Israeli foreign minister -- while he was in the country.

Needless to say, the Israeli government was furious over the incident. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it "absurd," arguing that it jeopardized Britain's ability to play a neutral role in the Middle East peace process. Israel has canceled all senior-level official visits until the matter is resolved. As for Livni, her response was as follows: "I have no problem with the world wanting to judge Israel. A problem arises the moment [Israeli] soldiers are compared to terrorists."

For its part, the British government was deeply embarrassed by the incident and has been falling all over itself to repair the diplomatic damage. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown phoned Livni personally to apologize and has declared that he is "totally opposed" to the warrant. David Miliband, the foreign minister, said that the government is "urgently" looking to reform the law that allows for such warrants to be issued without prior knowledge of the prosecutor. Specifically -- according to The Guardian -- the Foreign Office is contemplating "safeguards" that would require the attorney general to first approve arrest warrants for foreign leaders suspected of war crimes.

As an American living in London, I find the entire affair fascinating for two reasons. First, it shows, once again, just how differently the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is viewed over here than it is back home. My eyes popped last week when I read that the British government was going to instruct supermarkets to differentially label produce from the West Bank, indicating whether it came from Jewish settlers or Palestinian farms. Whaaaa? I thought.

But that was small potatoes (no pun intended) compared to this. When I read an opinion piece in Wednesday's Guardian defending the warrant for Livni's arrest -- it was written by a lawyer representing a Palestinian human rights group in London -- I thought that surely the comments section would explode with rage and indignation (as undoubtedly would occur in the U.S.). But the commenters were, if anything, even in more in favor of the warrant than the author.

Wow. What a difference an ocean makes.

But it's also fascinating to watch this case unfold because of what it says about where international law is headed right now. The principle of universal justice is not just something that's applied to leaders of Third World countries accused of domestic and/or international human rights abuses. Last summer, I interviewed a renowned human rights attorney who discussed another pending case of universal jurisdiction: the one in the Spanish courts against the so-called "Bush Six" (former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five other former officials, including Under-Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and the Justice Department's John Yoo). They are being investigated for various alleged violations of international laws governing torture.

The bottom line: It's a tricky time to be in the foreign policy establishment in any country right now. My best advice for this holiday season -- if the recession isn't sufficient reason enough -- is for everyone to just stay home. It's a dangerous world out there.

Follow Delia on Twitter.