Wilfully Blind

Naivety is inevitably forgivable; wilful blindness cannot be excused. The line between the two was crossed in the Guardian editorial of December 17th on the subject of the issue of an arrest warrant against Tsipi Livni by Westminster Magistrates Court in London. The writer of the editorial claims that “The principle (Universal Jurisdiction) is neither new, nor is it being selectively applied”, despite the fact that the evidence available shows precisely the contrary.

For several years now, pro-Palestinian groups have been making use of British law in order to harass Israeli public figures and members of the IDF. Considering the high cost of such potential court cases, one does have to wonder how ‘Palestinian victims of the conflict’, as they have been described manage to overcome their abject poverty (of which we are constantly reminded on the virtual pages of CiF), and hire some of the most expensive legal representation in the world. Of course they don’t, and what the Guardian editorial conveniently neglects to address is that in this case, as in previous ones, the law itself has fallen victim to manipulation by politically motivated groups who count among their ranks certain practitioners of the law who marry their profession together with their political convictions to form a very dangerous cocktail.

Joy Wolfe has already written about one such man; another of the same ilk is criminal lawyer Michel Abdel Massih QC. Mr. Massih must be a very busy man. Not only does he spend his time defending the likes of Hussain Said, shooter of the Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov in London in 1982, and Kamel Burgass, he also advises the Syrian government and officials being investigated by the UN Security Council for the murder of Rafik Hariri. Mr. Massih even acts as an advisor to the Sudanese president Omar al Bashir, against whom, ironically enough, a warrant for arrest has been issued by the ICC.

In light of this, Mr. Massih’s preoccupation with the apprehension of Israeli nationals seems rather less heroically principled and rather more a case of the exploitation of his position in order to further his particular political agenda. Just in case we are not entirely sure what that political agenda is, Mr. Massih was kind enough to make it abundantly clear when he took part in a debate at the Oxford Union in which he argued against the proposition that ‘This House believes that the State of Israel has a right to exist’.

The Guardian editorial wilfully ignores facts such as these just as it deliberately avoids the fact that the adoption of the Goldstone Report by the UNHRC serves only to prove that, to the detriment of the entire world, that body is dominated by a motley crew of dictatorships and theocratic totalitarian states whose citizens can only dream of Human Rights.

Whilst it is true that no-one is above the law, it is also true that the law can be used and abused as a political weapon, and that is precisely what is happening in the UK at present. The British government appears to understand this, but the editors of the Guardian are so blinded by their anti-Israel fixation that they are both unable and unwilling to see the bigger picture and therefore continue to produce editorials which have no value except to expose the extent of that blind bias.

Categories: Guardian

Tagged as: , , ,

7 replies »

  1. The idea of using “lawfare” is actually a subversion of the British government’s control of its own foreign policy, and draws on the vague concept of “international law”, much bandied about by those who would bash israel and ignored in almost every other instance.

    1) The whole concept of “international law” is totally nebulous and serves the interests of this or that bloc, either by force of arms or by number of countries. Thus, the major powers (the US, UK, EU countries, Russia and China) pretty much establish the boundaries based on their ability to disregard the views of other less powerful countries, some who then counter by establishing laws based on their numeric superiority in various International forums such as the UNHRC, where the Moslem countries are now adept at framing “international laws” that primarily or solely target Israel.

    2) “Lawfare” in Britain is being lead by a third rate self-hating Jewish lawyer, Daniel Machover, who appears to be the son of another Machover who was a member of Matzpen, the old Israeli Communist party, (in fact, he or his son is probably posting on CIF as “matzpen”) and, in a remarkable return to the world of 1930, is pushing his anti-Israeli agenda under the guise of Comintern internationalism

    3) By allowing Machover and his Palestinian friends and supporters to use Britain’s legal system in this way, Britain has actually surrendered control of a part of its foreign policy to what is, in fact, a minority pressure group (who would never admit to being a quasi-secret Palestinian lobby in the UK). Machover and pals are actually driving Britain’s foreign policy with respect to Israel. It seems that the British government has belatedly taken notice of this and may now try to close the loophole, or change the legal system, that allows them to do this.

    4) By permitting Machover and pals to do this, Britain has essentially suffered a partial coup d’etat, where its own legal system has been used against it to create policies that are almost certainly opposed by the majority of British citizens, and definitely by their elected government.

    5)Machover has stated that “lawfare” is warfare by other means, and therefore, by acceding to his actions, Britain actually would find itself in semi-declared state of war with Israel. Which is clearly not what the British Government wants.

    6) Finally – although the morons supporting “lawfare” may think they have staged a clever coup, in fact, they have marginalized Britain’s already diminished ability to play a role in help the Palestinians, and are therefore acting against the interests of those they claim to support. This because their hatred of Israel and Jews is greater than their love of the Palestinians.

  2. AKUS your illustration of the point of view of the Machovers who wish to shape the UK’s foreign policy by pointing people to ‘Matzpen’s argumentative postings shows how empty the movement is. Matzpen’s view is completely theoretical and based on principles rather than on people. Engaging with this commenter and discussing the situation with him is pointless and irritating because humanity and the welfare of actual people is of no moment to him at all.

    His plan is for a one-state solution, ignoring all the ills that this might bring. Pointing out the potential for violence and sudden death to Matzpen only elicits reactions based on political theory. He is a fanatical upholder of his plan in all its irrelevant and ridiculous detail and the attempts to subvert British law by undermining political relationships is doubtless figured somewhere neatly in the detailed and cloud-cuckoo scheme.

  3. Oh, when you read the link provided by Israelinurse under “very busy man” you cannot fail to realize what an idealist Mr. Massih is…No wonder the Graun editors wouldn’t want to impede him in his mission!!! Maybe Israeli officials should be proud that the man who defends Sudan’s president — who has presided over the killing of hundreds of thousands — goes after them? Goes to show just how much they are in a different class…

  4. “……….Whilst it is true that no-one is above the law, it is also true that the law can be used and abused as a political weapon, and that is precisely what is happening in the UK at present……”

    Excellent article Israelinurse which reviews the politics behind the arrest warrant for Livni.

    Using laws as a political weapon is becoming more and more common in the modern world. The indictment of al-Bashir by the ICC is one example where the courts can have a positive impact (despite the Arab League’s welcome of the killer at their meetings).

    AKUS, hasn’t this law been on the books in Britain for quite awhile, and haven’t they tried to arrest Israeli citizens in the past using the same system?

    Regardless, just because the British government may not represent the prevailing mood in the country, for example, the war in Afghanistan, they still represent the British people. It seems to me that is true also with the British courts. This was a horrendous, politically motivated attempt to arrest Livni, the former Foreign Minister of Israel, for her part in Operation Cast Lead. This is no less than a complete disgrace by Great Britain in my opinion.

    In addition, the warrant against Livni (and the Goldstone report) is used to saddle future Israeli military operations designed to stop terrorist attacks against her citizens.

  5. @IsraeliNurse, @Akus

    Excellent analysis.


    “In addition, the warrant against Livni (and the Goldstone report) is used to saddle future Israeli military operations designed to stop terrorist attacks against her citizens.”

    Spot on! I think Israeli leaders failed to take this into account in deciding for Oslo and for the Gaza withdrawal – that if such ventures failed, they could not simply be handled (as Rabin once claimed) by re-occupying or other military operation, since Israel’s enemies have been quite effective in using both Paliwood and lawfare to limit Israel’s self-defense options.

  6. It is shocking that the British legal establishments lends its facilities to the Extreme left in their willful attempt to de-legitimize the one Western Liberal Democratic country in the Middle East. Further evidence of the unholy alliance between the extreme left and militant Islam.

    It seems to be a shot in the foot as the UK government has promised Israel’s leaders that they will move to change this. (Just that they didn’t say when).

    It adds up to a kind of acceptance of a changing demographic situation in the UK where Muslim extremism is becoming the accepted norm.