Website policy

We provide links to articles we think will be of interest to our supporters. We are sympathetic to much of the content of what we post, but not to everything. The fact that something has been linked to here does not necessarily mean that we endorse the views expressed in it.


BSST is the leading charity focusing on small-scale grass roots cross community, anti poverty and humanitarian projects in Israel/Palestine

JfJfP comments


06 May: Tair Kaminer starts her fifth spell in gaol. Send messages of support via Reuven Kaminer

04 May: Against the resort to denigration of Israel’s critics


23 Dec: JfJfP policy statement on BDS

14 Nov: Letter to the Guardian about the Board of Deputies

11 Nov: UK ban on visiting Palestinian mental health workers

20 Oct: letter in the Guardian

13 Sep: Rosh Hashanah greetings

21 Aug: JfJfP on Jeremy Corbyn

29 July: Letter to Evening Standard about its shoddy reporting

24 April: Letter to FIFA about Israeli football

15 April: Letter re Ed Miliband and Israel

11 Jan: Letter to the Guardian in response to Jonathan Freedland on Charlie Hebdo


15 Dec: Chanukah: Celebrating the miracle of holy oil not military power

1 Dec: Executive statement on bill to make Israel the nation state of the Jewish people

25 Nov: Submission to All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

7 Sept: JfJfP Executive statement on Antisemitism

3 Aug: Urgent disclaimer

19 June Statement on the three kidnapped teenagers

25 April: Exec statement on Yarmouk

28 Mar: EJJP letter in support of Dutch pension fund PGGM's decision to divest from Israeli banks

24 Jan: Support for Riba resolution

16 Jan: EJJP lobbies EU in support of the EU Commission Guidelines, Aug 2013–Jan 2014


29 November: JfJfP, with many others, signs a "UK must protest at Bedouin expulsion" letter

November: Press release, letter to the Times and advert in the Independent on the Prawer Plan

September: Briefing note and leaflet on the Prawer Plan

September: JfJfP/EJJP on the EU guidelines with regard to Israel

14th June: JfJfP joins other organisations in protest to BBC

2nd June: A light unto nations? - a leaflet for distribution at the "Closer to Israel" rally in London

24 Jan: Letter re the 1923 San Remo convention

18 Jan: In Support of Bab al-Shams

17 Jan: Letter to Camden New Journal about Veolia

11 Jan: JfJfP supports public letter to President Obama

Comments in 2012 and 2011



Guardian editorial on Arrest warrants: Short arm of international law

guardianEditorial, The Guardian, Thursday 17 December 2009

If we accept the notion that law is meaningless without enforcement, we also have to buy into the principle that universal jurisdiction is an essential arm of international law. Without it, war crimes are committed with impunity. With the exception of the international criminal court, international law has no enforcement mechanism other than the right of national courts to prosecute those in their custody for atrocities committed abroad. The principle is neither new, nor is it being selectively applied, and in many instances that right is an obligation. The torture convention of 1984, ratified by 124 governments, requires states to prosecute suspected torturers for alleged crimes committed outside their jurisdiction, or to extradite them. The Geneva conventions of 1949, ratified by 189 countries, require each participating state to search for persons who have committed grave breaches, and to bring them before its own courts. Universal jurisdiction was the principle that allowed Israel to try Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961.

Those who question whether this principle should be invoked to pursue arrest warrants against Tzipi Livni, Israel’s opposition leader, or anyone who made operational decisions during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza a year ago, should ask themselves what it is about the current legal situation in England and Wales that needs changing. The British government prides itself on having strengthened universal jurisdiction, so it is not the doctrine itself that is troubling, but its application. The specific anomaly is that while the next stage in the legal process, the issuing of charges, is subject to a veto from the attorney general acting on advice from the director of public prosecutions, the arrest warrant itself is not. It is up to a magistrate or district judge to consider whether there is a prime facie case to answer. If, however, the attorney general or even DPP were to be given the right to veto an arrest warrant before it were issued, it would have major consequences for the integrity of our legal system.

Under the current system, the number of arrest warrants issued for alleged war crimes is only a fraction of those sought. Judges do not issue arrest warrants carelessly. But that is only the first hurdle. No charges can be brought without a decision by the attorney general, who would first have to seek advice from the director of public prosecutions that a prosecution would pass the evidential test – that there was more than a 50% chance that a jury would convict the defendant having found on the evidence that it was beyond reasonable doubt that he or she had committed the offence. The system may cause political or diplomatic embarrassment, but it works.

In trying to assuage Israel’s fury, the government has done the reputation of our courts no favours. Gordon Brown telephoned Ms Livni, and the foreign secretary, David Miliband, telephoned his counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, to apologise for the court’s action in initially issuing an arrest warrant. Who is a prime minister, foreign secretary, or any other member of the executive to apologise for the actions of another organ of state over which they should have no control? The public interest test is more nuanced. One can argue that Britain has a public interest in pursuing contacts with a former Israeli foreign minister who, if returned to power, could pursue peace talks more convincingly than the current Israeli premier. Britain can not engage with Israeli leaders if they are arrested when they step off the plane. But Britain also has a public interest in upholding its treaty obligations under the fourth Geneva convention, if the evidence exists. According to Justice Richard Goldstone, it does, and his report into Gaza was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council and further endorsed at the general assembly. Israel could obviate the need for this debate by holding an independent judicial investigation into its operation in Gaza.

Print Friendly

Comments are closed.