Israeli officer detained in London for Gaza war crimes

A retired officer of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has been arrested in Britain for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza during “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014.

The man, who was in London on a business trip, was arrested upon arrival after a complaint was lodged against him for war crimes committed during the 50-day war.

The man was questioned for several hours before being released after the Israeli Foreign Ministry intervened. British authorities were forced to apologize.

The unnamed officer is one of many Israeli soldiers and officers who have had complaints lodged against them by pro-Palestinian groups at numerous police stations across Europe for their part in the attack on Gaza.

Although the detention occurred a few weeks ago, details of the arrest only emerged on Sunday in Israel’s Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

The paper reports that any soldier who had his name published in the media by the Israeli army for his role in the war, including 60 who received bravery awards, "may find himself on the blacklist of pro-Palestinian organizations."


The IDF is taking measures to protect itself from such arrests, including the provision of security for high ranking officials as well as a briefing for soldiers and officers, both serving and retired, from the IDF prosecutor's division and the Operations Directorate before travelling abroad.

https://www.rt.com/uk/325909-israeli-officer-detained-london/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS


 
Well, they might have had to let him go, but it's making their lives uncomfortable and making them realise that outside of Israel they are not regarded as a hero for killing kids.

Wronly detained nand quickly released without charge
Again this was instigated by groups with no authority to do so where no charges have been made internationally against this man, hence his quick release. It was pro palestinian groups that laid claim to war crimes and yet we have Hamas who with every rocket fired indiscrminately into Israel is a war crime.

Tell me sassy what warnings do the saudis provide to civillians in Yemen to impending air strikes?

How about Russian in Syria?

And yet Israel makes every effort to warn when in conflict with Gaza.
Why no bomb shelters?
Whdo Hamas play off islam to make Muslims feel guilty and demand they stay after being warned of air strikes?
Why do Hamas place weapons in schools and hospitals, which is again war crimes?

israel is not without fault and using directive hannibal was to me a war crime as it was the indiscrminate use of shelling against civillian areas.

International criminal courts...made to cause trouble. Only Africans will ever be indicted.

Original Quill wrote:International criminal courts...made to cause trouble.  Only Africans will ever be indicted.

Really, how about Slobodan Milošević?

IDF reserve officer briefly detained in UK for Gaza war crimes.

The officer, who came to Britain on a business trip, was released a few hours after being detained, thanks to the intervention of the Foreign Ministry with the assistance of the IDF’s Operations Directorate and the IDF’s international law division. British authorities apologized to Israel following the incident.

Lucky he does not sue for wrongful arrest

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Original Quill wrote:International criminal courts...made to cause trouble.  Only Africans will ever be indicted.

Really, how about Slobodan Milošević?

The exception that proves the rule. How many people did he have to kill in order to be served the same desserts as Charles Taylor.

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Really, how about Slobodan Milošević?

The exception that proves the rule.  How many people did he have to kill in order to be served the same desserts as Charles Taylor.

Absurd logic, you would have to show he has been the only one, which I know to be blantantly false..

Again post up your evidence and show he is the exception of the rule because hearsay counts for little



You are another poster that views everything through coplourization

See you later

So a pro-Palestinian organisation only has to read an Israeli newspaper and then complain about any soldiers named in them? I bet that's a long list.

Raggamuffin wrote:So a pro-Palestinian organisation only has to read an Israeli newspaper and then complain about any soldiers named in them? I bet that's a long list.

The thing that gets me is what exactly is the claim or evidence to a war crime?

I mean hamas has already been caught duplicating names and claiming known militants are civillians
Even then when civillians are killed and hamas have placed weaponary within the area, then it is Hamas guilty of a war crime using human shields.
Also Voluntary human shields may, under certain circumstances, be considered to directly participate in hostilities and hence, for such time as they do, lose their protection from attack under Article 51(3).


It just seems they are accusing anyone and this man was mixed up with other names.
I would like to see the supposed charges which to me have been clearluy trumped up.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So a pro-Palestinian organisation only has to read an Israeli newspaper and then complain about any soldiers named in them? I bet that's a long list.

The thing that gets me is what exactly is the claim or evidence to a war crime?

I mean hamas has already been caught duplicating names and claiming known militants are civillians
Even then when civillians are killed and hamas have placed weaponary within the area, then it is Hamas guilty of a war crime using human shields.
Also Voluntary human shields may, under certain circumstances, be considered to directly participate in hostilities and hence, for such time as they do, lose their protection from attack under Article 51(3).


It just seems they are accusing anyone and this man was mixed up with other names.
I would like to see the supposed charges which to me have been clearluy trumped up.

It's not clear if these pro-Palestinian organisations who have such lists of names need to actually provide any evidence, or if a name and a vague accusation is enough to get someone arrested. Obviously, these groups are rather biased.

Protection of the civilian population
Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57[ Link ] .


So if we look at the above, then clearly the recent attacks are terrorism and war crimes in times of conflict.

Hamas abuses most of the above

Condemnations from the leftist apologists?

Zero

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

The thing that gets me is what exactly is the claim or evidence to a war crime?

I mean hamas has already been caught duplicating names and claiming known militants are civillians
Even then when civillians are killed and hamas have placed weaponary within the area, then it is Hamas guilty of a war crime using human shields.
Also Voluntary human shields may, under certain circumstances, be considered to directly participate in hostilities and hence, for such time as they do, lose their protection from attack under Article 51(3).


It just seems they are accusing anyone and this man was mixed up with other names.
I would like to see the supposed charges which to me have been clearluy trumped up.

It's not clear if these pro-Palestinian organisations who have such lists of names need to actually provide any evidence, or if a name and a vague accusation is enough to get someone arrested. Obviously, these groups are rather biased.

Which to me is wrong if there is no evidence or insufficient evidence.
Biased is the right word Rags

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not clear if these pro-Palestinian organisations who have such lists of names need to actually provide any evidence, or if a name and a vague accusation is enough to get someone arrested. Obviously, these groups are rather biased.

Which to me is wrong if there is no evidence or insufficient evidence.
Biased is the right word Rags

Yes. "Evidence" is perhaps the wrong word - I really mean a clear accusation based on actual events, not just some vague claim because they were named in a newspaper.

How do you define a 'war crime'?

Some will say all death and destruction is a 'war crime'.

The innocent 'always' get caught up in wars.

Some are calling Bliar & Bush 'war criminals'.

WAR IS A MESS NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.