On the basis of the arrest warrant issued (and then withdrawn) by a British court against Israel's former foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, I've been thinking how skewed the issue of viable international jurisdiction is.
Something similar happened here recently: Spain withdrew its legislation on ineternational jurisdiction after what were pretty much veiled threats from Tel Aviv.
I know this thread may rapidly degenerate into a pro-Palestinian/pro-Israeli debate, but no one seems to have a problem with international jurisdiction when it comes to the likes of Milosevic, Karadzic or Taylor.
Let's not forget that 1400 Palestinians were killed in the bombardment of Gaza (as well as the 1000-2000 Lebanese killed in 2006), while deaths on the Israeli side numbered 13.
So, what do you think? If international jurisdiction is to applied, shouldn't it be valid for all? Or do you think there's a difference in it being applied by international institutions and by individual countries that may be biased?
Something similar happened here recently: Spain withdrew its legislation on ineternational jurisdiction after what were pretty much veiled threats from Tel Aviv.
I know this thread may rapidly degenerate into a pro-Palestinian/pro-Israeli debate, but no one seems to have a problem with international jurisdiction when it comes to the likes of Milosevic, Karadzic or Taylor.
Let's not forget that 1400 Palestinians were killed in the bombardment of Gaza (as well as the 1000-2000 Lebanese killed in 2006), while deaths on the Israeli side numbered 13.
So, what do you think? If international jurisdiction is to applied, shouldn't it be valid for all? Or do you think there's a difference in it being applied by international institutions and by individual countries that may be biased?
