Dubai: Israeli premier faces arrest

[DGuller]

I'm baffled, does this mean that if Netanyahu actually arrived in Dubai the police would fight of the mob for the right to kill/arrest him?

It's a moot point.  I don't think Israeli citizens are allowed in Dubai.

[Warspite]

Now I'm quite sympathetic to Israel in this affair even if I do think killing someone on foreign soil is a bad thing(tm). But:

And it is tantamount to a declaration of war, anyway. He basically states "we will use any power at our disposition to grab your freely democratically-elected leader, have it captured and thrown in jail for taking a morally reprehensible decision, yet reasonably limited in scope,  to defend your country's interest and survival".

Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.

And for what crime? Murder? So now espionage and csecret services are now banned from working clandestinely?

Yes. Yes they are. The game is tolerated, but if you're busted you're out. I'm surprised you even think otherwise.

What do you think UAE, or any Islamic country for that matter, don't have agents who commit murder as part of their job?

What a fantastically irrelevant statement divorced from any legal or diplomatic principle.

And the guy is not exacly without conflict of interest. He is a Muslim in the United Arab Emirate, and by default anti-sionist and anti-Israel.

Actually you'd be surprised.

And it is a ludicrous concept anyway for its far-reaching implications for diplomacy. After all, Heads of Governments derive the same privileges of immunity as their ambassadors from the Fountainhead, i.e the Head of State. They are the boss of their country's ambassadors and diplomat corps, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he or she chooses.

You are quite wrong on this.

Diplomats derive their "immunity" from the host nation respecting the Vienna Conventions. And they are just that: conventions. There is nothing binding about them. Further, it is the role of the host government to accredit individuals with diplomatic status. This is why, for example, who gets diplomatic status varies from state to state; in Israel, British Council staff (separate to the Embassy and Consulate) get diplomatic status. They do not in Indonesia. Likewise, staff of international organisations can be awarded diplomatic status. Or not. Depends on what the host government decides is appropriate respect for what is essentially a gentleman's agreement between states.

In short, the host state, through its law-making processes, decides who is "immune" or not.

So if Heads of Government are not immune from prosecution for taking decisions which enter the doctrine of Raison d'État (and eliminating terrorists and enemies of the State certainly enter that one, by default), it directly attacks the diplomatic immunity of any official government agent or diplomat for whatever reason the host country might deem to be an offense.

Yes. Yes it does. And that is how it should be.

Of course, I would bet my savings that if this thread was actually about the UK issuing an arrest warrant for Putin after the emergence of hard evidence that he signed Litvinenko's assassination order, you'd be banging the drum on the other side. 

[grumbler]

I haven't heard about these Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israeli citizens in Dubai.

I've certainly heard of Hamas and Hezbollah committing attacks against Israeli citizens in Israel, though. And certainly with explicit orders coming from the top.

What does that have to do with Dubai?  You were whining that the po-po in Dubai weren't issuing warrants for the arrest of Ham and Hez leaders.  They wouldn't do so for crimes committed in Israel because they lack jurisdiction.

I would have thought that rather obvious.

[grumbler]

That dude is talking about actually sending policemen cuff the Israeli PM in any country he might walk in.

Link?

[Jaron]

Greatest Generation, indeed. 

[Viking]

I'm baffled, does this mean that if Netanyahu actually arrived in Dubai the police would fight of the mob for the right to kill/arrest him?

It's a moot point.  I don't think Israeli citizens are allowed in Dubai.

Dual citizenship I believe all the "mossad agents" had dual israeli citizenship

[Drakken]

Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.

`

Out of power and hiding, doesn't count. Even Milosevic was served his warrant after he was ousted of power.

What part of "HoG in exercise" is hard to understand, really?

Yes. Yes they are. The game is tolerated, but if you're busted you're out. I'm surprised you even think otherwise.

Like I said, I don't oppose the agents' prosecution. Put the warrant on their heads, then. On a State's leader in service, however, is total nonsense.

What a fantastically irrelevant statement divorced from any legal or diplomatic principle.

No. As Israel is not the only power with assassination stooges on their payroll. Some of them Islamic countries who kill Israeli citizens in the streets and in cafés.

Why single out Tel Aviv? Why not send warrants in Washington, Moscow, London, Paris, etc.? Was a warrant served to François Mitterand when the DGSE sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland in 1985? And it is known he actually gave the go-ahead personally.

Actually you'd be surprised.

Point taken. Color me Saint Thomas, then, I'll believe it when I see it coming from an autocratic Islamic oil-igarchy.

You are quite wrong on this.

Diplomats derive their "immunity" from the host nation respecting the Vienna Conventions. And they are just that: conventions. There is nothing binding about them. Further, it is the role of the host government to accredit individuals with diplomatic status. This is why, for example, who gets diplomatic status varies from state to state; in Israel, British Council staff (separate to the Embassy and Consulate) get diplomatic status. They do not in Indonesia. Likewise, staff of international organisations can be awarded diplomatic status. Or not. Depends on what the host government decides is appropriate respect for what is essentially a gentleman's agreement between states.

In short, the host state, through its law-making processes, decides who is "immune" or not.

If it is not binding, then, why diplomats are routinely shielded from prosecution when commiting felonies in host countries and recalled back to the mother country instead, rather than their status simply ignored and the diplomat arrested?

Because it is not a mere convention to be ignored at a whim. It is enshrined in international law, it is the basic diplomacy ruleset. Countries who don't respect these conventions and who refuse to abide by their rules will be put to the ban of the international community as a rogue state. It is a basic convention that allows international politics to be conducted in an organized, peaceful fashion even when total war is raging.

And we are not talking about some Hitler or Pol Pot ordering genocide here. The action was limited and justifiable for self-defense.

If leaders of countries begin to be sent arrests warrants left and right for taking decisions that, while morally discutable, are certainly viable to help the survival of a threatened, dogged country like Israel, what's stopping, say, Iran for serving an arrest warrant on Barack Obama for sinking down Iranian coast-guard seedoos in their national waters in the Persian Gulf? After all, under command responsability, as C-in-C of the American Armed Forces the President is liable for decision taken under his command, no?

Or is it, rather, because as Israel is an acceptable target of deridation, serving an arrest warrant on the Israeli PM rubs both people who hate Israel and those who believe any action  outside signing treaties and demining fields should be outright banned as crime against humanity in a good way, enough at least to make such a porpostruous idea suddenly acceptable because it targets Israel and not some gonzo country like North Korea?

Of course, I would bet my savings that if this thread was actually about the UK issuing an arrest warrant for Putin after the emergence of hard evidence that he signed Litvinenko's assassination order, you'd be banging the drum on the other side. 

Nope, not really. You owe me your savings. The analogy is worthless, because Livinenko was murdered because he was PITA for Putin, not a threat to national security. And I am still waiting for the UK to emit this warrant, which they won't because they very well know that this idea is beyond stupid and nonesensical.

The analogy I used for the Rainbow Warrior is much more comparable, and as we know, David Lange never went as far as to ask the arrestation of the French President of the Republic.

As a Realist, I believe in Raison d'État. The ends justifies the means if the end is moral in itself, and protecting one's citizens directly from lethal aggression certainly is moral in my eyes.

I predict that within the next three posts or so, you will invoke the "Jack Bauer paradox". 

And by moral, I mean not the petty morality invoked to serve an agenda like that Dubai dude, coming from a country which doesn't even know the meaning of "rule of law", but know the meaning of "arbitrary rule". But for Islamics, any dubious move to blast the Israelis while appealing to the bleeding hearts in the West's hatred of Israel is a good PR move.

[Neil]

Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.

Well, they were bombing the shit out of them.

When is a war not a war?

[Jaron]

 

Isn't it moral for Dubai to seek an end of attacks on individuals on their soil without their knowledge or consent? It seems their method of attack is to not only go for the puppets but the puppeteer as well. PR stunt as it may be, I see their cause as no less justified or righteous as that of the Israelis.

[Neil]

Isn't it moral for Dubai to seek an end of attacks on individuals on their soil without their knowledge or consent? It seems their method of attack is to not only go for the puppets but the puppeteer as well. PR stunt as it may be, I see their cause as no less justified or righteous as that of the Israelis.

It is proper for Dubai to wish to control their territory.  However, because the actions of the Israeli PM were taken in his capacity as head of government, criminal charges are incorrect and laughable.  Dubai can retaliate against Israel, but it is improper to attempt retaliation against individual Israeli politicians, unless Dubai defeats Israel militarily.

[Warspite]

Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.

`

Out of power and hiding, doesn't count.

What part of "HoG in exercise" is hard to understand, really?

Milosevic was indicted while sitting. So has Omar Al-Bashir.

Oh and by the way, Karadzic was indicted while still serving as leader of Republika Srpska - after the Dayton Peace Accords.

Like I said, I don't oppose the agents' prosecution. Put the warrant on their heads, then. On a State's leader in service, however, is total nonsense.

Not really. The precedent that orders can be prosecuted has been around for some time. It's the principle what many genocide trials are based on.

Why single out Tel Aviv? Why not send warrants in Washington, Moscow, London, Paris, etc.? Was a warrant served to François Mitterand when the DGSE sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland in 1984? And it is known he actually gave the go-ahead personally.

If the Kiwis wanted to do that, then I wouldn't criticise them for it aside from the fact that it wouldn't be worth it. I certainly wouldn't hold them in violation of any sacrosanct principle of domestic or international law. But they wouldn't because they have no need of gesture politics.

Point taken. Color me Saint Thomas, then, I'll believe it when I see it coming from an autocratic Islamic oil-igarchy.

Not every Gulf leader wants Israel wiped off the map, I'll leave it at that.

If it is not binding, then, why diplomats are routinely shielded from prosecution when commiting felonies in host countries and recalled back to the mother country instead, rather than their status simply ignored and the diplomat arrested?

Plenty of times a diplomatic immunity is waived. And nothing is stopping arrest by the host nation. Believe me, if an Albanian diplomat commited treble homicide in New York, there is nothing Tirana can do to stop his arrest and trial by Americans.

Because it is not a mere convention to be ignored at a whim. It is enshrined in international law, it is the basic diplomacy ruleset.

This is international law:



It's a piece of paper.

Countries who don't respect these conventions and who refuse to abide by their rules will be put to the ban of the international community as a rogue state. It is a basic convention that allows international politics to be conducted in an organized, peaceful fashion even when total war is raging.

And we are not talking about some Hitler or Pol Pot ordering genocide here. The action was limited and justifiable for self-defense.

Thank you for accepting my point about the viobility of international convention. I'm sure Dubai will be positively reeling from this warrant.

If leaders of countries begin to be sent arrests warrants left and right for taking decisions that, while morally discutable, are certainly viable to help the survival of a threatened, dogged country like Israel, what's stopping, say, Iran for serving an arrest warrant on Barack Obama for sinking down Iranian coast-guard seedoos in the Persian Gulf? After all, under command responsability, as C-in-C of the American Armed Forces the President is liable for decision taken under his command, no?

Nothing at all is stopping them except their own national calculations.

Or is it, rather, because as Israel is an acceptable target of deridation, serving an arrest warrant on the Israeli PM rubs people who hate Israel in a good way, enough at least to make such a porpostruous idea acceptable because it targets Israel?

Shock horror, governments will play gesture politics in diplomacy. This is truly a unique precedent.

Nope, not really. You owe me your savings. The analogy is worthless, because Livinenko was murdered because he was PITA for Putin, not a threat to national security.

So what? He was still murdered by agents of a foreign power outside of their own jurisdiction. Can you find me the statute in the UK that says we allow anyone to be bumped off in our territory? (excepting that they are an immediate threat to life, that is)

The analogy I used for the Rainbow Warrior is much more comparable, and as we know, David Lange never went as far as to ask the arrestation of the French President of the Republic.

The Rainbow Warrior is now equivalent to a terrorist gun runner? You're reaching. I very much doubt a bunch of dreadlocked hippies were in any way a threat to French independent nuclear deterrent. They were the most minor of pains in the ass, and a bunch of well-meaning idealists to boot.

As a Realist, I believe in Raison d'État. The ends justifies the means if the end is moral in itself, and protecting one's citizens directly from lethal aggression certainly is moral in my eyes.

And by moral, I mean not the petty morality invoked to serve an agenda like that Dubai dude, coming from a country which doesn't even know the meaning of "rule of law", but know the meaning of "arbitrary rule". But for Islamics, any dubious move to blast the Israelis while appealing to the bleeding hearts in the West's hatred of Israel is a good PR move.

Realists don't base 80% of their argument on diplomatic convention 

[Drakken]

Milosevic was indicted while sitting. So has Omar Al-Bashir.

Oh and by the way, Karadzic was indicted while still serving as leader of Republika Srpska - after the Dayton Peace Accords.

Then I was factually wrong on this one, there are cases.

I won't move the goalpost. It is only fair that I concede this point to you.

The Rainbow Warrior is now equivalent to a terrorist gun runner? You're reaching. I very much doubt a bunch of dreadlocked hippies were in any way a threat to French independent nuclear deterrent. They were the most minor of pains in the ass, and a bunch of well-meaning idealists to boot.

Well, didn't a bomb explode in an Auckland port? Wasn't a Greenpeace militant killed in the explosion, and Neo Zeelanders wounded?

They weren't a mere PITA in French Polynesia, the French were testing nuclear bombs there and they were bad publicity worldwide in a growing world of anti-nuclear consciousness.

They were enough of a nuisance for France's prestige, at least, to be deemed a threat to French's interests, and Mitterand approved the plan to have it bump off the face of the planet, in a port of an allied nation no less.

Realists don't base 80% of their argument on diplomatic convention 

I do it here, because this attacks the security of leadership in countries when morally-disputable decisions ought to be taken, and it will be taken seriously enough by hippies, anti-Israel folks, and pacifist bleeding hearts to make mileage on it and expand this idea further at the expense of immunity in matters of national security. And use of diplomatic conventions is to shield leaders by putting, well, emissaries.

And besides, most Realists recognize that international dynamics are played via international diplomacy, which has its own set of rules respected for the sake of all parties. Even Morgenthau recognized it (implicitely) - even if it was reduced to posturing and playing Prestige politics.

And Realists would argue, like me, that HoGs are shielded from judicial prosecutions for crimes committed under Raison D'État unless the aims are grossly criminal, and that any judiciarisation (thus introduction of a value weight to the validity or not of a policy-making decision) of decisions which can argued as fair in method, but questionable in moral, with any other use than posturing and playing gesture politics is laughable.

On that, finally, we are in agreement.

[grumbler]

If leaders of countries begin to be sent arrests warrants left and right for taking decisions that, while morally discutable, are certainly viable to help the survival of a threatened, dogged country like Israel, what's stopping, say, Iran for serving an arrest warrant on Barack Obama for sinking down Iranian coast-guard seedoos in their national waters in the Persian Gulf? After all, under command responsability, as C-in-C of the American Armed Forces the President is liable for decision taken under his command, no?

I kinda wonder whether, when you hit the send button after assembling a line of blather like this, you actually think you are making a point.  You should learn, first of all, to eschew obfuscation.  Second, you should learn to use active voice except where not possible.  Third, you should make your examples meaningful.  Barack Obama has sunk no "Iranian Coast Guard Seedoos."  For that matter, neither has the US Navy under his term (nor, I believe, in any term).

[CountDeMoney]

I'm baffled, does this mean that if Netanyahu actually arrived in Dubai the police would fight of the mob for the right to kill/arrest him?

It's a moot point.  I don't think Israeli citizens are allowed in Dubai.

Johns Hopkins Medicine has a lot of big and expensive cooperative projects in Dubai and Abu Dhabi;  they're sending people over all the time--project managers, physicians, technicians, faculty.  The Jewish ones, however, have been politely asked to stay home.  By both parties.

Doesn't stop the Derka Derkas from coming here, though.