Sounds too good to be true? Well, this article by Ariel Natan Pasko makes the case for trying Arafat:
Then a week later, the recently evicted, former Transportation Minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on the popular Israeli television news show, "Politika," said, "There's no difference between Barghouti and Arafat, they're exactly the same, with one difference, Arafat is responsible for many more Israelis murdered in terror attacks, since after the Oslo Agreements..."So both Lapid and Lieberman agree that Arafat should be tried...
Israel's court system recently found Marwan Barghouti, founder of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade (later outlawed as a terrorist organization by the US) and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, guilty of direct involvement in the murder of five Israelis. The Tel Aviv District Court acquitted him of 33 other attacks.
Huh?
The judges explained their decision to acquit Barghouti of most of the cases on the basis of Israel's legal system, which they said, prevents the conviction of a leader of a terrorist organization for acts carried out by members of the group, if he himself is not directly involved, even though it may be known that the leader encouraged them to carry out the attacks and provided his associates with the finances to carry out the attacks. They said the law was far from satisfactory, but they were bound by the law as is.
Oh.
Yet Arafat - as head of Fatah - who personally ordered the terror attacks - as the judges concluded - and authorized the funds later used by Barghouti for the attacks, hasn't yet been tried.Why not?
Till now, Israel hasn't brought Arafat to trial because it didn't want to prosecute public figures, Lapid said. But now, they've successfully prosecuted Barghouti, who in his sentencing was given five consecutive life sentences plus forty years.
Pasko then points out this interesting anomaly:
Although I don’t feel the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), and Gaza. There is an interesting point to think about for those who prefer expelling Arafat. While Part 3, Section 3, Article 49 forbids individual or mass transfers from occupied territories - and is likely to raise many cries worldwide that we are violating International Law - Articles 64, 66, 67, and 68 (of Section 3), allow the Occupying Power to bring to trial and impose the death penalty on a person guilty of espionage, serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons. Israel would be on firmer legal ground - according to the world - trying Arafat for his involvement in murdering Israelis, and executing him, than expelling him.
Could this be true? Well, Here's article 68 from the Fourth Geneva Convention:
Article 68 Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
At first blush, this looks ideal: why not try and hang Arafat, and cite the Geneva Convention as one's justification to shut up world opinion? Jordan certainly had the death penalty for murder and sabotage when they lost the West Bank. Ditto for Egypt when they lost the Gaza Strip. Campus security will certainly have a problem controlling our Coed's enthusiasm if Arafat swings.
Howver, there IS a problem: The only way to use this provision, Israel would have to adopt the 4th convention for Gaza and the West Bank, in its entirety. I don't think you can cherry-pick what to honor and what to ignore. The Convention forbids forcible expulsions, which would permanently close off the Transfer option.
Sounds good, but the price in foreclosed options is too high, IMHO.
Posted by ptah at June 8, 2004 09:51 AM