The hellish histrionics of Hove Propaganda Court

Derek Pasquill

Traditional British anti-semitism beginning to sound a bit like this society's death rattle.

When and how, never mind why, did this society acquire such a pugnacious death wish?

D. Roberts

Hello Melanie,

I am a retired Police Officer, having served in both uniform and CID in South Wales and the Metropolitan Police.

As far as I can see 'act and section' those responsible clearly committed the offences, which is clearly why they were charged and taken to court.

In my eyes the defence offered by the defence and accepted by the Judge is totally unacceptable and is beyond anything that I have personally experienced in all my service.

This amounts to an anarchists' charter and a warrant for genocide.

It also gives licence to anyone with a grievance on behalf of Islam/Iraq/Afghanistan to take similar action against supplies destined for our own armed forces.

I feel nothing but shame for the British legal system and the courts that I once served.

Kindest regards.

Neil Craig

I don't know about this case but in the previous one the hooligans got off because the "prosecution" specifically refused to call anybody who would dispute their case that we were doomed & that they let Hansen away with remarks about the alarm which it is difficult to believe he was ignoraant enough to not to know were perjury.

Accepting the jury system means acepting sometimes they will get it wrong. By comparison the failure of the police in Parliament square, to notice when UAF (an organisation largely funded by civil service unions) attacked the BNP is more totalitarian.

Matthew H. Kramer

This Islamism-abetting fifth columnist should be exposed as a poisonous bigot and a traitor.

Alex Bensky

Shocking but not surprising; what is a bit disquieting but again, alas, not surprising is not just the judge's bigotry and failure to understand the actual situation in Gaza, but that a jury would nevertheless acquit the defendants.

I'd question whether defendants who had vandalized a factory making anything for Iran or Syria would have received the same treatment but of course the question is merely rhetorical: No one would actually do that.

My grandfather left what was then the Russian Empire and is now Poland, stopped off in Paris where we had relatives, and told me once that while there he met another Polish Jew who was going to the UK and suggested my grandfather skip the long ocean voyage and just come with him; Southampton was just across the channel.

And stories like this are one reason why I regret never having said to him, "Thank you, Grandpa, for letting me be an American."

Shaun Harbord

"Jury equity" or "decisions in defiance of the facts" where the jury think for themselves and make up their own mind are all too rare. You may not like it but then these are individuals making up their own mind. So be it.

Tregonsee

One of the ways in which societies fall is when they begin to "de-civilize." It can happen violently, Germany in the 1930s, or gradually where the rule of law slowly reduced to a set of suggestions, to be set aside in the interests of fairness or some perceived greater good.

mairT

These days, I find my country a very sad, insane, bigoted place. It is a place in which I no longer feel safe. Reading the above just confirms my thoughts that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. A case in court is about evidence and facts not about political persuasion.

Geoff Miller

Matthew H. Kramer
July 2nd, 2010 2:01pm
"This Islamism-abetting fifth columnist should be exposed as a poisonous bigot and a traitor."

He now has been.

What we need to see now is what will be done about this. What investigation, appeal or sanction is carried out.

A true test of British justice to to see how this travesty is corrected.

I suspect nothing will be done.

A J Scott

Put the question to Kenneth Clarke, surely?

In the Wilderness in America

In America, jury equivalence enabled O.J. Simpson to escape jail in his criminal murder trial. He did not escape civil conviction but hid his money using Florida statutes.

The judge in this Hove trial should be castigated in some way and the sentence should be appealed. Is that possible? If not, it is a travesty of justice just like the O.J. Simpson criminal trial.

Joshua

"Thank you, Grandpa, for letting me be an American."

Your grandfather was a very wise man.

Rob-NY

The irony is that these "progressive" judges in the UK are starting to resemble judges in the American South during Jim Crow. Biased, racist and politically corrupt. We have the same left-wing judges and lawyers here but at least there is a robust US conservative opposition that cites the US Constitution to oppose them. Happy Independence Day.

Bob, son of Bob

Derek Pasquill "Traditional British anti-semitism ...When and how, never mind why, did this society acquire such a pugnacious death wish?
Our leadership and media people like the BBC and the universities do not represent the British people on the Israel issue just as they do not represent the views of the people on the EU, crime, immigration, grammar schools, discipline, or patriotism. The current establishment can only get away with their wicked schemes whilst the masses do not know what they are up to, or, when they do know, turn a blind eye in return for their bribes

Brian Williams

I never thought I'd say it, but we are right for a military coup. Except the military are left-wing too now.

Karl Kraus

How long before someone is acquitted because the premises or persons attacked were Jewish?

William Boyd

Yes, on this occasion I do absolutely agree and indeed the same passage you quote struck my eye. It's an absolutely bizarre comment to make in a UK court of law if it was not immediately followed by some qualification of the 'but it's not our business here to pass judgement on the actions of the Israeli government' and in addition I think it would have been fair to add 'as the defendants took upon themselves in this case'.

I'll be curious to see how this pans out. The judge in question appears to have been born in Tel Aviv as far as I cam make out from a quick internet search but that might be someone else.

Gerald Hammond

This case is shocking. It reinforces the need to make the judiciary (and those who appont them to cases) answerable to the electorate. Who, for example, keeps appointing Justice Eadie to preside over libel cases, making us the world's laughing stock. And those who resist the idea of an elected judiciary on the grounds that the law is above politics are simply ignoring the fact that judges, just like the rest of us, are political animals. Our law enforcers, just like our law makers, should be answerable to us.

Dale

Yes, the judge was born in Jaffa. One of the defendants is Jewish. I think you have to try a bit harder than just keep calling "anti-semitism" at the top of your voice at every opportunity. You know it is not true.

Joshua

"One of the defendants is Jewish."

So what? The Jewish nation has its share of traitors and self-haters just like every other nation.

D. Roberts

Criticism of Israel, like that of any other nation, is quite normal as long as it is comparative, contextual, and fair. However, when the Jewish nation is criticized for faults - often obsessively - that are far worse among other peoples, then such criticism crosses the line from being acceptable to being blatantly anti-Semitic.

Decrying someone for justifiably assigning anti-Semitism is often used as a shield to avoid being confronted with any such criticism, while at the same time enabling those responsible to ridicule Israel and the Jewish people with relative impunity. I have no doubt that such has occurred here. It is irrelevant as to whether the Judge was born in Jaffa or if any of the defendants are Jewish.

The basis of justifying criminal activities upon an 'alleged' act on behalf of the Israeli recipients is no foundation for their case. It is instead a damning indictment upon our own society and the right of the Jewish state to defend itself against thousands of Palestinian missile attacks from the territory of Gaza (ceded as land for peace) upon innocent Jewish civilians in neighbouring towns and villages.

I understand that the Judge George Bathurst-Norman suggested to the jury, "...You may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered ..."

Israeli Ambasador Ron Prosor has responded by saying that "..after reading the judge's statement, there is no doubt that this is not a great era of the British justice system. I assume that Sderot's children, who have lived under thousands of missiles, for years, will be able to enlighten the judge as to the meaning of 'hell on earth.' ..I am convinced that his honor would have ruled differently had he been sitting in the Sderot youth cultural center, rather than on Brighton's sunny shores..."

Enough said.

John Edwards

I had not previously heard of this case. But quite a heartwarming victory for pro_palestinian activists.

A British jury listening to the evidence and making their own decision. whatever next?

Jerry

Re Dale July 2, 2010, 7:20: Have you thought out the implications of this problematic decision?

If the facts of the case and the facts of the law match, is a jury not responsible for saying that?

What is your replacement for "equality before the law?"

Do such decisions make it less likely or more likely that people will seek redress of grievance from courts?

If such a precedent in law stands, will it undermine all norms of behavior between parties that differ in opinion?

Where one party is neither absolutely right or wrong, but partially so, do you want to allow property destruction as a means of expressing mere political disagreement?

Even if you are an anarchist, perhaps you still might want to have some societal mechanism for equity between parties to be attainable!

Lizzy

Absolutely insane. Good questions, Melanie. Are you going to get an answer? This state of affairs is a British disease. I'm in Australia now, after having lived in the UK in the eighties where I noticed this kind of logic (justified wilful destruction) gaining hold. The anit-semitism is something else again. Now the justice system is broken by it. Where is this all leading?

Augustus

Well said by D. Roberts!

An important part of our judicial system is a belief that the system works and is not corrupted. Those who destroy that belief wrong more than those directly involved, they shatter the perception that a fair and just legal system exists at all. Who will then protect victims of crime? What justice puts a firm, or family, or anyone, at risk of abuse by criminal activists?

For years Israel has been portrayed throughout the world as oppressive, cruel, inhuman and heartless. The concepts of both Israeli and Jew have evolved into a parallel unsympathetic monster. One never hears, for example, that during the whole Operation Cast Lead the whole Egyptian border with Gaza remained firmly closed. Saudis highest potentates pleaded with Egypt to
open its border in vain. In spite of the military assault aid was denied. The Egyptians even refused medical aid. It wasn't Jews who did this, but Muslims. Was Egypt afraid of Israeli reprisals? Perhaps, who knows? But the real reason was that Egypt was afraid of a mass exodus of Gazan refugees. Details like this are an irritating diversion from the black and white manipulative vision which the world accords to Israel and the Palestinians.
This downward spiral of anti-Semitism should worry us all, whatever our political or religious beliefs. It threatens not only our judicial and social
future, but the very backbone of freedom itself.

Tony

The defendants admitted they broke the law, even though they had other, lawful means available to them to stop the sale of weapons, as they believed the company was "breaking export regulations". It was their responsibility to press the Government to prosecute the company for this alleged breach.

Instead, not only did they take the law into their own hands, engaging in criminal activity, but were applauded by a British judge for doing so. This is the opposite of the rule of law. The judge should be impeached for actively encouraging law breaking and, if found guilty, stripped of office.

David, Thailand

Tregonsee: I agree. We believe we are too special, too intelligent, and too advanced to fail...and these are our failings.

Roger Chandler

Bravo to the Judge! Hopefully the case against EDO MBM for illegally exporting military equipment will come before him as well. If only our political leaders had the same courage!

Beer Moth

Chilling that such judgments are being made in the courts of my country.

Seeing as we don't get to vote them in, is there any practical mechanism that ordinary people can use, to actually do something to bring these judges to book?

They seem to have more power than our elected representatives, in that they can nullify any law they see fit.

Okey

Dale, one of the most notorious antisemites was the Jew, Karl Marx. His racism has had an enduring influence on the world's left.
I wonder if the British judge was the son of a member of the Mandate administration in The Land of Israel, a body of folk many of whom harboured a visceral hatred of Jews.

mark

The CPS should file an appeal on the basis of the judge misdirecting the jury. Even if the appeal fails at least they will have made a stand for the rule of law

Simon

What are Miss Philips' views on the observation of international law - in particular extrajudicial killings carried out by state agents on the territory of another state. In 1973 in Trondheim Israeli agents murdered a completely innocent man after he was mistakenly identified as a terrorist. He was shot in front of his pregnant wife. More recently there was the killing in Dubai. What is Miss Philips' position on such extra-judicial killings by state forces? Does she feel such acts are justified and if so how would she feel about, say, the Iranian government sending agents to murder a dissident on the streets of London. Moreover could she make her position clear on the subject of torture. She once wrote that torture was an absolute evil. Is this still what she believes?

corneilius

The FACTS are that under International and UK National Law every citizen has a legal duty to oppose ANY actions by ANY agency that is engaged in War Crimes.

The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are Illegal, as is the occupation by Israel of Palsetine.

The Judge was correct as were the jury, to aqquit the defendants because all democratic means to oppose the UKs support for Israels Illegal Occupation of Palestine, and the collective punishment imposed upon the people of Gaza, which are war crimes, had failed.

The principle of committing a smaller crime to prevent a larger crime, especially in the case of War Crimes is a well established legal precedence.

The aqquittal in this case supports this principle and should send a message to all UK Government Officials to say : desist in your support for or involvement in Illegal War Crimes, for you WILL eventually be held to account for your actions.

comprehensiveboy

Criminal damage? No arguement they actually did it? Acquited? How long before they can kill defenders for whatever cause and get acquited? Legal pogroms, ku klux klan rampages or cutural revolution style 'anti' campaigns here we come! Britain awake now! Cameron where are you?

Gordon Ross

I knew Judge Bathurst-Norman back in the days when he practised as a Junior Barrister. I am astonished and outraged !

comprehensiveboy

One more thing. They should stop calling these people anarchists to disassociate them form their less violent fellow travellers. They are not anarchists at all but have various ultimately very authoritarian viewpoints. Touchy feely gentle people who are pained by injustice do not go around injuring police and smashing up businesses. That's not to say anarchists are good!

Apparently the violence in Canada at the meeting recently was perpetrated by 'anarchists'. They are the stormtroopers of the left (sic) and they try to destroy you if you disagree with them. It was the left which patented the whole 'ANNIHILATE the other fellow' thing out of social darwinism and contempt for any other values but strength and power. Of course the right can say, 'ok, fair enough'.

Bedtime for Bathurst

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch"

Dedicated, in this instance, to Judge George Bathurst-Norman, glorious and resplendent product of the bench!

mairT

I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine

1. When was it founded and by whom?

2. What were its borders?

3. What was its capital?

4. What were its major cities?

5. What constituted the basis of its economy?

6. What was its form of government?

7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?

10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?

11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.

12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

mairT

Cornelius........previous posting was regarding Palestine just in case I have missed something

Informed Counsel

This is but another example of British institutional permissiveness of the overall crime of economic sabotage which former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government endeavored to put an end to.

However, the Blair government’s then-focus was on violent animal rights and environmental activists.

Apparently, there are many more miscreants within British society today and the governmental authorities are beyond themselves in trying to render them accountable for their behaviors. Hence, it has become commonplace for governmental authorities to not merely tolerate them, but actually, to provide them with a political platform. The problem is that the British have not learned the Chamberlain lessons of mollification and appeasement…

For an interesting article published in the New Zealand Rural News during June 2006 about economic sabotage in the United Kingdom, see:

Economic sabotage a form of free speech?
http://www.itssd.org/Publications/Rural%20News%20–%20Rural%20News_co_nz.pdf

Economic Saboteurs Now Include Among Their Ranks NASA Scientist James Hanson?? Common Sense Has Gone With the Wind!

http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/09/economic-sabotageurs-now-include-among.html

Colin

This situation is more likely a byproduct of our pathetically ineffective, left wing controlled education system, than the out and out anti semitism you claim. Anyone who has been on jury service in the past ten years or so will tell you, the courts are full of semi literate halfwit jurors, all too eager to take the side of the criminal. I've seen it first hand myself.

You should just get over it, the clowns on the juries you highlight probably don't have the basic wherewithal and awareness to hold the kind of political views you rail against. As for the judge he's just a product of our rotten society, by the sound of things...

zkharya

'The principle of committing a smaller crime to prevent a larger crime, especially in the case of War Crimes is a well established legal precedence.'

But why has it only been applied to alleged Israeli war crimes?

Why the obsession with the one Jewish state in the world?

British weapons have killed more in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hardly in direct defence of British citizens, either.

Soovey

You've convinced me, Melanie, that the world is indeed upside down (I have ordered your book, incidentally).

I have reservations, however, about believing anything that crackpot Tony Greenstein opines.

I have heard that there is no right of appeal against a decision of Not Guilty. It seems that the only recourse in law is for the victims to bring civil prosecutions, which are costly in the extreme, or for those with a moral compass to complain to those who oversee the judiciary.

I, too, would like to know why this rogue was brought out of retirement to hear the case.

Soovey

@D Roberts

Surely this can go the other way too? If the acceptable defence is "for the greater good" and becomes a legal precedent, what would get in the way of any extremist group engaging in destruction mosques and madrassas which preach hatred and claiming "the greater good" as a defence?

Bathurst-Norman has been allowed to set a very dangerous precedent indeed. The UK is sinking fast

Sam Buckley

Juries have always had the power to acquit people breaking the law if they decisde it was a bad law. This is how the rights of free speech and the right to report Parliament were won - despite constant attempts by the government to put him away juries repeatedly refused to convict the Radical MP John Wilkes. This is not what happened here. The jury (and the judge) were acting in accordance with a basic prionciple of English law that anyone may use reasonable force to prevent a crime. The fact that this crime was being perpetrated by a rich a well connected firm doesn't change that.

D. Roberts

The 'facts' under international and UK national law are in 'fact' that no individual has any legal basis to perform the actions which resulted in this court case.

I have prosecuted innumerable cases during my time in the Police and confirm that the powers available to any citizen in the most severe of circumstances are restricted to say the least and there is no legal precedent that allows an individual to commit a crime with impunity.

We hear much of "Palestine" but this entity itself has NEVER existed as a 'sovereign' nation with it's own people, culture and capital city. Until 1948 it was just a regional land occupied by foreign empires.

Despite the repeated use of the term "Palestine" in political and media circles including the House of Commons in London, it is a fact that "Palestine" as a social, political, national, regional, religious or geographic entity of any description does not exist at this time and has not done so since 1948.

The use of the term is a distortion and shows an inherent bias against the Jewish state, yet such a term is continually used in political and media circles with full knowledge of the reality. Distortion and deception appears to be the order of the day in this particular case too.

For decades the Arab world has sought to eradicate the Jewish state. Year after year, the Arab world would invent a new public relations theme, or a new form of disinformation or a new way to misrepresent the Arab war against Israel.

It was only well into the 1970s that the Arabs themselves thought up the idea of basing their campaign on "Palestinian rights." Before that, they had a far more candid approach and demanded openly that the Jews be tossed into the sea.
The "Palestinianization" of the campaign of Arab aggression arose from their realization that you can further your agenda far more successfully through the political goals of self-determination and a humanitarian agenda than with declarations of intended genocide.

Much is alleged in this case and forum about the actions of Israel in Gaza. Much less is mentioned about the heinous massacres, murders and mistreatment of Palestinian civilians by their own kind. Civilians are regularly used as human shields, opponents thrown from high rise buildings and others summarily executed without trial in the street - while sparing the reader the sordid details of what then proceeds to the victims. Others have been shot in hospital beds, taken from jails and shot in public without trial and Palestinian Christians are subjected to daily persecution.

Not forgetting that in exchanging land for peace Israel received 10,000+ missile attacks upon it's own civilians and a populace that voted into power an entity sworn to destroy Israel and kill Israeli civilians. This seems to have been lost on our British public and clearly on the judge and jury in the case under debate.

The order of the day is the vilification of Israel, it's people and it's right of self defence.

Tim Horgan

The good Judge accepted at the outset of the trial that a summary of the Goldstone Report should be admitted as evidence.

Hurrah for English Justice- an English Judge and Jury cannot be intimidated.

Universal Jurisdiction for ever!

Jane

By way of comparison -

Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed in Dubai while travelling on a false passport and seeking the supply of arms which were to be used against Israel in the pursuit of it's agenda of destroying the Jewish state.

The inevitable targets of such Hamas weaponry being Jewish civilians such as those in Sderot, where thousands of innocent children are receiving treatment for stress due to the tens of thousands of missile/mortar attacks launched from areas of Gaza ceded to the Palestinians as a gesture of peace.

These Jewish kids receive 15 seconds notice of an impending missile attack and are forced to both live and attend school in bomb shelters.

Now as to international law, I hear no such defence for Israel having allegedly targeted Mahmoud al-Mabhoud as a measure to prevent the acquisition of weapons for use against Jewish civilians.

To the contrary, there is international condemnation heaped upon Israel even though no direct Israeli involvement can be proven.

A similar attitude has prevailed in relation to the alleged Israeli use of forged passports by the intelligence agents supposedly involved.

In recent days Russian intelligence agents have been shown to have used forged UK and Irish passports in pursuit of their own activities. Yet the condemnation heaped upon Israel for a similar action is conspicuous by it's absence in relation to Russia.

This reveals the crux of such issues - it is Israel alone that is reserved for such condemnation. Others are either condoned or justified.

Any reference by the Judge to the violence of Hamas against it's own population is another factor ignored for reasons which can only have been expedient for the Judge, the jury and the defendants.

Augustus

Cornelius - WTF are you talking about? How is manufacturing and supplying the VER-2 main bomb rack for the Israeli F16 fleet a 'war crime'? And what's this stupid nonsense about 'legal duty'? I know it takes all sorts...but this is kindergarten stuff.

Jane R

The reference to 'international law' and UN resolutions make me smile. In 1948 when the UN couldn't be so easily swayed by the Arab/Islamic vote, UN resolutions and 'international law' were of no consequence to the Arab/Islamic world as it sought the genocide of the new state of Israel.

Current international law is a prescription for Israel`s destruction as it evolves along the requirements of national interests and the perceived changing of historical factors. It promotes the national interests expedient to member states.

In relation to the UN Security Council, where matters of enforcable international law are often discussed, Arab/Islamic countries hostile to Israel such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Lebanon, Bahrain, UAE, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, are all eligible to sit on the UN Security Council and vote on matters pertaining to their own affairs AND the existence/security of Israel.

Yet in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter - referring to the sovereign equality of all member states - Israel is the ONLY nation INELIGIBLE to sit on the UN Security Council.

Like a pre-arranged conspiracy the Arab/Islamic world seizes every possible opportunity via the UN to carefully choreograph, manipuate and pursue an agenda that seeks to attack, undermine and delegitimize the Jewish state through the passing of resolution after resolution.

Facilitating discriminatory treatment the Islamic countries are a reliable source of venom who, led by the Arab bloc & the group of 'non-aligned' nations, serve to form an automatic numeric majority within the UN body surrounding any vote/issue relating to the Jewish state thereby ensuring that all resolutions voted upon against Israel are passed to Israel's detriment. Israel's enemies then being provided with the ammunition through which they can vilify the Jewish state and declare how "..Israel violates more UN Resolutions than anyone else..."

The UN has repeatedly held "Emergency Special Sessions" focusing solely on Israel and holds an annual "Palestine Day" while having specific bodies devoted to supporting the Palestinians eg. the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division on Palestinian Rights & the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People.

The UN Human Rights Council itself is obsessed with condemning Israel which is the only country listed on the Council’s permanent agenda and which is subjected to an investigatory mandate that examines the actions of only one side.

Some have coined a new phrase which is extremely appropriate to describe the 'Israelophobia' of the United Nations;-

O.C.I.D. "Obsessive Compulsive Israel Disorder". It seems to have spread to Brighton. Others call it anti-Semitism - you decide.

Okey

The posters who invoke supposed international and British law to attack Israel and excuse outrages committed against it are disingenuous or else need to do some serious study.
Of the territories at present controlled by Israel the only one which by any stretch of imagination can legitimately be called "occupied" is The Golan Heights. Even here Israel has a perfect right to maintain sovereignty since it was territory legitimately acquired as a consequence of Israel's repulsion of Syrian aggression in 1967 and 1973, and Syria's enduring refusal to make peace.
While "the world" may pretend to think differently, the fact is that the 1922 League of Nations Mandate endorsed the territorial settlement by which the allegedly "occupied" territories are an Israeli entitlement. That they did not become part of Israel in 1948 was a consequence of Arab (esp. Jordanian ) aggression in 1948-49. In 1967 Jordan again attacked Israel, thus cementing Israel's right to Judea and Samaria. The same applies to Gaza, mutatis mutandis.
As for Israeli armed struggle against terrorists, not only has Israel the right to pursue it , but a duty, since it preempts great evils such as the wholesale slaughter of Israeli civilians. Moreover, Britain and other European countries have a shameful history of criminal leniency to terrorists who have murdered Israelis, so Israel cannot rely on them for justice.

D. Roberts

@ Soovey You quite rightly say "Bathurst-Norman has been allowed to set a very dangerous precedent indeed. The UK is sinking fast".
The implications and possible future permutations are indeed disturbing.

A selective interpretation of the Goldstone report was used as 'evidence' while the plight of Jewish civilian victims in places like Sderot which were attacked from Gaza were ignored. As Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriella Shalev outlined the Goldstone report also "...ignores the thousands of Hamas missiles which brought about the Gaza operation and it ignores Hamas' strategy of using civilians as human shields..."
The legal process has now gone beyond the merely applying a perverse moral equivalence between the terrorist and his victim, which alone was akin to likening the arsonist with firefighter;- now the right of the victim to defend himself (if Israeli) is being brought into question.

It has been readily forgotten that the Israeli government, together with many International entities, only agreed to recognise and speak to Arafat/PLO at the very outset, on the firm agreement that they refrain from and utterly renounce terrorism and attend the negotiating table. Instead, the PLO still embraced terrorism and walked away from the negotiating table in favour of violence. Hamas, Fatah, Al Aqsa Brigades have all joined in this agenda.

The Israeli government while acting in self defence, is now being subjected to widespread international criticism, with even it's sovereign right of self defence being brought into question. Palestinian violence now being seen as "legitimate" and any Israeli act of self defence being the issue brought into question. History and the present indeed being turned "upside down" as Melanie's recent excellent work suggests.

The media theme shown to be that Israel alone is allegedly responsible for the turmoil in the Middle East and that Israel alone holds the key to peace/stability and then subsequently portrayed as an outlaw state. This creating an international climate of anti-Israeli sentiment, that the Arab/Islamic world is intent upon using towards the eradication and annihilation of the Jewish state. Something that they have long sought but which they now cloak in a humanitarian agenda and political euphemisms which have deceived the west.

zkharya

' This is not what happened here. The jury (and the judge) were acting in accordance with a basic prionciple of English law that anyone may use reasonable force to prevent a crime. The fact that this crime was being perpetrated by a rich a well connected firm doesn't change that.'

But not against firms producing weapons the UK, US or NATO used or uses in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

Just the one Jewish state, against a government dedicated to its extinction.

Nachman

Rate This
I believe there is something more sinister at foot here. These protestors have been targetting this factory for some time.
See for example;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-539229/Anti-war-protesters-superglue-weapons-factory-mark-Iraq-wars-fifth-anniversary.html
Obviously believing that to claim that they were trying to destroy the factory to prevent arms being sent to British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be approved by an English Jury it would appear that they therefore cooked up a story that they were trying to get arms stopped to Israel. I would be interested to know if their previous attempts to target the EDO factory before Caste Lead were brought to the jury’s attention in the case.
Their actions would have had no effect on Israel’s justifiable and legal efforts by force of arms to prevent the terrorist entity in Gaza from firing rockets into Israeli cities. As such they have succeeded in carrying out criminal damage to EDO which has been their aim all along without fear of punishment and in the process have used Israel as a scapegoat.
Questions have to be asked. Who was responsible for appointing a judge who obviously should have recused himself given the prejudicial nature of the terms his direction to the jury? What connection does that person have with the defendants and/or with pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel organisations? What we have here is a classic anti-Semitic plot.

Augustus

D.Roberts, 3/7, 6.55pm -

Everything you say is true, and I commend you for it. But in fact an Arab Palestinian state could have existed in 1948, because, not only did a majority
UN resolution vote in favour of
a Jewish state in Palestine, it also voted for the creation of a seperate Arab Palestinian state. The majority of Arab Palestinians at the time wanted to accept the two-state solution, but their Mufti leader
and others rejected the offer out of hand without consulting the Arab people themselves, and even persuaded the leaders of five neighbouring Arab nations to prevent the creation of Israel 'by all means'. The rest, as they say, is history.

zkharya

The UK has been in Iraq and Afghanistan since at least 2003.

Why the desire and will to destroy arms factories now?

Bigotry.

That is why.

Joshua

"Hurrah for English Justice"

When exactly has there been justice for the victims of Dresden, Malaya, Kenya, Ireland, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan?

And I wonder what my relatives who were refused entry into Palestine and were subsequently murdered in various death camps would think about British justice.

Okey

John Edwards: the British jury did not, as you put it, "make its own decision." It was unduly influenced by the weighty pro-criminal bias of the presiding judge.
In the British legal system aren't judges supposed at least to feign impartiality?

john

Is this for the Home Secretary as well as the Supreme Court. ? Will people now get away with beating up Jews in the streets because the judge has suggested that the jury consider the horrific sufferings of the Gazans? Can everbody beat up anybody because we can now consider the horrific sufferings of the Tibetans, Congolese, Iranians, Chilian Indians, Aborigines. And so on. We are simply squaring up for lawlessness, lynch-mobs and, why not, civil war?

In the Wilderness in America

Bravo D. Roberts and Augustus for speaking truth to bigotry! And here in America, meanwhile, transnational law is on the ascendency with Obama appointees declaring that sharia law is OK. Civilization is dying by a million cuts.

Archie

Appalling indeed, Miss Phillips, and more evidence - if any were needed - in support of an elected judiciary!

George

What I find most ironic is that the defence of being allowed to commit a crime in order to prevent another crime has its roots in the Jewish concept of "din rodef" (Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodef). Surely as politically correct pro-Palestinians, the defendants and the Judge himself should have boycotted anything Jewish/Israeli?

Sharon

The point is that nobody should be excused guilt in a court of law simply because of their dislike of the customers of a business they ransacked. The crux here is whether or not they are guilty of crminal damage to the factory and not that the factory manufactures arms or that it's customer is Israel. Once a judge can direct a jury to arrive at a verdict based on their judgement as to how the customer might use the goods purchased then the law is being abused. It is legal for a factory to make arms and it is legal for that factory to sell those arms to it's customers. It is illegal for anybody to ransack the factory. Imagine what next: a Judge could on the basis of this verdict aquit a murderer who killed an Israeli because he sympathises with the murderer's feelings of hatred for the Israeli; a Judge could similarly aquit an intruder in your home because he sympathises with the feelings the intruder has for you because you are Jewish/Asian/have a beautiful wife/four children/grow roses. This is a gross abuse of the law and this Judge should be struck off and a retrial must be held.

Carl

How dare Ron Proser whine about rockets fired at Sderot when Israel's army routinely uses artillery, including white phosporus munitions, against unarmed civilians.

D. Roberts

@ Augustus - Thank you for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Not only could an Arab state of 'Palestine' have been created in 1948 if the Arab world had accepted partition, there would also have not been a single refugee - not one - no refugee camps - no displaced persons.

Furthermore, if a peaceful co-existence was truly the desire of the Arab/Islamic world then at any point during the past 62 years since the re-birth of Israel in 1948, Arab governments could have helped the Palestinian Arabs settle down to a decent life. They could have created the infrastructure of an autonomous Palestine on the West Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza territory that Egypt controlled until 1967, or encouraged the resettlement of Palestinians in Jordan, which constitutes the lion's share of the original mandate of Palestine. Rather than fund the Palestine Liberation Organization to foment terror against Israel they could have endowed Palestinian schools of architecture, engineering, medicine and law. What Israel did for its even larger number of refugees forcibly expelled from Arab lands during the same period, Arabs could have done much more sumptuously for the Palestinians displaced by the same conflict. It is now a matter of history that they have received more financial aid per capita than any other group on the planet, but the results of it are nowhere to be seen except in the pursuit of Israel's destruction.

Between 1948 and 1967, the Arabs (Jordan & Egypt respectfully) illegally occupied the so called "West Bank" (Judea & Samaria) and Gaza. During this NINETEEN year period of Arab occupation, no moves were made to create any Palestinian state in these territories. Instead they were used as a base and platform from which to launch terrorist attacks into the Jewish state. Indeed the PLO was created in 1964 by Egypt, which raises the question as to what "Palestine" exactly they needed to liberate.

The relevance of the following statement from Zahir Muhsein, executive committee member of the "Palestinian Liberation Organisation" itself cannot be exaggerated. In an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw on 31st March1977 he declared;-
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."

Many will remember how in full view of the cameras and an International audience, upon the lawn of the White House on 13 September 1993, the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, called for an end to bloodshed and the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He shook the hand of Yasser Arafat and pledged his commitment to resolve the conflict through negotiations. Arafat made the same verbal commitment in relation to negotiations being the only way forward.

How many though are aware that on the very same day, Yasser Arafat made the following broadcast in Arabic on Jordanian TV;
"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab Nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

Anyway I think I've taken up more than my allotted space in this discussion so I'll gracefully bow out now. Thank you all for your dialogue and my gratitude to Melanie for the opportunity to use this facility.

Dale

You all seem rather hysterical. At this stage, can I remind people that this defence originated from the case that was taken against the factory that manifactured Zyklon B for use in the gas chambers during the holocaust. I.e a citizen has a duty to act against them to prevent the greater crime implcit in non action. Nuremberg and all that...Are you sure you want to see it go?

Answers top a few other questions...No, this defence has not ONLY been used against Israel. It was also been successfully used by climate change activists recently. Although there have been two similar court cases against Raytheon in relation to Israel where the defendants were also found not guilty. It is almost as if the judges are following what the law actually says!

To Nachman: yes, the judge was aware of the 6 year campaign against this company. The petitions, council motions, blockades...all sort of avenues have been tried before this drastic action.

Sharon: Sure, campaigners against this company are also against the wars in Iraq etc and have taken action against them for that in the past so don't feel signled out! However, according to UK arms trading laws, it IS illegal to supply weapons to Israel which might be used in the OT, campaigners have not pushed this as the main thing, but the law does.

Augustus

@ D.Roberts - Bravo!

Julia Brody

This acquittal should be appealed. Or is that too much to hope for?

Terry in Oz

Well I never. Touchy, feely don't upset anyone used to be Great Britain in 2010. That is, don't upset anyone unless they are Jewish (OOPS!! I meant Zionist yer honour, nudge nudge wink wink, know what I mean?)

And of course, every time something like this happens, we Jews realise why we need Israel so badly. When European justice matches good 'ol European Jew hatred, we know we can't trust any country but Israel to treat Jews with dignity.

Am Yisroel Chai. And spit on so called British justice, now similar to Nazi justice.

Okey

Carl, there you go again, being disingenuous: Israel's counter-terrorism armed resistance to Palestinian aggression emanating from Gaza was a REACTION to that unprovoked belligerence.
Israel's use of white phosphorous is perfectly legal and moral since it was used to create cloud cover for the advancing Israeli forces and not against civilians.
I guess that next you'll be trying to sell the storyline that "Israel deliberately acts in a beastly way in order to get good press", which,as every decent person knows, is controlled by world Jewry.

Andy Gill

Hopefully the company will now take out a civil case against the defendants. They have admitted what they did, so it shouldn't be a problem to get damages.

This might act as a deterrent to those who think they are now at liberty to attack Israeli interests in the UK and get away with it.

Augustus

Dale - It is not clever to remind people how human beings belonging to one of the most advanced countries of Europe were found to annihilate people in their millions, not in the heat of battle, but in cold blood and by the most diabolical of devices. To do so defies all moral and logical analysis. Perhaps you are one of those who regards Israel as a colonialist power. Well, the ones with the true colonialist mentality are those who think that Hamas cannot be held to Western standards of decency. And for this reason Hamas is forgiven, apparently, for its treatment of women, its hostility to all other religions, its fervid embrace of a dark medievalism, and its absolute insistence that Israel has no right to exist. Gaza is a mean and brutal place with a totalitarian regime steeped in a cult of violence and death. It may have engendered popular support for its evil ideology, so did Hitler and the Nazis.

Israel, a country consonant with the enlightenment, is in conflict with a dark place of religious intolerance where the firmest principles of anti-Semitism not pro-Palestinianism are embedded in its charter. Under such circumstances, as Churchill once observed: "In the struggle of life and death there is no legality."

Carl

OK Okey, so I am being disingenuous am I? Did the IDF not use white phosporus against unarmed civilians? Did they not then lie and claim that they didn't until exposed by the UK media? If Israel stops apartheid and aggression against the Palestinians, then they may have grounds for compromise and admittance to the civilised world. At the moment Israel seems incapable of grasping the fact that if you treat people like animals, then you shouldn't be surprised when they bite you.

Gábor Fränkl

Carl, how do you dare engaing in 1000-times refuted and discredited lies on Israel and peddle your obnoxious lies here?

David Catleugh

I didn't know that Israel had been foungd guilty of any war crimes!

Steven Kalka

If this is legal by UK law, then the law is very flawed, indeed. Since when should any citizen have the right to act as the judge and policeman in an international matter? How come Islamic protestors get away with shouting "Death to the West"? I'm sorry, but unless I have friends or relatives to visit, I will not vacation in Western Europe.

Moshe

Carl--
HOw can you dare accuse Israel of being the "occupier"? Wasn't this a Jewish State which Jews were forcibly expelled from after more than a millennium of living? The mountains of archaeological and historical evidence attest to this fact. This happened several centuries before Mohamed was born!
Even if you were unaware that Jesus was in fact Jewish while living in Israel and the name "Palestina" was invented by a Roman General to erase the name of "Israel" from the region after the Jews' expulsion, you must of heard of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This gave the entire Palestine to the Jews as a Jewish National homeland. Of course, 85% was gouged out and given to the Palestinian Arabs for a Palestinian Arab homeland (eventually, Jordan) in 1923 leaving the Jews with only 15%. Clearly this is simply not enough for the Arabs since they demand 40% of the remaining 15%. I guess they have only one homeland to hang there hats on and not the entire Middle East.
The genius politicians have convinced themselves that all ya gotta do is give them the piece of flesh they demand regardless if they have any legal claim to it or not for in doing so they will live happily side by side with the Jewish state. Problem is--1) many Jews feel it is unconscionable to part with a large chunk of the only tiny Jewish Sate on the globe. A place which has been our homeland for thousands of years. 2) Every time this has been tried it has met with aggression and military attack by the Arabs who are never satisfied until the Jewish state is erased from the globe. 3) The Arabs have never said they will be OK with this and they continue inciting and dreaming of removing Jews from their homes 4) Expelling Jews from their homes is so 20th century Europe--I thought you guys were over that by now?

Richard

A factor in both these cases seems to have been a perception that the defendants were the 'underdog', protesting against corporations much more powerful than themselves. The McLibel case comes to mind as well. As long our system continues to allow corporate lobbying and financing of political parties, such perceptions will arise: the perception will be that big money rigs the system. Sympathy for the underdog is a tradition popularly identified with British cultural identity; not always absurdly. I suspect that this tradition, as much as the particular political causes involved, was a strong influence on these juries. There's comfort in that.

Okey

Carl, if you were truly concerned about human rights,and the establishment of stability and peace in the Middle East, you would be excoriating the real aggressors, the real despots and criminals, who are vexing not only Israel, but their very own people, tens of millions of them.
Unfortunately, however, you're not.
That many in the supposedly civilised world are with you does not, however, justify your position. It merely illustrates the workings of international power relations.
Also bear in mind that there was a time when every one thought that the earth is flat.

Edgar Davidson

As a follow-up on the comments by MairT about the atate of 'Palestine' have a look at the photo here that confirms that the only people who considered themsleves to be 'Palestinian' before 1965 were the Jews of Palestine

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/2010/07/palestine-belongs-to-whom.html

Adam B.

Please remember that Carl has consistently refused to condemn the antisemitism of Hamas. It has been repeatedly pointed out to him that Hamas advocates the extermination of every Jew on earth, enshrined in its charter.

That tells you what you're dealing with.

Adam B.

Carl, Israel does not target civilians, Hamas does.

Just because you repeat your lies ad nauseam doesn't make them true.

Dixon

Uh, I finally get it. Dont I always say irony is too subtle to risk using in these parts. I used to think Carl was agenuinely a confounded ass. Now the penny drops, its irony issit: hes trying to parody the kind of people I thought he was one of. His comments on this thread finally prove it!

Alynn

Dear Melanie

Don't you think it's the right time to create a database on cases that put political agenda on front of the law and order. With the pictures/photo's of the judges, media links etc.

That could be a preparation for the next "awakening" (when the history repeats itself again I hope?).

maddy1

It seems like we all have a duty to engage in a third world war to end all injustice in the world then!!!!

Penny

Carl - explain this 'apartheid' that you speak of.

I've just come back from touring Israel where I met people of all races, colours and creeds - from Armenian priests to Ethopian brides; from Russian waiters to Hungarian hotel managers; from Arab lawyers to Bedouin shop owners and Palestinian tour guides - and many, many more people of all races, colours and creeds. We experienced nothing but welcome, warmth, help and support from everyone we met.

Quite how does this multi-racial, friendly Israel fit with your idea of 'apartheid'?

As an aside, I also noted that Israel does not appear to have the same youth-orientated issues that we have in the UK. There's almost no graffiti, no vandalism, no drunken yobs, no fear when walking the streets, no rubbish - you're hard-pressed to find so much as a ciggie butt on the pavements of Jerusalem. The parks are litter and vandalism-free. Shopping malls display art and sculpture without fear of it being damaged or defaced overnight and, interestingly, we noticed a distinct lack of obesity.

This isn't peculiar to a city like Jerusalem either. We made a three-day stop in the holiday resort of Eilat. Even there, in a hotel crammed to the rafters with young people, we saw and experienced no drunkeness, no bad behaviour, no raucous gangs of kids affecting the enjoyment of others and no disrespect.

I felt quite embarrassed because we wag our finger at Israel when clearly, there must be lessons we can learn from them.

Derek BLADES

mairT, 3 July, asked a number of questions about Palestine. They seem not to have been addressed to anyone in particular so I am taking it upon myself to help him out. Here is some of what Wikipedia has to say about the matter.

“Proposals for a Palestinian state refer to the proposed establishment of an independent state for the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories that have been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967 and before by Egypt (Gaza) and by Jordan (West Bank) since 1949. The proposals include the Gaza Strip, which is currently controlled by the Hamas faction of the Palestinian National Authority, the West Bank, which is administered by the Fatah faction of the Palestinian National Authority, and East Jerusalem which is under Israeli administration.

The proclaimed State of Palestine is currently recognized by about 100 countries. The Israeli military commander exercises usufructuary rights in accordance with international law, but he is not the legal sovereign of the occupied territory. The permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people over the natural resources of the Palestinian territories has been recognized by 139 countries.”

This answers several of mairT’s questions and also explains why some of them are not relevant. But the important point he/she should understand is that the current debate about Palestine concerns a proposed state covering the territories mentioned by Wikipedia. The debate is not about an “historical” or “biblical” Palestine nor about the Palestine of the British mandate. Those are plainly red herrings as I am sure mairT knows full well.

Dmgold

Britain is not alone regarding emotive/agenda Jury decisions. In NZ recently a number of activists including a radical priest were aquitted after damaging a US evesdropping station in the South Island of NZ. The cost of the damage was over 1 mill US.

Cyril Atkins

Sir I am shocked that a Judge in the court in Hove allowed his own political bias to show in his own court contempt for the rule of law.

George

@Derek BLADES

Your answer to mairT does not answer any of his questions. Maybe you should take up a second career as a politician. The answer you *do* give is also flawed. Not only is Wikipedia not the fount of all wisdom, in this case it is totally wrong. The only Palestinian state that the PLO and Hamas are interested in is one which at the very least would consist of the entire western part of the Palestinian mandatory territory. To suggest anything else is at best misleading and at worst, totally mendacious. In your case, I know which I choose.

Jane

@ Derek Blades

Reference to Wikipedia and euphemisms such as "the proclaimed State of Palestine" and "proposals for a Palestinian state" cloak the reality that "Palestine" as a sovereign state does not exist in reality but only in the minds of those who occupy a predilection towards the Arab stance in the region - those who readily accept a distortion of the facts on the ground in the Middle East - those who also possess an inherent bias against the present existence of the State of Israel within it's current boundaries.

The name "Palestine" as an exact and proper designation/location disappeared from the geography of the area in 1948. It still does not exist at this time, despite the distorted and expedient references which support the Arab world within the media and political realms.

It should also be noted that until 1948, even Jews living in the territories were known as "Palestinians". The local Arabs declined to use the term as they believed it described the resident Jews. The Arabs preferring to be known as ....Arabs.

The Arab nations and the PLO have harnessed the most adept & skilled resources, some of these from the Western world, to promote the mythical concept of a land of Palestine which has been the "homeland" of the Palestinian people "from time immemorial", with a Palestinian "people" having been the rightful owners and occupiers of that land, who have now themselves been dispossessed by the invading "Zionist Jews".

It is historical fact that Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity.

There is no language known as Palestinian.

There is no distinct Palestinian culture.

There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.

Forget Wikipedia = when it comes to the Arab perception of an intended Palestine listen to what Faisal Husseini, the late PA Minister of Jerusalem Affairs stated on Syrian TV on 09 September 1996;- "Palestine is from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea": ,

Husseini was asked what the boundaries of "Palestine" are. He replied that "all Palestinians agree that the just boundaries of Palestine are the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Realistically, whatever can be obtained now should be accepted and that subsequent events perhaps in the next fifteen or twenty years would present an opportunity to realize the just boundaries of Palestine."

It's not for nothing that Palestinian maps do not contain any reference to Israel. Every Jewish town and village is replaced by an Arab equivalent. Faisal Husseini shows why.

Oflife

@Penny: I penned a pertinent piece in praise of your perfect prose, but the people who police our 'pinion didn't let it through, (or my browser broke), but you are spot on! (I have yet to meet anyone who has visited Israel and NOT liked it or felt any of the poo poring from the biased champaign socialist media is truthful.)

Adam B.

Blades, do you still think Germany and Japan ended the war intact?

That was a real howler!

Lynne T

What are the chances of the Crown appealing the decision on the basis of the judge's charge to the jury?

Drakken

Well since English Law has failed. I would as a company owner put out armed guards and deadly force would be authorized and used.
I see Carl and our resident red Derek Blades are still spouting there usual claptrap, hey guys I have a sugestion, please go to gaza and win for all of us a Darwin Award.

Miles Teg

Hello Melanie,
You've got to see this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGHUZ-8DWw&feature=player_embedded

Augustus

Derek BLADES, 5/7, 3.46am -

This statehood which the Palestinians are supposed to be heading towards, don't you think it's about time their leaders are held accountable for what they do and say? Only last week PA TV, which is under the direct control of the Palestinian Authority Chairman
Mahmoud Abbas' office, broadcast a quiz show between competing Palestinian universities that proceeded to deny Israel's very existence. And anti-Israel incitement continues unabated in 'official'
media, mosques, and school curriculae. And West Bank streets are named to honour suicide martyrs. In this day and age Mr Abbas & Co shouldn't be allowed to get away with speaking one sanitized version of events for the world's media while saying something entirely different in Arabic for the Palestinian street. Perhaps people like Mr Abbas actually covet a war between Iran, or whatever, and Israel. But one thing is certain; Israel is not going to sacrifice another 6 million Jews on the altar of the world's indifference. It's about time the world realized that very few of those organizations such as Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Fatah, with whom Washington or the Mideast Quartet want to sit down and talk, contain very few, if any, moderate voices. They should remember that fact before they start leaning on Israel to push
for peace.

Sarah AB

This seems (just going on what I've read here) to be a shocking case - and I say that even though I have great sympathy for those caught up in events in Gaza and don't always agree with Melanie Phillips.

Ron Lewenberg

I'm stunned to see a judge call for jury nullification, based on his own political prejudices. In the US, this would be grounds for dismissal or impeachment of a judge. I don't know if there are any such recourse for the self-proclaimed krytocrats in Britain.

D. Mills

Recently the BBC aired a short interview with Zubin Mehta, who, conducting the Israeli Philarmonic, planned to perform near the Gaza border. The performance was a benefit concert wherein a request would be made that the Gazan authorities allow the Red Cross to visit kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. The BBC reporter questioned Mehta as to why art (music) was being used to make a "political statement."
How frustrating that to an "educated" Briton, allowing a prisoner to receive a visit from the Red Cross is politics, rather than a human right. It seems that as concerns Israelis, whether civilians in Sderdot or soldiers in captivity in Gaza, human rights needn't be extended to them. Frankly, leftist misinformation and Islamist propaganda combined with intimidation and violent acts, will lead to the emigration of Jews from Europe.

Okey

The posters who have defended the actions of the judge and jury on the grounds that British law supposedly excuses an unlawful act if its effect is deemed to have prevented a worse act do not seem to have considered that in the case of Israel's armed resistance against Hamas and other jihadist goups, any civilian casualties that were inadvertently inflicted on Gazans constituted a far lesser evil than it would have been for Israel to have allowed Hamas unhindered progress towards its regularly and publicly proclaimed objective of annihilating both Israel and the Jewish People.

The people of Gaza, like those of all the Arab and other Islamic states need to be liberated from the forces of medieval fanaticism. Then, perhaps, they will begin to learn to devote their lives to constructive, creative and peaceful pursuits, rather than to destructive ones.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard"
Richard
July 4th, 2010 9:47pm

A factor in both these cases seems to have been a perception that the defendants were the 'underdog', protesting against corporations much more powerful than themselves. The McLibel case comes to mind as well. As long our system continues to allow corporate lobbying and financing of political parties, such perceptions will arise: the perception will be that big money rigs the system. Sympathy for the underdog is a tradition popularly identified with British cultural identity; not always absurdly. I suspect that this tradition, as much as the particular political causes involved, was a strong influence on these juries. There's comfort in that."

No, Richard, you are being deceitful again.

For you, the common thread is not the underdog against the world. It is the world against Israel.

You used the same deceit with regard to your celebration of International Law, until you were clearly shown to give two hoots about International legalities if they didn't suit your principal aim - which is to delegitimise Israel, whatever it takes.

But that's ok. You are entitled to want to hate Israel and support the good fight.

But stop the deceit...and join "the struggle" like a man, instead of enabling the poor of Gaza - whom you you claim to support - to do your dying for you.

You, my friend, are a coward in every sense.

Calumny

i can call my computer a tree, but it doesnt make it one. just calling it anti semitism doesnt acutally make it anti semitism. the fact of the matter is, if EDO were breaking export laws, and the british government couldnt, or in this case wouldnt, step in to uphold the rule of law, it fell to the citizens to do it. I would like to believe that these people would decomission any factory providing weapons use in war crimes. However, I m sure the decomissioners were motviated equally by their disgust at the arms trade and their dsigust at the IDF targetiing of hospitals, UN, mosques etc. e.g. war crimes.

Dixon

"Alynn
July 5th, 2010 2:17am
Dear Melanie

Don't you think it's the right time to create a database on cases that put political agenda on front of the law and order. With the pictures/photo's of the judges, media links etc.

That could be a preparation for the next "awakening" (when the history repeats itself again I hope?)."

You forgot to add, their addresses.

phil

Is it any wonder that stupidity like this occurs when the students of Sussex campaign so vociferously against ISRAEL -this judge has made a mockery of our judicial system ,and can one have any doubt that he has been influenced by the society within which he must mix ,including the lunatic professor -what a sad day for Britain .

Richard

John Roosevelt,

You've got the wrong man.
I fear you are confusing me with the other Richard who posts here. I'm the one who was debating university teaching methods a few blogs back. I put up the post here about sympathy for the underdog as a possible factor in these cases, but I have never posted about International Law or the definition of Palestine.

For what it's worth, I have a qualified sympathy for the Israeli position in all this, and I too feel very indignant about the willful one-sidedness of the attacks on Israel - though I would hesitate to attribute this quite so readily to traditional anti-semitism. Post-colonial guilt seems to me a more likely element, though I can respect the fears about anti-semitism that people express here.

Anyway, perhaps I should choose a different nom-de-blog, though I believe I was the first of the two Richards to post here.

And even when you've got the right person, I don't think mere name-calling does much for your case.

David SI

Calumny....read the article again; It says "THEY BELIEVED THAT EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, was breaking export regulations...". It doesn't say "EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, WAS breaking export regulations...."
The difference between the two statements lies in the personal beliefs of the defendants who destroyed STG180k of private property. Until now, a set of opinions hasn't been allowable as a legal defence. Now, it would seem, that has changed. Regardless of your feelings toward Israel, you should be worried that a criminal act should be permissable on the basis of a political view especially when the possibility exists that those politcal views (and associated 'rights') may not always coincide so neatly with your own views in future.

Adam B.

Calumny, the IDF does not target civilians. You could however ask why it is that the Hamas leadership spent the whole of cast Lead hiding in a bunker under Shifa hospital, and why mosques were used as weapons depots. Likewise, you could ask why Hamas deliberately targets civilians (and rejoices at the deaths of civilians), and why they use indiscriminate weapons, both of which are indeed war crimes.

Adam B.

D. Mills, I agree completely. In fact, the exodus of Jews from Europe has already begun. It will become increasingly impossible for them to stay, with the demographics of Europe rapidly changing.

Augustus

Calumny, 6/7, 10.47am -

Firstly, name any country who would find it acceptable to have thousands of rockets raining down on its head.

Secondly, the targets you mentioned were not 'war crimes' but legitimate targets. Not only had Hamas announced that they would use civilians as human shields, bunkers and boobtrapped houses were located in the middle of civilian centres. They launched missiles from school and hospital sites, and even stored missiles in mosques. IDF atrocity stories were circulated as libel, and were in fact calumniatory (meaning harmful and untrue, a bit like your name). And the accusation that Israel used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon was also false. It was used only for marker flares, a perfectly legitimate tactic used by US and British troops and others. Operation Cast Lead was carried out because Hamas announced that they would not renew a cease-fire and proceeded to fire a huge barrage of rockets into Israel. Had they not done this there would have been no Operation Cast Lead.

Carl

Drakken and the Deadly Force - hilarious!

phil

Richard
July 6th, 2010 12:46pm -HOW ABOUT REASONABLE RICHARD-so as not to be confused with Richard the ridiculous :)

stephen bellamy

I am afraid David SI is hopelessly muddled. The lawful excuse relies and for a long time relied on reasonable belief not on opinions.

Suppose you kick down your neighbours door. Prima facie you might face a charge of criminal damage. But you might plead lawful excuse. You heard terrible screams coming from next door and was sure something terrible was happening, someone was being raped or murdered or whatever.

It is irrelevant that you then discovered that your neighbours were just playing or it was just a violent TV programme and the tv was turned up over loud.

The only issue is was your belief reasonable in all the circumstances.

I the case in question one of the central questions was whether the belief that the factory was operating illegally and facilitating war crimes reasonable in all the circumstances.

In this case the jury were obviously persuaded by the evidence, the evidence of the Goldstone Report, and the powerful evidence of direct witnesses, that war crimes were being committed in Gaza.

Also at the beginning of his evidence the company's managing directer agreed with counsel that if they were suppling any form of armaments to Israell that would be illegal.Atthe end f his evidence he replied " yes " when counsel asked him if o the basis of the evidence a reasonable person would conclude that they were supplying arms to Israel.

These things taken together don't by themselves establish a lawful excuse defence but I am just addressing the narrow point here

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard the Non antisemite: sorry for the confusion.

I have no problem - clearly - with the principle name-calling when it's appropriate, by the way, and it is in the other Richard's case...and I am not sure that, re my last post, I justifiably fit into the "mere" category of name-callers, anyway. I think - even though I say so myself - my post did do/say a little more than that..something you perhaps could construe as something a little more substantial than that. I'm not a big fan of feteishistic adherence to politically correct politesse - particularly when the studied positions of those I'm calling a name at least contribute knowingly to what can be dire consequences for many innocent people.

In this case, I wouldn't be so readily be warmed because the the judge - in his wisdom - construed the palestinians as an underdog and therefore thought he would weald the axe fo the Law accordingly. Politicisation of the Law in this country is a no no. If you want that, try Gaza or Teheran.

I am also not concerned to determine - with any forensic exactitude (if that were possible) - if those who enable the deligitimisation of Israel, if not willfully attempt to do so, hate Jews or just Jews who happen to be Israelis..or, for that matter Israelis who just happen to be Jews (now that would be a coincidence, wouldn't it???). I am, equally, not a great fan of hose who feel it crucial to try and rebut the anti semitic label/accusation by pointing out - with extraordinary academic rigor, I have to say - that it is impossible for arabs to be anti semitic because they are also "semites". Reminds me of the old refrain" "but some of my best friends are Jewish!!".

Yeah, right. Some of my best friends are people...

Enjoy

Ann

Has anyone mentioned yet that this disgrace to the British legal system was applauded by the appalling Lucas?

Richard

HOW ABOUT REASONABLE RICHARD

That's a kind suggestion, Phil, but it would tempt fate.

stephen bellamy

ok I have an interest to declare. My daughter was one of the defendants. So I am trying to be as " objective " as humanly possible.

The vilification of the judge is based on one sentence in The Guardians report.One sentence out of two and a half hours of summing up. No mention of the context.

The judge is called upon to summarise the evidence the jury heard, Much of the evidence related to the experience of the people in Gaza. It was perfectly properfor him to refer to this. You might think the " evidence " was biased. But it was not for the defence counsels to call witnesses to contradict the evidence of their own witnesses. That was for the prosecuting counsel. That he did not do so is hardly the fault of either the judge or the jury. The jury reached its verdicts on the basis of the evidence it saw and heard.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy wrote: "I the case in question one of the central questions was whether the belief that the factory was operating illegally and facilitating war crimes reasonable in all the circumstances.

In this case the jury were obviously persuaded by the evidence, the evidence of the Goldstone Report, and the powerful evidence of direct witnesses, that war crimes were being committed in Gaza."

Stephen, can you clarify for me a few points:

- is it sufficient - as evidence - for the Goldstone Report to have concluded that Israel has merely - at some time in the past-committed what may seem to have been war crimes? In other words, does a report claiming prima facie evidence of war crimes having been committed by a state in the past mean that one can act - without fear of legal sanction - towards that state or anyone suspected of supplying it with materiel - on the assumption that war crimes may well be committed in the future as a result of the supply of that materiel? In this case, this would surely mean that any suspicion that Israel would act militarily - in any circumstances and at any time - would always be a sufficiently legally compelling justification for action deemed necessary to prevent supply of materiel to that state according to this kind of evidence?

So,for example, if Iran rocketed Tel Aviv - killing 100,000 people and Israel responded miltiarily, and someone decided to blow up a factory in North malden because they suspected it of supplying materiel to Israel - that they could do so with impunity because Goldstone 's report said there is a case of war crimes for Israel to answer - committed in a war in Gaza some time ago?

- by the same token, if I suspected the Peace flotilla, for example, of intent to supply materiel to Hamas - which has similarly been found to have a case of war crimes to answer - according to the same Goldstone Report - I could have set fire to it - all 8 ships - without fear of sanction - at least, according to this British legal opinion (assuming I did so when/if the flotilla was within british jurisdiction)?

It would seem that the judge in question's logic unfolds as follows: 1) that Israel is the occupier of Gaza, at least.. and 2) that it has been found to have a case of war crimes to answer for in its war against Gaza 3) that it therefore always commits war crimes against gazans or would be sufficiently likely to to justify anyone from taking action against any company suspected of supplying it with materiel.

-

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: "That he did not do so is hardly the fault of either the judge or the jury. The jury reached its verdicts on the basis of the evidence it saw and heard."

No doubt. I wonder, however, whether or not the evidence heard was nothing but simply absurd (see my last post, if the moderator published it).

stephen bellamy

John the judge didn't decide anything, the jury did. I have a world cup semi final to watch so I will respond more fully in the morning o))

Derek BLADES

Moshe,July 4th, asked Carl (one of the few common-sense contributors to this website) 'HOw can you dare accuse Israel of being the "occupier"?'

I am sure he has no difficulty whatsoever in doing so. The United Nations and its member countries have described Israel as the occupying force since 1967.

Your argument that the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem belongs to Israelis because their distant ancestors lived there is frankly ridiculous. Title deeds are what matter these days. The Arabs expelled from their homes in Israel in 1948 still have them as do Arabs in the occupied territories. To suggest that these are in some way superseded by Biblical history is plain nonsense.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: of course you are right. It was the indeed the jury who decided on the basis of evidence.

However, the judge did direct the jury....which, as this article points out, is

".. what really jumps out from this story is the direction the jury received from the judge in the case:

In his summing up, Judge George Bathurst-Norman suggested to the jury that ‘you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time’.

Let’s get our heads round this, folks: an English judge in an English court of law effectively directed a jury to acquit people of criminally smashing up a factory, because he chose to believe Hamas propaganda about the suffering of people in Gaza during a war about which he presumably has no knowledge whatever apart from what he has read or seen in the media – a war, moreover, launched solely to prevent Gazans from aggressively firing rockets into Israel in order to murder its civilians, during the course of which war Israel went to heroic lengths to avoid hurting Gazan civilians who were being put in harm’s way by Hamas, the true cause of Gaza's 'hell on earth'.

Quite apart from the ignorance and bigotry of Judge George Bathurst-Norman, what on earth is a judge doing imposing his political prejudices upon a jury and thus taking the side of the defendants in the case he is trying – with the result that he effectively directed the jury to acquit them of a crime? "

Moreover, the evidence which you say seems to have persuaded the Jury, does seem to beg the questions I have posed - by way of a request for clarification - in my first post to you.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Derek Blades: yet another "title deeds" historian. Thank God...

Derek, how many title deeds do Arabs have to Israeli homes and Jews have to Arab homes?

Which deeds are to be considered valid and by whom - those issued during Ottoman rule or British rule or both?

How many of those properties were leasehold or freehold?

How many of those properties had unpaid mortgages and what is presently owing on those homes and by whom?

What of the banks and private money lenders which issued those loans and the interest accruing on them?

The answers to these questions in order for us all to get a clear picture of who owns what and the economic and social implications of that scenario.

I would also like you to give us a clear understanding of the connection between property ownership and nationalism and the relationship between that and class structure and the merits and demerits of ownership of capital and division of labour in Palesine - especially during the latter part of the Ottoman rule and the first 7 years of the Mandate.

Once you have elucidated the status of profit and its impact on the religious cleavages within the Ottoman Empire, perhaps you could explain how this translated in the arena of post WW1 European imperial capitalism. residual imperialism and the growth of democracy were two dynamics which have to be understood in the context of propert rights - modern and ancient - within each of the main religions and how regionality affected those religious interpretations and legalities pertaining to those rights.

The effect of the development of the new post WW1 forces of capitalism on the legitimate rights of workers in Palestine has to be explained in terms of Quranic and Talmudic Law. Once that is clarified, we need to understand the normative dimension of capitalism's effect on the religious rights of the Sufis of the region, not to mention the coptic persecutions by Egyptian dynastic elites.

Where Arafat fits in then becomes a crucial manifestation of the role the arms industry maintains throughout the period and the pressure it brought to bear on the mores of the Moslem Council in particular as well as the Haifa Moslem Young Mens Association. Property ownership was defined and redefined as a result of this pressure but cannot be understood fully without those deeds being examined in each of these disparate contexts over time.Arms supplying was in no way small way responsible for constraining the nationalist aspirations of those who identified with Pan Arabism, not to mention pan Islamic movements and Zionism. Property rights have to be understood in this context if the declarations at Khartoum are to be understood correctly and their implications examined in terms of the UN Charter, not to mention the Geneva Conventions and later the Hamas Charter.

I could go on, but start with addressing the above and we will then be able to lead you further along your road of historical exegesis towards the moral issues with which we all know you are profoundly concerned.

Bullshit baffles dem brains.. right, Derek?

George

@ Derek BLADES July 6th, 2010 10:40pm

"Title deeds are what matter these days." So you would, of course, support legal action taken by Jews who wish to reclaim their property in such places as Cairo, Baghdad and Warsaw?

Junius

Those, like Archie, who want judges to be elected ought to give themselves the minimum of necessary knowledge by studying what happens in the US where election of judges and, often just as bad in practice, prosecuting authorities, prevails (not always bad, as in California where there are few contested elections and professional bodies have much influence, but usually a recipe for injustice). But it should be enough that the proposal is idiotic on its proponents own argument. Who do they think is going to be doing the voting for judges? People like the jurors who they think so patently inadequate to their tasks? And, given that voting would no doubt be voluntary, presumably people who cared or had been organised would make up the majorities - say non-English speaking Pakistani Muslims in Bradford? And presumably it wouldn't apply to judges who sit in highly technical civil cases.....

David, Thailand

Shaun Harbord: "Jury equity" or "decisions in defiance of the facts" where the jury think for themselves and make up their own mind are all too rare. You may not like it but then these are individuals making up their own mind. So be it.

Where the individuals make up their mind on the basis of the evidence as presented is one thing, and prejudice an entire other.

I have been on a jury where 11 voted for conviction of a black person for an horrendous crime, on clear evidence, with the loner, also black, voting for acquittal whilst proudly stating that he could never help to convict a 'bro'.

Tell me this is a rare occurrence, or that terrorists are not acquitted simply because of a sympathetic or genetically compatible juror?

phil

Richard
July 6th, 2010 4:51pm the other one is a bufoon ,so chose something :)Richard the second:) or even richard minus judy .ho hoh

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 7th, 2010 1:17am -I think you have blades in a headlock with this one -hr will need "sensible" carl to help him out of it -I will watch this space :)

Augustus

Derek BLADES, 6/7, 10.40pm -

States: "Title deeds are what matters". Really? Have you investigated and evaluated these
supposed title deeds? Given the lack of orderly statistics on land ownership, both under Turkish rule and under the British mandate, I doubt it. Remember that the British were supposed to be facilitating the construction of a Jewish national home under the terms of the mandate, yet, under various regulations which they imposed the Zionist settlers were being frustrated in their goal, which was only to purchase
land legally, not to dispossess
the Arab fellah of land or livelihood. You are simply doing
what others have done before you, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, elevating dispossession to a false dogmatic claim. There is in fact no evidence of this prior to 1948.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

According to the defence - if I have understood it correctly - the accused acted against the factory in question because they felt it was supplying Israel with materiel which they thought would be used to perpetuate War crimes.

One key reason for this belief of the accused, was the Goldstone Report and its findings against Israel in its conduct during Cast Lead.

I am curious to know, therefore, if Stephan Bellamy's daughter - for one - would act similarly against Hamas (which was also found by Goldstone to have a case of War crimes to answer), or are some would she think - as the Judge seems clearly to - that some War crimes are justifiable - in this case, Hamas's.

It could be argued, I guess, that in stopping Israel commit war crimes against the Palestinians, these accused were enabling, if not encouraging, Hamas to do the same against Israelis.

The implications, one have to surely agree, are legally, if not morally problematic (to say the least).

Adam B.

Blades wrote:

"Your argument that the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem belongs to Israelis because their distant ancestors lived there is frankly ridiculous."

Blades, that must mean the claims of most Palestinians are ridiculous. Most Palestinian so-called "refugees" have never been to the place they are supposedly refugees from. It begs the question - can one be a refugee from somewhere one has never been? The UN says no - except with the Palestinians. Of all refugees of the world, only the descendants of Palestinians continue to be accorded refugee status by the antisemitic UN - same UN which has over 50 Muslim nations voting as an Israel hating block.

It's akin to many Ashkenzi Jews living in the UK calling themselves "Russian refugees". It would be ridiculous. The Jewish refugees who were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries don't call themselves refugees.

It is simply to perpetuate the victim culture in which the Palestinians specialise, and save them from creating a future. As I pointed out to you before, millions of Germans were expelled from Poland and the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 ( a fact of which you were ignorant). They did not spend the next 60 years blowing up Polish cafes and buses - they got on with their lives and built a successful and democratic Germany. Would the Arab Palestinians have the same mentality.

Okey

David, Thailand. Stop pretending that this is a jury issue.
It is a judge issue, where the presiding judge expressed his pro-criminal bias and blatantly influenced the jury to arrive at a finding of not guilty regardless of the evidence.

JR

Can't wait until the next time UK host's the G-20. We can pull the anarchists right off the street and tie them up in our cellars (to...you know...avoid criminal vandalism). Arguably, under this law, EDO MBM's security could have done the same to the "activists" rather than involving the authorites...no?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Interesting that Steve bellamy and Derek Blades seem to have disappeared.

The soccer, you think??

stephen bellamy

John... responded to your questions at length but the response wasn't published. Interesting don't you think ?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

stephen bellamy
July 8th, 2010 3:10pm
Stephen Bellamy:
"John... responded to your questions at length but the response wasn't published. Interesting don't you think ?"

Not really. Just resend. Even happens to rabid Zionist running dogs..I can assure you :)

stephen bellamy

;)) ok do it in bits

Ian Hills

Green MP for Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas said: "I am absolutely delighted that the jury has recognised that the actions of the decommissioners were a legitimate response to the atrocities being committed in Gaza.

"I do not advocate non-violent direct action lightly.

"However in this situation, it is clear that the decommissioners had exhausted all democratic avenues and crucially that their actions were driven by the responsibility to prevent further suffering in Gaza."

Gábor Fränkl

A clear and accute "warning" (rather advice) to JOHN ROOSEVELT from me, Gábor Fränkl would be the following:

I perfectly see where you are coming from wrt Goldstone's "report" concerning your reasoning that Hamas was "also" guilty (oops, not even that, they wre just "suspected" to be...!, big difference) in war crimes committed. But this particular arguement is simply, sorry to say, not good or incisive or determinate enough. Cause the fact of the matter is two aspect or we could even say two facts.

1. The Goldstone "report" is a by now completely and totally *discredited* presposterous charade of an example for an overly politicized hatchet job against Israel, that has neither credibility nor legal standing as such. It's basically a despicably devious and patently false sham, a joke. There's simply no end in sight how many responsible and serious scholars demolished his report. There are so many holes in them that theese deficiencies alone discredit it. See Alan Dershowith and Norman Trevitz summaries (if you are uncomfortable with the Israeli official response due to come in in a 100-pagre format in a couple of weeks' time) and also detailed responses that point out point by point the systematic distortions and lies in the so-called document.

2. There's one other "slight" problem with Goldstone's report. He *HIMSELF* admitted that his report is useless (has absolutely no standing) in a criminal court as evidence!!! Ome of the, though the most compelling reason of all? All his vitnesses, every single one of them, without exception, were UNFREE in their terstimonies from the genocidal Hamas thugs' intimidation and threats. That IS the primary reason why Goldstone said what he said. Check mate.

Every sentence of Derek Blades and stephen bellamy are pathetic BS (I'm awfully sorry to say so!) and unsubstantiable inanity, not ever to be taken seriously.

Bye!

Gábor Fränkl

P.S.: Please don't sensor my long comment!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Gábor Fränkl: I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood my post.

I am not supporting Goldstone...merley questioning the logical implicliations of the so-called "evidence" in this case.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: the censor still got you there, Stephen? I guess we'll never know...

stephen bellamy

ok John your first (albeit multi pointed)question And I am not a lawyer so you maybe should preface everything I say with " to the best of my understanding ....."

No. It seems there needs to be a degree of urgency and immediacy.If they had broken into the factory the day after the Israeli operation in Gaza had ended I assume the defence of lawful excuse wouldn't have flown.

For the defence to succeed it is necessary for the jury to find that they had a sincere and reasonable belief that they were acting to prevent or hinder a greater crime, in this case war crimes in Gaza.The question of whether the Israelis WERE committing war crimes is not even relevant. Though if the jury were persuaded that they were it makes it psychologically easier for them to find the defendants belief reasonable.

My impression was that the jury came to share this belief but that wasn't strictly necessary, the relevant questions are did the defendants sincerely hold this belief and was it reasonable for them to do so ? Obviously it made it easier. If you have a belief it is a fact of psychological life that I will find it easier to regard your belief as reasonable if I come to share it.

ps I think Gabot Frankl means " censor "

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy wrote: “For the defence to succeed it is necessary for the jury to find that they had a sincere and reasonable belief that they were acting to prevent or hinder a greater crime, in this case war crimes in Gaza.The question of whether the Israelis WERE committing war crimes is not even relevant.."
So, “to the best of your understanding”, Stephen, even if the Israelis were known, at the time of the act in question, to be committing war crimes, this fact would have been irrelevant or, if not, certainly less relevant than “for the jury to find that they had a sincere and reasonable belief that they were acting to prevent or hinder a greater crime, in this case war crimes in Gaza.”. This is surely a curious position, if true. What, then, would be the grounds for“sincere and reasonable belief” – the Goldstone Report? Surely not more relevant that actual crimes (if proven to be going on at the time)?? Since Goldstone, even, could not claim to have “proven” that War crimes “had been” committed and noone – “to the best of my knowledge” – has “proof” that War crime were being committed at the time of the alleged crime, we are left with what….simply that “the jury were persuaded that they were”, thus making it psychologically easier for them to find the defendants belief reasonable."???
You also say :“No. It seems there needs to be a degree of urgency and immediacy. If they had broken into the factory the day after the Israeli operation in Gaza had ended I assume the defence of lawful excuse wouldn't have flown."
"To the best of (your) understanding", then, what was the basis for a permissible "degree" of perceived "urgency" in this case which satisfied the Jury? You are saying that any putative fact relating to war crimes was irrelevant….and only “reasonable belief” that crimes were being committed was??? Now, there’s a thing, surely?
You say: “My impression was that the jury came to share this belief but that wasn't strictly necessary, the relevant questions are did the defendants sincerely hold this belief and was it reasonable for them to do so ? Obviously it made it easier. If you have a belief it is a fact of psychological life that I will find it easier to regard your belief as reasonable if I come to share it.”
WE don’t have Goldstone at this stage. The fact of a war crimes (if it could have been proven) was irrelevant. Perception was all, in this case, and the psychological influence of the Jury….
..so where did perception stem from? Testimony from Gazans interviewed by the defendants? Perhaps elsewhere?
Moreover, were the defendants not aware that Hamas may well have committed War Crimes, too, and were engaged at the time in still doing so – by firing rockets deliberately into civilian areas? If so, would it not be reasonable, then, to assume that if they had acted against a factory they suspected to be supplying materiel to Hamas, they would also have been found to have been justified??

Or, do you think, the defendants thought this untrue or not sufficiently true to constitute a perception similar to that upon which their defence was based and the Jury convinced?

Or, maybe, they thought Hamas were engaged in firing rockets into civilian areas but did not consider – unlike Goldstone – that this constituted a War Crime?

Either way, you get my drift, I think. Many consider that this case was the victim of polticisation of the Law i.e.t he political prejudices of the judge and jury were sufficient to bring in a verdict which reflected an inconsistent basis for and, ultimately, unjust verdict. Notwithstanding the merits and demerits of the prosecution’s case, it seems to me that there are some very serious questions to be asked with regards to the verdict.
If it could be proven that War Crimes only apply to those who’s side one supports, then British justice does indeed have a lot to answer for - specifically in this case - and the implications are very far reaching – and lamentable – with regard to our judicial system and the way we approach the ethics of war.

Gábor Fränkl

John R. - no, I didn't misunderstand it one bit. I just suggested one more way to try to support your line of reasoning and argumentation against your opponents by highlighting the shortcomings, to use here an euphemism, of the Goldstone "report". That's all.

stephen bellamy

John.....I think I have gotten a little confused about what we are arguing about ( bear with me I'm jus a humble Irish bog man )

Are we arguing about the law is pertaining to cases like this ?

Or are we arguing about whether the law is an ass ?

Or are we arguing about whether the law , while not an ass, was subverted and politisised in this particular case ?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: I am not arguing at all, Stephen. I am merely suggesting that this case seems to stink to high heaven.

It seems to me that the defendants and the judge both agree that Israel - with regard to its policy in Gaza (and one suspects with regard to its foreign policy towards the Arabs and moslems in Palestine in general) - is guilty, whatever Hamas has done, said or intends to do - as proclaimed in its Charter, for example.

If the "best of your knowledge" is in fact correct - with regard to this case - my view is your daughter and her co-defendants should be behind bars either because their defence has no reasonable basis (despite the verdict) or that, if it does, it should also apply either to the fact that the actions of the defendants in effect enabled Hamas to commit war crimes against Israelis and, given they were exonerated, justifiably so - according to the court. .

This is a rank ideological postion, if true, and has no place in British Law, in my view.

The judge and jury, it would seem, has been an ass, in this case...and your daughter is, as a consequence, one very lucky, though very misguided lass.

Where that leaves you, I am not sure..though,as a father, I can empathise with you not wanting your daughter to suffer for her misplaced beliefs..

If you support her beliefs, I think you may have just added to this increasing pile of asses.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

gabor frankl: I take your point.

stephen bellamy

Well john I merely thought maybe I might learn something but if all there is going to be is bluster then seemingly not.

You know we Irish know a thing or two about holocausts and putative final solutions too. Oliver Cromwell was our Adolf Hitler.

But... you know ....Oliver Cromwell and Adolf Hitler are, praise be to god, both dead.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy wrote: "stephen bellamy
July 10th, 2010 2:20pm
Well john I merely thought maybe I might learn something but if all there is going to be is bluster then seemingly not.

You know we Irish know a thing or two about holocausts and putative final solutions too. Oliver Cromwell was our Adolf Hitler.

But... you know ....Oliver Cromwell and Adolf Hitler are, praise be to god, both dead."

You think my post mere "bluster", Stephen? I am disappointed in you.

Funny how those who are seemingly anti Zionist, here, when pushed with well-reasoned arguments seem all to sound more and more like Harold.

You wrote a post. I asked reasonable questions raised by what you wrote.. You then pose questions in answer to my questions, or in response to inferences/questions begged from what you last said...; I reiterate what I had said previously - pretty clearly, I thought - making points which I thought pretty fair-minded and based on some thought; and you then respond by accusing me of bluster, pretending that you are really expected to learn something.

This can't be because you're Irish, surely? After all, some of my best friends are...ooops..let's not go there.

Drakken

Note to Security personal in the armaments idustry, shoot first, ask questions later.

Dale

JOHN ROOSEVELT...No, the Goldstone report was NOT allowed to be used to show 'reasonable belief' (obviously) as it was released way later than when the events took place. Also, the judge excluded any sections which included, in his words, either 'Israeli or Hamas propaganda'. What was used was FACTS, such as the bombing of the UN compound. As the defendants had cited this event as one of the reasons for the action, the Goldstone report was simply used to show that their belief was reasonable as it was proven later to be true. As you asked...yes, their reasonable belief did come from, amongst other things, reading things from the ground at the time. One person who was on the ground in Gaza during the attacks came to court and was cross examined. Several of the defendants had been to Palestine on many occasions and therefore based their belief on how events have unfolded in the past. However, the 'reasonable belief' strictly speaking does not refer to whether they reasonably believed that war crimes were being committed, but rather to whether the genuinely believed that EDO supplies the Israelis and their components being used in the bombing (war crimes or not) in Gaza. That is the legal point as, as I mentioned before, British arms trade regulations forbids exports to Israel which might be used in the Occupied Territories. Paul Hills, the managing director of EDO, completely failed to convice the jury that they were not. Simple as. There is a clear problem in most articles about this case that the journalist are very lazy and have simply lifted a few quotes from the Guardian (out of context) rather than listened to the case itself.

Gábor Fränkl

Dale, I'm sorry, but what you intimate here is rubbish. UNRWA itself admitted that Israel did NOT shell the building. The Israeli soldiers actually returned fire to the spot where they came under fire from, immediately beside the UN compound that is, being the the physical place the Hamas fighters fired from. The BBC tried to hush and silence all this, as did the majority of the British media, but not the Italian media and others for example the respected "Correiera della Sera" which documented everything on the ground. Most British journalism is clearly useless or worse, an outright lie-factory as much as I am - and many-many others are - concerned. Nothing illegal hsppened by the standard rules of engagement, just please see Col. Richard Kemp, ex-British general in Afghanistan for more than half a decade documented views on the Gaza war. Any subtle distortions?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Dale: I dont claim to know anything about this case. I have merely been raising questions based on what Stephan Bellamy has been saying and trying to unbundle his account of the why and wherefores of the case.

You say: "the 'reasonable belief' strictly speaking does not refer to whether they reasonably believed that war crimes were being committed, but rather to whether the genuinely believed that EDO supplies the Israelis and their components being used in the bombing (war crimes or not) in Gaza. That is the legal point as, as I mentioned before, British arms trade regulations forbids exports to Israel which might be used in the Occupied Territories. Paul Hills, the managing director of EDO, completely failed to convice the jury that they were not."

Is it true, then, that one is likely to be exonerated for causing any amount of property damage if not physical damage - to companies or employees of that company - based merely on "reasonable belief" that the company in question is contravening British arms export regulations??

If so, does this only apply to Arms regulations in the UK or any other regulations?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Dale: also: would it be the case that if these defendants had attacked the property of EDO because they had “reasonable belief”, for example, that it was supplying arms to Israel to use in an attack on Lebanon, that this belief would not form a solid basis for their defence since no UK arms regulations would have been breached even if EDO was shown to be supplying Israel with arms or parts for military hardware?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Dale: moreover, would it be likely that if - now that Goldstone has found that Hamas had a case of war crimes to answer for - anyone causing damage to a company to prevent it supplying arms or arms components to that group, would likely be let off on the grounds of "reasonable belief" or, as you implied (unlike Stephen), neither the judge, jury, nor indeed the Law would recognise this? Or did you mean that the Court in fact did recognise Israel's putative "war crimes" - in that this recognition would help convict when the baisis of the defence comprised the strict definition of "reasonable belief" i.e. to do, only, with contravention of UK arms regulations - but not those of Hamas?

The point is this, surely: if you are saying that ALL that was needed to exonerate the defendants was to convince the jury that there was reasonable belief that EDO was contravening UK arms regulations, then this certainly has implications - in Law - for future acts of violence against property or people who feel they are thereby upholding UK arms regulations; or, if you feel that in fact "reasonable belief" that Israeli war crimes were thereby being prevented is actually relevant to their exoneration (as you do imply when you talk of FACTS on the ground) - then there are a number of serious questions raised, as per my posts to Spephen Bellamy.

stephen bellamy

It's really not difficult.It is a defence to an action that is prima facie criminal that the action was taken in the sincere and reasonable belieff that it was for the prevention of a greater crime and was proportionate( see the kicking down of your neighbours door analogy ).It is for a jury to decide whether the defence is a " good one " according to their finding of facts in any particular case.

In this case the defence was that there were two aspects to the crime that action was taken to prevent or hinder.

Firstly, it was pleaded that the company had for years been engaging in criminal activity i.e supplying military material to Israel that might be used in the occupied territories, while all the while denying it.

For years local campaigners had been drawing attention to this criminal activity with peaceful protests, non violent direct action etc and trying to stop the crime by working through the Brighton and Hove municipal authorities.

All to no avail. The company refused to stop its criminal activity, the local council refused to act, and the police declined to investigate.

Then the Gaza affair introduced a degree of urgency. Not only was the company habitually engaging in criminal activity but this activity was now facilitating the commission of war crimes in Gaza, the defence pleaded.

The company's managing directer gave five days of evidence which both the judge and jury must have found highly unsatisfactory to put it at it's absolute mildest, conceding at the end that any reasonable person would believe on the basis of his evidence that the company was supplying arms to Israel.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Dale: moreover, would it be likely that if - now that Goldstone has found that Hamas had a case of war crimes to answer for - anyone causing damage to a company to prevent it supplying arms or arms components to that group, would likely be let off on the grounds of "reasonable belief" or, as you implied (unlike Stephen), neither the judge, jury, nor indeed the Law would recognise this? Or did you mean that the Court in fact did recognise Israel's putative "war crimes" - in that this recognition would help convict when the baisis of the defence comprised the strict definition of "reasonable belief" i.e. to do, only, with contravention of UK arms regulations - but not those of Hamas?

The point is this, surely: if you are saying that ALL that was needed to exonerate the defendants was to convince the jury that there was reasonable belief that EDO was contravening UK arms regulations, then this certainly has implications - in Law - for future acts of violence against property or people who feel they are thereby upholding UK arms regulations; or, if you feel that in fact "reasonable belief" that Israeli war crimes were thereby being prevented is actually relevant to their exoneration (as you do imply when you talk of FACTS on the ground) - then there are a number of serious questions raised, as per my posts to Spephen Bellamy.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy:“It's really not difficult.It is a defence to an action that is prima facie criminal that the action was taken in the sincere and reasonable belieff that it was for the prevention of a greater crime and was proportionate( see the kicking down of your neighbours door analogy ).It is for a jury to decide whether the defence is a " good one " according to their finding of facts in any particular case.”

…which is precisely why so many thing this case stinks with misplaced politicization.

“In this case the defence was that there were two aspects to the crime that action was taken to prevent or hinder.
Firstly, it was pleaded that the company had for years been engaging in criminal activity i.e supplying military material to Israel that might be used in the occupied territories, while all the while denying it.

For years local campaigners had been drawing attention to this criminal activity with peaceful protests, non violent direct action etc and trying to stop the crime by working through the Brighton and Hove municipal authorities.
All to no avail. The company refused to stop its criminal activity, the local council refused to act, and the police declined to investigate.
Then the Gaza affair introduced a degree of urgency. Not only was the company habitually engaging in criminal activity but this activity was now facilitating the commission of war crimes in Gaza, the defence pleaded.”
Sorry, but I am confused here. The alleged “criminal activity”: does this pertain solely to the contravention of UK arms regulations relating to Israel’s military activity in the “Occupied Territories” or something else? If the former, when were those regulations introduced? You mention the “criminal activity” of Israel had been going on “for years”. I was under the impression these regulations were introduced by the Uk Govt as a result of the Cast Lead, not before it (“i.e. “years” before).
Also, from what we understand from Dale, the Goldstone Report and any alleged war crimes of Israel were in fact not strictly relevant to the defence i.e the implication of what he says it, nothing else would have been necessary for the Jury to direct the Court to find the defendants’ actions justifiable – or, are you saying that in fact the Report did indeed influence the decision of the Jury and the way the Judge directed it in his summing up? If so, again, this reaises serious legal and moral questions which I have tried to clarify in previous posts.

“The company's managing directer gave five days of evidence which both the judge and jury must have found highly unsatisfactory to put it at it's absolute mildest, conceding at the end that any reasonable person would believe on the basis of his evidence that the company was supplying arms to Israel.”

Again, because of what you say, the questions raised by this article seem to be very compelling:
If exoneration rests solely on convincing the jury that EDO was contravening UK arms regulations, fine…but not only does this seem untrue but, if it were, it would seem to imply, at the very least, that the Court is legitimizing some form of vigilantism or violent “citizens arrest”, if you will. Unlikely, of course.

If, as you again clearly believe, that in fact the exoneration was also crucially based on the defendants claiming that Israel was involved in war crimes and, therefore, they were justified in taking the law into their own hands by destroying EDO property – thus helping to prevent that crime – then, serious questions have to be asked re the ideological prejudices of the Court.
If the committing of “war crimes” was a point that psychologically influenced the Jury and the Judge’s direction to it – not least because of the influence of the Goldstone Report, one has to ask why the judge and jury were not similarly psychologically influenced, by what was known re Hamas’s behavior – especially as stipulated in that Report? Would it not seem reasonable that by preventing Israel’s action again Gaza and Hamas, one was also in danger of perpetuating Hamas/Gaza’s war crimes against Israel?

The likely fact is, of course, that the defendants actually support Hamas or – along with the Judge – feel that what crimes Hamas and Gaza commit against Israel, they are justified on political grounds. If this is so, the Court can surely be justifiably condemned for having wrongly polticised its role in applying the Law.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: “It's really not difficult. It is a defence to an action that prima facie criminal that the action was taken in the sincere and reasonable belieff that it was for the prevention of a greater crime and was proportionate( see the kicking down of your neighbours door analogy ).It is for a jury to decide whether the defence is a " good one " according to their finding of facts in any particular case.”

…which is precisely why so many thing this case stinks with misplaced politicization.

“In this case the defence was that there were two aspects to the crime that action was taken to prevent or hinder.
Firstly, it was pleaded that the company had for years been engaging in criminal activity i.e supplying military material to Israel that might be used in the occupied territories, while all the while denying it.

For years local campaigners had been drawing attention to this criminal activity with peaceful protests, non violent direct action etc and trying to stop the crime by working through the Brighton and Hove municipal authorities.
All to no avail. The company refused to stop its criminal activity, the local council refused to act, and the police declined to investigate.
Then the Gaza affair introduced a degree of urgency. Not only was the company habitually engaging in criminal activity but this activity was now facilitating the commission of war crimes in Gaza, the defence pleaded.”

Sorry, but I am confused here. The alleged “criminal activity”: does this pertain solely to the contravention of UK arms regulations relating to Israel’s military activity in the “Occupied Territories” or something else? If the former, when were those regulations introduced? You mention the “criminal activity” of Israel had been going on “for years”. I was under the impression these regulations were introduced by the Uk Govt as a result of the Cast Lead, not before it (“i.e. “years” before). Please clarify the nature of these regulations and what basis there is for them, in Law.

Also, from what we understand from Dale, the Goldstone Report and any alleged war crimes of Israel were in fact not strictly relevant to the defence i.e the implication of what he says it, nothing else would have been necessary for the Jury to direct the Court to find the defendants’ actions justifiable – or, are you saying that in fact the Report did indeed influence the decision of the Jury and the way the Judge directed it in his summing up? If so, again, this reaises serious legal and moral questions which I have tried to clarify in previous posts.

“The company's managing directer gave five days of evidence which both the judge and jury must have found highly unsatisfactory to put it at it's absolute mildest, conceding at the end that any reasonable person would believe on the basis of his evidence that the company was supplying arms to Israel.”

Again, because of what you say, the questions raised by this article seem to be very compelling:
If exoneration rests solely on convincing the jury that EDO was contravening UK arms regulations, fine…but not only does this seem untrue but, if it were, it would seem to imply, at the very least, that the Court is legitimizing some form of vigilantism or violent “citizens arrest”, if you will. Unlikely, of course.

If, as you again clearly believe, that in fact the exoneration was also crucially based on the defendants claiming that Israel was involved in war crimes and, therefore, they were justified in taking the law into their own hands by destroying EDO property – thus helping to prevent that crime – then, serious questions have to be asked re the ideological prejudices of the Court.
If the committing of “war crimes” was a point that psychologically influenced the Jury and the Judge’s direction to it – not least because of the influence of the Goldstone Report, one has to ask why the judge and jury were not similarly psychologically influenced, by what was known re Hamas’s behavior – especially as stipulated in that Report? Would it not seem reasonable that by preventing Israel’s action again Gaza and Hamas, one was also in danger of perpetuating Hamas/Gaza’s war crimes against Israel?

The likely fact is, of course, that the defendants actually support Hamas or – along with the Judge – feel that what crimes Hamas and Gaza commit against Israel, they are justified on political grounds. If this is so, the Court can surely be justifiably condemned for having wrongly polticised its role in applying the Law.

stephen bellamy

Isaid the criminal activity of the company had been going on for years.
It has long been unlawful to sell arms to Israel that MIGHT be used in the occupied territories.

The jury was persuaded that the company was doing so and using all kinds of subtterfuges to cover the fact up. The evidence was overwhelming, ven you would have been persuaded John.

The argument was never about taking sides in the near east. It was about whether the defendants had established a good defence to the charge before the court. Where is the politisisation ?

Dale

JOHN: You wrote...
"Dale: moreover, would it be likely that if - now that Goldstone has found that Hamas had a case of war crimes to answer for - anyone causing damage to a company to prevent it supplying arms or arms components to that group, would likely be let off on the grounds of "reasonable belief"".

Yes, in a British court, I would imagine so (depending on the circumstances of the action and how they presented the defence. An action have to be proportionate to the damage you are trying to prevent for this defence to hold. They would certainly be able to use the same defence at least). These exports would also be illegal as the ones to Israel are. However, this is all a bit of a hypothetical question as I imagine you might struggle to find any British company exporting to Hamas...But there are a lot exporting to Israel.

Anyway, I'm glad people are having a deeper discussion about this but I'll have to bow out now as I have some actual campaigning to get on with outside of the internet forums!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy said: “July 12th, 2010 10:40am
Isaid the criminal activity of the company had been going on for years.
It has long been unlawful to sell arms to Israel that MIGHT be used in the occupied territories.
The jury was persuaded that the company was doing so and using all kinds of subtterfuges to cover the fact up. The evidence was overwhelming, ven you would have been persuaded John.
The argument was never about taking sides in the near east. It was about whether the defendants had established a good defence to the charge before the court. Where is the politisisation ?”

Sorry for not making myself clear to you.
We know the jury was convinced of something. Of that there is little doubt.
Perhaps it was sufficient - for it to be convinced and let the defendants off - that UK Arms regulations were simply being contravened.
On the other hand, maybe this was actually insufficient and it was persuaded only when it was convinced that there was also “reasonable belief” that supply of EDO’s war parts to Israel would have helped Israel commit “war crimes” which the defendants were convinced it was in the process of doing.
In other words, would the defence’s case have succeeded if the jury would have been absolutely convinced that 1) Gaza was not part of any “Occupied Territories” and therefore was not part of the purview of the UK Arms regulations pertaining to restrictions re supply of arms to Israel; or 2) that even reasonable belief that regulations were being contravened did not – on its own - justify people taking the law into their own hands and causing malicious damage?

In either case, I see serious issues with the evidence and its implications and, accordingly, see that it is compelling to infer that there was political bias at play in the verdict.

If this case was merely one of EDO transgressing UK Arms regulations and nothing else, then it would be strange, surely, that the defendants would be exonerated if there was no doubt they had caused malicious damage to property. Would this not imply strongly, as I have mentioned, that the Court would not thereby be legitimizing some form of “taking the Law into one’s own hands”? If, for example, one had reasonable belief that someone was about to murder someone else and the police would not listen, would it be ok - if it were deemed necessary - to assault the would-be murderer - even to kill hi/her – if it were deemed to have been done because of “reasonable belief”? If so, the Law would indeed be an ass, no?

On the other hand - and this seems the more likely scenario (taking both yours and Dale’s views of the proceedings into account) - it seems that in fact the defence was using the putative war crimes issue as one of the key bases for its case, and it also seem clear that this was indeed a key factor for the judge in his direction to the jury.

If so, as I have said, this would mean the case was afflicted by rank politicization, both in terms of the judge’s view and his the influence of his direction to the jury, and the view of the jury itself, irrespective of the judge’s direction to it.

stephen bellamy

If, for example, one had reasonable belief that someone was about to murder someone else and the police would not listen, would it be ok - if it were deemed necessary - to assault the would-be murderer - even to kill hi/her

I think this maybe might fail the proportionality test o))

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: "stephen bellamy
July 12th, 2010 2:07pm
If, for example, one had reasonable belief that someone was about to murder someone else and the police would not listen, would it be ok - if it were deemed necessary - to assault the would-be murderer - even to kill hi/her

I think this maybe might fail the proportionality test o))"

Clearly malicious damage to property to the tune of £180,000.00 is fine. Wonder what the limit is before we cross the line into those dank waters of "disproportionality". Have they been defined at all or all down to a non ideological judge 0))?

Dale

Ok, one last one...actually according to the law it is all about property (rather than human life, bizzarely...). I.e 180.000 pounds of damage to a property here can be considered a proportionate response to try to protect properties in Gaza, where over 2500 buildings were destroyed with the help of EDO equipment.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Dale: "Dale
July 12th, 2010 9:37pm
Ok, one last one...actually according to the law it is all about property (rather than human life, bizzarely...). I.e 180.000 pounds of damage to a property here can be considered a proportionate response to try to protect properties in Gaza, where over 2500 buildings were destroyed with the help of EDO equipment."

No whiff of the ideologue here, to be sure...

I wonder how many buildings British law would countenance the destruction of in return for the death of a Jewish kid at the hands of Hamas rockets or suicided bombers from Gaza. I should have guessed...

.....oh that the same Law applied when British arms helped the Arab Legion to murder thousands of Jews..but times, change, I guess.

We all await, with bated breath, for the same defendants to attack the Iranian Embassy when the next Jewish kid is killed in S. Israel.

stephen bellamy

I doubt anyone could reasonably believe that the Iranian embassy is manufacturing arms that are killing anyone anywhere so.......

ok.........THE JUDGE

These events took place in January 2009 and trial was expected to last seven to nine weks and commence in october 2009.Shortly before commencement the prosecution announced that it wasnt ready and trial was postphoned to late may 2010.

Shortly before then the original trial judge became ill and could not hear the case.By this time the defendants had been waiting for trial for nearly 17 months , two of them in jail the others on bail under bail conditions many consider in themselves punitive.

The crown and defence agreed that another lengthy delay was in no ones interests and failing at such short notice to find a serving judge with a seven to nine week free schedule it was agreed the only solution was to " reactivate " a retired judge.

The defence of " lawful excuse " is not automatically available, in order to plead this defence leave from the trial judge is required and will only be forthcoming if the judge feels that it has a reasonable chance of success and not an obvious waste of the courts time and the publics money. The necessary leave was gramted by the original trial judge not by judge Bathurst - Norman.

The judge hysteria seems entirely based on one sentence published by the guardian pulled out of a two and a half hour summing up.

The reality is that this trial was conducted perfectly properly and while some could reasonably argue that the verdicts were wrong,they were not in any way perverse and the end of civilisation as we know it.Rather the verdicts were very much consistent with the evidence the jury heard and it is the jury's duty to return verdicts in the light of that evidence and ONLY in the light of that evidence

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy wrote: "The reality is that this trial was conducted perfectly properly and while some could reasonably argue that the verdicts were wrong,they were not in any way perverse and the end of civilisation as we know it.Rather the verdicts were very much consistent with the evidence the jury heard and it is the jury's duty to return verdicts in the light of that evidence and ONLY in the light of that evidence"

I still dont think it is clear that the questions I have raised have been convincingly addressed.

The possible end of civilisation aside ( are you referring to the end of the Hamas regime or Israel?), the key question is:

What did the evidence with which the verdicts were "consistent" actually comprise?

In your posts on this matter you seem to think that the prevention of a "greater evil" i.e war crimes - was part of that evidence. Is that so, or did the evidence pertain only to whether or not British Arms regulations were being contravened?

I am also curious to know if, in the context of the contravention of the arms regulations, defence pointed out the Gaza was no longer "occupied" and, therefore, would not reasonably fall within the purview of theose regulations.

Gábor Fränkl

"I doubt anyone could reasonably believe that the Iranian embassy is manufacturing arms that are killing anyone anywhere so......."

Yes, stephen how kind and impertinent of you! And how totally, utterly vile, discredited and evil! Of course 99 percent of those rockets are funded by Iran's genocidally antisemitic terrorist regime, just like the hundreds of (many hundreds of people, bith Jewish and non-Jewish they killed in two separate bombins in Buenos Aires, Argentina), huh?

If you are so utterly uninformed that you are unaware of even basic, absolutely basic FACTS, why on earth do you have the need to comment on anything, even the weather?
Totally unbelievable!
This was your predictable so-called smoking gun moment gunning for the likes of Hamas and their Iranian masters/patron-saints! Thanks a lot! No wonder you lack the most basic credibility this way! This, of course, applies to Dale equally, so no one can accuse me of anti-Irish animus, even though I "reasonably" think that a good portion of them are below the average in dumbness.

Gábor Fränkl

Dear John Roosevelt, whyn will you wake up to the fact that these people here have absolutely no way to br able to credibly challange you on anything applying to this particular case, wasting everyone's time and they are dumbdowned jackasses?

stephen bellamy

I'm guessing Gabor isen't planning to vote for me in the " great thinkers of our Age " competition.

No export of arms is beyond the purview of the regulations " ( I know what you are getting at but that is another discussion ).
The regulations simply say that any export of arms has to be licenced other wise it is illegal.

A mountain of documentary evidence and the four day cross examination of the company's managing directer persuaded the jury that the defendants had a reasonable belief that the company was illegally supplying arms to Israel. Now it wasn't the case that the company had been REFUSED the necessary licences, they never applied for them. Why I wonder ? Well I have my theories and I am sure you have yours.

The jury further accepted that the defendants reasonably believed that the illegal export of these arms was facilitating the commission of war crimes in Gaza, and I am sure the jury came to share these beliefs.

The evidence consisted of....

a) contemporay news reports

b) the Goldstone report

c) the evidence of direct witnesses who lived through the experience

d) the cross examined defendants testimony which the jury seem to find credible

You may say this was entirely biased evidence,but it was the only evidence the jury heard. The prosecution didnt call witnesses to contest it and it is not the role of the defence to do that.

My purpose is not to justify the defendants ( though you may have guessed I am sympathetic to their case ) . My argument is merely that the trial was properly conducted and the verdicts not perverse give the evidence the jury saw and heard.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephan Bellamy: I am not up to speed on the arms regulations in the UK. However, as I have made very clear, if the case for the defence rested crucially on the war crimes issue as opposed simply to one of arms licensing issue, undoubtedly the case was biased.

The point is that the fact that Hamas was , at the very least - according to similar "evidence" - as guilty of war crimes as the judge and Jury were convinced Israel was, if not more so, went without consideration. It should have been considered, at least because the implications of preventing the Israelis from countering war crimes commited against them is crucially relevant to any even handed evaluatation of the acts committed.

We know the prosecution may have made an error in not bringing this up. The fact remains, however, that the judge is bised. The jury was biased...And so, clearly, are you.

stephen bellamy

I am sorry you feel that way John. We are all biased. Some of us try to walk the line others just give in to our bias. I will accept the charge of bias I have broadish shoulders. You have the evidence of what I have typed. So far as the charge of bias against the judge and jury you have no evidence whatsoever.

But you know....it's not Armageddon.It's not the final battle between good and evil.Creative tension dear boy, creative tension

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephan bellamy: "
stephen bellamy
July 13th, 2010 5:56pm

I am sorry you feel that way John. We are all biased. Some of us try to walk the line others just give in to our bias. I will accept the charge of bias I have broadish shoulders. You have the evidence of what I have typed. So far as the charge of bias against the judge and jury you have no evidence whatsoever.

But you know....it's not Armageddon.It's not the final battle between good and evil.Creative tension dear boy, creative tension".

Stephen, you seem obsessed with the notion that for you this issue is trivial but for all of the rest of us of some earth shattering significance.. Well, for sure, we are posting because of an article - above - and that goes for you.

The case is hogwash and so because it is a manfestly inequitable evaluation of the eveidence. Simple as that.

Clalry you dont care because your liitle lass was let off ansd seems to have Jewish freiends. Good on ya..

One word of advice: keep your daughter away from future flotillas to Gaza. Might be less of a tea party than the Brighton court and you might end up being slightly less smug.

stephen bellamy

John take a tiny leap of faith and trust me on one point.....it was not an inequitable valuation of the evidence the jury saw and heard....

Of course would they have reached the same conclusion faced with all the evidence they MIGHT have heard ?

We will never know

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: trust me on one point - the same as made by Melanie: this was a a war crimes trial and a one sided one oat that.

The evidence was falsy predicatreeed on the belief that thet defendants had no other intention but to stop war crimes being commited. The truth of it was, they were in effect, if not deliberately, supporters of Hams and their war crimes. This is crucially relevant to the nature of the evidence.

Does your daughter not support Hamas and support the Palestinians in their struggle - in general- against Israel? Does the judge not do so, also?

If not, it certainly would appear so - according to ALL the evidence.

You cannot separate this evidence - as presented - for a political agenda. As such, it represents a calumny in terms of UK Law.

stephen bellamy

John it is the duty f defence council to call evidence supportive of their clients case. If, as you claim , there is evidence available that would contradict the defence evidence whose fault is it that it wasn't produced ? The judges fault ? The jurys fault ? The defendants fault ? Someone else's fault ?Who is responsible for this alleged calumny ?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Stephen Bellamy: even if the prosecution had argued a case that even I would consider as good as it gets, it may have made no difference to a judge and jury predisposed to opposing Israel's action in gaza because it was poslitically - whatever Israel's actions in gaza - opposed to Israel.

What should have bee a case of malicious damage; or a case of contravening UK Arms regulations, actually was a case re whether or not Israel was committing war crimes. The judge and Jury, in fact, exonerated your daughter based on their judgement re Israel's commission of those acts. As an adjudicator of war crimes , this was a kangaroo court.

If it wasn't a war crimes trial, what were the grounds for letting these people off - that it was a greater evil that EDO was supplying arms to israel? Doing that, per se, is not a greater evil - even according to UK Arms regulations.

Now, we know they were let off - and, to that extent, it is selfevident that the prosecution failed in its task. This doesn't alter the more important fact that the judge was a travesty, the jury was a travesty and this case was a serious blight on the UK legal profession.

stephen bellamy

I'm not sure I want to be drawn into a defence of the UK legal profession o))

ok time for sayonara go on yankee break my heart la la la

JOHN ROOSEVELT

stephen bellamy
July 14th, 2010 6:12pm
I'm not sure I want to be drawn into a defence of the UK legal profession o))

ok time for sayonara go on yankee break my heart la la la"

I would take the verdict and run, if I were you..

I'm off to study "the rights of women to a just stoning in Islamic countries". No doubt I can always refer to our good judge for his evaluation of that.

Sayonara, indeed...

Dale

For anyone who wants to read the judge's actual summing up with all the points he made (in relation to the law used etc) there is now a transcript available. Seems like this discussion might benefit from it...It is located here: https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/07/455659.html

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Who needs Goldstone and, indeed, the Court in the Hague, when you have the venerable Judge George Bathurst-Norman and his 7 defendants to conclude that Israel was guilty of committing war crimes in Gaza?

If this judge did not want the jury to believe Israel is as guilty as sin - as opposed to being guilty in terms of the sincere belief of the defendants only, then I was born in Jaffa.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

..and if I had firebombed the homes of the defendants, with the express purpose of hindering them from damaging EDO's property, in the sincere belief that by preventing parts being sold to Israel for its fighter planes they would have hindered it from preventing the war crimes committed against Israelis by Hamas and the people who support it, what would our Lord of impartiality, George Bathurst-Norman have had to say then, I wonder?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"Hamas took to firing rockets into Israel between 2001
through 2009.Nineteen Israelis were killed.Hamas has no
Army, no Air Force and no Navy."

Oh well, judge, that's fine then. The dead kids, women - all civilians - deliberately targeted and, according to Goldstone (bless him), therefore constituting a Hamas war crime, not worth even a mention. No connect for you, dear boy...

...and you, like Harold, hoisting your anti Israel position on the hook of International Law - 242 - as if the terms of that, when taken in their entirety, do not even warrant any debate, discussion. Interesting. No doubt this dear judge would be happy if 242 were implemented...but would he like to take responsibility, when those who he has designated to be responsible for Israel's security fall short - enabling further war crimes to be committed against it - as has been the case whenever the UN has been assigned this role - for applying the impartial hand of UK justice or would he, rather, discover that actually he feels those of the West Bank should inherit what constituted the remainder of Mandated territories, once Transjordan bagged the lion's share etc?

One wonders how this impartial judge would have sounded if, with what would surely have been a less deceitful direction to the Jury, he would have just come out with what he surely truly believes - that Israel is an illegitimate state and the Jews have no right to a state in Palestine. In effect, he has done this, just as harold and his cronies - in effect - have done this in their posts.

In the circumstances, it can be said that the more judges like this influence opinion and the judicial system in the Uk and elsewhere, the worse the situation in the Middle East will become. He will be responsible for the encouragement of nothing but more death and destruction, encouraging the spiral of violence with his complete and utter lack of censure of terrorist violence - indeed, his implicit support of it.

He wrongly beleives that the flotilla was the harbinger of real change for Gaza (bully for Blair that he has helped box hamas in in this respect). Yes, more goods will be let through - but this will only encourage Hamas in its resort to the violent spoiler politics to which it is inextricably tied. Mark my words, pushing for negotiations will now have the opposite effect to peace because of the Islamist agenda - not because Israel will ratchet up the violence but simply because fatah and hamas, not to mention Ahmedinjad and Hezbollah, cannot accept negotiations and maintain their mulitplicity of other agendas.

No peace will be achieved and this judge should be shown to be a party to that eventuality as much or more than any of those he obvioulsy holds as the exclusive repositories of blame.

He should hang his head in shame and go back to his law books.

ReyaPhoenix

Stephen Bellamy

"The vilification of the judge is based on one sentence in The Guardians report.One sentence out of two and a half hours of summing up. No mention of the context."

Have you read the transcript of the summing up? That gives all the context of this shameful episode and my vilification of the judge is based on the evidence of my own eyes.

The transcript reads like a fan club tribute to all the defendants and wholehearted support for their actions (whereas Bathurst-Norman should merely have summed up the evidence without embellishment) as well as glowing character references for each and every one of them.

Bathurst-Norman spoke of matters he had no right to bring in to the discussion and that he knew little about. His conduct shameful, and your daughter may well have been found guilty had the case been tried by a less biased judge.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

If I am not mistaken, our professor of Logic - dear Harold - has not responded to one of Linda Smith's hugely intelligent posts.

Let me remind you of one he conspicuously iognored. It is pertinent now that he - yet again - has revealed his propensity to behave like a lobotomised rotweiler with a bone, biting its own leg in a mad attempt to prevent itself from being distracted from its demented obsession:

"
Linda Smith
June 16th, 2010 5:11pm

Harold argues, like all antizionists dressed up in sheep's clothing, on a highly selective view of history. He hones in on the area of the Ottoman Empire which became the Jewish State of Israel.

The Ottoman Empire was a theocracy. The law of the land for Muslims was shari'a, the holy law of the Kur'an-i Kerim (Holy Koran). Christian and Jewish minorities were governed by their own laws, based on their own Scriptures, subject to the ultimate rule of the sultan. During the 19th century and particularly following the Ottoman defeat in the Crimean War, European intervention alleviated the persecution of the non-Muslims dictated in the Koran.

In arguing in favour of "self determination" of the majority population in the defeated Turkish Empire at the end of the First World War, Harold is arguing in favour of the rule of Sharia law throughout the Middle East, and in favour of the perpetual oppression, dhimmitude, of the non-Muslim. The creation of Israel provided a refuge from Islamic oppression for victims such as the barefoot Jews of Yemen rescued from dhimmitude by the fledgling state of Israel in 1950 in Operation Magic Carpet.

The notion of "Arab nationalism" was invented by Christian Arabs in the 19th century but was soon hijacked and Islamified by the majority Muslim Arabs. When Arabs talk about "dispossession" they mean loss of land previously conquered in holy jihad.

Christian Arabs are persecuted dhimmis as are Jews.
Harold's legalistic codswallop is morally bankrupt."

Start answering the pertinent questions and accusations, harold. If you're just badly misunderstood..well..defend yourself, dear.

ReyaPhoenix

Bathurst-Norman showed his ignorance of international maritime law when he mentioned the incident of the Mavi Marmara in his summing up, see the official statement about the legal basis of the naval blockade of Gaza:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=4402&TTL=The_Legal_Basis_of_Israel%E2%80%99s_Naval_Blockade_of_Gaza

Note in particular

"What If a Ship Disobeys the Blockade?

"What may be done to a ship that disobeys the blockade? Here, there may be a distinction between merchant ships and warships. A merchant ship may be visited, searched, or captured; and if the ship resists, it may be attacked. The situation of neutral warships is not quite clear: Warships may also be searched and captured, but opinions are divided on whether they may be attacked. An attack is certainly permitted in a situation of self-defense.

"A ship that clearly intends to breach the blockade can be dealt with while it is still on the high seas. Stopping the flotilla in international waters 100 kilometers from Israel was legal: In time of armed conflict, ships breaching the blockade may be searched even on the high seas."

And, later in the statement, the precedents in respect of blockades.

My grandmother was right (and this applies to this dope in particuar) - that it is better to stay silent and be thought wise than to speak and prove that one is a fool.

Brian

If I was the judge I would have thrown it out too.

CONTRIBUTING to war crimes is what should lead people to punishment, and slaughtering hundreds/thousands of innocent Palestinians IS a war crime. Bombing civilian homes IS a war crime. Breaking UN resolutions and harboring nuclear weapons in the ME is also illegal.

While you guys are so keen on Iran's nuclear weapons, why don't you disarm yourselves first?

Anon

Oh, dear, Melanie. You state: "For the second time, a jury has acquitted people charged with criminal acts because it appears to sympathise with their cause. "

Perhaps you haven't quite got your head around Magna Carta and the foundations that our justice system is built on, much like the Police officer commenting below. The whole point of a Jury trial is to see if twelve of your peers believe that you should be punished for something you've done 'wrong'. Juries have absolutely every right to nullify the law, and in this case they did. This is the whole point of the justice system! This is not anti-semitic, this is people having evidence put before them and them making their own minds up.

Go back to your self absorbed nonsense in the Daily Mail. Fascists are the ones who don't allow people to make their own minds up.

If Cable Street was today, I'd put my money on all the defendants being out on the streets fighting the fascists in solidarity with the Jews in the East End (let's not forget the Daily Mail had a nice relationship with Oswald Mosely's antisemitic, fascist Blackshirts who went on that pogrom)