Israel 'manhandles' diplomats, seizes aid.

[SirNitram]

Link

(Reuters) - Israeli soldiers manhandled European diplomats on Friday and seized a truck full of tents and emergency aid they had been trying to deliver to Palestinians whose homes were demolished this week.

A Reuters reporter saw soldiers throw sound grenades at a group of diplomats, aid workers and locals in the occupied West Bank, and yank a French diplomat out of the truck before driving away with its contents.

"They dragged me out of the truck and forced me to the ground with no regard for my diplomatic immunity," French diplomat Marion Castaing said.

"This is how international law is being respected here," she said, covered with dust.

The Israeli army and police declined to comment.

Locals said Khirbet Al-Makhul was home to about 120 people. The army demolished their ramshackle houses, stables and a kindergarten on Monday after Israel's high court ruled that they did not have proper building permits.

Despite losing their property, the inhabitants have refused to leave the land, where, they say, their families have lived for generations along with their flocks of sheep.

Israeli soldiers stopped the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delivering emergency aid on Tuesday and on Wednesday IRCS staff managed to put up some tents but the army forced them to take the shelters down.

Diplomats from France, Britain, Spain, Ireland, Australia and the European Union's political office, turned up on Friday with more supplies. As soon as they arrived, about a dozen Israeli army jeeps converged on them, and soldiers told them not to unload their truck.

"It's shocking and outrageous. We will report these actions to our governments," said one EU diplomat, who declined to be named because he did not have authorization to talk to the media.

"(Our presence here) is a clear matter of international humanitarian law. By the Geneva Convention, an occupying power needs to see to the needs of people under occupation. These people aren't being protected," he said.

In scuffles between soldiers and locals, several villagers were detained and an elderly Palestinian man fainted and was taken for medical treatment to a nearby ambulance.

The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said in a statement that Makhul was the third Bedouin community to be demolished by the Israelis in the West Bank and adjacent Jerusalem municipality since August.

Palestinians have accused the Israeli authorities of progressively taking their historical grazing lands, either earmarking it for military use or handing it over to the Israelis whose settlements dot the West Bank.

Israelis and Palestinians resumed direct peace talks last month after a three-year hiatus. Palestinian officials have expressed serious doubts about the prospects of a breakthrough.

"What the Israelis are doing is not helpful to the negotiations. Under any circumstances, talks or not, they're obligated to respect international law," the unnamed EU diplomat said.

In the NYT, this is reduced to a 'quarrel' in the headline. I assume 'sound grenades' is some reporter not knowing what a flashbang is.

[eyl]

Haaretz includes Israeli response (relevant sections bolded):

The EU ambassador in Israel called the Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General for Europe Rafi Shutz on Saturday, to express concern over an altercation that took place between EU diplomats and Israeli soldiers in the West Bank on Friday.

Israeli soldiers manhandled European diplomats on Friday and seized tents and emergency aid they had been trying to deliver to Palestinians whose homes were demolished this week.

"What was done there by the European diplomats was a provocation," said Shutz.

The EU ambassador asked for explanations regarding the Israel Defense Forces' activity in the West Bank on Friday, particularly the violence used against a French diplomat.

Shutz stated that Israeli courts determined all Palestinian construction at the site of the incident was illegal, and thus the European diplomats were in fact engaging in illegal activity.

Shutz also explained that if the EU is interested in providing humanitarian aid for Palestinians, there are proper channels to do so, which include coordination with Israel.

Shutz stated that violence was used against the French diplomat because she slapped one of the soldiers.

"EU representatives have already contacted the Israeli authorities to demand an explanation and expressed their concern at the incident," a statement issued by the spokesmen for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva said on Saturday.

According to Shutz, Israel is considering taking legal steps against the diplomats involved in the incident, while an IDF representative said that the is looking into allegations that foreign diplomats had "abused their diplomatic privileges".

Relations between Israel and the EU have been strained over the EU's decision, announced in July, to bar financial assistance to Israeli organizations operating in the occupied territories from next year.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced that move as meddling in Israel's bilateral relations with the Palestinians. Israel retaliated by blocking the EU from aiding tens of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank.

Also, Haaretz's Hebrew version has additional details (I don't know why, but Haaretz routinely abridges the online English translations of its articles). It says that the use of force including stun grenades began after Palestinians began throwing stones and attempting to beat the soldiers.

[Thanas]

The Israeli response is bullshit. They have no rights to seize the person of an ambassador, no matter how they spin it.

I wonder if we should send some of our own jackbooted thugs to conduct a surprise raid on the Israeli embassy or seize some Jewish business. After all, they have actively engaged in illegal acts (even by international law) on our soil. Oh wait, the Israelis would screech Hitler come again in that case.

[fgalkin]

Video of the incident:



Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

Out of sheer curiosity, what would be the appropriate precedent if someone with diplomatic immunity slaps an agent of the law in the host country?

[Thanas]

Out of sheer curiosity, what would be the appropriate precedent if someone with diplomatic immunity slaps an agent of the law in the host country?

You revoke the diplomatic credentials and force him to leave the country.

As to the video, I saw no slap there, nor did I see any stones being thrown. What I saw was a women being dragged to the ground and then the Israelis throwing bangers for no reason. Certainly nothing that supports the Israeli side, which in the past has routinely lied about reasons for killing/hurting/detaining people. Like when that one women got rolled over by a bulldozer and the Israelis lied about it.

[Irbis]

Shutz stated that Israeli courts determined all Palestinian construction at the site of the incident was illegal, and thus the European diplomats were in fact engaging in illegal activity.

Gee, how about that other illegal construction activity, one of fanatical Israeli settlers?

[PainRack]

Ignoring the legality of the orders and etc, I don't see evidence to condemn the Israeli soldiers in that video.

Its clear that what they tried to do was set up a security cordon around the truck and physically keep others away, using physical presence and verbal orders. When that failed, they escalated to physical restraints. Ultimately, when order has broken down and they tried to remove the truck, they deployed flash bangs to break up the crowd.

We never see what the French diplomat did other than her lying on the floor, she might or might not have slapped the person.


It could had been done better, but in any other military outside of the Israeli, regular soldiers won't have the training or the equipment to do better. The only condemnation I can think of is that the Israeli should have been used to stuff like this by now and planned better.

[loomer]

You can't ignore the legality of the orders when you're judging this incident. The entire reason this is a thing is due to the illegal nature of those orders.

[eyl]

You can't ignore the legality of the orders when you're judging this incident. The entire reason this is a thing is due to the illegal nature of those orders.

Even if the orders are illegal (which you need to establish, BTW) there are ways diplomats are supposed to respond to that - this wasn't one of them (and given that there was a court order, the diplomats' actions were arguably a violation of the Vienna Convention themselves)

[Thanas]

You can't ignore the legality of the orders when you're judging this incident. The entire reason this is a thing is due to the illegal nature of those orders.

Even if the orders are illegal (which you need to establish, BTW) there are ways diplomats are supposed to respond to that - this wasn't one of them (and given that there was a court order, the diplomats' actions were arguably a violation of the Vienna Convention themselves)

Article 29:
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest
or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to
prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

They detained her. And respectful they certainly were not.

[loomer]

You can't ignore the legality of the orders when you're judging this incident. The entire reason this is a thing is due to the illegal nature of those orders.

Even if the orders are illegal (which you need to establish, BTW) there are ways diplomats are supposed to respond to that - this wasn't one of them (and given that there was a court order, the diplomats' actions were arguably a violation of the Vienna Convention themselves)

Article 29, as Thanas helpfully posted, establishes that detaining a diplomat is not alright - and Israel has ratified the Vienna Convention. Now why don't you see to establishing that the diplomats actions were a real violation of the conventions, you Zionist fuck?

[fgalkin]

Do we have evidence that she identified herself as a diplomat, as opposed to keeping silent and causing an incident thus drawing attention to it? Also, she was neither arrested nor detained, as she was released immediately after being pulled out of the truck- we see her moving around freely.

Just saying.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

Do we have evidence that she identified herself as a diplomat, as opposed to keeping silent and causing an incident thus drawing attention to it?

While I will allow for that possibility, I would think that the Israelis would be the first to draw attention to this if it were indeed the case.

Also, she was neither arrested nor detained, as she was released immediately after being pulled out of the truck- we see her moving around freely.

No, she was pulled out of the truck and then you can see her lying on the ground with soldiers pinning her arms behind her back. That they pulled her out of her vehicle should suffice in itself, but them pinning her arms back, however briefly, counts as detention IMO.

[eyl]

You can't ignore the legality of the orders when you're judging this incident. The entire reason this is a thing is due to the illegal nature of those orders.

Even if the orders are illegal (which you need to establish, BTW) there are ways diplomats are supposed to respond to that - this wasn't one of them (and given that there was a court order, the diplomats' actions were arguably a violation of the Vienna Convention themselves)

Article 29, as Thanas helpfully posted, establishes that detaining a diplomat is not alright - and Israel has ratified the Vienna Convention. Now why don't you see to establishing that the diplomats actions were a real violation of the conventions, you Zionist fuck?

Well, asshole, since you asked so nicely:

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

No, she was pulled out of the truck and then you can see her lying on the ground with soldiers pinning her arms behind her back. That they pulled her out of her vehicle should suffice in itself, but them pinning her arms back, however briefly, counts as detention IMO.

As the Vienna Convention does not define what "detention" entails, and OTOH for example British law allows detaining diplomatic agents if they are "deemed likely to harm themselves or the public", it seems there is a certain amount of leeway (if she'd actually been arrested or detained for any length of time I'd agree with you, but as she was in the process of commiting a crime the restraint would be to stop her from continuing)

[Thanas]

Article 29, as Thanas helpfully posted, establishes that detaining a diplomat is not alright - and Israel has ratified the Vienna Convention. Now why don't you see to establishing that the diplomats actions were a real violation of the conventions, you Zionist fuck?

Well, asshole, since you asked so nicely:

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

And yet, nowhere does it state that it is OK to just detain the diplomatic agent if they fail to do so. See article 43 when the function of a diplomatic agent ceases to be.

As the Vienna Convention does not define what "detention" entails

What do you think detention means in the context of the Vienna convention?

, and OTOH for example British law allows detaining diplomatic agents if they are "deemed likely to harm themselves or the public", it seems there is a certain amount of leeway

The full text is: "The DPA 1964 confers immunity from criminal jurisdiction on diplomatic agents and their families, who are inviolable. Without a waiver, a diplomatic agent, or dependant, may only be detained if deemed likely to harm either themselves or the public.

The FCO may request a waiver of a person's diplomatic immunity in order to arrest, interview under caution and, if appropriate, bring charges. A diplomat cannot waive his or her own immunity. Waivers can only be granted by the sending State. The FCO requests a waiver of immunity through the diplomatic mission concerned. However, where the Police consider that there is sufficient evidence to justify court proceedings against an individual but the Head of Mission concerned does not agree to a waiver, the FCO may ask for the withdrawal of the individual and their family or declare them personae non gratae. Even if immunity is not waived, any other persons implicated as secondary parties to the diplomat's offence, may still be prosecuted. "

Given that the context clearly is from stopping the diplomat harming himself or others due to some kind of unforseen action, it follows that none of the conditions were present. This reads like an exception only applicable in case there is immeidate harm to the diplomat's person or another and no request for waiver can be filed. If they suspect a crime has been committed they will have to request a waiver or declare her persona non grata before they can even interview her. This clearly says IMO that the Israelis should have asked the EU to waive diplomatic immunity first before going in and seizing her person and her stuff.

Merely breaking a law is not grounds to do so. Heck, I remember cases where some arab diplomats held slaves and nothing could be done because they were diplomats. I hope you agree that merely delivering food is far less of an offence than holding someone in slavery and torturing that someone.

(if she'd actually been arrested or detained for any length of time I'd agree with you, but as she was in the process of commiting a crime the restraint would be to stop her from continuing)

Nowhere does it say in the convention that detaining someone for a short period is ok, in fact it says that "any" kind of detention is illegal. I shall also note that if she was travelling in a vehicle she owned, this would also be a breech in the convention.

[eyl]

And yet, nowhere does it state that it is OK to just detain the diplomatic agent if they fail to do so. See article 43 when the function of a diplomatic agent ceases to be.

Didn't say it was. In fact, the text of the article I cited specifically says that a diplomat's protection remains intact in such a case. The point is that even if Israel violated Vienna, that breach was not one-sided (which loomer contested)

What do you think detention means in the context of the Vienna convention?

I don't know - do you?

Given that the context clearly is from stopping the diplomat harming himself or others due to some kind of unforseen action, it follows that none of the conditions were present. This reads like an exception only applicable in case there is immeidate harm to the diplomat's person or another and no request for waiver can be filed. If they suspect a crime has been committed they will have to request a waiver or declare her persona non grata before they can even interview her. This clearly says IMO that the Israelis should have asked the EU to waive diplomatic immunity first before going in and seizing her person and her stuff.

Requesting a waiver from France is obviously non-viable, given the time frames involved. She wasn't "suspected" of committing a crime, which would mean the crime occurred in the past - the purpose was to stop the commission of a crime in progress.

In any event, the main point was that the prohibition against detention is not absolute.

Merely breaking a law is not grounds to do so. Heck, I remember cases where some arab diplomats held slaves and nothing could be done because they were diplomats. I hope you agree that merely delivering food is far less of an offence than holding someone in slavery and torturing that someone.

I vaguely remember such cases, but didn't they occur on consular territory? That's not quite the same thing.

I shall also note that if she was travelling in a vehicle she owned, this would also be a breech in the convention.

If she was travelling in her own vehicle, the vehicle could be stopped at a roadblock and the situation wouldn't have arisen in the first place (it wouldn't be detention unless she was prevented from reversing her course, diplomatic inviobility does not entail total freedom of movement).

[Thanas]

Didn't say it was. In fact, the text of the article I cited specifically says that a diplomat's protection remains intact in such a case. The point is that even if Israel violated Vienna, that breach was not one-sided (which loomer contested)

But clearly breaking the law is not a valid reason for detention. Otherwise the asshole diplomats who get caught doing 180 in a inner city zone would get busted.

I don't know - do you?

I would assume it means the same as in every other legal text, restricting a persons freedom of movement against their will.

In any event, the main point was that the prohibition against detention is not absolute.

Sure, when the life of the diplomat or anybody else is in danger. But not for merely breaking the law.

I vaguely remember such cases, but didn't they occur on consular territory? That's not quite the same thing.

I have no clue if they did or not. Better examples. Diplomats get caught speeding irresponsibly and drunk beyond belief behind the wheel. Yet they are not detained, nor are they even stopped. Do you agree that a drunk person beyond the wheel of a car is a bigger threat to life and limb than distributing supplies? Yet if they are not allowed to be detained, how do you get that Israel got the right to detain somebody for doing something which put nobody in danger?

[fgalkin2]

For those who cannot see it in the original, here is the diplomat punching the soldier

http://youtu.be/BW5sYRYuwn0

Have a very nice day
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

Oh wow.

Consider my arguments conceded then. Also, how the heck does someone like that get diplomatic status in the first place?

[eyl]

There's another video of part of the incident here.

She leaves the truck at about 6:05, and it doesn't look like she's being dragged out (I'll admit it's a bit hard to tell for sure given the amount of people in the way); and it looks more like the soldiers are trying to hold her up rather than throwing her to the ground. Once she was on the ground, you can see (around 6:50) at least two cases where soldiers were offering a hand to help her up, which she doesn't seem to take.

[Irbis]

For those who cannot see it in the original, here is the diplomat punching the soldier

Punching? Please, my grandma can throw stronger punch than that. From this angle you can't even see if it connected or if soldier moved away in time.

Also, how the heck does someone like that get diplomatic status in the first place?

Because she is not a robot?

Plus, IIRC, punching law enforcement officer is STILL not enough to arrest a diplomat, I remember tales of drunk ambassadors doing worse things and getting away with them.

[Grumman]

Plus, IIRC, punching law enforcement officer is STILL not enough to arrest a diplomat, I remember tales of drunk ambassadors doing worse things and getting away with them.

I find that incredibly unlikely. At a bare minimum, I would expect that any rule against arresting a diplomat only kicks in once the threat of continued criminality is over.

[PainRack]

You can't ignore the legality of the orders when you're judging this incident. The entire reason this is a thing is due to the illegal nature of those orders.

What illegality? That soldiers were ordered to secure a truck carrying construction supplies?

Furthermore, she wasn't arrested or detained. She was restrained from attacking a soldier and then released.

[Irbis]

I find that incredibly unlikely. At a bare minimum, I would expect that any rule against arresting a diplomat only kicks in once the threat of continued criminality is over.

How about this guy? Does it count as continued criminality?

[...] ambassador killed his wife as she got out of her car after visiting a member of a music band with whom she was allegedly having an affair. The next morning neighbours informed the authorities that the envoy had built a funeral pyre in his back lawn on which he had placed his wife’s body. When the police arrived, the ambassador stopped them at the gate because he said that his residence was Burmese territory. [...] Despite the seriousness of the crime, the Sri Lankan Government was unable to proceed against the envoy who was eventually, but not immediately, recalled to his country.