Peter Goldsmith, the government’s senior legal adviser at the time, wrote in 2002 that he was “not aware of existence of material” that would indicate an “imminent threat from Iraq”.

“I think you should know that I see considerable difficulties in being satisfied that military action would be justified on the basis of self-defence,” Goldsmith wrote to Geoff Hoon, Britain’s defence minister from 1999 to 2005.

“In particular I am not aware of the existence of material indicating the existence of an imminent threat from Iraq of the sort which would justify military action without support of a [UN] Security Council Chapter VII authorisation.”

Goldsmith later told the cabinet in March 2003 that the war was legal without a UN resolution, and the US-led invasion went ahead three days later.

The letters were released as Hoon gave evidence to a British public inquiry into the Iraq war.

He is the most senior politician to appear before the hearings so far.

‘Legal justification’

Hoon told the hearing in London on Tuesday that Goldsmith had “categorically” concluded that “there was a legal justification for military action” in his final conclusion in 2003.

He also said the government wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis and did not think Tony Blair, the UK prime minister at the time, gave a promise to George Bush, the US president, to support war come what may.

“I think that right up until the vote in the House of Commons, our attitude towards
the use of force was always conditional,” Hoon said.

He identified mid-2002 as the period when it become clear that Washington “meant business” over Iraq, because the country was so deeply traumatised over the September 11, 2001 attacks and it perceived Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader at the time, as another threat.

“It was getting pretty real by then. I think there was a real sense of the Americans thinking through in a very practical way the consequences of the ‘axis of evil’ speech [by Bush] and focusing on Iraq.

“So we had no doubt at that stage in the summer that they meant business.”

Bush first branded Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002.

Wide-ranging inquiry

The Iraq war inquiry is Britain’s third and widest-ranging inquiry into the conflict, which triggered huge anti-war huge protests in the UK at the time and in which 179 British soldiers died fighting.

Nazanine Moshiri, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in London, said the inquiry will be looking to Blair, who is due to testify on January 29, for key evidence at the hearing.

“The Iraq inquiry says it is ’struggling to find’ key intelligence evidence supporting Tony Blair’s case for war,” she said.

“It will be asking him to fill in those gaps when he appears here next week.”

Two previous reports on aspects of the war have cleared Blair’s government of wrongdoing over the conflict.

Yemen's army is fighting a resurgent al-Qaeda on its territory

A Nigerian man accused of the attempted bombing of a US-bound plane on Christmas Day was recruited by al-Qaeda in London and met a radical American Muslim cleric in Yemen, a top Yemeni official has said.

Addressing a news conference on Thursday, Rashad al-Alimi, Yemen’s deputy prime minister for defence and security, said: “The information provided to us is that Umar Farouk [Abdulmutallab] joined al-Qaeda in London.”

Al-Alimi said that Abdulmutallab had also met with Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim preacher, during his time in Yemen, referring to an English-speaking cleric linked to a gunman who ran amok in a US army base in Texas in November, killing 13 people.

A Yemeni security official has said al-Awlaki was believed to have later died in a strike on al-Qaeda fighters last month.

Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said last week that it had trained and equipped Abdulmutallab, 23, for the plane plot.

‘No evidence’

Earlier this week, in a statement to the UK parliament, Alan Johnson, the country’s interior minister, said: “As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab attended University College London (UCL) between 2005 and 2008, where he completed a degree in engineering.

“During this time he was known to the Security Service but not as somebody engaged in violent extremism.

“His family and friends have stated their belief that he turned to this during his time in Yemen.”

On Thursday, a spokesperson for UCL said: “We would like to reiterate that there is absolutely no evidence at this stage to suggest that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalised at UCL.

“We are currently providing all assistance to the authorities, and are setting up a full independent review of Mr Abdulmutallab’s time here.”

Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Sana’a, the Yemeni capital, said: “There are two major points that he [al-Alimi] made today that shed new light on the incident.

“One of them is that he [Abdulmutallab] was not recruited in Yemen, and the other is that he did not bring these explosives from Yemen, he brought them from Nigeria.

“This of course takes some of the burden from the Yemenis and takes it to London.”

Vall said that the international focus on Yemen was of increasing concern to the government in Sana’a.

He said: “There are fears that if there is more and more interference from the outside world, that could make a situation that is already fragile in this country … worse.”

Intervention rejected

Yemen, which is trying to fight a resurgent al-Qaeda on its territory, launched an operation this week to root out al-Qaeda fighters who they said were behind threats that forced several Western embassies to close on Sunday.

Last week, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, said the UK planned to join the US in funding an “anti-terrorist” force in Yemen.

Brown said he would hold a meeting in London on January 28 to discuss how to counter radicalisation in Yemen.

Abubakr al-Qirbi, Yemen’s foreign minister, whose country is also facing a Houthi uprising in the north and simmering separatist sentiment in the south, has rejected direct foreign intervention.

“We think this is the priority and the responsibility of our security forces and the army,” al-Qirbi told CNN, the US broadcaster.

Asked by CNN whether Yemen would accept direct US intervention, al-Qirbi said: “No, I don’t think we will accept that.

“I think the US, as well, have learned from Afghanistan and Iraq and other places that direct intervention can be self-defeating.”

Al-Qaeda ’spared’

Al-Qirbi said there were about 200 to 300 al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen.

“I think our thought was that maybe we should spare al-Qaeda in the last year because of the confrontation in the south and with the Houthis.

“But al-Qaeda took advantage of that,” Qirbi said, adding that al-Qaeda had tried to make inroads with northern fighters and southern separatists.

Meanwhile, gunmen shot dead two Yemeni soldiers in attack on a police station in Aden, the former capital of south Yemen, witnesses and security sources said on Thursday.

The gunmen were believed to be suspects wanted in criminal cases, an independent Yemeni news website reported, quoting a security official.

About 113,000 foreign troops are in Afghanistan fighting Taliban-led fighters

Two separate roadside bomb attacks in Afghanistan have left four US troops and a British soldier dead.

The US soldiers, the first American military casualties in Afghanistan in the new year, were killed in an explosion on Sunday in the south of the country, Nato-led forces said in a statement.

The UK soldier died while on foot patrol in Helmand province, Britain’s ministry of defence said on Monday.

The Taliban said that a series of explosions on Sunday in Panjwai district of southern Kandahar had killed several foreign soldiers, but their report could not be verified immediately.

Meanwhile, the Afghan defence ministry said its soldiers killed more than 10 Taliban fighters on Sunday in northern Kunduz province’s Imam Sahib district.

Nato and the US have 113,000 troops in Afghanistan fighting Taliban-led fighters, who are aiming to overthrow the government of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president.

Break suspended

On Monday, Karzai ordered parliament to suspend a winter break so that politicians can vote on new cabinet nominees, after politicians rejected over two thirds of his original candidates.

Parliament refused 17 out of 24 of his nominees on Saturday, casting Afghanistan into further political array after a UN-backed probe in October threw out nearly one third of his votes from August’s presidential poll.

Karzai’s decree ordered that the legislature should delay its 45-day recess until he proposes new ministers in place of those rejected by the parliamentarians at the weekend, his office said in a statement.

It ordered “the national assembly to postpone leave until the members of the cabinet are approved”.

If Karzai fails to have his cabinet approved in the next few weeks he will have to head to a London conference later this month seeking extra funds from Western donors without being able to say who will control a significant chunk of them.

Al-Qaeda fighters in Yemen have previously threatened attacks on US interests

The United States and Britain have closed their embassies in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, citing security concerns after threats from an al-Qaeda group.

The US embassy posted a message on its website on Sunday saying it was closed “in response to ongoing threats by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to attack American interests in Yemen”.

A British foreign office spokeswoman said later that it too had shut its embassy because of “security concerns”.

Neither mission said when the embassies might reopen.

John Brennan, the assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism to Barack Obama, the US president, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that “there are indications that al-Qaeda is planning an attack against a target in Sanaa”.

Hakim al-Masmari, the editor-in-chief of the Yemen Post newspaper, told Al Jazeera that the closure can only mean “that they believe al-Qaeda threat is very serious”.

“If you look at the recent video tapes from al-Qaeda, they clearly mention they have no enemy in Yemen except the US interests in Yemen. They warned the Yemeni soldiers against helping the Americans in any such way,” al-Masmari said.

“We really expect attacks on the US interests in the next month by al-Qaeda.”

Joint support

The US move came shortly after the British government announced plans to join the United States in funding an “anti-terrorist” force in Yemen.

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, has said he will hold a meeting in London on January 28 to discuss how to counter radicalisation in Yemen.

British officials also said that Brown and Obama believed more peacekeepers were needed to curtail the crisis in Somalia, which is located across the Gulf of Aden from Yemen.

The US government has said it will be more than doubling its military assistance to Yemen.

Obama on Saturday blamed al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which claims to be affiliated with Osama bin Laden’s organisation, for the attempted bombing of a US airliner bound for the city of Detroit on Christmas Day.

“We’re learning more about the suspect. We know that he travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies,” the US president said on Saturday.

“It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaeda and that this group, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”

US military aid to Yemen has been inconsistent in recent years, with Sanaa receiving $4.3m in 2006, up to $26m in 2007, down to nothing in 2008, and back up still higher, to $67m in 2009.

Long-term problem

Mahan Abedin, director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism, says that while US aid has fluctuated, the al-Qaeda presence in Yemen has not.

“They’ve had Yemen in their sights for a very long time … at least as long as September 11. Even prior to that … Yemen has had a strong militancy problem since the late 1980s.”

The fear among Western governments is that Yemen is poised to collapse amid extreme poverty and dwindling resources, and the ungoverned state would provide a safe haven for armed groups.

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, has said he will hold a meeting in London on January 28 to discuss how to counter radicalisation in Yemen.

The government in Sanaa is struggling to contain an uprising by Shia Houthi rebels in the country’s north and a secessionist movement in the south, in addition to the re-grouping of al-Qaeda fighters in recent years.

General David Petraeus, the commander of the US central command, visited Yemen on Saturday to discuss military and economic co-operation with Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Yemeni president, according to officials from both countries.

Petraeus had announced a day earlier that US military aid to Yemen “will more than double this coming year”.

Limited options

Experts say Obama’s military options to combat al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are limited.

David Newton, a former US ambassador to Yemen, said his main option “is one he’s already doing – using predators [drones] to go after terrorists that they are able to locate”.

“To do that, [he] has to co-operate with Saudi security and Yemeni security, and [use] our own independent means to find them.”

Newton said the greater challenge will be to stabilise the country, which has seen a failing economy, severe water shortages, and a ballooning population in recent years.

Other al-Qaeda affiliated groups, such as in Somalia, have meanwhile vowed to support the Yemeni fighters.

Western observers fear Yemen could collapse amid unrest in the country's north and south

The British government has announced plans to join the United States in funding “anti-terrorist” forces in Yemen.

The announcement on Saturday was made ahead of an international conference later this month to deal with what Western governments have called “rising extremism” in the country.

The US government has said it would be more than double its military assistance to Yemen after Barack Obama, the US president, blamed the al-Qaeda group there for the attempted bombing of a US airliner bound for the city of Detroit on Christmas day.

“We’re learning more about the suspect. We know that he travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies,” the US president said on Saturday.

“It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaeda and that this group, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”

US military aid to Yemen has been inconsistent in recent years, with Sana’a receiving $4.3m in 2006, up to $26m in 2007, down to nothing in 2008, and back up still higher, to $67m in 2009.

Long-term problem

Mahan Abedin, director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism, says that while US aid has fluctuated, the al-Qaeda presence in Yemen has not.

“They’ve had Yemen in their sights for a very long time … at least as long as September 11. Even prior to that … Yemen has had a strong militancy problem since the late 1980’s.”

The fear among Western governments is that Yemen is poised to collapse amid extreme poverty and dwindling resources, and the ungoverned state would provide a safe haven for armed groups.

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, has said he will hold a meeting in London on January 28 to discuss how to counter radicalisation in Yemen.

The government in Sana’a is struggling to contain an uprising by Shia Houthi rebels in the country’s north and a secessionist movement in the south, in addition to the re-grouping of al-Qaeda fighters in recent years.

General David Petraeus, the commander of the US central command, visited Yemen on Saturday to discuss military and economic co-operation with Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Yemeni president, according to officials from both countries.

Petraeus had announced a day earlier that US military aid to Yemen “will more than double this coming year”.

Limited options

Experts say Obama’s military options to combat al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are limited.

David Newton, a former US ambassador to Yemen, said his main option “is one he’s already doing – using predators [drones] to go after terrorists that they are able to locate”.

“To do that, [he] has to co-operate with Saudi security and Yemeni security, and [use] our own independent means to find them.”

Newton said the greater challenge will be to stabilise the country, which has seen a failing economy, severe water shortages, and a ballooning population in recent years.

Other al-Qaeda affiliated groups, such as in Somalia, have meanwhile vowed to support the Yemeni fighters.

Somali support

Al-Shabab, the leading anti-government armed group in Somalia, said on Friday that it was ready to send reinforcement to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should the US carry out retaliatory strikes, and urged other Muslims to follow suit.

Abedin said numerous fighters from Africa may have already arrived in the country.

“One of the reasons for the current concerns is that hard intelligence has come in that an assortment of militants, especially from eastern Africa, have somehow managed to get into Yemen,” he told Al Jazeera.

“There’s clearly some kind of smuggling route that [transports] these elements from countries in Eastern Africa, including Nigeria, to Yemen where they receive training in remote areas.”

British officials said they would push for a larger UN peacekeeping force to be deployed to Somalia, to try to contain the situation in the failed state.

The prime minister’s office also said the US and UK had agreed to increase funding for Yemen’s coast guard, in an effort to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden, although Washington has not yet confirmed the move.

Pirates operating in the waters between Somalia and Yemen have captured at least four ships in the last week.

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline

After studying the build up to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars it was evident that an attack was planned months before 9/11.

It is now also obvious that the focus of the Afghanistan War is not to capture or eliminate Al Qaeda but to secure the proposed TAPI pipeline route that will be constructed between the Turkmenistan border via Herat and across through Helmand and onwards to Pakistan via Kandahar. The question must therefore remain was the establishment of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda a Bush/CIA invention or simply a figment of their imagination? Does Bin Laden exist…he certainly does or did but at the time he was not an enemy to the US but rather an important commercial partner. Is it possible that he remains on the bank roll of the CIA or US Government? It is possible that this is a total false façade to allow the US to create this so called “War on Terror” when this terror may not exist? Could this be a concocted story by the US in order to put thousands of troops into such places as Iraq and Afghanistan in order to secure control of the world’s natural resources? Is it even possible that Al Qaeda does not exist…..from my perspective I don’t think they do.

Why should anyone doubt the existence of this extremely small army that has many thousands of highly trained and well equipped troops totally confused? How can a force of around 100 AQ fighters in Afghanistan and another 200 or so in Pakistan hold at bay the sophisticated air power, weaponry and thousands of some of the best trained and equipped troops in the world?

We have been told by Prime Minister Brown that the main threat is not from Afghanistan but rather from Pakistan where apparently most of these so called cells have come from. President Obama even agreed live on TV when he said that the streets of Britain are at a greater risk than that of the US, Why so much scaremongery and why so many changes to the battle plan? Why did Brown tell Pakistan that it must make a greater effort to track down AQ and the Taliban in the Northwest of their country when they had already put in over 30,000 troops into the region?

Is Brown aware that when we send the extra 500 troops over to Afghanistan in 2010 that the total will only be around 10,000……how can he justify telling Pakistan to do more when by comparison he only has a token force?

Why didn’t the US, UK and NATO forces assist the Pakistan Army when on two occasions they asked for NATO to assist them on the Afghanistan side of the border when they started to push this nameless enemy back towards the Afghan border?

Even the Pakistan Army suggested that around 200-300 AQ existed on their side and yet with such small numbers they still remain elusive.

As you can see from the map it is clear to see where the main problem exists (if it exists at all) and one can see the main thrust by the Pakistan Army. On the adjacent Afghan side there is no one and hasn’t been for around three years…….except to say a small US specialized group did carryout a few days patrolling the region and then left.

I again ask the question who is the enemy and where are they? I also ask that if the US Commander was asking for more troops urgently so as to carry out a “Surge” (otherwise this war could be lost) why the delay in providing more troops in the New Year? Why is the UK Government accepting that more helicopter are required and have said that a large fleet of Chinooks will be made available between 2011 – 2017 when the US (Obama) has suggested a progressive withdrawal 2011…..this certainly does not indicate a withdrawal but rather the firm establishment of a significant force in Afghanistan.

When one looks at and listens to the Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth one is not totally inspired by his knowledge or words…..rather the opposite! And Brown has so many times repeated that we have got it right in Afghanistan and yet the tactics keep changing as do the commanders. This war is showing clear signs of a total failure with the Taliban still in control of most of the country.

The TAPI pipeline is (according to the US) a vital supply line of energy to Pakistan, India and beyond. This project has been on the books since history began and the consortium where under great pressure to have completed its construction by now. They have now said that construction will start in 2010, hence the surge. It is clear that all the action in Afghanistan is down in the South of the country where this pipeline will be constructed and not in the area where this mysterious AQ are hiding. As you can see the red area is under Taliban control and most of the remainder is under their influence

It was also interesting to note that both Bush, Obama, Blair and Brown all indicated that this war was all about the drug that were entering our respective markets and democracy. This was also supposed to be about infrastructure development. Russia revealed that this month saw the highest levels of Heroin from the British controlled sector in Afghanistan so it is clear that we are doing the right thing (making sure it’s a flourishing market!) It is also a fact that no infrastructure or development has taken place apart from the highway in the south that will run alongside the TAPI pipeline.

I will leave the readers to make up their minds as to what this war is really about….oil/drugs or democracy and development for the people of Afghanistan.

I will leave the readers to decide if Al Qaeda really exist or is this just an excuse to keep more troops in Afghanistan to fight this “War on Terror” and establish their own economic project worth trillions of dollars.

From my perspective I don’t think they do exist. We should also demand that a full and independent enquiry takes place into the 9/11 conspiracy without further delay……there are so many unanswered questions and irregularities that took place that day that would indicate that those that were meant to protect the US either totally failed in their duty of care or as many would say were very much implicated. Even if 9/11 was totally genuine why didn’t an enquiry take place into the failings of the President, The Administration, The Department of Defense and in particular the Air Force. Rumsfeld and Cheney both certainly have much to answer for but as one would expect everything has now been swept under the carpet.

There certainly is a list of “The most wanted men on Earth”…that list does not include Bin Laden or senior Taliban leaders but does include many US senior members of staff that have eluded justice over the years: Bush Snr & Jnr, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Bremer, John Bolton, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and I guess Oliver North and many others should also be added to this illustrious list.

It is time for the world to wake up to this terrible deceit and mass genocide that is taking place with illegal weapons that contain uranium components. It is time for people to take back their own countries and bring stability and peace to this world. It is also important for us not to worry so much about “Global Warming” but pay more attention to “Global Contamination” by the US, UK, NATO and IDF forces.

All weapons that contain any form of Uranium must be prohibited without delay. The world’s populations and eco systems are in grave danger and that has to be the highest priority for 2010.

We must all insist that our respective governments bring home all troops and close down all military bases that exist on Islamic soil. It is then and only then we will see a more balanced world. We also must learn to trade with our Arabic friends and not fight them……a totally new type of foreign policy is required to take away this hatred and suspicion that currently exists.

- Peter Eyre, Middle East Consultant

More than half of the 1,400 Gazans killed during Operation Cast Lead were civilians

David Miliband, the UK’s foreign secretary, has apologised to his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, after the humiliation and embarrassment caused by the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli foreign minister.

The arrest warrant was issued over Livni’s suspected war crimes role during Israel’s war on Gaza, but was later withdrawn after she cancelled her visit to London.

Miliband also promised to begin work immediately to change UK laws to ensure that no such warrants would be issued for Israeli officials in the future. As an added sweetener to the act of contrition, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, also personally called Livni to assure her she would always be welcomed to visit the UK.

All of this is easier said than done. Already there is a huge outcry in Britain over the mere thought of changing UK laws or reneging on treaty obligations simply to protect Israeli officials involved in the serial breach of international law.

In their deluded fantasy the Israelis claim that the judicial order in London will seriously impair bi-lateral relations between London and Tel Aviv, jeopardise the Middle East peace process and undermine Britain’s image in the region.

Historic Middle East role

What a gross distortion. Britain’s historic relationship and role in the Middle East is unquestioned. Even though it has on many occasions acted against the national interests of the people of the region and the Palestinians in particular, it would be wishful thinking to suggest that it could be excluded from future negotiations.

Instead of being eternally grateful to Britain for creating their state in Palestine, Israeli officials are today attempting to bite the very hand that fed them.

To claim that Britain is in trouble or would be the loser because of the court order is disingenuous. Actually, the only losers are those who planned, commissioned and executed the war crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.

They are the ones in hot water, so to speak, and the greatest service Brown could make on behalf of universal jurisdiction is to leave them to stew in it.

These sentiments were expressed by his former cabinet colleague Clare Short, a member of the Labour Party and an independent MP, while addressing a conference organised by the Palestinian Return Centre, in London.

A former minister for international development, Short said the crimes committed in Gaza during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead last year marked a defining moment in the conflict. She criticised how Israel has undermined the international system by its cavalier breach of conventions and established norms in an apparent attempt to tell the world that there are special laws for certain states and that it is a state above the law.

She derided the hypocrisy of those who seek to prosecute Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, while at the same time they refuse and obstruct efforts to investigated and prosecute Israeli criminals.

Violations of international law

The groveling apology to Israel, after the British ambassador was summoned for a reprimand by the Israeli foreign ministry, is the type of reaction expected from a banana republic, not from Great Britain.

Should the foreign secretary entertain Lieberman, a Jewish settler himself and a resident of Nokdim, a West Bank settlement considered illegal under international law? What a contradiction.

The official policy of the UK government is that all settlements in the lands occupied in 1967 are illegal and violate UN Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is poignant to point out that Livni’s father and mother were regarded as “terrorists” by the British Mandate authorities in Palestine in the 1940s and were both captured and locked up. Under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Britain still has an obligation to “to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts”.

What is at stake in this imbroglio is the independence of the British judiciary, an institution that for hundreds of years has been a source of national pride and emulated by many nations.

It is for this reason there is anger and outrage over the government’s declared intent to succumb to Israel. The implication, of course, is the fear that in future Britain would not be able to lay any claim to be a bastion and guardian of international law. The rhetoric of ‘rule of law’ will run hollow if there was any change of the law for no other reason except to protect war criminals who happen to be members of the club.

Compelling evidence

It must be recalled that these laws came into being because of the Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity. Only last month there was great satisfaction and hubris when John Demjanjuk was brought before a German court more than 60 years after allegedly committing his crimes.

The message was clear: that war crimes and crimes against humanity are so repugnant that they must not go unpunished.

The case against the Israeli minister and her accomplices was made not by Richard Goldstone only.

A number of independent reports including the report of Independent Fact-Finding Committee on Gaza to the Arab League, the Martin Commission report to the UN secretary-general on attacks on UN premises, and reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights and the National Lawyers Guild, all support the conclusion that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Israeli military in its Operation Cast Lead.

It was because of this compelling evidence that a British judge issued the warrant for Livni’s arrest. To present the matter as if it were a malicious witch hunt is simply beside the point. Surely it would be a travesty of justice if what occurred in Gaza was not investigated and prosecuted.

Peace in the region has remained elusive precisely because of this failure to be even-handed in the application of international law, always at the expense of Palestinian rights.

If Palestinians do not have recourse to the law, one wonders what other options are left to them when their legitimate grievances are ignored.

Daud Abdullah is the director of the Middle East Monitor, an independent media research institution founded in the United Kingdom to foster a fair and accurate coverage in the Western media of Middle Eastern issues and in particular the Palestine Question.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

UK probes new Iraq Abuse

Britain’s defence ministry says it is investigating new allegations of abuse involving its soldiers in Iraq.

Iraqi civilians detained by British troops during the war have lodged at least 33 new allegations of rape and abuse against the troops, the defence ministry said on Saturday.

One abuse claim involves a 16-year-old boy who said he was raped by two British soldiers while in custody in 2003.

Another man has accused male and female personnel of sexually harassing him.

Others said they were stripped naked and photographed by British troops in a manner similar to photographs of abuse by US soldiers at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing the Iraqis who made the claims, said Iraqis are coming forward now following the withdrawal of most British troops from Iraq earlier this year.

“Given the history of the UK’s involvement in the development of these techniques alongside the US, it is deeply concerning that there appears to be strong similarities between instances of the use of sexual humiliation,” the AP quoted Shiner as saying in a letter to the ministry.

Defence statement

The British defence ministry said in a statement: “Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast majority have conducted themselves to the highest standards of behaviour, displaying integrity and selfless commitment.

“There have been instances when individuals have behaved badly, but only a tiny number have been shown to have fallen short of our high standards.“Allegations of this nature are taken very seriously, but must not be taken as fact. Formal investigations must be allowed to take their course.”

The claims come as the UK examines a public inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi civilian who died in British custody in 2003, with 93 separate injuries.

But Bill Rammell, the armed forces minister, told the BBC that the latest allegations do not warrant a public inquiry.

Iraqi hesitation

Mazin Younis, an Iraqi human rights campaigner, said some of the complaints were made after the departure of the majority of British forces from Iraq earlier this year.

“If you look at the horrible things that have happened to those detainees, you can imagine why those people are so scared,” he told Al Jazeera.

“They have been waiting for a year or two years … for their release and the last thing they want is the British soldiers to come back and arrest them again.

“And some of them are telling us even now that they’re hesitant to come forward because they have no guarantee that their names will not be passed to the Iraq side or to the Americans who have taken over Basra and they’ll be re-arrested.”

Video Report

Source: Al Jazeera