(Source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Introduction:
On 11 August 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed William Schabas to chair the Gaza commission of inquiry. In this position, he will serve as judge and jury of Israel. Yet Mr. Schabas is well-known for his hostility towards Israel and has a history of accusing it of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Quotes of comments and written statements made by Schabas clearly demonstrate that he has already solidified his opinions on Israel, including its conduct during previous conflicts with Hamas. Some of these comments contain mistakes of basic facts that reveal a dangerous lack of knowledge in someone making supposed expert statements.
Moreover, his history of statements on terrorism and the war crimes of the Assad regime in Syria, as well as on Iran, present further proof of his bias and animus towards Israel and others involved in the fight against the terrorism.
Taken together, these quotes, examples of which are listed below, establish that Schabas cannot lead an impartial or professional examination of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas.
Examples of Quotes:
Lack of Impartiality
Schabas has made his acceptance of mixing politics and justice quite clear:
"I don’t have a problem with ‘one-sided’ justice because there is a political dimension to this kind of justice. And it is inevitable that we will make political choices in deciding whom to prosecute."
Extreme Bias against Israel:
Schabas has already determined that Israel committed the most egregious crimes:
"I would have been inclined to speak about crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression all of which can be shown have been perpetrated in various times during the history of the state of Israel"
Efforts to Bring Israel before the ICC:
Schabas has admitted not only that he believes that Israel should be tried before the International Criminal Court but that he is actively working to bring that about:
"It is important point to mention that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since 2002…. War crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated in Palestine and that the obstacle at this time moving forward is simply a decision by the prosecutor of the ICC, much of my efforts it this time is trying to get the decision revoked."
But everybody knows that it [the Yugoslavia Tribunal] had nevertheless a political agenda because it was created by the Security Council. It created a Tribunal for Yugoslavia but it did not create a Tribunal for Israel, for example this is the political dimension of the contemporary tribunals."
Basic Mistakes of Fact:
Referring to prosecution before the ICC, Schabas said:
"I believe that pretending the prosecution of Sudan is not political is a mistake too. Of course it is political. Why are we going after the president of Sudan for Darfur and not the president of Israel for Gaza? Because of politics."
Israel is a parliamentary democracy and the president of Israel holds a largely ceremonial role that has absolutely no connection with the military conflict with Hamas. The president at the time comment was made was Shimon Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Among his statements against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were those made during the Russell Tribunal on Palestine in October 2012:
"My favorite would be Netanyahu in the dock of the International Criminal Court."
This comment was made in connection to the January 2009 Gaza conflict. At that time Ehud Olmert was prime minister and not Netanyahu, who was head of the opposition.
The Goldstone Report
He has made frequent statements of support for the Goldstone Report, a previous UNHRC Fact Finding Mission on the 2009 Gaza conflict, which was widely discredited including by its author, Judge Richard Goldstone:
"When we look it the situation in Palestine we all hope maybe a legal way can help us find a way out of it and that is why we should encourage developments such is the Goldstone Report."
The Russell Tribunal on Palestine
Schabas has also expressed his support for the Russell Tribunal on Palestine and actually appeared before the tribunal in October 2012:
"The value of a body like the Russell Tribunal is to remind people (of instruments like the Goldstone Report) and to make sure they don’t slip from our fingers"
Judge Goldstone wrote about the tribunal in the New York Times: “It is not a ‘tribunal.’ The ‘evidence’ is going to be one-sided and the members of the ‘jury’ are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.” Elliott Abrams, a former US Deputy National Security Advisor, described the tribunal as “a part of the serious international effort to destroy the state of Israel by breaking its economic and political ties to other nations.”
Excusing Hamas’ Terrorism
Schabas has refused to label Hamas a terrorist organization, most recently in an interview earlier this week with Israel’s Channel 2 news. This despite Hamas being designated as a terrorist organization by the US, the European Union and other leading democracies, among them Canada and Australia.
In reference to the 2009 Gaza conflict, he grossly understated Hamas’ war crimes:
"Maybe Hamas didn’t behave properly… but it doesn't challenge in any significant way the conclusion that Israel violated international law."
That conflict followed eight years of ongoing rocket and other attacks that deliberately targeted Israeli civilians, thereby constituting war crimes. During the conflict, Hamas used the civilian population of Gaza as human shields, more war crimes.
Condemnations of the Killing of Osama bin Laden
Schabas has repeatedly condemned the killing of the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden as “murder,” and even connected the elimination of the world’s most wanted terrorist to “barbarism”:
"If these facts are true, the killing of Bin Laden should be described as murder"
"The current issue of the New Yorker contains an article explaining how Osama Bin Laden was murdered… Nuremberg's great achievement was to move humanity beyond this barbarism. "
Defending Assad’s War Crimes against Syrians
Schabas, who as seen above has never hesitated to accuse Israel of horrific crimes, criticizes Ban Ki-moon for his statements on Bashir Assad’s thoroughly documented crimes against his own people during the Syriancivil war:
"The Secretary-General of the United Nations stated that President Assad of Syria ‘has committed many crimes against humanity’. See it for yourself on You-tube. This is a very unusual and perhaps unprecedented occurrence. It raises questions about the presumption of innocence."
Directly after the world viewed Assad’s use of chemical weapons, including in the 21 August 2013 attack on civilians, Schabas continued to defend him, questioning whether the use of chemical weapons is a war crime. He presented a long list of arguments against it being a war crime, and then attacks those states with nuclear weapons:
“The rather facile manner by which political leaders in powerful states that possess and continue to develop nuclear weapons describe the use of chemical weapons as a war crime does indeed smack of hypocrisy.”
Defending Iran
Schabas has made frequent statements defending Iran, both rationalizing Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and excusing its calls to destroy Israel.
"Were Iran to get nuclear weapons, it would not be the first in the region to do so. It very arguably has a claim to require them for defensive purposes, given that its enemies already have nuclear weapons."
"Iran and its president have said many outrageous things. With respect to Israel, the common denominator of Ahmedinijad’s comments on the subject, when read in their context and bearing in mind the vagaries of translation, certainly amount to a call for the elimination or destruction of the state of Israel. But this is not at all the same thing as calling for the extermination of the people of Israel, or the Jewish population of Israel. A reasonable reading of Ahmedinijad's statements cannot support such a conclusion. There is nothing unprecedented about calling for the destruction or elimination of a State…These are political views, and whether we disagree with them or not, they have a right to be expressed."