Trial by radio
Putting Israel on trial for war crimes is not something one does lightly. But that's what The World Tonight decided to do last week. Not Israel alone, mind you. Hezbollah was in the dock too - both of them for allegedly committing war crimes during the recent Lebanon conflict. And I should clarify, we were simply hosting the trial.
This was not the ´óÏó´«Ã½ putting either side on trial. We left that to Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch whose organisation had recently released a detailed report accusing both sides of committing war crimes. Defending Israel was Daniel Reisner, a former legal advisor to the Israeli army. International Law Professor John Quigley took the Hezbollah brief. Friday's presenter Paul Moss was judge. Our listeners were the jury. (You can hear the debate here.)
To keep order in court we allowed Roth two minutes to make the case against each defendant who then had two minutes each to offer a defence against the "charges". Roth then cross-examined both defendants.
To end we gave each of the participants a final say. It was a fascinating contest which thanks to Ken Roth's surgical cross examination really cut to the core issues of what is, and is not, legally permissible in times of war.
A stunt or useful contribution to the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s coverage of the conflict? Judging by the torrent of e-mails we received, I'd say this was a resounding success. Here's a typical response:
"Thank-you for the concise and objective debate to-night on the war in Lebanon. It was refreshing to see both points argued sensibly and logically. In my opinion, both sides are guilty of war crimes."
Using the device of the court hearing opened up the debate in ways that a straightforward interview wouldn't. Thanks also to the time constraints imposed there was real drama as Roth's prosecution demolished in large parts both defendants' cases.
And the verdict? The jury is still out as the e-mails continue to come in, though there are currently marginally more who think Israel is guilty than Hezbollah. Our listeners' final verdict will be announced on tonight's programme.
Comments
How useful is the result of a jury that can be skewed by campaigners for either side.
Why do we even need a verdict, the debate itself is interestin - cant the audience make up it's own mind individually?
Can we have a trial of whether the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is biased against Israel, or is that not allowed as the ´óÏó´«Ã½ only listens to Islamists or left wingers, not the licence fee payers.
A stunt.
Just another excuse for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to reinforce its usual distortions against Israel.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is destroying what little credibility it had left.
So what's new at ´óÏó´«Ã½? Still the same mediocracy and short-sighted as always. The report on ´óÏó´«Ã½'s biased coverage was a waist of time. Nobody looked at it, nobody learned anything. The report was very clear on ´óÏó´«Ã½'s bias while covering the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has taken it's leftist side a long time ago, even if it has nothing to do with reality, and is not ready to let go just for one stupid report, no, not the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Shame you!
Is the ´óÏó´«Ã½, in reality following Israel's (lack of) compliance with its obligations to investigate and try, by due process, war crimes committed by it's own forces (and their commanders)? Including the continuing investigations on the ground by international bodies and the reports they put to Israel (which it rejects out of hand), and the continuing holding of tens of thousands of hostages held by Israel, not least those randomly seized in the raid on Baalbeck? Or is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ totally happy to pretend that the "investigation" announced by the Israeli government includes those crimes, when in fact it only covers Israel's failure to "win" the "war" on all Lebanon they never actually got round to declaring, and didn't go through the agreed UN procedures before instigating?
I fear that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ may still be holding to its output during the assault which insisted that international humanitarian law in the Geneva Conventions contain absolutely no provisions for prosecution or justice. Which any reader of the documents can see is untrue.
Countries undertake to police and bring to justice their own actions, honourably. Unfortunately some, like Israel and the US, repeatedly haven't, which is why the ICC was created, and which the US and Israel now refuse to join.
Failing honourable action other countries can hold a trial, if the accused can be detained. Since Mr Olmert has claimed full responsibility his international travel plans may become somewhat fraught when he leaves office and no longer has diplomatic protection.
Then there's the issue of reparation for the billions of dollar worth of damage done, which is not being helped by Israel's main backer and armourer attempting to use the money it has offered Lebanon for reconstruction as yet a further weapon in its war, demanding control on how and where it is spent in order to manipulate Lebanon's internal politics and social groups.