188 Israel fury at UK attempt to arrest Tzipi Livni

Israel fury at UK attempt to arrest Tzipi Livni

(1) Trots admit that US oil interests losing out in Iraq, but then restate "war for oil" thesis
(2) Jewish lobby wages war on Christmas trees
(3) NATO in Afghanistan: 150,000 troops & 80,000 mercenaries. But supply-lines fragile - Eric Walberg
(4) UK court issues an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni; she cancels her planned visit
(5) Israel fury at UK attempt to arrest Tzipi Livni
(6) U.K. vows to end arrest threats to top Israeli officials

(1) Trots admit that US oil interests losing out in Iraq, but then restate "war for oil" thesis
From: Brian Salter <bsalter@gol.com> Date: 15.12.2009 12:15 AM

Note this Trotskyist spin on the story -- they observe that US oil 
interests are totally losing out, but then restate the "war for oil" 
thesis again, as if there were no contradiction (typically, the case 
rests on  the 2001 energy meetings led by VP Cheney, while the Israel 
Lobby's role in previous years is unmentioned).

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/iraq-d14.shtml

US firms lose out in bidding for Iraq oil fields
By Patrick Martin
14 December 2009

In a clear signal of the declining influence of American capitalism, even in a country conquered and occupied by the US military, companies from China, Russia, Malaysia and Angola, along with several European oil giants, won most of the rights for exploration and development of Iraq’s oil fields.

The concessions were awarded Friday and Saturday by the Iraqi oil ministry, after a competitive auction in which joint ventures of European and Asian companies won the lion’s share. Of the ten concessions awarded so far, including in an earlier auction, US-based companies will play the lead role in only one, while getting a lesser share in a second.

The most aggressive bidder was the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), while Lukoil and Gazprom of Russia, and European firms like Royal Dutch Shell, ENI (Italy), British Petroleum, Statoil (Norway) and Total (France) all won bids. Petronas, the state-owned Malaysian oil company, won the most bids, three, while the Angolan state oil company Sonangol won two.

A total of 15 oil fields were put up for bidding, but five received no bids, because they are located in areas in the center and north of Iraq still contested by insurgents or politically unstable, and considered too risky for significant investment. A sixth field drew only one bid. The main interest was in oil fields in the southern part of the country, around Basra.

The oil ministry offered fields with nearly 40 billion barrels in proven reserves, about one-third of Iraq’s 115 billion total. Iraq has the world’s third-largest proven reserves, trailing only Iran and Saudi Arabia, but most of these were discovered more than 25 years ago, before international sanctions cut off the flow of investment capital. The country is believed to have undiscovered reserves that could be as extensive as the oil already known to exist.

Discarding the production-sharing contracts initially proposed by US occupation officials—a structure that would have given the bulk of profits to the multinationals—the oil ministry offered 20-year service contracts in which the oil companies would receive a flat fee per barrel and any increase in oil prices will go to the Iraqi government.

The winning bidders agreed to accept fees in the range of $1.35 to $1.50 per barrel of oil, with the market price for oil now over $75 a barrel. According to oil minister Hussein Shahristani, the deals will allow Iraq to increase its oil output from the current level of 2.5 million barrels a day to as many as 12 million barrels a day in 2016, double the production level before the US invasion and more than Saudi Arabia produces today.

The biggest single field, Majnoon in the south, with an estimated 12.58 billion barrels in reserves, nearly a third of the total offered, was won by a combination of Shell and Petronas, which underbid the rival consortium of Total and CNPC. The Shell-Petronas consortium agreed to raise production from the current 45,900 barrels per day to 1.8 million barrels per day by 2019.

The second largest field, West Qurna Phase 2, with some 12 billion barrels in reserves, was awarded to a consortium led by Lukoil, Russia’s second largest energy company. Lukoil had previously signed a contract to develop West Qurna Phase 2 in 1997, but Iraqi president Saddam Hussein subsequently reneged on the deal.

For the Halfaya field, with an estimated 4.1 billion barrels, Petronas, CNPC and Total submitted the winning bids, beating three other European and Asian consortiums. Output would increase from 3,100 barrels per day to 535,000 barrels per day by 2022.

The poor showing of the American-based oil companies was predictable, since seven of them registered and paid fees to participate, but only one actually submitted a bid to the latest auction. Two US companies, ExxonMobil and Occidental Petroleum, won bids during an earlier auction.

In an early summer decision, BP and CNPC won a contract to run the Rumaila oil field, the biggest in the world, with 17.8 billion barrels in proven reserves. ENI, Occidental Petroleum and Korea Gas signed an agreement last month to develop the Zubayr field, with an estimated 4.1 billion barrels in reserves. ExxonMobil and Shell signed a contract to develop West Qurna Phase 1, believe to hold 8.6 billion barrels.

Industry analysts cited two main reasons for the failure of the US companies. The European-Asian consortiums were able to combine technical expertise and relatively lower labor costs, allowing them to accept a lower per-barrel fee.

More significantly, the US companies needed higher fees to offset the substantially higher security costs they face in Iraq, due to the widespread popular hostility to the US occupation. Any US-run oil facility in Iraq would be a high-profile target for insurgent attack, and a successful attack could lead to colossal losses.

Iraq’s enormous oil resources were a major factor in the Bush administration decision to invade and conquer the country. Vice President Richard Cheney’s energy task force, which held closed-door meetings early in 2001, reportedly pored over maps of Iraq as part of the process of determining the source of future US oil supplies. US oil companies were kicked out of Iraq in 1972, along with all the other multinationals, when the Baathist regime in power at the time nationalized the oil industry.

The cost of production for Iraqi oil is very low, about $1.50 to $2.25 a barrel, rivaling Saudi Arabia’s. This compares to $20 a barrel in Canada’s tar sands, and figures in between for most offshore oil drilling, as in the Gulf of Mexico. The main difficulty is replacing equipment that is either outdated, because of the protracted economic sanctions, or destroyed by years of war and civil war.

Iraqi oil minister Shahristani said that the government has spent more than $8 billion trying to increase capacity, but needs $50 billion more, which it must seek from the global oil industry.

The deals are precarious not only because of the ongoing security issues, but because the legal position of the multinational firms is uncertain. Despite constant prodding from Washington, the Iraqi parliament has failed to adopt a law to regulate the oil industry and give legal protection to foreign investors.

The Kurdish regional government took unilateral action two years ago to invite Western exploration companies into the provinces it controls. The national government is now following suit, opening up the massive southern oil fields to foreign capital.

(2) Jewish lobby wages war on Christmas trees

From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 15.12.2009 09:25 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3815175,00.html

Lobby for Jewish values passes out fliers against hotels, restaurants putting up Christmas trees, other Christian symbols ahead of civil New Year, say businesses who do so risk losing kosher certification

Ari Galhar
Published: 12.08.09, 07:51 / Israel Jewish Scene

A new front for religious battles: Hotels and restaurants. The "Lobby for Jewish values" this week began operating against restaurants and hotels that plan to put up Christmas trees and other Christian symbols ahead of Christmas and the civil New Year.

According to the lobby's Chairman, Ofer Cohen, they have received backing by the rabbis, "and we are even considering publishing the names of the businesses that put up Christian symbols ahead of the Christian holiday and call for a boycott against them."

Fliers and ads distributed among the public read, "The people of Israel have given their soul over the years in order to maintain the values of the Torah of Israel and the Jewish identity.

"You should also continue to follow this path of the Jewish people's tradition and not give in to the clownish atmosphere of the end of the civil year. And certainly not help those businesses that sell or put up the foolish symbols of Christianity."

The Jerusalem Rabbinate also works each year to ensure restaurants and hotels receiving kosher certification from the Jerusalem Religious Council do not put up Christian symbols.

According to a senior official in the kashrut department, this is done each year consensually, but that businesses which do not meet this requirement may find their kashrut certificate revoked.

It should be noted that most of the hotels in Jerusalem and a significant part of the restaurants in the capital receive permanent kosher certification from the city's religious council.

(3) NATO in Afghanistan: 150,000 troops & 80,000 mercenaries. But supply-lines fragile - Eric Walberg

From: efgh1951 <efgh1951@yahoo.com> Date: 16.12.2009 12:10 PM

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/12/15/russia-nato-and-afghanistan-high-stakes-

Russia, NATO and Afghanistan: High stakes Great Game
December 15th, 2009 12:55 PM 

Eric Walberg

What did Medvedev have up his sleeve when he welcomed Obama's new surge in Afghanistan?

US President Barack Obama's now expanding war against the Taliban is garnering support from liberals and neocons alike, from leaders around the world, even from Russia. “We are ready to support these efforts, guarantee the transit of troops, take part in economic projects and train police and the military,” Russian President Dmitri Medvedev declared in a recent press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Moscow and Washington reached an agreement in July allowing the US to launch up to 4,500 US flights a year over Russia, opening a major supply route for American operations in Afghanistan. Previously Russia had only allowed the US to ship non-lethal military supplies across its territory by train.

So far, Obama has all European governments behind him, if not their people. Despite a solid majority in all countries, from Canada to Europe East and West, who want the troops out now, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was able to deliver pledges from 25 NATO members to send a total of about 7,000 additional forces to Afghanistan next year "with more to come" with nary a dissenting voice. In a macabre statement, Fogh Rasmussen welcomed Obama's surge: "The United States' contribution to the NATO-led mission has always been substantial; it is now even more important."

Explaining the willingness of Euro leaders to ignore their constituents, former US ambassador to NATO and RAND adviser Robert Hunter told the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR): "In terms of motivation, very few European countries believe that winning in Afghanistan -- that is, dismantling, defeating, and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban -- is necessary for their own security. A few believe that, but most do not. When they add forces, it is to protect the credibility of NATO now that it is there. NATO has never failed at anything it chose to do." Part and parcel with this, Europeans want to keep the US "as a European power, not just as an insurance policy but also as the principal manager of Russia's future." He ghoulishly agreed with the CFR interviewer that Afghanistan is a way for Europe to "pay the rent" to the US for continuing to bully Russia.

The combined US and NATO forces will bring together a staggering 150,000 soldiers from more than 50 nations, not to mention the estimated 80,000 mercenaries already there, bringing the total to 230,000. Every European nation except for Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Russia and Serbia will have military forces there, as well as nine of the 15 former Soviet republics. Marvels analyst Rick Rozoff, "Troops from five continents, Oceania and the Middle East. Even the putative coalition of the willing stitched together by the US and Britain after the invasion of Iraq only consisted of forces from 31 nations." By way of comparison, in September this year there were 120,000 US troops in Iraq and only a handful of other nations' personnel. The Soviet Afghan occupation force in the 1980s peaked at 100,000 shortly before beginning to pull out in 1989; the British in 1839 had only 21,000 and in 1878 -- 42,000.

The world's last three major wars -- Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq -- have all been testing grounds for the new, global NATO. Hence the flurry of visits by US officials to prospective members to make sure they sign up for the surge. For instance, Celeste Wallander, US deputy assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, just returned from a visit to her new friend Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, to thank him for coughing up 40 "peacekeepers" who will start training in Germany in January 2010 before deployment in Afghanistan. As if to up the ante with its nemesis, Azerbaijan promised to double its 90 troops. It would be interesting if the two warring nations' troops were to share barracks. They have far more cause to fight each other than Afghans.

It is hard to imagine this heathen Tower of Babel as an effective force against devoted Muslims ready to die to repel the invaders. But Fogh nonetheless chortles, "With the right resources, we can succeed." Could it be that one of his "resources" is the "big one"?

What explains Russia's quiescence at Obama's determination to wrest Central Asia from its traditional sphere of influence? Russian suspicions about US intentions are very strong on many fronts. Sucking more than half of the ex-Soviet republics into returning to Afghanistan -- this time on the US side -- is surely brazen. Continuing to expand NATO eastward is strongly condemned by all Russians and is not popular in either Ukraine or Georgia, but continues nonetheless. Russian intelligence is undoubtedly following US and others' machinations in Chechnya, which continues to be a serious threat to Russian security. Hunter's cynical explanation to the CFR of Euro complicity in the Afghan genocide is not lost on deaf ears.

Yet, Russia dawdles on its assistance to Iran both in nuclear energy and in providing up-to-date defence missiles, clearly at US prompting. And now seems to be happy that Obama is expanding what all sensible analysts insist is a losing and criminal war virtually next door. Is this evidence of Russian weakness, an acceptance of US plans for Eurasian hegemony which could imperil the Russian Federation itself?

Russia is still in transition, caught between a longing to be part of the West and to be a mediator between the Western empire and the rest of the world. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, represents this conflict between the "Atlantist" and "Eurasian" vision of Russia's future, terms which have been popularised by Alexandr Dugin. In a TV interview with Russia Today, loose-cannon Rogozin argued: “There is a new civilisation emerging in the Third World that thinks that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must therefore fall at its feet now. If the northern civilisation wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”

But Rogozin is not in favour of Russia merely lying down to be walked over by NATO. He would like NATO replaced by a Euro-Russian security treaty. It is no coincidence that just before Obama's announced surge, Russia unveiled a proposal for just such a new pact, which despite talk of "from Vancouver to Vladivostok" would essentially exclude the US and include Russia. It would prevent member states from taking actions which threaten other members, effectively excluding Ukraine and Georgia from NATO and preventing Poland and the Czech Republic from setting up their beloved US missile bases. Rogozin's Atlantist vision would see NATO defanged, and North America forced to ally with a new, independent Europe, where Russia is now the dominant power.

NATO, of course, will not go quietly into the night -- unless its latest venture in Afghanistan fails. So Russia is biting the bullet on this war -- for the time being. Just in case Obama was too busy with Oslo to notice, Rogozin warned last week that Russian cooperation over transit of military supplies to Afghanistan could be jeopardised by a failure to take the Russian security treaty proposal seriously. In Washington's worst-case scenario, if its Afghan gamble implodes, not only will it have to take Russia seriously, but so will Europe, giving the Russian Atlantists the opportunity to integrate with Europe without the US breathing down their necks. If by some miracle NATO succeeds in cowing the Afghans and continues to threaten Russia with encirclement, the Eurasians will gain the upper hand, and Russia will build up its BRIC and SCO ties, forced to abandon its dream of joining and leading Europe as the countervailing power to the US empire.

As this intrigue plays itself out, any number of things could tip the apple cart. For example, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, two quarrelsome ex-Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan which are vital to Obama's surge, virtually declared war on each other earlier this month, potentially complicating the shuttling of US materiel to the front. Uzbekistan announced its withdrawal from the Central Asian electricity grid, a move that isolates Tajikistan by making it impossible for the country to import power from other Central Asian states during the cold winter months. The Tajiks threaten to retaliate by restricting water supplies that Uzbekistan desperately need for its cotton sector next summer.Who knows how this will end? At least they haven't any troops in Afghanistan, where, like the Azeris and Armenians, they would be sorely tempted to turn their guns against each other rather than against the hapless Taliban. -###-

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/

(4) UK court issues an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni; she cancels her planned visit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8415123.stm

Page last updated at 20:01 GMT, Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Tzipi Livni: UK warrant a legal 'abuse'

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has described an arrest warrant issued against her as "an abuse of the British legal system".

It is the first time a UK court has issued a warrant for the arrest of a former Israeli minister.

The warrant, granted by a London court on Saturday, was revoked on Monday when it was found Ms Livni was not visiting the UK.

(5) Israel fury at UK attempt to arrest Tzipi Livni

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8413234.stm

Page last updated at 17:30 GMT, Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Israel has reacted angrily to the issuing by a British court of an arrest warrant for the former Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni.

The warrant, granted by a London court on Saturday, was revoked on Monday when it was found Ms Livni was not visiting the UK.

Ms Livni was foreign minister during Israel's Gaza assault last winter.

It is the first time a UK court has issued a warrant for the arrest of a former Israeli minister.

Ms Livni said the court had been "abused" by the Palestinian plaintiffs who requested the warrant.

"What needs to be put on trial here is the abuse of the British legal system," she told the BBC.

"This is not a suit against Tzipi Livni, this is not a law suit against Israel. This is a lawsuit against any democracy that fights terror."

She stood by her decisions during the three-week assault Gaza offensive which began in December last year, she said.

Israel's foreign ministry summoned the UK's ambassador to Israel to deliver a rebuke over the warrant.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the situation was "an absurdity".

"We will not accept a situation in which [former Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert, [Defence Minister] Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the defendants' chair," Mr Netanyahu said in a statement.

"We will not agree to have Israel Defence Force soldiers, who defended the citizens of Israel bravely and ethically against a cruel and criminal enemy, be recognised as war criminals. We completely reject this absurdity taking place in Britain," he said.

Pro-Palestinian campaigners have tried several times to have Israeli officials arrested under the principle of universal jurisdiction. ...

(6) U.K. vows to end arrest threats to top Israeli officials

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135207.html

Wed., December 16, 2009 Kislev 29, 5770 | | Israel Time: 00:03 (EST+7)

Last update - 00:02 16/12/2009

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and Agencies

Britain pledged Tuesday to reform a peculiar legal power that lets judges order the arrest of visiting politicians and generals - a threat currently focused on Israeli visitors that, one day, might be invoked against Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin.

Lawyers working with Palestinian activists in recent years have sought the arrest of senior Israeli civilian and military figures under terms of universal jurisdiction. This ill-defined legal concept empowers judges to issue arrest warrants for visiting officials accused of war crimes in a foreign conflict.

Their latest target is Tzipi Livni, Israel's former foreign minister and current opposition leader, who staunchly defends Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Israel's government confirmed Tuesday that she canceled a planned London trip this month after her office received news of a secretly issued arrest warrant awaiting her arrival.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband later announced that Britain would no longer tolerate legal harassment of Israeli officials in this fashion.

Speaking after meeting Israel's London ambassador Tuesday night, Miliband said the British law permitting judges to issue arrest warrants against foreign dignitaries without any prior knowledge or advice by a prosecutor must be reviewed and reformed.

Miliband said the British government was determined that arrest threats against visitors of Livni's stature would not happen again.

"Israel is a strategic partner and a close friend of the United Kingdom. We are determined to protect and develop these ties," Miliband said. "Israeli leaders - like leaders from other countries - must be able to visit and have a proper dialogue with the British government."

Miliband voices shock over arrest warrant in call to Livni

Earlier Tuesday, Miliband called Livni to express his shock over the arrest warrant and pledged to address the matter immediately.

Livni clarified that she doesn't view the arrest warrant as a personal offense, but rather one that affects Israel as a whole. She added that it also harms efforts to operate jointly against threatening elements.

Livni stressed that Israel and Britain must work to solve the problem according to agreements outlined when she was foreign minister.

Miliband earlier in the day denounced the arrest warrant as insufferable, after Israel warned that the matter could harm bilateral ties.

Miliband made the comments during a meeting with Israel's ambassador to Court of St. James, Ron Prosor. The Israeli envoy asked to discuss the matter with Miliband on Monday, following news that Livni had canceled her trip to Britain after a warrant was issued for her arrest.

Prosor told Miliband that the British government must work immediately to combat the grave phenomenon of arrest warrants being issued against senior Israeli officials.

The foreign secretary said he had spoken with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and with Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw in order to try to resolve the problem.

Miliband called Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Tuesday and expressed concern over the arrest warrant, saying he and other British parliamentarians found it unacceptable. Miliband also planned to call Livni.

He told Lieberman that solutions must be found in order to prevent this situation from repeating itself in the future.

Lieberman expressed disappointment over Britain's abstention during the United Nations vote on the Goldstone report, which accuses Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes in Gaza, and the Swedish proposal to recognize Jerusalem as a shared Israeli and Palestinian capital.

Also Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry summoned the British envoy to Israel to rebuke him over the warrant.

Israel views the arrest warrant with utmost gravity, Naor Gilon, deputy director at the Foreign Ministry in charge of Western Europe, told British ambassador Tom Phillips.

Gilon also called on Phillips to urge his government to change the law that allows for arrest warrants to be issued against senior Israeli officials over alleged war crimes perpetrated in Gaza during the winter conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Netanyahu: We won't allow our leaders to be tried for war crimes

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday issued a statement saying that Israel will not agree to have its leaders be recognized as war criminals.

"We will not agree to a situation in which Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni will be summoned to the defendant's bench," Netanyahu said.

"We will not agree that IDF commanders and soldiers, who - heroically and in a moral fashion - defended our citizens against a brutal and criminal enemy, will be condemned as war criminals. We reject this absurdity outright."

Netanyahu instructed National Security Adviser Prof. Uzi Arad to deliver a clear message on this issue to British envoy Phillips.

Dr. Arad spoke with Ambassador Phillips and made it clear to him that Israel expects the British government to act against this immoral phenomenon, which is trying to impair Israel's right to self-defense.

A statement from the British embassy in Israel said the U.K. is determined to work for peace in the Middle East and to be a strategic partner to Israel.

"To do this, Israel's leaders need to be able to come to the U.K. for talks with the British government. We are looking urgently at the implications of this case." The embassy statement said.

Israel's Foreign Ministry earlier Tuesday called on the British government to end the "absurd situation" in which arrest warrants were being issued to Israeli officials over alleged war crimes in Gaza, warning that ties between the two countries could suffer as a result.

"Only actions can put an end to this absurd situation, which would have seemed a comedy of errors were it not so serious," said the Foreign Ministry.

The ministry warned that in indulging the arrest warrant, the British government was hampering its own efforts at playing a role in Middle East peace negotiations.

"We appreciate the British government's desire to play a central role in the Middle East peace process, and thus we expected it to translate the importance it gives its relations with Israel into actions," said the ministry.

"Israel urges the British government to once and for all honor its promises to take action to prevent anti-Israel forces from exploiting the British legal system to act against Israel and its citizens, the ministry said. The absence of resolute and immediate action to redress this distortion harms relations between the two countries," it added.

Vice Premier Silvan Shalom urged the ministry to make "real diplomatic" efforts to make it clear that Israel would not accept such behavior.

"We are all Tzipi Livni," he said. "The time has come for us to move from the defensive to the offensive. We must use real diplomacy here, to tell Britain, Spain and all those other states that we will not stand for this anymore."

Livni: World can judge us, but don't equate IDF with terrorist

In response to the warrant, Livni said Tuesday that she would not accept any accusation that compared Israel Defense Forces soldiers to terrorists.

"I have no problem with the fact that the world wants to judge Israel," said Livni. "We are part of the free world. The problem starts when they equate terrorists and Israeli soldiers."

Senior officials in Israel confirmed reports on Monday that a British court issued the warrant against Livni for her role in orchestrating Israel's military offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip nearly a year ago. The request for the warrant was submitted by a pro-Palestinian organization.

British sources reported late Monday that though a British court had issued an arrest warrant for Livni over war crimes allegedly committed in Gaza while she served as foreign minister, it annulled it upon discovering she was not in the U.K.

The incident was the latest in a string of attempts by pro-Palestinian activists to have Israeli officials arrested.

Pro-Palestinian lawyers attempted earlier this year to invoke the universal jurisdiction law to arrest Gaza war mastermind Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, but his status as a Cabinet minister gave him diplomatic immunity.

In 2005, a retired Israeli general, Doron Almog, returned to Israel immediately after landing in London because he was tipped off that British police planned to arrest him. The warrant against Almog - who oversaw the bombing of a Gaza home in which 14 people were killed - was later canceled.

Other Israeli leaders, including former military chief Moshe Ya'alon and ex-internal security chief Avi Dichter, have also canceled trips to Britain in recent years for the same reason.