Libya and the offence of taking of hostages

The BBC happily reported that: 'An Israeli man, who had been held in Libya since March on suspicion of spying, has been released.'

They have been less keen to report that as per Yalibnan:

'Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, the son of Libya’s leader said Thursday that part of a deal to free a jailed Israeli photographer involved the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Gadhafi told reporters that the Israeli-Tunisian Rafael Rafram Chaddad was not a spy and accepted his story that he was in the country to photograph heritage sites connected with Libya’s vanished Jewish community.

“This person was naive … he is not a spy and I made use of this issue in favor of our Palestinian brothers in Gaza,” he said. “Palestinian prisoners were released in exchange for releasing the Israeli photographer.”

Gadhafi would not say how many Palestinians were released in exchange for Chaddad, who was freed Sunday after five months in jail.'

Now if Seif al-Islam Gadhafi accepts that Mr Chaddad was not a spy - "he is not a spy" and that he was taken so as to gain the release of "our Palestinian brothers in Gaza" then is Libya not guilty of committing the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of the 1979 United Nations Hostages Convention? Libya has accepted this Convention. Also hostage taking is considered a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions (Convention IV, Article 147) in international conflicts and Libya is still in an official state of war with Israel.

So we have a representative of Libya proudly declaring that they have breached international law. When can we expect the UN Human Rights Council to take up this issue and the BBC to report this flagrant breach of international law. Or are such breaches only interesting if 'committed', or claimed to have been committed, by Israel?



Thanks to Elder of Ziyon for the spot.