Belgian War Crimes: Issues for Israel, Part I
In 1993, almighty Belgium gave itself the right to try cases that it considered might constitute war crimes committed by anyone, anywhere at any time. The original law suffered setbacks in both the International Court of Justice and in Belgian courts, so the Belgian parliament is trying again – with the expressed intention of bringing charges against Ariel Sharon for the actions of Lebanese militias in Lebanon in 1982.
Americans should have many objections, both principled and practical. Today the principled; tomorrow the practical.
In 1993, almighty Belgium gave itself the right to try cases that it considered might constitute war crimes committed by anyone, anywhere at any time. The original law suffered setbacks in both the International Court of Justice and in Belgian courts, so the Belgian parliament is trying again – with the expressed intention of bringing charges against Ariel Sharon for the actions of Lebanese militias in Lebanon in 1982.
Americans should have many objections, both principled and practical. Today the principled; tomorrow the practical.
The first is that the Belgian government decides when evidence reaches the proportion of a potential “war crime.” Nothing makes Belgium – with its terrible legacy of brutal colonialism in Africa and its complicity in the disposition of Europe’s Jews – an appropriate arbiter of the world’s morality. Even today, Belgium is front and center denying Turkey the protections of NATO’s right to a common defense if attacked by Iraq. Such a failure to anticipate the defense of an ally surely damages any claim Belgium might have had to superior morality. Israel’s President Moshe Katsav rightly said, “Belgium shouldn’t be G-d’s deputy.”
Second, Belgium makes no distinction between democratic countries and dictatorships. One lawmaker said, “We want to sweep away impunity when it comes to genocide and war crimes.” There is no “impunity” for officials in a country with an independent judiciary, an elected parliament and a free press – as clearly happened in Israel in 1982. The Belgians point with pride to the fact that Arafat may be charged as well, but this profession of “even handedness” may be the most objectionable part of the law.
By lumping Mr. Sharon, who has faced both an independent judiciary and the voice of a free and well-informed electorate, together with Arafat – a dictator and terrorist of the highest order, responsible for killing Americans as well as Israelis – the Belgian government is making a political point about its objections to the leader of the Israeli government and to the Israeli policy of fighting terrorists and terrorism, and protecting its civilian population from those who would blow it up.
Israel’s actions in Lebanon in 1982 are not the issue. The issue is Israel’s present determination to protect and defend its people from terrorism emanating from the PA under the aegis and sponsorship of Yasser Arafat. The Belgian government doesn’t like Mr. Sharon or his policies and has chosen this mechanism to make its point.
Israel’s Chief Rabbi Israel Lau hit the nail on the head when he said, “It is regretful that (Belgium) is now expressing itself with such a pretentious and hypocritical voice, in order to cast fault on IDF soldiers and its commanders, who have endangered their own lives many times in order to refrain from injuring innocent civilians, and in order to denigrate the behavior of a democratic, sovereign state.”