Then they should have done it in an Israeli court; the Belgian judge should have instructed them to do so. What’s Belgium to Sharon or Sharon to Belgium?
Actually I am waiting for cites. Cites are stronger than exclamation points.
The full indictment against Sharon:
http://www.indictsharon.net/cmptENft.pdf
[QUOTE]
On 10 September 1982, the multinational forces left Beirut. The next day, Mr Ariel Sharon
announced that “2,000 terrorists†had remained inside the Palestinian refugee camps
around Beirut. On Wednesday 15 September, the day after the assassination of
President-elect Bashir Gemayel, the Israeli army occupied West Beirut, “encircling and
sealing†the camps of Sabra and Shatila, which were inhabited by Lebanese and
Palestinian civilians, the entirety of armed resistors (more than 14,000 people) having
evacuated Beirut and its suburbs.3
Historians and journalists agree that it was probably during a meeting between Ariel
Sharon and Bashir Gemayel in Bikfaya on 12 September that an agreement was made
authorising the “Lebanese forces†to “mop up†these Palestinian camps.4 Mr Sharon had
already announced, on 9 July 1982, his intention to send the Phalangist forces into West
Beirut,5 and in his autobiography he confirms having negotiated the operation during his
meeting with Gemayel in Bikfaya.6
According to statements made by Ariel Sharon on 22 September 1982 in the Knesset
(Israeli parliament), the decision that the Phalangists should enter the refugee camps was
made on Wednesday, 15 September 1982 at 15.30.7 Also according to General Sharon,
the Israeli Command had received the following instruction: “`[t]he Tsahal8 forces are
forbidden to enter the refugee camps. The “mopping-up†of the camps will be carried out
by the Phalanges or the Lebanese army.â€9
By dawn on 15 September 1982, Israeli fighter-bombers were flying low over West Beirut
and Israeli troops had secured their entry. From 9 am, General Sharon was present to
personally direct the Israeli penetration, installing himself in the general army area at the
Kuwait embassy junction situated at the edge of Shatila camp. From the roof of this sixstorey
building, it was possible to observe the town and the camps of Sabra and Shatila
clearly.
By midday, the camps of Sabra and Shatila – in reality a single zone of refugee camps in
the south of West Beirut – were surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, who had
installed checkpoints all around the camps in order to monitor the entry or exit of any
person. During the late afternoon and evening, the camps were shelled.
By Thursday 16 September 1982, the Israeli army controlled West Beirut. In a press
release, the Israeli military spokesperson declared, “Tsahal controls all strategic points in
Beirut. The refugee camps, inside which there is a concentration of terrorists, are
surrounded and sealed.†On the morning of 16 September, the following order was issued
by the army high command: “ [t]he searching and mopping up of the camps will be done
by the Phalangists/Lebanese army.â€10[/QUOTE
It’s because Beligium have recently incoparated their duties as a high signatoury of the Geneva convention into their national law.
IIRC the former dictator of the Central African republic is also being sought under these laws.
Thanks. It appears to me that there is no evidence to support the charge of complicity, at least not by American legal standards.
Note the indictment’s phrase, “Historians and journalists agree…” actually means, “A few historians and journalists agree…” The charges are based on small number of reports; furthermore, none of them is from an actual witness.
Can you imagine a prosecution in the US, justified by a newspaper report?
So? They can do whatever they want with their own laws. It still doesn’t give them jurisdiction beyond their borders. If the world doesn’t accept the U.S. as the “world policeman”, why the hell should it accept Belgium?
As for the other charges, why hasn’t Yasser Arafat been charged for his actions in the 70’s and 80’s?
I cna’t say about the American legal system, I have done some paralegal work in the UK where saw a few trials, but I’m not great on legal standards. Though I would say there is a fair amount of evidence, but an actual trial is unlikely as is unlikely to visit any country that he could be extradicted from.
I think what the indictment was trying to establish is that the Phlangists could be regarded as under the command of Sharon, so he bears responsibilty for their actions.
Well actually they are not creating a new juristriction for Beligum as a state as they already had that Juristriction from various treaties, they are just incoparating it in their legal system.
The victims of Yasser Arafat are perfectly free to file an indictment, and I believe they have (or are at least planning to), though case has not yet reached the same stage.
They do not have jurisdiction from any treaty; or a least, they do not have jurisdiction over Israel.
Petitions against Arafat were made days after the charges against Sharon were made public and the Belgian prosecuting authorities have made no move to press charges in the two or three years that have passed. I call that bias.
Alessan, you demonstrate bias by treating one group or country differently than other groups or persons. As the article noted, Belgium has committed the same ‘direct assault’ on the Cuban, Iranian, and Palestinian rules of law.
There’s no bias against Israeli law there.
Sua
Except that Israel has fair trials, whereas Cuba, Iran, and the PNA do not.
Except that Israel never had a trial of Sharon.
Actually, the article says:
Attempts by whom? The Belgian prosecutors, or just by petitioners? And if by the prosecuters, why have there been no indictments? I’d say that choosing to prosecute just one alleged crime, while ignoring complaints of others - many of which are much more severe - is a clear sign of bias, especially when such bias is a clear possibility.
Before you say it - no, I’m not a hypocrite. I don’t think that the Belgians have any more right to prosecute Arafat than they do Sharon. But just because something is wrong, that doesn’t mean that it can’t imply bias as well.
Say you have a man carrying out a wave of thefts throughout the city. That man is a thief. But what if he’s just stealing from black people? Well, then he’s both a thief *and/i] a bigot. I’m not saying that he should steal from whites as well, but I do think that we should take a real good look at his motives.
Also, what Fang said.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MC Master of Cermonies *
**The full indictment against Sharon:
http://www.indictsharon.net/cmptENft.pdf
[QUOTE]
On 10 September 1982, the multinational forces left Beirut. The next day, Mr Ariel Sharon
announced that “2,000 terrorists†had remained inside the Palestinian refugee camps
around Beirut. On Wednesday 15 September, the day after the assassination of
President-elect Bashir Gemayel, the Israeli army occupied West Beirut, “encircling and
sealing†the camps of Sabra and Shatila, which were inhabited by Lebanese and
Palestinian civilians, the entirety of armed resistors (more than 14,000 people) having
evacuated Beirut and its suburbs.3
Historians and journalists agree that it was probably during a meeting between Ariel
Sharon and Bashir Gemayel in Bikfaya on 12 September that an agreement was made
authorising the “Lebanese forces†to “mop up†these Palestinian camps.4 Mr Sharon had
already announced, on 9 July 1982, his intention to send the Phalangist forces into West
Beirut,5 and in his autobiography he confirms having negotiated the operation during his
meeting with Gemayel in Bikfaya.6
According to statements made by Ariel Sharon on 22 September 1982 in the Knesset
(Israeli parliament), the decision that the Phalangists should enter the refugee camps was
made on Wednesday, 15 September 1982 at 15.30.7 Also according to General Sharon,
the Israeli Command had received the following instruction: “`[t]he Tsahal8 forces are
forbidden to enter the refugee camps. The “mopping-up†of the camps will be carried out
by the Phalanges or the Lebanese army.â€9
By dawn on 15 September 1982, Israeli fighter-bombers were flying low over West Beirut
and Israeli troops had secured their entry. From 9 am, General Sharon was present to
personally direct the Israeli penetration, installing himself in the general army area at the
Kuwait embassy junction situated at the edge of Shatila camp. From the roof of this sixstorey
building, it was possible to observe the town and the camps of Sabra and Shatila
clearly.
By midday, the camps of Sabra and Shatila – in reality a single zone of refugee camps in
the south of West Beirut – were surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, who had
installed checkpoints all around the camps in order to monitor the entry or exit of any
person. During the late afternoon and evening, the camps were shelled.
By Thursday 16 September 1982, the Israeli army controlled West Beirut. In a press
release, the Israeli military spokesperson declared, “Tsahal controls all strategic points in
Beirut. The refugee camps, inside which there is a concentration of terrorists, are
surrounded and sealed.†On the morning of 16 September, the following order was issued
by the army high command: “ [t]he searching and mopping up of the camps will be done
by the Phalangists/Lebanese army.â€10
[/QUOTE **[/QUOTE]
Okay, I read it.
Someone please point out where it says that “He is accused of more than failing to prevent the massacre, but delibrately allowing the Phlangists in so that they could commit the massacre and then providing auxillary support to them while the massacre took place.”
The closest it comes, from what I can see, is here:
“Historians and journalists agree that it was probably during a meeting between Ariel
Sharon and Bashir Gemayel in Bikfaya on 12 September that an agreement was made
authorising the “Lebanese forces†to “mop up†these Palestinian camps.4 Mr Sharon had
already announced, on 9 July 1982, his intention to send the Phalangist forces into West
Beirut,5 and in his autobiography he confirms having negotiated the operation during his
meeting with Gemayel in Bikfaya.6”
Now, we already know that there was some sort of agreement between the Phalangists and Israeli generals - this is not surprising, as they were allies involved in a war at this time.
But the allegation that the nature of this agreement was to commit a massacre is simply not made in this document. If it could be proven that that was what was meant by “mop up”, then it would have been alleged.
Rather, what we have here is a very good example on an insinuation that the two sides colluded - much more clever than an outright statement (which could be proved or disproved).
To my little brain, it looks like a smear.
He was investigated by an extremely qualified, impartial comittee which decided that while Sharon did carry ministerial responsibility for what occured (and was forced to resign), he was not criminally liable and therefore did not recommend that the police press charges. I regard that decision as final. Certainly, no foreign body has the right to reopen the case.
Well the accusation is that all the militants had been evacated from the camp. So Sharon not only allowed, but planned for the Phlangist militia, to be set loose on an entirely civilian population.
The quoted section is only a very small part of the indictment The actual document is 40 pages long.
The Pharlangists claimed, OTOH, that the Palestinians lied whe they claimed that all millitants had been evacuated (and in fact, all we have is their word for it). That was their excuse for entering the camp - to search out stragglers and sleeper cells.
Alessan, the UN at the time described the massacre as a crime against humanity and genocide (due to the racial nature of much of the massacre). If, as it certainly appears, that the Israeli government or judicial authorities have not taken appropiate action against those accused (the enquiry had a political not judicial nature), then it cannot be regarded as the last word.
The evacuation was supervised by an international force. Two days after this force left Sharon declared that there were 2000 militants left in the area.
But, when one passes off the most apolitical Jew-baiting as legitimate protest of the Israeli government, then there’s anti-Semitism at foot.
What does PETA’s pronouncement that the life of a Jew is worth the same as the life of a chicken have to do with Sharon’s policies? What does accusing Jewish AMERICANS in New York of destroying the WTC have to do with the West Bank? Why are Sharon and other Israeli government leaders depicted as hook-nosed baby-eaters in the placards of protestors? Is it because those protestors depict all their enemies that way, or because allying with anti-Semitism is a convenient and oft-used strategy for certain parts of the professional anti-Israel movement?
I don’t agree with most of the Israeli government’s policies either, but the fact that I can express such disagreement without smearing an entire group of people across the world shows how unecessary the current leftist rhetoric is. Telling every person who reports on actual anti-Semitism that they are attempting to hide the truth about Israeli politics is just as bad as telling every anti-Israel protestor that they are secretly a Jew-hater.