I agree - Israel should have prosecuted the Phalangists.
Bear in mind, though, that the early 80’s were very tricky, amoral times, politically speaking. The U.S. had allies in Africa, Asia and South America who did much worse things.
Yes that’s true The Shah and the Contras in particular.
I think the following paragraph sums up the gist of the comments directed at my first post.
I already conceded that there, IMO, has been an upswing in actual anti-Semitism. It’s real and out there. It affects the way the news about Israel is covered. So, yes, sometimes from some outlets, or always from others, the Israelis and Jews do not get fair treatment. There is anti-Arab sentiment. It’s real and out there also. At critical times like this bigotry in every direction, from every group, seems to gain ground. But, again, the Isrealis / Jews do not always get a fair shake in the media. I can’t be any clearer than that.
The IDF has had some very questionable shooting incidents over the last few years.
How do I reconcile holding those two views?
It’s not that tough, I can see virulent anti-Americanism and I can see US bombing mistakes which have killed innocent people.
I’ll give you the point about Israel punishing Jewish terrorists, BTW. But, what about Israeli (or the US) torture policy?
See, I’m just conflicted that way.
I have no idea about Israeli law, but under U.S. law, such a determination would not be final - hell it wouldn’t be relevant to the decision of the appropriate D.A. or U.S. Attorney as to whether to prosecute.
And what crimes, exactly, did Eichmann commit on the territory of the State of Israel?
C’mon, Alessan - Israel practically invented the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction for war crimes. Are you arguing that Israel has the right to prosecute crimes that didn’t occur within its jurisdiction, but Belgium doesn’t?
Why?
Sua
Sua, the “appropriate D.A.” in this case would be an Israeli one. The petitioners should have worked through the Israeli legal system.
And Eichmann was prosecuted under Godwin’s Law.
SuaSponte: Comparing capturing and trying Eichmann (who had never been brought to justice before) to the current case in Belgium is waaaaaay off.
Why?
I’m not comparing Sharon to Eichmann. I’m also not alleging that Sharon committed any war crimes - his guilt or innocence has never been established by a court of law.
Instead, I’m comparing the precedent. Israel has established that it believes it has the right to try suspects for alleged crimes that occured outside Israel. Belgium is asserting the same right.
What’s the problem here?
BTW, Skip, Sharon has never been “brought to justice.” He has never been subject to prosecution and trial.
Alessan, why didn’t Israel turn over Eichmann to the ‘appropriate D.A.’ in Poland or Germany? By your argument, Israel should have worked through
And does Godwin’s law assert that Israel has extraterritorial jurisdiction for a certain category of crimes? Gosh, so does Belgium.
What’s the difference?
Sua
Because the Eichmann trial was not justice, it was blood vengance. It was a battle in the war the Jewish nation - represented by Israel - against Nazi Germany. It was very much a political act… just like the the Belgian charges agaonst Sharon.
But forget about that. The difference is that nothing is comparable to the Nazis; nothing whatsoever. You think that Godwin’s Law is just something invented for internet message boards? Hell, it’s practically the first amendment of the Israeli Constitution.
Fine, Alessan, let’s talk instead about Samuel Sheinbein The Israeli courts tried Mr. Sheinbein for a crime he committed in Maryland. The State of Israel exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction. And that case was a simple, old-fashioned murder.
And the people of the State of Maryland were outraged, just like you and other Israelis are by Belgium’s actions. But that didn’t stop you from asserting your authority.
So, if you can do it, why can’t Belgium?
Sauce for the goose …
Sua
Oh and just so we’re clear, Sheinbein wasn’t a Nazi.
Accuse me of invoking Godwin’s Law, will you … :mad:
Sua
One person who wasn’t outraged was Mr. Sheinbein. He received a 24 year sentence, and could be paroled in 14 years. If Israel had allowed extradition to Marylalnd, he could have been given life in prison or possibly even the death penalty. In short, as you know, Sua, Israel was protecting Scheinbein, not persecuting him. The people of Maryland were outraged, because he was punished too little.
Would you blame the family that hid Ann Frank for keeping her cruelly shut up in an attic?
Ye gods, december. You are comparing Samuel Sheinbein to Anne Frank, and I’m the one accused on invoking Godwin’s law?!!
As for the rest of your spew, I don’t know where to begin.
-
I made no assertion that Israel was either protecting or persecuting Sheinbein. I made the statement of fact that Israel prosecuted Sheinbein, even though he crime was committed outside of the territory of the State of Israel, and the victim was not an Israeli citizen.
-
I do not know that Israel was ‘protecting’ Sheinbein, because that is a false fucking statement. Sheinbein was given his sentence because Israel has different laws about sentences given when a minor commits a crime than does Maryland. He was prosecuted in Israel not to protect him, but because he could not be extradited under Israeli law.
In short, december, if you want to debate with the big boys, get your head out of your ass and know your facts. Allesan and I have more important things to talk about than your drivel.
Sua
Of course, december, if you provide a cite that Ms. Frank dismembered somebody, you have my abject apologies.
Sua
Since Godwin had already been mentioned on this thread, I wasn’t the first.
Your statement was accurate, as far as it went. You also implied that the Scheinbein case was a precedent for Belgium’s prosecution of Sharon. I was showing that there are very significant differences.
There are several inaccuracies in the above, as this article from the New England Law Review shows. It was never determined whether Sheinbein could have been extradited. The case was before the Israeli Supreme Court. Sheinbein’s lawyer made a plea bargain with the Court to accept a 24-year sentence in Israel in order to avoid the risk that the Court would allow Sheinbein to be extradicted to Maryland. In Maryland he most likely would have been sentenced to life without parole.
You were exaggerating just a bit when you wrote, “And the people of the State of Maryland were outraged, just like you and other Israelis are by Belgium’s actions.”
[/quote]
Yes, the people of Maryland were outraged, but not just like Israelis are by Belgium’s actions. Marylanders (and many other Americans) were outraged for the opposite reason – Sheinbein wasn’t being punished harshly enough in their opinion.
I admit that my analogy was streched beyond all reasonableness. The point I was making is that the 24-year sentence was something Sheinbein asked for, to avoid worse fate in the US. My analogy introduced a bunch of irrelevancies that are not conducive to better understanding of the Sheinbein case.
Shows me right, trying to argue legalities with a lawyer (and a New York lawyer, at that - your kind is the worst. I should know: my dad was one, once).
Still, it’s not a perfect analogy. Sheinbeim, after all, was tried in Israel with U.S. approval and with the full cooperation of the Maryland prosecuter. Extradition would have been their preferred option, of course, but due to the fact that Israel cannot legally extradite its own citizens, trying him in Israel was the next best thing - certainly better than letting him go.
A country has certain rights when it comes to its citizens, and to crimes that took place on its soil, and Israel had the right to try Sheinbeim because the U.S. gave them that right. Israel has given no such right to Belgium.
P.S. You haven’t yet responded to my claim that Belgium is exhibiting bias.
P.p.S. Sorry about the Godwin thing. That was a bit out of line.
Well, I can’t get your link to work, and my link to this Jerusalem Post article, which hopefully does work for you, discusses and quotes from the Israeli Supreme Court decision in the Sheinbein case. Interesting discrepancy.
Found another one. This is the Conservative News Service, so you are morally bound to accept it as accurate. To quote:
Yes, the people of Maryland were outraged, but not just like Israelis are by Belgium’s actions. Marylanders (and many other Americans) were outraged for the opposite reason – Sheinbein wasn’t being punished harshly enough in their opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Horseshit. Certainly some Americans were outraged for that reason, but way back in 1997, two years before the plea bargain, Americans were expressing their outrage. Congress threatened to withhold aid to Israel because of Israel’s refusal to extradite in 1997.
$75.6 million was actually held back.
If you want more cites to examples of American anger and outrage well prior to the plea bargain, I’ll provide them.
Simply put, the anger started with Israel’s usurpation of American jurisdiction. The Israelis said, “tough. Our law requires that we exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction, and that’s what we are going to do.”
So does Belgian law.
Sua
The “approval” and “cooperation” was under duress - because of the decision of the State of Israel, it was either that or let him go unpunished.
There, of course, was another solution - Israel could have changed its laws, much like you wish Belgium would change its laws now.
That is incorrect. Israeli law provides for the trial of citizens it refuses to extradite to other countries. Israel gave itself the right.
U.S. cooperation was only necessary to obtain the evidence needed to get a conviction. The right to try him was self-granted by Israel.
A country has no rights when it comes to its citizens except for those rights it claims its has - and can enforce. Imagine Israel passed a law saying that it’s citizens cannot be tried in the US for crimes committed in the US. That would be a good chuckle.
But in any event, who says the right to evade extradition under any circumstances is a proper right to provide to its citizens?
But we are gettiing a bit off track.
As noted above, the only thing Israel can give or withhold Belgium is its cooperation, which I’m sure it will withhold.
You appear to be basing the claim on an assumption that there are no indictments against Castro, Arafat, etc. That is unproven. The article uses the word “attempts.” An indictment is an attempt to bring a case against a person.
From the information provided, the cases against the others may have issued indictments, the proceedings to issue an indictment are still ongoing, or they have decided not to indict. There is not sufficient information to know what is happening, much less support a claim of bias.
De nada. On such a touchy subject, I should have made clear from the first that I was talking about the precedent, not the people.
sua
The link works for me. It’s a pdf file. You may need Acrobat Reader, which is a free download from the internet.
Yes, it’s an interesting discrepancy. Your guess is as good as mine as to the explanation.
We are saying the same thing. The American outrage at Israel was that Sheinbein, an American citizen, wasn’t being extradited, which implied that he wasn’t being punished harshly enough. The Israeli outrage was that Belgium wanted to punish Sharon too harshly.
It’s true that the two cases were similar in that there were heated objections to trying a citizen in another country. But, they were different in the treatment they wanted for their citizens, Sheinbein and Sharon.
Or, one could say the anger started with Sheinbein escaping punishment for a horrendous crime. Note that before the plea bargain, there was a chance that he wouldn’t be punished at all. So, there are two motivations for the anger: Tried in wrong juridiction, and Escaping proper punishment. I would think that the latter was the more significant cause of American anger.
Lovely theory, december. One problem, though –
What sentence have the Belgians imposed on Sharon?
none.
For that matter, what punishment had Maryland imposed on Sheinbein?
none.
Sheinbein hadn’t been convicted and sentenced, then escaped to Israel. Maryland wanted him back to try him, to determine his guilt or innocence.
Similarly, the Belgians have indicted Sharon to try him, to determine his guilt or innocence.
There was additional anger when Sheinbein, after pleading guilty, received only 24 years. But the anger started because Israel usurped for itself the right to determine whether Sheinbein deserved punishment.
As for Sharon, if he were tried and found guilty, obviously the Belgians would impose a harsher punishment than the Israelis, because the Israelis imposed no punishment. But the source of Israeli anger is not that. It is as Alessan said, because of the purported “direct assault” on the Israeli system of justice.
Now, of course, if you are willing to admit that Sharon committed war crimes, and Israel decided not to punish him for that, then you may have a point.
Did Sharon commit war crimes? If yes, was Israel correct to let him get away with it?
You know, this is kind of interesting. You don’t have any blogs to rely on this time. And your arguments are pathetic, wrong, and easily destroyed. Causal connection?
Sua
I got your New England Law Journal link to work, december. Funny thing: At the top of page 972 of the article - page 6 of the .pdf document - there is the following sentence:
(emphasis added)
Explain yourself, december. Did you lie, did you not read the article, or can you not read English?
Sua