SuaSponte: Also there’s the matter of jurisdiction. I would think that Maryland was pissed because the crime was comitted in Maryland but he was not tried under Maryland laws.
And last time I checked the Sabra.Shatilla camps are not part of Belgium.
Um, Skip, that is precisely the point I’ve been making.
As for the location of the camps, citizens of Belgium suffered harm due to the massacres. The US has long asserted that it has jurisdiction over crimes against US citizens abroad.
Is the US wrong to make that assertion?
Sua
What’s with the personal attacks on december, Sua? I always enjoy reading december’s posts, and I agree with his take on a lot of things. By making this personal, you aren’t making him look bad, but you are making yourself look like a bitter, hateful fool. I have read your replies to december’s posts and although you claim to have discredited his assessment of the situation, I don’t see it that way. He has valid points which you choose to ignore, most likely for some personal vendetta. Take a deep breath and attempt to be civil.
What valid points, creative_munster?
He linked to an article and claimed the article said X. The article actually said the exact opposite. I take that to mean he lied.
What is your explanation?
I’m glad you enjoy his posts. I don’t enjoy people making false representations in GD.
Sua
Uh? Were they citizens at the time of the attack?
Sure if they were actually citizens at the time of the event. Has there ever been a case of a naturalised US citizen bringing a case against someone for something that happened in their home country before he/she received US citizenship?
Also I’m pretty sure Belgium is a signatory to the International Criminal Court. Why have they not deferred the case to them?
I have no idea about US naturalized citizens. But so what? None of the victims of the Holocaust were Israeli citizens when the Holocaust occurred - Israel didn’t even exist. Yet Israel exercised its jurisdiction over the perpetrators.
When Israel tracked down the Munich hijackers, why didn’t they simply capture them and send them to Germany, rather than gunning them down? That might have saved the life of that poor waiter in Norway.
Because they believed they had the right to do what they did. And so does Belgium.
As for the ICC, that is a choice Belgium could have made. They didn’t. What is the significance?
My point is not that assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction is proper. That is a whole 'nother debate. My point is that Belgium is acting precisely the same way Israel has for the past forty-odd years.
Sua
You are correct. I was reading quickly and misunderstood the section.
If Belgium had gone after terrorists/nazis who were directly involved in atrocities and who were hiding or residing in countries with no extradition treaties then I wouldn’t complain either.
When they go after the democratically elected head of state for events which his involvement was rather indirect (if he had any involvement at all) and for which he had previously been investigated (and I don’t see much evidence to doubt the Israeli investigation) then it’s a different story.
Are you claiming that, if Israel had asked Norway to extradite the alleged (wrongly alleged, mind you) Munich terrorist, Norway wouldn’t have?! Norway didn’t have an extradition treaty?!! Cite, please.
And, of course, by your logic, the US had the right to go in and snatch or kill Sheinbein, because Israel has no extradition treaty.
Would you have complained?
The investigation was not a criminal investigation. It is the same as if a Presidential Blue Ribbon committee had investigated Watergate.
We have courts of law for a reason. The guilt or innocence of a person is not legally established until a court determines it - and none has here. There is no double jeopardy here.
You assert that his involvement was “rather indirect (if he had any involvement at all).” That directly contradicts the Israeli commission’s determination that he indeed had involvement. So even you don’t accept the results of the Israeli investigation. Nor should you - it has no legal weight.
Hey, if Israel has indicted Sharon, then I’d be agreeing with Alessan - this would be a direct assault on the Israeli justice system and I would be opposed to their actions. But the Israeli justice system has never been involved.
And what does Sharon’s status as the 'democratically elected head of state [sic]" (sharon is actually head of government, not the state - Israel’s President is the head of state) have to do with anything? Is it your contention that elected leaders are above the law? That’s a scary concept.
You still haven’t established that Belgium is acting any differently than Israel has throughout its history, yet you assert that Israel has acted properly and Belgium hasn’t. Speaking of bias…
Sua
Are you claiming that, if Israel had asked Norway to extradite the alleged (wrongly alleged, mind you) Munich terrorist, Norway wouldn’t have?! Norway didn’t have an extradition treaty?!! Cite, please.
I said hiding or residing in countries. I think the terrorist in question was hiding (as terrorists are want to do). Had Norway actually had him in custody I don’t think Israel would’ve followed the assasination route.
The investigation was not a criminal investigation.
And not every crime has a trial. Many cases are resolved before even going to court. The Kahan Commission ruled that Sharon was partly responsible and that he had made a grave mistake but didn’t find him responsible for the actual crimes of the killings.
You assert that his involvement was “rather indirect (if he had any involvement at all).” That directly contradicts the Israeli commission’s determination that he indeed had involvement. So even you don’t accept the results of the Israeli investigation. Nor should you - it has no legal weight.
I was referring to him having direct involvement in the killings that took place.
Hey, if Israel has indicted Sharon, then I’d be agreeing with Alessan - this would be a direct assault on the Israeli justice system and I would be opposed to their actions. But the Israeli justice system has never been involved.
As mentioned before the Kahan commission found the Israeli’s to be ‘indirectly responsible’ and that the bulk of the responsibility was on the Phalangists and Houbeika their leader at the time, and yet they are not on the accused list.
The fact is not every investigation always leads to a trial.Police investigations have to ascertain responsibility first before charges are laid. So think of the Kahan comission as the police. They found Sharon to not be directly responsible (and therefore not responsible for the crimes) and as such the case didn’t follow through to the Israeli Justice system. For the responsibility that he did bare they made him resign as Minister of Defense.
Which brings up the question: Do you have any other complaints about the comission and it’s investigation besides them not being more harsh on Sharon? Do you dispute the findings or the accuracy?
And what does Sharon’s status as the 'democratically elected head of state [sic]" (sharon is actually head of government, not the state - Israel’s President is the head of state) have to do with anything? Is it your contention that elected leaders are above the law? That’s a scary concept.
No no, he definitely isn’t above the law. But the reason they are attempting to prosecute him now is exactly because he is the head of government (not state my mistake). Why not before he was Prime Minister? It just smells of political character assasination and oppurtunism to me.
You still haven’t established that Belgium is acting any differently than Israel has throughout its history, yet you assert that Israel has acted properly and Belgium hasn’t. Speaking of bias…
My main qualm with Belgium is that the event took place outside their jurisdiction, with none of their citizens involved. Also they are not even attempting to prosecute any members of the Phalange or their commander Houbeika who were directly involved in the killings and are far far more responsible than Sharon. Again this just seems like oppurtunism to me.
Skip, the “terrorist” in question wasn’t a terrorist at all, nor was he hiding. The Israelis got the wrong guy, and they shot him down in the street like a dog. Had they tried extradition, he would be alive today.
But it wasn’t a police investigation. You either follow the rules of criminal procedure, or you do not have a police investigation.
I have no opinion on the Kahan commission’s accuracy. It simply has no relevance to whether Sharon has had his day in court. Israel may accept the Kahan commission as binding, but, barring actual criminal justice proceedings, I see no reason any other country should.
You are probably right. But that is not bias.
So you have the same qualms about Israel because it went after Eichmann, right? He didn’t harm any of Israel’s citizens, after all.
Of course, an argument may be made that Sharon is the person to go after now, because, unlike the Phalange, Sharon currently has power. If Houbeika is a war criminal, at least now he is not in a position to commit any more. Sharon is.
Sua
Skip, why not actually try finding out something about the case before offering your opinion on it.
One of the accused is listed as ‘Mr. Hobeika’, I also believe that several Lebanese citizens are among the suspects. Also if you’d of been following the case you’d of known that Elie Hobeika was assasinated earlier this year, this is strongly believed to be the work of the Israeli security forces as he did agree to give evidence to the hearing.
SuaSponte: I am unclear why you assume that every investigation must have a corresponding trial. This has never been the case in any kind of judicial system. An investigation takes place first (and in this case it was the Kahan comission, seeing as the Israeli Police are not really tasked to investigating military blunders) and from then a decision is made whether to carry on to a trial.
In this case the findings were that a criminal trial for Sharon was not necessary as he was not found to be directly criminally responsible. Unless there is some glaring error in the findings of the comission, then why would Belgium feel another trial was necessary? The whole point with democratic countries is that they put faith in other democratic countries legal systems and processes. I highly highly doubt Belgium would retry a case that had been investigated and subsequently dismissed by, say for instance, Denmark. And the Kahan comission was not entirely non-judicial. While it was an investigative panel, it was chaired by a Supreme Court Justice of the time and one of the other two members is now Supreme Court President giving it at least some judicial weight.
And as for Eichmann I actually would have preferred Israel to go the legal route and had him extradited to stand trial in a 2nd sitting of the Nuremburg courts (or some other international court).
MC: Some articles I’ve read indicates that only Sharon is being charged. According to this one from July 10th this year, it states quite clearly that Hobeika and the Phalange troops who actually carried out the killings are not listed as the accused. Other articles say they are being “investigated” as part of the trial. If they actually are mentioned as the accused then I stand corrected.
I believe the orginal compalint lodged, named “MM. Ariel Sharon, Amos Yaron et autres responsables israéliens et libanais des massacres”, that is: Ariel sharon, Amos Yaron (Israeli military commander of the operations at Sabra and Chantilla) and other Israelis and Lebanese responsible for the massacre. “Mr. Hobeika” is named on later documents.
But also remember that the case against Sharon is that he was top of the chain of command at Sabra and Chantilla.
Well, I am unlikely to read 40 pages to try to determine where it claims that Sharon was wilfully responsible.
The fact is, I have never seen it actually stated that Sharon acted deliberately to cause a massacre - only insinuated. This could either be because there is no evidence of it, or because the evidence that exists proves the opposite.
Smells like a political smear to me. This is the sort of thing that brings the law into disrepute - using a criminal process for an ulterior purpose.
I believe that in domestic law it is called “abuse of process”.
Surely not “have” they been, but “should” they be?
Are Jews still truly oppressed? Is race hate legislation not adequate to protect them as a racial or religious group in most societies (excepting certain Islamic ones) and does more need to be done? Is their situation worse than other minority groups? (Are they a “minority group” as such?) Do they have freedom of religion and expression? Do they suffer discrimination in the workplace?
Is it helpful or useful to be in a “Coalition of the Oppressed”? Does it suggest improvement of their situation and acceptance of the Jewish faith in most societies if they have been “exiled”?
Is using “exiled” a loaded term? Most of all though, I don’t understand why the OP uses the term “Jews” and then talks about Palestinians. Is the OP in fact specifically referring to “Jews in Israel” as opposed to all Jews? If not, is the situation of Jews in Israel in any way comparable to Jews in London, or Jews in New York? Is helpful, when specifically referring to Israelis, to use the term Jews?
One could argue that Jews are still oppressed because there’s lots of anti-semitism. Or, one could argue that Jews are not oppressed, because on average they are successful, rather than downtrodden.
The OP’s main complaint is a recent upsurge of anti-semitism, which is associated with an upsurge in anti-Israel feelings. In particular, it alleges that many on the left tend to fault Israel and to be less sensitive to anti-semitism.
In the US, I would say that Jews’ situation is generally better than blacks or Hispanics and, probably, Asians.
Yes.
Yes.
A limited amount. I worked in the field of international reinsurance (insuring insurance companies.) I’m grateful that I was hired into the job, but I never felt quite fully accepted - particularly when visiting Europe.
That title is meant as an ironic joke. Many believe that for the last 20 or 30 years, the US and Europe have given status to perceived victims. So being considered “oppressed” was an advantage. In that sense, perceived success can be regarded as “exile” from a preferred victim status.
The point of the cited article is that opposition to Israel has led to an increase in anti-semitism in the US and Europe.
oh, ok, didn’t know that.
We use (sic) if we don’t agree 
[Belgium is trying to prosecute Ariel Sharon today for a similar event that took place in Lebanon 1982.
nuanced: Belgium said Sharon COULD be prosecuted for his role in the Lebanese massacres when he no longer holds office. It is not trying to prosecute him today, nor is it belgium that wants to prosecute Sharon. This statement was merely issued and decided on by the Belgian court, in a reply to (I think) a group of Palestinian people that filed a law suit against Ariel Sharon…
Belgium has an anti-genocide law, as far as I know, it’s the only country that has such a law.
elfje, several European countries are in the process of intergrating their international legal responsibilties with their national legal systems. Belgium was certainly the first to do this, but Germany has followed suite (I’m not 100% sure of the current state of play there though) by drafting a bill to include any war crimes or crimes against humanity as areas that prosecution can be sought through the national legal system.
Even in the UK, a complaint was recently made against an Israeli commander, General Mofaz, by the leading civil rights lawyer Imran Khan on behalf of a Palestinian victims group for his role as the commander of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (particular for the Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp). This was investigated by Scotland Yard’s War Crime Squad, but Mofaz left the country before any formal proceedingds could be brought (the UK’s laws only allow for prosecution of war criminals in the UK).