Caught In Belgium: Universal Jurisdiction And The IDF
A local, rabble-rousing outfit called the Hind Rajab Foundation, paired with the Global Legal Action Network (Glan), got vexed with the whole display. On July 19, they urged Belgian authorities to arrest the two flag wavers. They were allegedly 'indirectly implicated in some of the most egregious crimes committed during Israel's ongoing military campaign in Gaza.' A keen eye was focused on the Givati flag, one 'publicly displayed in the heart of Belgium'. Far from merely being a military, it had 'become, for millions, a symbol of impunity, destruction, and ethnic cleansing.'
The HRF, having identified an opportunity, were heartened by the arrests, despite an announcement from the Belgian public broadcaster, RTBF, that the two had been released after questioning. 'It signals that Belgium has recognized universal jurisdiction under international law and is treating allegations with the seriousness it deserves. At a time when too many governments remain silent, this action sends a clear message: credible evidence of international crimes with a legal response – not political difference.'
HRF director and founder Dyab Abou Jahjah, seeing the stirring, if limited precedent in the move, told the Middle East Eye that 'this was a major milestone' within the broader context of accountability. 'This is the first time that a European country acknowledges universal jurisdiction against Israeli soldiers and acts upon it in a forceful way, arrests them, and brings them to a police station to interrogate them.'
In a post on Instagram, the foundation also ruminated on whether this might be 'a turning point in the global pursuit of accountability'. The motivations behind the HRF are clear: 'To the victims and survivors of Gaza: we see you, we hear you, and we carry your demands for justice forwards.' The group's campaign has certainly begun to trouble Israeli officials, apparently prompting Israel's Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli to cancel his visit to the European Parliament in Brussels earlier this year.
That Belgium recognised such jurisdiction was hardly novel. The law concerning the punishment of serious violations of international humanitarian law of June 16, 1993 established the principle of universal jurisdiction in Belgium, enabling prosecutions to be taken against alleged violators of international humanitarian law irrespective of whether they were in Belgian territory or otherwise. In 2003, the law amending the Belgian Criminal Code focused on criminalising genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture.
In this case, the prosecutors were satisfied that they had jurisdiction because of Article 14/10 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into force on April 28, 2024. The article explicitly grants Belgian courts jurisdiction to try crimes committed outside Belgium based on such international instruments as the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Convention against Torture of 1984.
One of the arrested Israelis complained after the arrest, suggesting they had been manhandled. 'The officers hit us, we got blows to the face,' one of them told Israel's Channel 12 news. 'They took us to a secret police station in the compound.' That such treatment is meted out by their own colleagues to Palestinians on a daily basis in the occupied territories was not an irony to appreciate.
The arrests did worry a number of Israel's defenders. 'This is a serious incident that requires an immediate response from the State of Israel, including considering diplomatic measures against the Belgian ambassador,' claimed the Israeli Reservists Generation of Victory organisation. The body further went on to castigate internal critics of Israel's war policies such as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and leader of the Israeli Democrats Party, Yair Golan, accusing them of pursuing a 'toxic media discourse'.
Olmert had publicly decried the proposal by the IDF for creating a 'humanitarian city' in Gaza as nothing better than a dressed-up version of a concentration camp. Golan had also drawn the ire of some commentators for telling Kan Reshet Bet's This Morning program in mid-May that, 'A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies for a hobby, and does not set goals involving the expulsion of populations.'
The European Jewish Association also expressed concerns that the 'soldiers were carrying out lawful duties in defence of their country, duties comparable to those of any soldier serving in a democratic nation.' That may have been perceived as such, but an absolute fidelity to following orders is no longer fashionable in international jurisprudence, a point sometimes missed even in democratic states.
On the glittery surface, apprehending two soldiers of the IDF and temporarily detaining them seems a case of pruning rather than uprooting. The problems remain, festering away in the suffering feats of endurance for those in Gaza. Israel's authorities and the IDF know it. Arresting travelling soldiers for questioning under the principle of universal jurisdiction and a suspicion of committing crimes against humanity has its role, but such a justice is poor if it leaves the prominent leaders and commanders at large. The true criminality of any broad enterprise always lies with the decision makers. Those decision makers continue to elude legal capture or ostracising, despite international arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court. At least for the moment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
NZ Hit With 15% Trump Trade Tariff, Trade Minister Says He Will Push Back
New Zealand exports to the US will face a 15 percent tariff rate, it has been announced. The White House has revised its list of tariffs for particular countries and New Zealand has been put on a 15 percent base rate, up from the original 10 percent announced earlier. Trade Minister Todd McClay told Midday Report 's Charlotte Cook that New Zealand was being unfairly penalised for what is a small trade deficit with the United States. "It appears it has been done based upon countries that have a trade deficit with the US, who sell them more than they buy. "In New Zealand's case, that's about half a billion US dollars and in a scheme the size of the US economy it's really not significant or meaningful." McClay told Midday Report he had asked Treasury for urgent advice about Friday's development. "Many of the exporters are saying they have been able to absorb the 10 percent, or in many cases pass it on, but at 15 percent it is going to start having a greater effect on our exporters. "We sell about $9 billion worth of goods into the US every year and so a 15 percent tariff rate is meaningful, but again the difference in trade is not significant in the scheme of things." He maintained New Zealand had good relations with the US. "The first step will be to talk to them directly and we've been engaging a lot. In fact, it's been very good engagement, both at official level, [Foreign Minister] Winston Peters has been to Washington and I've met with my counterpart a number of times now." McClay said he had put in a request for a call with Ambassador Jamieson Greer and would expect that to happen over the weekend so he could "start making the case" for a lower tariff rate. US President Donald Trump announced the tariffs back in April and said he they would be imposed on more than 125 countries. Tariffs are paid by importers of products from other countries to their own governments, like taxes, effectively making imported goods more expensive for local consumers. Advocates say they protect local economies, while detractors say they reduce trade and push up prices. In announcing the initial range of tariffs in April, Trump caused confusion when he held up a chart saying New Zealand charged US goods a 20 percent tariff, which the New Zealand government denied. It ended up being 10 percent, which Finance Minister Nicola Willis at the time called "extraordinary". Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand would not respond in kind. Two-thirds of Kiwi businesses in a survey earlier this year thought the tariffs would have a more severe global impact than Covid-19 and the global financial crisis over the next 12 months. Trump has repeatedly threatened a range of different tariffs on various nations since returning to the White House - most recently India, citing its own trade barriers and purchasing of energy and arms from Russia, and Canada, over its newfound support for Palestinian statehood.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump slaps 15% trade tariff on NZ goods
US President Donald Trump announced the tariffs in April. New Zealand exports to the US will face a 15% tariff rate, it has been announced. The White House has revised its list of tariffs for particular countries and New Zealand has been put on a 15% base rate, up from the original 10% announced earlier. US President Donald Trump announced the tariffs in April and said they would be imposed on more than 125 countries. Tariffs are paid by importers of products from other countries to their own governments, like taxes, effectively making imported goods more expensive for local consumers. Advocates say they protect local economies, while detractors say they reduce trade and push up prices. In announcing the initial range of tariffs in April, Trump caused confusion when he held up a chart, saying New Zealand charged US goods a 20% tariff, which the New Zealand Government denied. It ended up being 10%, which Finance Minister Nicola Willis at the time called "extraordinary". Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand would not respond in kind. Two-thirds of Kiwi businesses in a survey earlier this year thought the tariffs would have a more severe global impact than Covid-19 and the global financial crisis over the next 12 months. Trump has repeatedly threatened a range of different tariffs on various nations since returning to the White House. Most recently, he targeted India, citing its own trade barriers and purchasing of energy and arms from Russia, and Canada, over its newfound support for Palestinian statehood.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
What would New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood mean?
What exactly is recognising Palestine statehood? Here are the details. "The world needs to focus" on aid for Gaza, Christopher Luxon has said. Photo / RNZ What is New Zealand's stance on Palestine statehood? After Britain's announcement this week that it would recognise Palestine by September unless Israel met certain conditions, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand wouldn't be following its lead 'at this stage'. 'Not at this point,' Luxon told reporters on Wednesday. 'Obviously, I will be talking with [British PM] Sir Keir Starmer around his position, which is a conditional statehood.' In response to questions from RNZ, Luxon said New Zealand had long supported the eventual recognition of Palestinian statehood, but that the immediate focus should be on getting aid into Gaza rather than 'fragmenting and talking about all sorts of other things that are distractions'. 'We need to put the pressure on Israel to get humanitarian assistance unfettered, at scale, at volume, into Gaza,' he said. 'You can talk about a whole bunch of other things, but for right now, the world needs to focus.' In Parliament on Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said he stood by a statement that 'it is a matter of when, not if, New Zealand will recognise Palestine statehood'. 'Yes, we steadfastly support the establishment of a Palestinian State and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We have done so for decades.' However, when asked if now was the time to recognise Palestine, Peters said, 'We do need to see progress on some of the fundamental issues relating to a Palestinian state's legitimacy and viability, including representative governance, commitments to non-violence, regional support and security guarantees for Israel. 'If we recognise the state of Palestine, New Zealand wants to know that what we are recognising is a legitimate, representative, viable political entity.' University of Otago professor of politics and international relations Robert Patman said that while the Luxon-led Government did support the two-state solution, 'it seems reluctant to show leadership'. The Government has said New Zealand has limited influence over a conflict on the other side of the world. 'This claim does not sit comfortably with New Zealand Government's purported support for an international rules-based order,' Patman said. 'Distance from a conflict clearly should not determine whether flagrant violations of international law such as in Gaza are tolerated or condemned.' Former Prime Minister Helen Clark also told RNZ's Midday Report on Thursday that New Zealand was 'lagging behind' by not recognising statehood. 'If New Zealand can't act in these circumstances, when can it act?' Dozens of protests over the war in Gaza and Palestine's future have been held in New Zealand. Photo / RNZ Who else is recognising Palestine? There's been a groundswell of recent announcements from Britain, France and Canada this week announcing proposals to recognise Palestine timed around the UN General Assembly next month. In 2024, a group of UN experts called on all United Nations member states to recognise the state of Palestine, in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza war. Australia is believed to be about to join that group, with the ABC writing that 'Australia will recognise a Palestinian state, it is only a matter of when and how'. 'My entire political life, I've said I support two states, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of Palestinians to have their legitimate aspirations for their own state realised,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 'That's my objective.' Dozens of other countries already recognise Palestine. Some of these recent announcements come with caveats, such as ensuring free and open elections and the disarmament of Hamas. Britain's Starmer said it would recognise Palestine in September 'unless the Israeli Government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza' and other conditions. The UN also held an international conference on the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution in New York from July 28 to 29. Why isn't Palestine recognised as a nation? Palestine exists in a peculiar quasi-state limbo. There are no internationally agreed-upon borders, no globally recognised capital or army. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people dates back centuries. British troops took control of the country from the Ottoman Empire after World War I and ruled it until 1948. The UN proposed partitioning Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, but the plan was rejected. Jewish leaders in Palestine declared an independent state known as Israel when British rule ended. That declaration sparked war with Arab nation neighbours and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees. After the 1967 'Six-Day War', Israel captured much of the Palestinian territories from other Middle Eastern nations. Israel continues to occupy those territories. In 1988, the state of Palestine was officially declared by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, claiming the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The state of Palestine has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations since 2012. The two-state solution that has been proposed for years would see an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, existing alongside Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Government rejects the two-state solution. What does recognising really mean? It's more of a symbolic step than anything, but it acknowledges Palestinian self-determination and allows the establishment of full diplomatic relations. 'The big difference with recognising a Palestinian state (as opposed to expressing a willingness to do so sometime in the future) is that it would significantly reduce the scope for diplomatic ambiguity or sitting on the fence,' Patman said. Juliette McIntyre, senior lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, told the ABC recently that a state has certain defining features under international law. These features include a permanent population, a determinate territory, an 'effective' Government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. 'In some ways, the most important thing is recognition by other states – this enables entering into diplomatic relations, and membership of international organisations,' McIntyre said. The recent announcements by Britain, Canada and others come as coverage of death and famine in Gaza has escalated dramatically. 'Recognising a Palestinian state also conveys an urgent acknowledgment that the current situations in Gaza and the West Bank have been characterised by acts that constitute war crimes and represent an unacceptable failure by the occupying power, Israel, to live up to its legal responsibilities toward the Palestinian population it has under its control,' Patman said. So would it officially become a country? Well, under United Nations rules, it could be. To become a member of the United Nations, Palestine would submit an application to the Secretary-General and accept member obligations. The UN Security Council would vote on the admission, but none of the five permanent members – China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States – can vote against it. If the Security Council recommends admission, it then goes on to the full General Assembly, where a two-thirds majority vote is necessary. South Sudan is the most recent country to join as a member, in 2011. The United States has previously vetoed attempts to grant Palestine membership. What is the US view on Palestine statehood? The US has had long-standing support for a two-state solution, but hasn't gone so far as to support Palestinian statehood. It does recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the representative entity of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian National Authority as the Government of the territories. US President Donald Trump has frequently supported Israel and expressed reservations about recognising Palestine, telling reporters that Starmer's plan would 'reward Hamas'. 'You're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded.' Trump also threatened a trade deal with Canada over its overtures on Palestine. In a statement this week, the US Department of State called the UN's recent two-state conference a 'publicity stunt' and 'a slap in the face to the victims of October 7', and said France's announcement was 'welcomed by Hamas'. The US could again veto a motion on Palestinian statehood if it comes before the Security Council. Patman said that in his view, 'the National-led Government may be nervous about offending the Trump administration and by taking incremental steps toward recognition may be seeking to minimise that possibility, especially if it believes Trump may be reconsidering his hitherto staunch support for Netanyahu's stance toward Gaza (and West Bank)'. What else has New Zealand done? New Zealand has just signed a joint statement with 14 other countries expressing a willingness to recognise the state of Palestine as a necessary step towards a two-state solution. New Zealand also recently joined 24 countries in calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and criticising what they called the inhumane killing of Palestinians. New Zealand had announced $37.5 million in humanitarian aid for the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said. It also recently banned some Israeli politicians from travelling to New Zealand. Will these declarations actually make a difference? Realistically, Palestine's statehood and recognition by the UN won't happen overnight. But the declarations are also being seen as an attempt to revive peace talks and end the violence. 'The window for peace through the two-state solution appeared to be locked shut after the collapse of the peace process that started with real hope in the 1990s,' noted the BBC's international editor, Jeremy Bowen. 'Britain's decision to recognise Palestine is a diplomatic crowbar to try to reopen it.' New Zealand is a small player on the global scene, but this week's escalation of major global powers chiming in could make Israel more isolated on the issue. 'After making such declarations, it will be more difficult for the likes of Britain, Germany and Australia to continue to provide military and intelligence assistance to a Netanyahu Government that is using such military force to deny the possibility of a Palestinian state and the outcome of a two-state solution,' Patman said.
