Two Israelis questioned for war crimes after waving flags at music festival
Prosecutors said the pair were Israeli soldiers and that they had asked police to locate and interview them after a complaint by the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), a Belgian pro-Palestinian organisation.
The HRF said it identified the two among the crowds at Tomorrowland, a dance music festival in Antwerp, and that they were 'responsible for grave international crimes' in Gaza.
It said they had been waving a flag of the Givati Brigade, an Israeli infantry unit that has seen extensive action during the war in Gaza.
The unit has been 'extensively documented for its role in the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza and for carrying out mass atrocities against the Palestinian population', the group claimed.
'The Givati flag, publicly displayed in the heart of Belgium, is not just a military symbol. It has become, for millions, a symbol of impunity, destruction and ethnic cleansing,' it said.
Israel's foreign ministry confirmed that the pair, who it said were a civilian and a soldier, were detained on Sunday before being questioned and released shortly after.
'The foreign ministry and the IDF handled the matter and are in contact with the two,' it said.
A clear show of force
Belgium's prosecutor's office said it took action as courts in the country have extraterritorial jurisdiction over alleged war crimes.
'No further information will be given at this stage of the investigation,' the office said, without naming the two men.
The HTF said the 'suspects were identified and arrested with a clear show of force at the Tomorrowland festival', describing the incident as a potential 'turning point in the global pursuit of accountability'.
'This development is a significant step forward,' HRF said, as it 'signals that Belgium has recognised its jurisdiction under international law and is treating the allegations with the seriousness they deserve.
'And to states watching around the world: universal jurisdiction is not just a principle – it is an obligation.'
Filed 1,000 similar complaints
The HRF has filed around 1,000 similar complaints in eight different countries since the war began, according to Israeli media. In response, the Israeli military told its soldiers to limit their social media use.
In February 2025, Yuval Vagdani, an IDF soldier, had to be evacuated from Brazil after the HRF initiated legal proceedings against him, saying he was involved in the destruction of homes in the Gaza Strip.
Also in February, Haroon Raza, a co-founder of the foundation, said: 'It's our responsibility, as far as we are concerned, to bring the cases.'
It is then up to authorities in each country, or the International Criminal Court, to pursue them, he added.
Eden Bar Tal, the director general of Israel's foreign ministry, called the actions a PR stunt. 'It's sponsored by this very low number of entities that have direct connections to terrorist organisations,' he said.
Videos showed numerous Israeli flags
Tomorrowland is the world's largest electronic music festival and attracts around 400,000 people a year. Videos posted to social media from the event showed numerous Israeli flags among the crowds.
Hebrew media reported that Israelis were filmed engaging in conversations with Palestinians wearing keffiyehs.
Israeli Ronen Levi, 34, is due to attend the festival's second weekend this week but the event has left a sour taste. 'Belgium at the best of times doesn't feel like a safe place for Jews and now it feels even worse. Music festivals are supposed to be full of love and this just taints things.'
Belgium's King Philippe described the war in Gaza as a 'disgrace to humanity' in a speech on the eve of national day on Sunday.
'I add my voice to all those who denounce the serious humanitarian abuses in Gaza, where innocent people are dying of hunger and being killed by bombs while trapped in their enclaves,' the monarch said.
'The current situation has gone on for far too long. It is a disgrace to all of humanity. We support the call by the United Nations Secretary-General to immediately end this unbearable crisis.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour is borrowing against our children's futures
Much of the debate about our public finances is intensely short term. The in-vogue concern at the moment is the fiscal 'headroom' that each Chancellor has to work with – that is, the buffer between their spending plans and the fiscal rules they set for themselves. Rachel Reeves appears to have cut hers so fine that someone sneezing in the Treasury could blow her off course. As it happens, increased borrowing costs and the Government's inability to bring limited reforms to the welfare system means it is highly likely that tax rises are on the way in the autumn, as the Conservatives have been predicting since the general election. But even this will do little to change the fundamental economic picture. The truth is that we live in an age of fiscal irresponsibility, where governments increasingly look to pass the burdens of the present onto the future. That even this short-termist strategy now seems to necessitate desperate tax rises should concern us greatly. In July, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its fiscal risk and sustainability report. For a technical document, it did not mince its words. Britain's deficit is the third highest amongst advanced European economies. Its debt level is the fourth highest after only Greece, Italy and France. Efforts to make our public finances more sustainable have met with only 'limited and temporary success'. There has been a 'substantial erosion of the UK's capacity to respond to future shocks and growing pressures on the public finances', and the scale and array of risks to the UK fiscal outlook is 'daunting'. The most serious liabilities Britain faces are not so much to do with day-to-day spending decisions as they are about the chronic, structural issues with our economy and the state's role within it. They include an unfunded state pension which is designed to increase exponentially over time, even as the number of working people paying for it shrinks, the levels of public spending on healthcare, which is set to rise to more than a fifth of GDP by 2070 (we now already spend more on health than the entire Portuguese economy), and a welfare system that will see us spending £100bn per annum on health and disability benefits as early as 2029-30. What makes these vast financial commitments 'irresponsible', however, is the way we are currently funding them: that is, increasingly by borrowing from the prosperity of future generations. The national debt already stands at about 100 per cent of GDP and is forecasted to grow to over 270 per cent by the 2070s. Even this does not fully factor in the vast state and public sector pension liabilities for the British state – which some commentators argue increases the total outstanding liabilities to some £11tn, or four times the size of the economy. Instead of making tough decisions on spending and taxation today, we are passing on the financial obligations to the taxpayers of the future, who will face higher debt servicing costs. Labour is in a bind. It won't – or can't – take on the responsibility of reducing the welfare bill. It is changing the way the government measures debt, not to give a better picture of the public finances, but simply so it can borrow more. Yet the costs of borrowing have risen to the third highest of any developed economy since it entered office. And so it is being buffeted towards raising taxes to pay for a totally unaffordable level of public expenditure. Some on the Left suggest that this is its own form of fiscal responsibility. But this fails to recognise that higher rates will harm the ultimate source of tax revenue, which is a productive economy. Reform isn't much better. They spy an opportunity to attract voters in the so-called 'upper Left' quadrant on the political spectrum – those with socially conservative but economically statist views and values. They advocate for tighter borders, but greater state involvement in the economy and more generous welfare spending. Cobbling together economic policies based simply on what is most likely to attract a particular section of the British public in the next election, however, is the very same political problem that has gotten us into this mess. So there's a gap in the political market. But if the Conservatives wish to be the party that the public trusts to restore the public finances, they will have to offer a drastic change to the status quo. And that will mean making some far harder decisions than those to which they have committed so far. Firstly, a truly fiscally responsible government would need to reverse a long-standing policy of seeking to take people out of paying tax. Before the post-2020 phenomenon of 'fiscal drag' – in which people were dragged into paying more tax by the combination of frozen thresholds and inflation – Conservatives bragged about taking people out of paying income tax altogether by increasing the personal allowance. We need a complete about-turn in this approach. It is the definition of fiscal irresponsibility to have more and more people benefiting from a system which they do not have a stake in financing. And it's bad politics. To generate a coalition in favour of lower tax rates, we need more people with a stake in sustainable public finances. Secondly, indexing benefits so that they cease to bear any relationship with our ability to pay for them is indefensible. When it comes to the state pension, there is no fund into which savings are built up for an individual worker. Current pensions are being paid for by those in work, and the triple lock introduced in 2010 means its funding requirement is always ratcheting upwards. This needs to be scrapped, a more proportionate index for the triple lock introduced, and efforts to increase private retirement savings radically boosted. Finally, the Conservative articulation of fiscal responsibility cannot come down on the side of raising taxes to accommodate high expenditure, as Labour have proposed. It must do the reverse. In particular, we must level with voters on the NHS. It is not the envy of the world. In fact, on metrics like healthy life expectancy, the only worse system is the US's model of fully private insurance. And it is cripplingly expensive. Again, the only less affordable system in the world is the American. The Dutch and Singaporean models suggest ways to improve both affordability and health outcomes. Fiscal responsibility is a signal. Balanced books, a lower debt burden and a smaller state demonstrate a commitment to the view that the centre of economic life ought not to be at the level of government but in the private, wealth creating sector. But it is not simply about balancing the books year to year. A Conservative Party wishing to present itself as the only force in British politics willing to make the necessary decisions in the cause of long-term prosperity must also address a short-termism which is driving us towards an economic iceberg, and sapping tomorrow's workers of their purchasing power. That means disavowing some policies with which it has been associated for far too long.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump's clumsy nuclear rhetoric shows he still has no strategy to deal with Putin
US president Donald Trump claims to have ordered a redeployment of nuclear submarines in response to threatening language from Moscow. Predictably, the US and global media have reacted excitedly, without always stopping to consider what, if anything, has happened, and why. As with Trump's other comments on Russia, the vague statement raised more questions than answers. Trump claimed he ordered two nuclear submarines (without specifying whether that meant nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered) to be positioned 'in the appropriate regions' (without explaining why they would have been somewhere inappropriate to start with). All of which came in response to a taunt containing a reference to The Walking Dead and a laughing emoji on social media from Dmitry Medvedev, once president of Russia but now enjoying a public persona more akin to a court jester. Trump's secretary of state Marco Rubio seems confident that Medvedev is 'not a relevant player in Russian politics', and yet his trolling has supposedly triggered a change in American nuclear posture. As with so much else in Trumpworld, the explanation probably lies elsewhere. It's true that Trump's verbal outbursts criticising Moscow have become more frequent recently – and that this marks a startling turnaround from his earlier inclination to blame Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for Russia having invaded his country. But despite the latest claims, there's still no indication that Trump is willing to follow words with meaningful action. The latest arbitrary deadline for Vladimir Putin to take unspecified action towards ending Russia's war on Ukraine, followed by an equally arbitrary bringing forward of the deadline, suggest there is no coherent plan for putting pressure on Moscow. Instead, when setting dates, Trump appears to be plucking random numbers from the air and then changing them with no warning, in the same manner as when setting the United States's global trade policy. With the submarine comment, Trump has discovered another means of appearing 'tough on Russia' without actually doing anything that would be of any concern to Moscow – and there are plenty of other reasons why he might be seeking headlines that suggest he is taking a firmer line with Putin. Namely, that Trump needs distractions at the moment. His best efforts to keep his relationship with sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell out of the headlines, and prevent the release of any material from their criminal case that may implicate Trump personally, have been counterproductive. And the effects of his economic policies are starting to dawn on even those sections of the American public that still believe he has their best interests at heart. With prices rising rapidly amid uncertainty triggered by Trump's chaotic tariff policy, it is becoming harder to maintain upbeat messaging on the economy – and last week also saw the release of employment statistics so bad that Trump felt compelled to shoot the messenger who delivered them, by firing the head of the Bureau of Labour Statistics. This, and moving submarines in response to an insult from a Russian politician who throws them for a living, unfortunately fits Trump's style of governing through outbursts and rants in response to perceived slights more than through clear and considered policy. But whatever the reasons for that, the net effect is that once again, Trump has taken every possible step to pressure Russia short of actually doing something. In fact, he has succeeded in preventing action that Russia would dislike: Trump's notional deadline for Putin to do something successfully headed off an initiative by Senate Republicans to push through a package of secondary sanctions that would have caused genuine headaches for Moscow, not to mention a proposal for sanctions on China for supporting Russia's war. That's one reason among many why Russia felt the Trump submarine claim, which, if made by any other US president, would have been a significant and dramatic move, could be calmly ignored. Whatever Trump's latest verbal salvo at Moscow may be, there's one thing it isn't: a strategy for dealing with Russia, let alone a sensible or coherent one. Vladimir Putin and those around him will no doubt continue to watch Trump's moves closely; but perhaps as much out of curiosity as of concern as to what he will do next.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Kemi Badenoch's position on Israel is discrediting the Conservative Party
Photo byandWhen Kemi Badenoch became leader of the Conservative Party, she very sensibly aimed not to rush into early statements of detailed policy. Unfortunately, her appointment of Priti Patel as shadow foreign secretary was its own statement. Following her unauthorised 2017 trip to Israel while secretary for international development, Patel has been a disgraced figure. While there, accompanied by the peer Stuart Polak of the Conservative Friends of Israel, she met the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu without UK government officials or the British ambassador. Afterwards, she advocated a change in UK policy which, in breach of long-established humanitarian practice, would have included the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) in its aid delivery. This episode could not have been a starker example of impropriety. It merited her dismissal but Theresa May was too weak to wield the axe. Instead, Patel was allowed to resign. And yet, Badenoch saw fit to appoint her to the shadow cabinet. Patel is now in a position to perpetuate her views at a critical moment in world events. Badenoch has shown no indication of knowing anything about Israel and Palestine, and has not made any profound statements on this, the one foreign issue, other than Ukraine, that has dominated global news since she was elected. All she utters is uncritical support for Israel. The Conservative Party used to have a world-view. It supported enlightened international cooperation, and institutions such as the UN along with its accompanying treaties, rules and conventions. More broadly, it was the UK that pledged to support a homeland for the Jewish people, and a future for the Palestinians next door. To their shame, while successive governments have forever delayed implementing that commitment, the Israelis each and every day have violently stolen ever more Palestinian land. Palestine is the only populous legally undisputed land in the world not allowed to call itself a state. It does not belong to Israel, and Israel's determination to annex it does not mean it is disputed. The illegality of Israeli encroachment is cast-iron in international law, a belief that has been the policy of Conservative and Labour governments for decades. Badenoch, however, seems to share the view of those like Patel who do not believe in their own policy. They can never bring themselves to say explicitly that settlements are illegal. The charge sheet against Israel is growing every day: disproportionate force, indiscriminate bombing, mass displacement, food deprivation, the replacement of the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA with mercenaries, the killing of tens of Palestinians each day as they desperately scramble for food, state-backed support for settler terrorists, and the banning of journalists from Gaza. Badenoch and her front bench have done nothing to condemn any of it. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Jonathan Sumption on Israel and Gaza: A question of intent] Amid all this, Priti Patel has refused in the Commons to condemn settler violence – all she would say was that settlers are a barrier to a two-state solution. And when extremist Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir were sanctioned in June, she declined in her response even to mention their names. The likes of Suella Braverman, meanwhile, have branded pro-Palestine demonstrations 'hate marches'. Contemptibly, any pro-Palestinian voice within the Conservative Party is almost systematically accused of anti-Semitism and put into its complaints procedure, which silences and bullies. And as Michael Gove increases his hold on appointments to the leader's office, what could be more warped than his recent recommendation that the IDF be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? It has now reached the point where Conservative comment has become so extreme it has discredited their entire foreign policy and is making them despised more widely. The party is increasingly becoming defined by its lack of humanity. The world is watching the extermination of an entire country. Palestine is being annihilated. Meanwhile the Conservative Party is covering itself in shame, and will stand no chance of re-election unless it states a clear policy based on international law, and promotes the UK's historic understanding of the region. This issue is and always has been about land. Israel's extremist government has only one objective, and that is to make all of Palestine theirs. All other talk, horrendous though the facts may be, is second to that. As leader, Kemi Badenoch could redeem herself speedily by stating loudly what all should be saying to Israel: 'Get out of Palestine, it isn't your country.' [See also: Keir Starmer alienates left and right on Gaza] Related
