Belgium questions 2 Israelis at music festival over Gaza crime allegations
In a statement to The Associated Press, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said an Israeli citizen and an Israeli soldier who were on vacation in Belgium 'were taken in yesterday for interrogation and were released shortly afterward." It said Israeli authorities "dealt with this issue and are in touch with the two.'
It was not immediately clear why the Israeli Foreign Ministry referred to one civilian and one soldier, while Belgian prosecutors spoke of two Israeli army members. The whereabouts of the two people who were questioned was not immediately clear.
The case was hailed as a 'turning point in the global pursuit of accountability' by a Belgium-based group called the Hind Rajab Foundation, which has campaigned for the arrest of Israeli troops it accuses of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The group was named for a young girl who Palestinians say was killed early in the war by Israeli fire as she and her family fled Gaza City.
Israel says its forces follow international law and try to avoid harming civilians, and that it investigates allegations of wrongdoing.
In a written statement, the prosecutor's office said that the two army members — who were in Belgium for the Tomorrowland festival — were questioned after the office received legal complaints on Friday and Saturday from the Hind Rajab Foundation and another group. The prosecution office requested the questioning after an initial assessment of the complaints 'determined that it potentially had jurisdiction.'
The Hind Rajab foundation said it filed its complaints along with the rights group Global Legal Action Network.
The decision to question the two Israelis was based on an article in Belgium's Code of Criminal Procedure that went into force last year and grants Belgian courts jurisdiction over acts overseas that are potentially governed by an international treaty, in this case the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1984 United Nations convention against torture, the prosecution statement said.
'In light of this potential jurisdiction, the Federal Prosecutor's Office requested the police to locate and interrogate the two individuals named in the complaint. Following these interrogations, they were released,' the statement said, without elaborating.
It said it was not providing any further information at this stage of its investigation.
The news in Belgium came as the U.N. food agency accused Israel of using tanks, snipers and other weapons to fire on a crowd of Palestinians seeking food aid, in what the territory's Health Ministry said was one of the deadliest days for aid-seekers in over 21 months of war.
The death toll in war-ravaged Gaza has climbed to more than 59,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Its count doesn't distinguish between militants and civilians but the ministry says more than half of the dead are women and children. The ministry is part of the Hamas government, but the U.N. and other international organizations see it as the most reliable source of data on casualties.
'We will continue to support the ongoing proceedings and call on Belgian authorities to pursue the investigation fully and independently,' the group said in a statement. 'Justice must not stop here — and we are committed to seeing it through.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Stanford newspaper challenges legal basis for student deportations
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The lawsuit says that the newspaper, which is open to all students and has more than 150 members, according to the complaint, has weathered resignations and withdrawn stories by noncitizens who were concerned that publishing content about Israel or the conditions in the Gaza Strip could leave them vulnerable to deportation. Advertisement The climate of fear the lawsuit cites at Stanford follows a spate of arrests earlier this year, when the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists in March, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, over their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza. Advertisement 'They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for bedrock speech, like authoring an op-ed and going to protest,' said Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation. 'And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they think they can throw you out of the country for it.' In those and other cases, immigration agents arrested the students after Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked the provision, deeming the students a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In each case, Rubio personally signed off on the decision to revoke a student visa or render a lawful permanent resident deportable after determining that those interests were at stake. 'Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy,' the lawsuit says. The new lawsuit mirrored many elements of a case brought by another group, the American Association of University Professors, which is seeking to block the Trump administration from pursuing what it describes as a policy of 'ideological deportations' -- using the law to target activists based on their shared criticism of Israel and its conduct in the war. That case was argued before a federal judge during a two-week trial in Boston in July, and he is expected to decide this month whether to block the deportations on First Amendment grounds. The case raised similar concerns about chilled speech on college campuses, with testimony from faculty at several universities about how dramatically noncitizen academics had withdrawn from public life. Advertisement But lawyers in that case explicitly stopped short of arguing that using the foreign policy provision to target student demonstrators was unconstitutional, sidestepping a risky gambit in court over whether Rubio had abused the authority. That caution came as William G. Young, the judge in the case, expressed skepticism throughout the trial about whether he could rule against Rubio or others in the Trump administration given that they were exercising powers given to them by Congress. 'It seems to me we have a new administration who has, you know, absolutely the primary authority over the foreign policy of the United States,' Young said during closing arguments last month. But other judges have already contemplated the same questions the new lawsuit raises, concluding that using the foreign policy provision in the student activist cases was vague and probably violated the First Amendment. In the case involving Khalil, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court in New Jersey wrote that using the foreign policy provision to detain him was probably unconstitutional, even though that did not factor into his decisions to order Khalil's release in June. Since the Supreme Court limited federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions in June, any ruling in the case would likely apply only to the plaintiffs at Stanford. But the lawsuit aims to set a legal precedent that the organization hopes could be used more broadly. (STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.) Fitzpatrick, the foundation lawyer, said there were narrow but conceivable situations in which the use of the foreign policy law would be appropriate, such as if pro-Kremlin Ukrainian politicians who fled the country after Russia's invasion sought refuge in the United States and continued to work to undermine Kyiv from abroad. Advertisement 'That has an arguable constitutional basis,' he said. 'What does not have an arguable constitutional basis is someone going up to a podium, whether it's at a city council meeting or a local park, at a protest, voicing an opinion that would be completely protected if you or I said it, and the secretary of state saying, 'We don't like the ideas you're spreading -- get out.' 'That's un-American,' he said. This article originally appeared in
Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Apple to commit another $100 billion for U.S. manufacturing, White House says
Apple, which was singled out by the Trump administration earlier this year over its production practices, plans to take a further step to highlight its commitment to boosting investment in the U.S. The tech giant will pledge to spend an additional $100 billion on domestic manufacturing, a move that could ease tensions between the tech giant and President Trump who wants iPhones built in the United States. A White House official on Wednesday said Trump will announce a new manufacturing program aimed to bring more of Apple's supply chain to the United States, confirming an earlier report from Bloomberg. Apple's commitment will increase the Cupertino-based company's U.S. investment to $600 billion over four years as it seeks to avoid the cost of tariffs. The company announced a $500-billion U.S. investment commitment in February. Nonetheless, Trump in May criticized Apple for expanding iPhone production in India, threatening to hit the company with a 25% tariff. Apple and other tech companies have touted their U.S. commitments, but analysts and economists have said shifting manufacturing to the United States could take years and result in higher prices for smartphones and other popular electronics. Some analysts have said it would take at least five years for Apple to shift production to the U.S. and the prices of iPhones could reach $3,500 if the smartphone was made in America. The iPhone 16 Pro is made up of roughly 2,700 parts sourced from 187 suppliers in 28 countries, according to an April report from TechInsights. As companies look to keep costs down and consumers watch their budgets, tariffs add another wrinkle to efforts to slash spending. Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement, that the Trump and Apple's announcement is 'another win for our manufacturing industry that will simultaneously help reshore the production of critical components to protect America's economic and national security.' This week, Trump said he was doubling tariffs on India to 50%, stating in an executive order that the country's government 'is currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil.' Apple didn't respond to a request for comment. The move marks the latest apparent effort by Apple to show its commitment to hiring U.S. workers. Last month, the smartphone leader announced the opening of its Apple Manufacturing Academy in Detroit. The program begins Aug. 19 and offers free workshops on artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing to small and medium-sized businesses. Apple has more than 450,000 jobs with thousands of suppliers and partners across all 50 states. While Apple designs its products in California, it also relies on a global supply chain involving various countries including China, Vietnam and India. Apple is already spending more because of Trump's tariffs. Last week, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said during an earnings call that the company has incurred roughly $800 million in tariff-related costs. Apple expects $1.1 billion in tariff-related costs in the fiscal fourth quarter ending in September.
UPI
20 minutes ago
- UPI
Analysis: Lebanon's decision on weapons corners Hezbollah
The weapons decision, adopted during a Cabinet session chaired by President Joseph Aoun on Tuesday, not only ends the political cover Hezbollah has enjoyed for decades, but also undermines its legitimacy as a 'resistance organization,' according to military and political analysts. Photo by Wael BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 6 (UPI) -- Lebanon, caught between mounting international pressure and the risk of another devastating war with Israel, made a game-changing decision by tasking the Army with preparing a plan to enforce a state monopoly on weapons by the end of the year. The move poses a new challenge to the once-powerful Hezbollah, which has been left with almost no options after being significantly weakened during last year's war with Israel. The decision, adopted during a Cabinet session chaired by President Joseph Aoun on Tuesday, not only ends the political cover Hezbollah has enjoyed for decades, but also undermines its legitimacy as a "resistance organization," according to military and political analysts. Addressing Hezbollah's weapons had long been a taboo topic; until September, when Israel escalated its attacks on the group, killing its longtime leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, along with many of its top military commanders. In addition, the Iran-backed Shiite group reportedly lost the bulk of its military capabilities in ongoing Israeli airstrikes targeting its positions in southern and eastern Lebanon. Hezbollah had no alternative but to accept the Nov. 27 ceasefire agreement, brokered by the United States and France, to end the 14-month war with Israel that killed or wounded more than 20,000 people and left border villages in southern Lebanon in ruins. However, the agreement marked an opportunity for Lebanon to reclaim its long-lost sovereignty after decades of lawlessness, military occupation and the dominance of armed non-state actors. Tuesday's decision was "certainly a historic" one, according to Riad Kahwaji, who heads the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. "Hezbollah has lost the political cover that has given it legitimacy as a resistance organization," Kahwaji told UPI. He maintained that the militant group is now viewed as an armed militia that must comply with the 1989 Taif Accords -- which ended the 1975-1990 civil war -- and U.N. Resolution 1701, both of which call for the disarmament of all armed groups and affirm that only the Lebanese Armed Forces should hold a monopoly on weapons in the country. While Hezbollah implicitly agreed to discuss its weapons as part of a national defense strategy, it resisted government efforts to set a timetable for disarming -- a key U.S. condition for unlocking much-needed international and Gulf Arab funding to support Lebanon's reconstruction and economic recovery. In line with the government decision, the Army was to submit its implementation plan on disarming Hezbollah and other Palestinian armed factions to the cabinet by the end of August for discussion and approval, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said after the Cabinet meeting. Hezbollah and its main ally, the Shiite Amal Movement led by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, rejected in separate statements Wednesday the Cabinet's decision as a "grave sin" that offers "free concessions to the Israeli enemy" and weakens Lebanon, rather than ending Israel's ongoing attacks, its occupation of Lebanese territory and securing the release of Lebanese prisoners. Hezbollah has maintained that it is unwilling to lay down its arms as long as Israel continues to occupy parts of Lebanese territory -- an argument that was considered legitimate until the recent Cabinet decision. "Its weapons will become illegitimate by the end of the year, in accordance with Lebanese law," said Abdul Rahman Chehaitli, a retired major general and author of The Lebanese Land and Maritime Borders: A Historical, Geographical, and Political Study. "But it still enjoys popular legitimacy." Chehaitli noted that Lebanon still faces "external threats" from Israel and from armed groups operating outside the control of the new Syrian leadership and that are deployed along the eastern border. He explained that Lebanon would need an agreement similar to the 1949 Armistice Accord to guarantee Israel's withdrawal and to demarcate the border, as well as a separate border agreement with Syria to enable the Lebanese Army to carry out its mission. "The government is serious, but no one can say what will happen the next day or what additional demands the U.S. and Israel might push forward," he told UPI, referring to concerns among Lebanon's Shiite community about their future and political role in the country. The question remains whether Hezbollah is still capable of fighting Israel after losing much of its power. Kahwaji said the group was "trying to put on a strong face," but clearly, "the Hezbollah we knew is no longer there. ... It's much weaker." He argued that Hezbollah's "calculations have continuously and miserably failed" since Oct. 7, 2023, which is why the group was "badly defeated and degraded." "It has lost the halo it carried for years. All its attempts to recreate the illusion of deterrence and to intimidate the state have also failed," he said. While Israel claimed to have destroyed 70 percent of Hezbollah's arsenal, Chehaitli said, "no one really knows. ... It remains a mystery." "It could still have military capabilities it hasn't used -- or it could have none," he added, emphasizing that Hezbollah, in any case, would not initiate a war but could fight back if one is imposed. The devastating blows Hezbollah suffered during the war with Israel have reportedly prompted the group -which has been fighting Israel since its establishment after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982- to engage in a comprehensive internal review. The situation has shifted significantly due to the accelerated developments in the region following the Gaza war. Hezbollah, which was the principal component of Iran's "Axis of Resistance" carrying out missions outside Lebanon, has been forced to shift its focus. Kassem Kassir, a political analyst who specializes in Islamic movements and is close to Hezbollah, explained that the group is engaged in internal discussions, as well as talks with other political forces in the country, to develop "a new vision." "But so far, it hasn't produced a comprehensive or complete one," Kassir told UPI. What is clear, however, is that Hezbollah is now focusing on Lebanon and its future role as part of the state.
