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
Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Israel 'quite clearly' breaking international law
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Israel has "quite clearly" breached international law by limiting food deliveries to starving civilians in Gaza as he escalates his criticism of the Jewish state. Mr Albanese spoke of his emotional response to images of gaunt and dying children in the Palestinian territory, while acknowledging increased airdrops of aid by Israel was "a start". "It just breaks your heart," he told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. "A one-year-old boy is not a Hamas fighter, and the civilian casualties and deaths in Gaza is completely unacceptable. It's completely indefensible. "Quite clearly it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March. It's a breach of decent humanity and of morality, and everyone can see that." But the prime minister would not commit Australia to following the lead of France in recognising Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September. Any resolution would need to guarantee Hamas, the defacto ruling authority in Gaza which is listed as a terrorist organisation by Australia, had no part in Palestine's future, he said. "We need security for the state of Israel, but you need to have the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for their own state realised as well," Mr Albanese said. "That will mean security arrangements, it will need agreements as well about the rebuilding of Gaza and the West Bank. It will need the issue of settlements to resolve as well." Recognising a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution in the Middle East is included in Labor's national platform. "Are we about to imminently do that? No, we are not," Mr Albanese said. "But we will engage constructively. The United States as well will have a critical role in this, they have to play a role." Mr Albanese once again called for an immediate ceasefire and for Gaza to release Israeli hostages. But opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said the government had failed to lay the blame for the war at the feet of Hamas in a statement condemning Israel's denial of aid on Friday. "What this statement does not do is squarely say to the global community, we would like to see the end of the war in Gaza. And the next sentence should have been, 'and we call on the terrorists Hamas, who commenced this war, and who are ensuring the suffering of the civilians in Gaza, to end this war tomorrow'," Senator Cash told Sky News.
Newsroom
15 hours ago
- Newsroom
Why NZ must resist the trashing of international law
Opinion: Last week, the foreign ministries of 30 countries, including New Zealand, belatedly issued a joint statement that acknowledged the 'suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths', demanded 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire', and warned Netanyahu's government of 'further action' if this was not achieved. However, this statement highlights something even bigger than the escalation of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, since the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, has led to the death of more than 61,000 people – around 59,500 Palestinians and 1710 Israelis – and cost the lives of hundreds of journalists, academics and humanitarian aid workers. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a symptom of the post-9/11 erosion of an international rules-based order, enshrined in institutions like the United Nations and norms like multilateralism. The US' illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, China's assertiveness in the South China Sea, Putin's annexation of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as well as recent US trade protectionism are examples of an increasing trend that has weakened the importance of rules in global politics. During this period, the United Nations Security Council, the organ with formal responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has repeatedly been paralysed by the veto powers of its five permanent members. The biggest offenders in this regard have been Russia, the US and China, three states imbued with a strong sense of national exceptionalism, that have not hesitated to cast a veto or act unilaterally to protect their perceived national concerns even if it undermines international law. It should be emphasised that most states including relatively small players like New Zealand and middle powers like Australia are dependent on an international-rules based order for their prosperity and security. While rules are often seen as an encumbrance by great powers, they are viewed by most small and middle powers as essential in order to conduct their international activities in a relatively safe, equitable and predictable fashion. Nevertheless some observers believe that smaller states like New Zealand are powerless to prevent the slide towards the 'law of the jungle' in the international arena. According to the so-called realist perspective, great powers do what great powers do and 'little' New Zealand has no choice but to quietly accept blatant violations of international law when they are committed by powerful traditional friends like the US or its close allies such as Israel. However, such a perspective exaggerates the role of great powers in the interconnected world of the 21st century. We should recall the founders of the UN in 1945 conferred the right of veto on five great powers of that time to ensure they remained in the organisation and helped solve the world's problems. This logic explains why the Labour New Zealand government, led by Prime Minister Peter Fraser, was prepared to reluctantly concede the necessity of the veto mechanism in the Security Council when the UN was established. Fast forward 80 years. In 2025, it is clear that superpowers such as the US or China cannot run the world – even if they want to – simply because key challenges such as climate change, pandemics, transnational terrorism and financial contagion do not respect borders and are simply too big to be resolved unilaterally or with the assistance of a few allies. This means, despite intensified geopolitical rivalries, small states and middle powers are not doomed to be fast followers and can, if they choose to act strategically in a multilateral fashion, exert some agency and influence on international issues where there is a void in great-power leadership. The precedent of the Christchurch Call in 2020, when New Zealand collaborated with France in a bid to curb online extremism which won the support of more than 55 states, including Biden's America, points to the potential for bottom-up multilateral initiatives in the contemporary era. Confronted with the steady decline of international rules in trade and security matters, smaller powers cannot rely on veto-wielding states in the UN Security Council to reverse this damaging trend. But the New Zealand government does have the option of reaching out to other members of the UN to build international support for a diplomatic initiative to reinvigorate the idea of an international rules-based order. This vision would involve reforming the Security Council to make it a more reliable barrier to war by curtailing the use of the veto by the permanent five states or at least pressing for a new arrangement whereby General Assembly resolutions with more than two-thirds' support become binding and not subject to a veto. Without curbing the use of the veto in the Security Council or significantly increasing the power of the UN General Assembly, certain states will continue to believe they are 'above the law' and the prospect of more barbaric conflicts like Gaza will remain an ever-present possibility in our world.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
White House seeks fines from other universities after Columbia deal
Harvard University. File photo: Getty Images The White House is seeking fines from several universities it says failed to stop antisemitism on campus, including Harvard University, in exchange for restoring federal funding, a Trump administration official said on Friday. The administration is in talks with several universities, including Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown, the source said, confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration is close to striking deals with Northwestern and Brown and potentially Cornell. A deal with Harvard, the country's oldest and richest university, is a key target for the White House, the official added. A spokesperson for Cornell declined to comment. Other universities did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump and his team have undertaken a broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at U.S. universities, which the Republican president says are gripped by antisemitic and "radical left" ideologies. Trump has targeted several universities since returning to office in January over the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled college campuses last year. Columbia University said on Wednesday it will pay more than $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the administration to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. The Trump administration has welcomed the Columbia deal, with officials believing the university set the standard on how to reach an agreement, the official said. Harvard has taken a different approach, suing the federal government in a bid to get suspended federal grants restored.
