EU Hypocrisy - Redux

Ned · June 25, 2002, 20:19

Tommorrow is June 26th, the date the Belgian court will decide whether to try Ariel Sharon for crimes against humanity for permitting Christian troops into the Lebanese Palestinian camps in 1982 to look for terrorists, but knowing there was a risk of a massacre, which then took place. Perhaps a 1000 or more died.

However, we here narry a peep from the Belgian court concerning the Dutch officers who handed over the men, women and children of Sebrenicia to Bosnian Serb army commander Ratko Mladic in 1995 knowing there was a risk of a massacre, which then took place. More than 8000 died.

The massacre permitted by the Dutch was orders of magnitude worse than that committed in Lebanon.

But, do we here demands in Belgium and Holland or the rest of of the EU for even-handed justice. NO!

Hyprocrites!

moomin · June 25, 2002, 20:25

I find it amazing nobody thinks that the leaders of the militia that actually commited those atrocities should face trial, rather than Sharon. Perhaps Arabs aren't considered as people who are responsible for their own actions?

But you're correct as far as this issue is concerend - if they drag Sharon to court over Saabra & Shatila than surely the Duch commander of the UN garrison of Srebrenica should be there.

See it as a preview of that international war crimes tribunal the EU countries berate you for not joyning - while quitely opting out themsleves.

Goingonit · June 25, 2002, 21:36

Agreed. I am not going to defend the Christian phalangists nor the Dutch officers. I also think that all heads of state should have immunity from prosecution.

Ned · June 25, 2002, 21:49

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
I find it amazing nobody thinks that the leaders of the militia that actually commited those atrocities should face trial, rather than Sharon. Perhaps Arabs aren't considered as people who are responsible for their own actions?

But you're correct as far as this issue is concerend - if they drag Sharon to court over Saabra & Shatila than surely the Duch commander of the UN garrison of Srebrenica should be there.

See it as a preview of that international war crimes tribunal the EU countries berate you for not joyning - while quitely opting out themsleves.

I understand the suit has been filed by 23 Palestinian relatives of victims. The the fact that Sharon is still in power helps explain their "real" motivation, doesn't it?

Which gets back to my earlier point made in other threads on the ICC - what we are going to see are cases filed to harrass the leaders of one's enemies - war by other means. The Belgian statute and the ICC are well meaning, but are going to be abused.

CyberGnu · June 25, 2002, 22:26

Assuming you are busy writing a scathing denounciation of Israels hypocrisy in their critique of Jurg Heider while allowing a war criminal to be leader of their goverment.

Oh, wait, I guess that would be actual hypocrisy (critizising one persons actions while doing the same thing yourself) as opposed to what you originally posted... Only if the belgian court was conducting genocide themselves while indicting Sharon would it be hypocrisy.

Makes good propaganda though...

Dr. Nick · June 25, 2002, 22:31

*claps the Gnu*

GePap · June 25, 2002, 22:58

Well, it seems the definition of this word is not well known at all.....

If a group of Bosnians brings a suit against the Dutch in a belgian court for Srebernitza, and then the Belgians refuse to try it, then THAT's hypocrasy, but if no one has tired to bring the issue to court then becuase they are trying an issue that was brought up and not one that wasnt't, there is no hypocracy present.

Also, heads of state should not be immune for prosecution for acts that are considered war crimes or crimes against humanity, and especially not those commited while they were not heads of state (Sharon was Defense Minister then), but they should be immune fromporsecustion while in power: So I say, get the fat bastard after he leaves power!

CyberGnu · June 25, 2002, 23:08

GePap, should that extend to people who left power and came back? Or dictators who might stay in power indefinetly?

Ned · June 25, 2002, 23:09

Well, GePap, you can expect the widows of Sebrenicia to file suit against the Dutch government and field commanders if the Sharon suit goes forward. I have read some stories where they are very angry at the Dutch, and are demanding justice.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 01:05

where you go Neddy? Working hard on your condemnation?

Ned · June 26, 2002, 02:04

Well, CyberGnu, while the pious Europeans are having a field day condemning America for our refusal to ratify the ICC, at the same time they opt out of responsibility for war crimes during their service in Afganistan.

Now the Belgians may try Sharon for crimes against humanity committed in Lebanon. But again, not one peep from the pious Europeans about their own dirty laundry in Sebrenicia. (If you really are "Europeans," Sebrenicia is a European criminal act, not a criminal act of some clueless Dutch commander.)

Your f*cking piety makes me sick. You have absolutely no right to look down your noses at the rest of the world and tell them about your moral superiority. The EU is filled with hypocrits.

The Mad Monk · June 26, 2002, 02:12

Originally posted by El Awrence
*claps the Gnu*

Are you appauding him, or striking him?

Kropotkin · June 26, 2002, 02:28

And how could this even be EU hypocricy? AFAIK the court isn't a EU-court, or am I wrong? It's after all International not European.

Ned · June 26, 2002, 02:41

Kropotkin,

Technically, it is not a EU court. It's a Belgian court. Belgium is a member country of the EU.

In your new structure, I am not sure how much authority the EU has over Belgium. But certainly, if a Belgian court can try Sharon for acts done in Lebanon against Palestinians, it can try the Dutch for acts done in Bosnia against the Moslem residents of Sebrenicia.

This should have the EU concerned. One member country trying another's member country's political leadership for crimes against humanity?

Kropotkin · June 26, 2002, 02:46

Not technically a EU-court. Neither in reality.

Obviously they should be able to try the dutch. Why that hasn't happend I don't know and I don't think they could actually get Sharon guilty as far as I've heard about that case there's no direct evidence.

It's still not EU-hypocrisy. This constant H-word calling starts to be though....

Adalbertus · June 26, 2002, 03:04

Ned, it is mainly you and a handful others why my esteem for America is in a rapid decline (and I know there are a few orders of magnitude more American posters on Apolyton). Get your vision right: Did Sharon resign for this massacre? No. You are supporting a terrorist. (Not that there weren't other terrorists with different colours in the region).

Ned · June 26, 2002, 03:04

Kropotkin, Well, I believe our good friend Saint Marcus started it all a while back in a discussion on the ICC. Then it was the Americans who were hypocrits.

Honestly, I recalled being shocked by the events in Lebanon. I was even more shocked by what happened in Sebrenicia. After all, this took place in Europe, which I had assumed was a civilized place where this kind of thing just could not happen. But it did -- with Dutch complicity.

Roland · June 26, 2002, 03:21

What a load of bullshit.

You could find loads of political hypocrisy, in individual EU countries or at the EU level. The amusing thing is that you don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about.

Keygen · June 26, 2002, 03:25

I would say put both in trial.
Letting such mascacres under your nose, purposly or not, should be considered and treatted as crimes.

Sharon has a second reason to be put on trial for killing innocent people in Jennin...

Keygen · June 26, 2002, 03:28

Originally posted by Ned

Honestly, I recalled being shocked by the events in Lebanon. I was even more shocked by what happened in Sebrenicia. After all, this took place in Europe, which I had assumed was a civilized place where this kind of thing just could not happen. But it did -- with Dutch complicity.

Crimes were, are and will always happen on "Civilized" or not places...

Sikander · June 26, 2002, 03:29

The two situations differ a lot, but the most salient difference is that the Israelis were more or less capable of of controlling the situation going on in Lebanon, while the Dutch Battalion was not. The Israelis were negligent to some extent, but I don't think they actually tried to create a massacre of innocents. The Dutch were perhaps guilty of putting men into harms way who were extraordinarily unprepared to do the right thing. Both situations were tragedies. IMO the vast majority of the efforts to bring people to justice should be spent on the actual perpetrators rather than those who perhaps could have or even should have prevented these incidents.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 03:43

Well, CyberGnu, while the pious Europeans are having a field day condemning America for our refusal to ratify the ICC, at the same time they opt out of responsibility for war crimes during their service in Afganistan.

Now the Belgians may try Sharon for crimes against humanity committed in Lebanon. But again, not one peep from the pious Europeans about their own dirty laundry in Sebrenicia. (If you really are "Europeans," Sebrenicia is a European criminal act, not a criminal act of some clueless Dutch commander.)

Your f*cking piety makes me sick. You have absolutely no right to look down your noses at the rest of the world and tell them about your moral superiority. The EU is filled with hypocrits.

Still not a peep about Jurg Heider.

Ironically, while your post still does not deal with hypocrisy, you are actually a hypocrite for not dealing with your own hypocrisy... Followed me on that one? Let me explain:

You accused europeans of hypocrisy. (Even though the situation you decribed is not hypocrisy.) Morally reprehensible, if it was true, but not hypocritical.

When I pointed out that an actual act of hypocrisy is Israels condemnation of Jurg Heider while having a war criminal in power, you refused to acknowledge that.

So, since the definition of hypocrisy is condemning others for acts you perform yourself, you are being hypocritical when you accuse others of being hypocritical while being a hypocrite.

What is the moral of all this?

Well, don't use a word like hypocrite unless you know what it means...

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 03:46

Oh, BTW, there are still french parliamentary hearings going on about this. Until they are finished it would be hasty do make any judgements.

Ned · June 26, 2002, 03:53

CyberGnu, I would have commented on Heider, but I don't know a thing about it.

Bravo France for looking into this event!

Roland · June 26, 2002, 03:56

The freakin' idiot goes by the name of Jörg Haider.

Ned · June 26, 2002, 04:01

Originally posted by Adalbertus
Ned, it is mainly you and a handful others why my esteem for America is in a rapid decline (and I know there are a few orders of magnitude more American posters on Apolyton). Get your vision right: Did Sharon resign for this massacre? No. You are supporting a terrorist. (Not that there weren't other terrorists with different colours in the region).

Adalbertus, I think Sharon should stand trial before an international tribunal. I said the same thing in another thread concerning Senator Kerrey. I don't know if they are guilty, but the evidence does not look good in both cases.

I also think the good Chairman Arafat should stand trial for decades of atrocities.

Regarding the Dutch - they had the responsibility to protect those citizens of Sebrenicia. Instead, they handed them over knowing what might happen to them. If Sharon is guilty, so are the Dutch.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:01

Roland, can you fill Ned in?

France are pretty much bound to look into it. A french guy was the supreme commander in the area. He is the one who is responsible for the actions of the troops under his command (exactly like Sharon was responsible for his troops.)

MarkG · June 26, 2002, 04:03

Originally posted by Ned
they opt out of responsibility for war crimes during their service in Afganistan

i'll quote myself from the other thread

"may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation."

so the afganistan goverment agreed not to hand over any british soldiers if they actually get them in the first place

nothing to do with whether these soldiers can be put in trial in the international court....

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:04

Adalbertus, I think Sharon should stand trial before an international tribunal.

I think you should have made that very clear from the beginning of the thread. to the best of my knowledge, you are the only israeli apologizer who thinks Sharon should stand trial.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:08

Regarding the Dutch - they had the responsibility to protect those citizens of Sebrenicia. Instead, they handed them over knowing what might happen to them. If Sharon is guilty, so are the Dutch.

IIUIC, Sharons defense was 'I didn't know'. Janviers defense was 'we feared for the life of our men, and were forced to withdraw'.

Quite different situations.