So much for Belgium's anti-Semitism... Expectedly, it takes a Muslim resident to debunk it.
Belgium is not an Arab country
Contrary to common belief on Arab streets, Belgium is no haven for the Palestinian cause, writes Dyab Abou Jahjah
"It is a government of bastards, and their country is anti- Semitic." This was the way the Israeli mayor of occupied Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, described Belgians when a delegation from the Belgian government visited his city a few months ago.
Olmert's remarks came after a Belgian court agreed in June 2001 to look into a complaint against Ariel Sharon for his involvement in the 1982 massacres of Sabra and Shatila. Hence the arrival of a Belgian delegation in Israel, which was in town to meet Israeli officials to discuss the case.
The complaint that eventually reached the Belgian judiciary was the result of the hard work of the Arab European League (AEL) and other pro-Palestinian organisations. They all worked together under the umbrella of the Sabra and Shatila Committee, over which I had the honour of presiding.
The very possibility of such a case was a serious blow to Israel and to its image in Europe -- and caused a very real deterioration in relations between Belgium and Israel. It is understandable, then, that Israeli politicians are criticising Belgium and even talking about its legal system as being anti-Semitic, just as it is not surprising that Arabs in the latest demonstrations from Cairo to Beirut were shouting "Beljica Arabia" (Belgium is an Arab country), acknowledging Belgium's support for the Arab cause.
But here's the rub: both Israel and the Arab masses got it wrong.
In fact, just days after we had filed the complaint against Sharon, the Belgian government started to consider changing the law that permits the trial of officials involved in war crimes. The new rules they were proposing would make Sharon immune from prosecution. And in the ensuing months, the Belgian establishment has not spared any effort to take the teeth out of this law -- in order to find a way out for Sharon.
The strategy has almost succeeded. In a similar case against the former Congolese foreign minister, the Belgian Court of Appeal used a law from the 19th century to argue that Belgian courts can only try individuals who are present on Belgian soil. The law they used is widely regarded as archaic and has been superseded by new rules. For example, the law is completely contradictory to amendments accepted by the Belgian parliament in 1993, which permits the trial on Belgian soil of any official in the world accused of war crimes.
When Israel expressed its opposition to the trial, the Belgian legal and political establishment began to take measures to cause the case and the awareness campaign that accompanied it to disappear. Despite attempts to discredit us and portray us as fanatics and extremists, we went on to appoint a new team of lawyers to defend the case of Souad Srour Al-Merhi, the main plaintiff and witness, and more than 20 other victims.
In the meantime, we held numerous public demonstrations and our public meetings drew increasingly larger crowds. As for Belgium's Jewish lobby, it registered one defeat after another, but it was impatiently awaiting its chance to mount a counterattack.
Then came the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington, which posed our first big challenge. The situation of Arabs in general became more difficult in the West. On 16 September, we held a demonstration to commemorate the 19th anniversary of the massacres at Sabra and Shatila. But police banned the gathering and claimed that it was inappropriate to commemorate anything other than the victims of the World Trade Centre. More than 50 members of the AEL, including myself, were arrested.
After that, we held several successful rallies culminating in a demonstration in Antwerp on 3 April. The event was well attended and ended peacefully, despite police provocation and a highly emotional crowd.
However, after the demonstration police using tear gas and water canons attacked groups of Arab youths. Riots broke out and groups of youths and the police fought throughout the night.
Why did such a debacle occur in Antwerp and not in Brussels or other places? The answer is simple. Antwerp is the stronghold of two movements hostile to everything we stand for. It is the stronghold of the far-right Vlaams Blok Party, a party that is openly racist and anti-immigrant and has already demanded several times that the AEL be banned. Antwerp is also the stronghold of the Belgian Jewish-lobby, which centres around the city's highly controversial but influential diamond sector. Vlaams Blok is the most popular party in the city, commanding 33 per cent of the vote, and the diamond sector is vital to the economy. One can imagine the influence of both groups combined.
Nevertheless, the 30,000 Arabs living in that city have the right to demonstrate in their streets and near their homes for the issues they consider important.
The riots of 3 April were used as a pretext to forbid a demonstration on 21 April. We applied to hold the second protest in reaction to the Jenin massacre, but Antwerp city council unanimously banned the demonstration. The ban was accompanied by an orchestrated campaign in the press against AEL, and against me personally, describing us as extremists and even going so far as to link us to the Al-Qa'eda network. Other voices in the Belgian political scene began demanding the withdrawal of my Belgian nationality, accusing me of treason.
To avoid a confrontation we cancelled the event and instead held a symbolic gathering in front of the city hall to protest against the way our community was being treated. Even then 64 people, myself included, were arrested. Even passing Arabs who had nothing to do with the gathering were detained.
The city of Antwerp recently declared that its economy was "strongly linked to that of Israel" and that it opposed any sanctions against the country.
So Belgium has, in making up with Tel Aviv, revealed itself to be neither neutral, as it repeatedly has claimed, and least of all, Arab.
The writer is president of the Arab European League (AEL).
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
ahram.org.eg
As I once put it, pig doesn't eat pig.... Well, how about a little quiz? The Belgian government went through a crisis lately, after it was disclosed that a controversial arms deal had been struck with Nepal:
belgium.indymedia.org
The contract is for Belgian gun manufacturer FN-Herstal ( fnherstal.com ) to deliver 5,500 machine guns to Nepal --officially. Now, here's my quiz:
Out of these 5,500 fancy-schmancy machine guns officially stamped for delivery to Nepal, how many will actually end up in Israel (ie the IDF)?
a) 500
b) 1,500
c) 2,000
Nepal is such a useful, convenient straw man!
Gus |
