Is your objection that the Belgium court is somehow biased?
Re international court: As I mentioned, the ICC would have been perfect for this. But that is not international enough, is it, since the US pulled out because they did not get the immunity they asked for their own citizens?
So in the absence of a court put together by an international body, the Belgium court is doing fine.
Just like a Spanish court indicted Pinochet, and an Israeli court judged Eichmann, whom they snatched from Argentina.
As the Israeli Supreme Court held at the time, the "peculiarly universal character" of crimes against humanity vests in every state the authority to try and punish anyone who participated in their commission.
So, it is rather strange that they should sulk at Sharon being tried after his term.
And I don't really get your objection, either. There is a crime. There is a person allegedly responsible, held as such in a commission of inquiry in Israel in 1983, and forced to resign. His own country does not prosecute him. There is a court meant for this purpose, but hey, America undermines it because its own citizens cannot have immunity from future crimes (huh?).
So of course the victims try whatever option is available to them - Belgium court, in this case.
Or would you rather they just take their pain to the grave, shut up about it, and have the responsible parties go free? |
