Wall Street Journal June 22, 2001 Review & Outlook The Trials of Sharon Q: "So let me be absolutely clear: You are in no doubt that Ariel Sharon is indictable as a war criminal?" A: "No doubt whatsoever." Thus goes the exchange between the narrator of a BBC documentary broadcast this week in Britain on the 1982 massacres of Palestinians by Christian Phalangists in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps of West Beirut, and Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton. And lo, the very next day came the news that survivors of those massacres had lodged a suit in Brussels, demanding Mr. Sharon be indicted under a 1993 law that allows Belgian magistrates to try war-crimes cases no matter where they were committed. Now there's word that Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused a meeting with Mr. Sharon in London next week, possibly for fear of the unsavory impression that might create with the British public. So much, then, for whatever hopes EU leaders had of playing a mediating role in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What's chiefly at issue here, however, is the leading role European governments, institutions and media have taken in politicizing, and thus cheapening, the cause of human rights. Look at the case against Mr. Sharon. In 1983, a legitimately constituted Israeli commission of inquiry, known as the Kahane Commission, determined that Mr. Sharon, as Minister of Defense, should have known better than to allow the Phalangists to get near the Palestinian camps. For what amounted to a charge of negligence, Mr. Sharon was forced to resign and face widespread public opprobrium that nearly ended his political career. The work of the Kahane group was judged to have been scrupulous and fair. Thus, in 1985, a New York jury determined that Time magazine had defamed Mr. Sharon when it alleged that he had known in advance that the Phalangists would carry out a massacre and, furthermore, that he had granted them permission to do so. Time was forced to run a retraction. But matters did not end there. For years, Mr. Sharon's political opponents, in Israel and abroad, along with a host of Arab leaders, have exploited Sabra and Shatila to score moral points against Israel -- even as Syria made an ally of Eli Hobeika, the Phalangist personally responsible for carrying out the massacres. Now the BBC has piled on with its smartly made documentary, which in tone and thrust, and through the omission of such details as the findings of the New York court, re-indicts Mr. Sharon for the crimes of which he has already been cleared. This is viewer manipulation and politicized journalism at its worst. The law by which the Palestinian plaintiffs are attempting to bring Mr. Sharon to heel is the same used earlier this month to convict four Rwandans for genocide. We applauded that verdict, arguing that because a fair trial is a practical impossibility in Rwanda, a Belgian court employing strict rules of evidence and procedure could serve as a morally defensible alternative. These criteria, however, manifestly do not apply in the case of Mr. Sharon. Israel is no lawless state and its justice system compares favorably with those countries now so intent on serving as a surrogate. More to the point, unless one is prepared to claim that negligence, shortsightedness and perhaps incompetence belong in the category of "war crimes," Mr. Sharon's actions in regard to Sabra and Shatila in no way justify an indictment. Even Belgium's leaders seem to realize matters may have got out of hand. Foreign Minister Louis Michel has suggested that the law will have to change lest Belgian courtrooms become clogged with politically motivated "war-crimes" indictments. He's right, though one wonders why he didn't foresee this obvious eventuality when he was championing the ideal of "universal jurisdiction" while chomping at the bit to extradite Chilean General Pinochet. Europeans have shown that they can responsibly serve, and elevate, the cause of human rights. But they had better be careful in distinguishing genuine war criminals from those whom they dislike politically, lest they discredit themselves and abase the cause of human rights. |
|