This article appeared in New York Post :|
LET'S TALK WAR CRIMES
June 25, 2001 -- IF the Belgians are serious about trying war
criminals, they will dismiss the phony charges against Ariel Sharon
and indict Yasser Arafat for the murder of Guy Eid, their man in
Sudan, who was executed on Arafat's order by PLO hit men in
Eid went down together with two American diplomats, Cleo Noel
and George Moore, in the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum. They were
killed by Black September, Arafat's gunmen, after President Nixon
refused to release Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of
Robert F. Kennedy.
Tapes exist to prove that Arafat ordered these executions, but for
"reasons of state," every American administration from Nixon on
down has refused to comment. Sharon says it's so, and on this
page in January I ran an interview with James Welsh, a U.S. Navy
officer who was there at the time, and confirmed it. [There have
also been numerous articles about this on WorldNetDaily.com,
which I have posted from time to time. C.S.]
Well now, if the Belgium court that today "ponders" whether to
charge Sharon with war crimes - for "indirectly" causing the deaths
of a few hundred Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila during the
Israeli-Lebanon War in 1982 - would put Arafat in the dock, it could
demand that our government release those tapes.
Fuhgeddaboutit. The Belgians, like the European Union and the
United Nations, would endorse the kosher laws before they'd put
any blame on Arafat.
Sharon, on the other hand, is open season. The BBC the other
night ran a show that made him out to be an ogre, the man who
destroyed the Palestinian camps in Sabra and Shatila. Not
directly, but because as the Defense Minister of Israel, Sharon
"allowed" the Phalange (the Christian Arabs) to kill off hundreds of
their Palestinian Moslem enemies.
The BBC's anchor, so to speak, for this slander was the Kahane
Commission in Israel, which formally charged Sharon with "indirect
responsibility" for the massacre.
I was there at the time, and on my word as an old reporter, this
decision was the result of a media lynching. The Israeli leftists
controlled the press [still do. C.S.], and they wanted Arik's head.
The Kahane Commission, under this pressure, had to give - it
exonerated Sharon from direct guilt, but said he should have known
that the Christians might have gone overboard when allowed into
the camps. [I'm not sure they needed the press to do that. I don't
remember much about the other two commission members, but
Aharon Barak, the only living member, is definitely a leftist. C.S.]
Arik was run out of office, and later so was Prime Minister
Menachem Begin, who quit by saying, "I can't take it any longer."
The big picture raised by the Palestinians who filed the charges
against Sharon in Belgium is the legitimacy of war-crime tribunals.
Nuremberg was the one and only, and few people argued against it.
Those who had questions were hardly heard, but in retrospect I can
see their point: If the Allies isolate a few Nazis as evil, it gives a
pass to the German people.
It turned out that way, but things change over a century. Now the
question is: What if this idea of ‘indirect responsibility" takes hold?
Imagine a Belgium court holding Sharon guilty of murder because
he didn't stop the Lebanese Christians from killing Moslems in the
Beirut camps of Sabra and Shatilla. What then would protect
Norman Schwartzkopf and Colin Powell from indictment?
In the Gulf War, the two U.S. generals stood by while Saddam
Hussein killed tens of thousands of his people - Kurds and Shiites.
We had Saddam at our will, his army was finished and
Schwarzkopf opined that he could have wiped him out in a day.
The worst that could be said about Sharon was that he looked the
other way while his friends killed his enemies. America looked the
other way while our enemies killed our friends.
In both cases, the idea of ‘war crimes' is meshugga. Decisions are
made and mistakes are made and the only people who think an
international court will do justice belong in an international