Sharon On Trial
TIME talks to Chibli Mallat, the man who wants to
put the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the dock
|
|
August 3, 2001
Will Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon become the first head of state to face
a war crimes trial while still in office? A legal team that includes Lebanese
lawyer Chibli Mallat has filed a case in a local Belgian court against Sharon.
The lawyers, along with 20 Palestinian plaintiffs, want the Israeli leader
indicted for his alleged involvement in the 1982 massacre in the Lebanese
refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, which left an estimated 800 to 2,000
Palestinians dead. Time's Tehran correspondent Azadeh Moaveni talked with Mellat
in Beirut about the lawsuit. Excerpts:
TIME: How did this case originate, and what are its intentions?
Mallat: Personally, I've been interested for a long time. I was first struck
by the fact that the largest demonstration against Sabra and Shatila took place
in Israel — and this was the largest demonstration in Israel's recent history.
There was no judicial forum for proceedings until the Belgian law was amended in
1999 [removing diplomatic immunity for heads of state] allowing for universal
jurisdiction. Then we began mapping the scene, before Sharon became Prime
Minister. It's talked of as a great conspiracy to destabilize Israel, but it
cannot get mired in politics. It is a human case. We are working with Israeli
lawyers, who are helping collect the testimony of Israeli soldiers.
TIME: If this case really about redressing the injustice of the Sabra and
Shetila massacre, why have the most prominent Lebanese Christian militiamen, who
were allied with Israel and carried out the killings, not been specifically
named along with Sharon?
Mallat: Because command responsibility is more important in terms of degree.
For the past 19 years Sharon has charged that "Christians killed Muslims and
they're blaming me." For one, we are putting the order of responsibility more
correctly. Also, the wounds in Lebanon have not healed yet. The Arabs and
Israelis do need something like a truth and reconciliation commission. It was
our decision as lawyers to avoid comparisons to the Holocaust, though referring
back to the Eichmann trial is inevitable.
TIME: What exactly are the charges, and how far does the Belgian court's
jurisdiction extend?
Mallat: The three charges are genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes. The court can try Sharon in absentia, but it is also capable of
demanding his extradition.
TIME: What has the reaction been so far?
Mallat: Well, for one the wall of silence has been broken. For 19 years there
has been talk of Sharon's "indirect responsibility," which suggests to the
non-legal mind that he's not responsible at all. But no one has accused him of
killing with his own hands — that's not what a commander does. The most
important dimension of international law is command responsibility, rather than
those who carried out the executions. This "indirect responsibility" has been
the most extraordinary spin in the recent history of the Middle East. It won't
hold in court, as the court is too sophisticated for that, but the media battle
is important.
TIME: Are there successful precedents for such a case, both in this Belgian
court and generally?
Mallat: The Belgian court found two nuns guilty of abetting the genocide in
Rwanda. Of course, the Milosevic and Pinochet cases are also precedents.
TIME: Do you see the peripheral political dimensions of this case undermining
its potential? The European Union is trying to develop a common foreign policy,
and encouraging the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate their way out of the
current violence. Then you have a local Belgian court putting the standing Prime
Minister of Israel on trial.
Mallat: Anyone with a minor conscience will agree that though it complicates
things, it is justice, and justice always complicates.
TIME: Are the Palestinian plaintiffs hopeful?
Mallat: They're realistic. They know Sharon is perhaps the most powerful
person in the world after the Western leaders, and that this is the first time
someone associated closely with the West might be tried at that level — usually
it's just Third World dictators. It's easier to be the lawyer for the victims of
Sabra and Shatila than Sharon's lawyer. The Milosevic precedent will also help.
TIME: What has the reaction been in the Arab world? Is there a growing
awareness there of the possibilities afforded by universal jurisdiction?
Mallat: There has been such excitement because the Arab world could see that
something was being done in a nonviolent, legal way that put Sharon on the
defensive. The street reaction has been touching, and excited, but at the higher
levels it's been more mixed.
Israeli officials are crossing Europe off their travel plans
the whole story>>