Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s quick visit to the Netherlands this week is generating quite a stir. While he may be Foreign Minster, and Deputy Prime Minister as well, Mr Lieberman is also the leader of a far-right political party with some radical viewpoints.
US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu met behind closed doors on Monday evening, as America struggles to revive the Middle East peace process. The talks in Washington came amid heightened tension over Israel's refusal to freeze settlement building in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
One of the strongest advocates of that settlement policy is Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who will be visiting the Netherlands today. Various Dutch organisations oppose his visit.
Extremists
Some groups are using the trip to call on the Dutch government to reverse its policy, and talk to the radical Palestinian movement, Hamas. In their view, if one talks to extremists on one side, one should talk to extremists on the other side, as well. Equal opportunity to all extremists.
MP Martijn van Dam’s Labour Party is in the Dutch coalition government, but sides with the opposition when it comes to policies regarding Israel and Palestine.
“I think it’s always good to talk with all the parties that are involved in the conflict in the Middle East. Even the most extreme parties like Hamas and Avigdor Lieberman. So it’s ok to talk with them. I hope the talks can help to bring a solution closer", he said.
Friendly treatment
Van Dam agrees that the Dutch parliament is receiving Mr Lieberman, and listening to him. But, he continues, they do not have to treat him as a friend.
Nevertheless, there is quite a difference between friendly treatment, and comparisons with Hamas. Is talking to Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman the same as talking to the radical Palestinian group?
Dutch Jewish protest
Van Dam is not the only one to make the comparison. Harry de Winter is a film and television producer, and co-founder of the group A Different Jewish Voice. He is also one of 500 prominent Dutch people to sign a petition calling for the Dutch government to open talks with Hamas.
He says Lieberman deserves the comparison.
“He is democratically elected in Israel, but he is a pure racist who wants to get rid of even the Arab population living inside Israel. He says if they want a Palestinian state let them go to Jordan or Lebanon. This guy is an ultra right-wing racist, so, if anybody really thinks about it they would not have him officially received by our government.”
Insane comparison
Others, however, do not see the parallels between Lieberman and Hamas. Christian Union MP Joël Voordewind says the Netherlands should continue boycotting Hamas:
“I think the comparison between Lieberman and talking to Hamas is completely insane because we’re speaking about a democratically elected party leader in comparison with a terrorist organisation which came to power by violence and killing. So I think that’s a completely insane comparison.”
Mr Lieberman’s visit is confirming Mr Voordewind’s viewpoint.
And it is confirming the long-standing friendship between the Netherlands and Israel. The Foreign Minister is visiting the Netherlands in part to thank it for voting against sending the Goldstone report to the United Nations Security Council.
Bias
South African Justice Richard Goldstone, working under a UN mandate, conducted an investigation into last year’s conflict in the Gaza Strip. In the report’s conclusions, Justice Goldstone accuses both the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israeli army of having committed war crimes. Israel claims the report has an anti-Israeli bias.
The Dutch government agreed, and voted to block the report in the Human Rights Council. In the meantime, the report looks set to reach the Security Council by another route.
But Israel is grateful for the no vote, and has sent the Foreign Minister to The Hague to relay the message in person. A message not everyone in The Hague wants to hear.
Photo: U.S. Department of State at Flickr
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
United Nations Commission on Human Rights
Definition of genocide
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2
Article 3 defines the crimes that can be punished under the convention:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 3
The convention was passed to outlaw actions similar to the Holocaust by Nazi Germany during World War II. The first draft of the Convention included political killings, but the USSR along with some other nations would not accept that actions against groups identified as holding similar political opinions or social status would constitute genocide, so these stipulations were subsequently removed in a political and diplomatic compromise.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.