2023-11-27 11:42:30
Alexander De Croo has returned from the Middle East, and he returns with a diplomatic crisis in his luggage. For having denounced the massacre of civilians, Alexander De Croo is now described by the Israeli government as a supporter of terrorism.
Balancing
We have already explained here how Belgium’s official position was one of the most balanced at the European level, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, but respecting international law. As expected, the visit aroused tensions, but we did not imagine to what extent, until the summoning of the Belgian ambassador to Tel Aviv, which is the first official stage of the diplomatic crisis. The trigger, a speech given in Rafah, which today earns us the infamous qualification of “support for terrorism” by the Israeli government and the embarrassing official congratulations from Hamas.
So what did Alexander De Croo say to Rafah?
Israel has the right to defend itself. The horror of Hamas is barbaric. Hamas must do everything to immediately release the innocent hostages. Hamas must end this cycle of violence that began on October 7. Israel’s military operation to stop terrorist attacks must respect international humanitarian law. The massacres must stop. The destruction of Gaza is unacceptable. There is no military solution to this conflict; negotiations must be restarted. There needs to be a permanent ceasefire.
Disapproval
This speech directly opposes Israel’s political response to the October 7 massacre. Israel is at war, telling it that there is no military solution is obviously quite confronting. But what provokes the most reactions is the use of the word “massacre“to qualify the Israeli military operation in Gaza.”Israeli massacre” once morest “barbaric horror of the terrorist acts of Hamas“, this choice of words signifies for the Israeli government a form of equidistance which leads to the official qualification of “support for terrorism“. Hamas congratulated Alexander De Croo, in a very opportunistic manner and only following the Israeli reaction. Hamas therefore welcomes a speech which clearly qualifies him as a terrorist and a barbarian, but which at the same time establishes him as political actor with whom it is necessary to negotiate.
Political fault?
Did Alexander De Croo commit a political mistake with this Rafah speech? I do not believe. Firstly because this speech is assumed. It translates, although we can quibble over the qualifiers, the official line of the Belgian government assumed by all the parties in the coalition, even if the MR appears critical today. A criticism which is undoubtedly as much due to the convictions of the MR as to the fact that Alexander De Croo eclipses the French-speaking liberal Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib on the issue.
Then because this speech gives an international dimension to Alexander De Croo, which he did not have until now. Assuming a critical position in front of an ally is always complicated. Belgium had already experienced it with Louis Michel by opposing the United States during the Iraq War of 2003. These wars are not comparable, but we find common points in the rhetoric of the belligerents and the position from Belgium. Like the government of George Bush at the time, the Israeli government adopts a rhetoric of good versus evil, of natural law, even divine right, superior to international law, and above all of “either you are with us or you are once morest us“. Benyamin Netanyahu, who throughout his political life has fought the two-state solution, who governs with far-right parties and has openly favored Hamas to divide the Palestinian movement, today seeks to disqualify his critical allies. The outrageous reaction of the Israeli government demonstrates the political drift that is gnawing at it.
The virulence of his reaction also demonstrates the accuracy of this phrase attributed to Rudyard Kipling: “first victim of war, that’s the truth“. To avoid discussing the nature of truth, it is in any case easy to see that the first victim of war is nuance. The logic of confrontation, of the rise to extremes pushes towards Manichaeism, to choose a side and sometimes support it to the point of blindness. Alexander De Croo did not fall into this trap. For this reason, and over time, it is a safe bet that this Rafah speech remains part of the history as a remarkable moment in Belgian foreign policy.
1701086701
#Alexander #Croo #Rafah #nuance #times #war