Discussão:Massacre de Sabra e Chatila
Adicionar tópico | Este artigo foi avaliado automaticamente com qualidade 2 e faz parte do âmbito de 3 WikiProjetos: Líbano, Israel e História. | |
|---|---|---|
 |  | Para o Portal Líbano este artigo possui importância ainda não avaliada. Se você se interessa pelo assunto, visite o projeto para conhecer as tarefas e discussões em curso. |
 | | Para o Portal Israel este artigo possui importância ainda não avaliada. Se você se interessa pelo assunto, visite o projeto para conhecer as tarefas e discussões em curso. |
 | | Para o WikiProjeto História e Sociedade este artigo possui importância ainda não avaliada. Se você se interessa pelo assunto, visite o projeto para conhecer as tarefas e discussões em curso. |
| Se não tiver suas questões respondidas nesta página de discussão procure o(s) wikiprojeto(s) acima. | ||
Se há uma resolução da ONU que diz que foi genocídio, não creio serem necessárias quaisquer referências adicionais, independentemente das democracias ocidentais se terem abstido, de admirar seria, isso sim, se tivessem votado a favor. E o argumento de que as maiores wikis não o fazem não surte, pois a inglesa e a espanhola fazem-no e a alemã categoriza-o como crime de guerra. João Sousa DC 21h43min de 20 de janeiro de 2011 (UTC)
- A anglófona (não inglesa) não o faz. Quanto a crime de guerra, nada contra, de fato foi. Agora a caracterização como "genocídio" neste caso foi altamente polêmica, tendo sido passada, como eu coloquei no artigo, com a abstenção das principais democracias do mundo (ou seja, na maior parte dos casos eram países com relações tradicionalmente péssimas com Israel, configurando uma decisão mais política que qualquer outra coisa). Aliás, cabe citar o trecho do artigo Genocides in history, da Wikipédia anglófona (grifo meu):
According to William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland,[1] "the term genocide (...) had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision”.[2] This opinion is a reflection of the comments made by some of the delegates who took part in the debate. While all acknowledged that it was a massacre, the claim that it was a genocide was disputed, for example the delegate for Canada stated "[t]he term genocide cannot, in our view, be applied to this particular inhuman act".[2] The delegate of Singapore added that "[his] delegation regret[ted] the use of the term "an act of genocide" (...) [as] the term 'genocide' is used to mean acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2] and that "[he] also question[ned] whether the General Assembly ha[d] the competence to make such determination",[2] and the United States commented that "[w]hile the criminality of the massacre was beyond question, it was a serious and reckless misuse of language to label this tragedy genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention (...)".[2]
Citing Sabra and Shatila as an example, Leo Kuper notes the reluctance of the United Nations to respond or take action in actual cases of genocide for most egregious violators, but its willingness to charge "certain vilified states, and notably Israel", with genocide. In his view:
This availability of a scapegoat state in the UN restores members with a record of murderous violence against their subjects a self-righteous sense of moral purpose as principled members of 'the community of nations'... Estimates of the numbers killed in the Sabra-Shatila massacres range from about four hundred to eight hundred - a minor catastrophe in the contemporary statistics of mass murder. Yet a carefully planned UN campaign found Israel guilty of genocide, without reference to the role of the Phalangists in perpetrating the massacres on their own initiative. The procedures were unique in the annals of the United Nations.[3]
In a Belgium court case lodged on 18 June 2001 by 23 survivors of the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres, the prosecution alleged that Ariel Sharon, former Israeli defense minister (and Israel's Prime Minister in 2001–2006), as well as other Israelis committed a number of crimes including genocide,[4] because "all the constituent elements of the crime of genocide, as defined in the 1948 Convention and as reproduced in article 6 of the ICC Statute and in article 1§1 of the law of 16 June 1993,29 are present".[5] This allegation was not tested in Belgium court because on 12 February 2003 the Court of Cassation (Belgian Supreme Court) ruled that under international customary law, acting heads of state and government can not become the object of proceedings before criminal tribunals in foreign state (although for the crime of genocide they could be the subject of proceedings of an international tribunal).[5][6] This ruling was a reiteration of a decision made a year earlier by the International Court of Justice on 14 February 2002.[7] Following these ruling in June 2003 the Belgian Justice Ministry decided to start a procedure to transfer the case to Israel,[8] so to date the accusation that the massacres in Sabra and Shatila were a genocide has not been tested in any court.
- Referências
- ↑ Professor William A. Schabas website of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland
- ↑ a b c d e William Schabas, Genocide in International Law. The Crimes of Crimes, p. 455
- ↑ Leo Kuper, "Theoretical Issues Relating to Genocide: Uses and Abuses", in George J. Andreopoulos, Genocide: Conceptual and Historical Dimensions, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997, ISBN 0812216164, pp. 36-37.
- ↑ The Case Against The Accused (Ariel Sharon, former Israeli defense minister and Israel's prime minister in 2001, as well as other Israelis and Lebanese), indictsharon.net – The website of the International Campaign for Justice for the Victims of Sabra & Shatila
- ↑ a b The complaint against Ariel Sharon Lodged in Belgium on 18 June 2001 Erro de citação: Código
<ref>inválido; o nome "cmptENen" é definido mais de uma vez com conteúdos diferentes- ↑ Chibli Mallat, Michael Verhaeghe, Luc Walleyn and Laurie King-Irani The February 2003 Decision of the Belgian Supreme Court Explained on the website of indictsharon.net, 19 February 2003
- ↑ Andrew Osbor Sharon cannot be tried in Belgium, says court, The Guardian, 15 February 2002
- ↑ Luc Walleyn, Michael Verhaeghe, Chibli Mallat. Statement of the Lawyers for the Suvivors of Sabra and Shatila in reaction to the Belgian Justice Ministry's decision to start the procedure of transferring the case to Israel 15 June 2003.
- Com tudo isso, me parece que a caracterização do que ocorreu, por mais bárbaro e criminoso que tenha sido, como 'genocídio' está longe de ser consensual. Aliás, examinando a categoria hoje percebi que o termo 'genocídio' estava sendo usado de maneira muito exagerada, quase como uma substituição para "massacres" (que já têm suas respectivas categorias). RafaAzevedo disc 21h52min de 20 de janeiro de 2011 (UTC)
- obvio fósforo branco contra os goyins com ajuda dos lacaios não é nada mas se um só judeu levar uma intifada de raspão morreu um trilhão e foi genocídio e holocontifo os 2 pesos de sempre pra subsidiar judeus via politicamente correcto