The Belgian government has decided, somewhat misguidedly, to intervene in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) proceedings alleging “genocide” in Gaza.
Ambassador Idit Rosenzweig‑Abu, Israel’s envoy to Belgium and Luxembourg, voiced her disappointment with rare candour, warning that this action dangerously conflates legitimate military defence with the gravest crimes known to humanity.
Belgium’s filing — framed as a procedural declaration under Article 63 — presents itself as neutral. In reality, it aligns Brussels with a politicised narrative that misrepresents causality and undermines legal nuance. The move risks reducing the ICJ to a stage for political theatre rather than a forum for measured jurisprudence.
Who Ignited the Conflict?
There appears to be a somewhat profound confusion in much of the “free world” about the origins of the current hostilities. It was Hamas’ unprovoked massacre of Israeli civilians on October 7th, 2023, which left over 1,400 dead and thousands wounded, that triggered Israel’s defensive operations in Gaza. Yet political elites, international media outlets, and even certain human rights organisations often present the conflict as a one-sided narrative of Israeli aggression.
Why this distortion? One can speculate: entrenched European anti-Israel sentiment, moralistic simplifications of Middle Eastern geopolitics, selective empathy that prioritises Palestinian suffering while ignoring Hamas’ deliberate use of civilians as shields, and a broader reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths about terrorism’s human cost. The result is a free world bewildered, sometimes complicit, in misrepresenting the true instigators of conflict.
Belgium’s Legal Overreach
Critics have been quick to warn of the dangers posed by Belgium’s intervention. Senior counsel Gerard Filitti of the Lawfare Project cautioned that framing civilian harm in Gaza as evidence of “genocidal intent” collapses established legal distinctions, equating legitimate combat with systematic extermination. He called the move “political theatre that weaponises accusations of genocide for effect rather than justice.”
The historical weight of “genocide” cannot be overstated. Crafted in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the Genocide Convention addresses systematic extermination. Collapsing this concept into collateral damage from urban warfare diminishes its meaning and disrespects the memory of actual victims.
Diplomatic Neutrality or Political Signalling?
Belgium insists its intervention is procedural, not moral. Yet Jewish communities and Israel’s friends within Belgium view the decision as deeply painful. By intervening, Brussels inadvertently aligns itself with a narrative that obscures Hamas’ responsibility and misrepresents the causes of the conflict. Neutrality, in this context, is a luxury Belgium cannot afford.
Ambassador Rosenzweig‑Abu’s forthright response is a reminder that diplomacy demands nuance and precision. Her disappointment is not reflexive defence of Israeli policy. It is a call for Western nations to uphold truth, law, and moral clarity, particularly in conflicts dominated by asymmetric threats and terrorism.
Her stance underscores a simple but uncomfortable truth: defending Israel’s right to self-defence is also defending the integrity of international law itself. The ICJ risks becoming a forum for politically motivated indictments if the line between legitimate combat and crimes against humanity continues to blur.
The Free World Must Reconsider
Ultimately, Belgium’s intervention will unfold in The Hague, but the broader lesson extends beyond legal proceedings. Western democracies risk undermining both justice and their credibility if they ignore causality, misrepresent attackers and victims, and conflate defensive military action with genocide.
Ambassador Rosenzweig‑Abu champions more than Israel’s security. She defends jurisprudential clarity and moral coherence at a time when much of the free world seems content to muddle fact and fiction. For Belgium, reconsidering this decision is not just a legal necessity — it is a moral imperative.
Bold truths must guide diplomacy, not political theatre. The October 7th attacks cannot be forgotten. The perpetrators must be named. And the free world must awaken from its dangerous confusion – or run the risk of being next.
Europe, Israel and the “Battle of Narratives” After October 7th
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
Click here to check out EU TODAY’S SPORTS PAGE!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
