March 13, 2008
“Belgium agrees to Holocaust restitution,” cries a New York Times headline on March 12. This is good news … except that I was unaware that Belgium had been on the Nazi side 68 years ago. The piece goes on to clarify that campaigners welcomed the decision to compensate those whose propery and gold in Belgium had been looted by Nazi occupiers. But why should occupied Belgium be made to pay? That’s an easy one. Because compensation sought by powerful Jewish groups is an easier path to take than risk the wrath of powerful Zionist forces. The case of Belgium—a very weak country which will soon cease to exist through its championing of multiculturalism and diversity—goes as follows: After the Nazi invasion in May 1940, the Belgian government fled to Britain, although brave King Leopold chose to remain behind with his subjects, as a true head of state should. (He was pilloried for it by the allies and had to resign in favor of his son following the war.) The government in exile instructed all civil servants to remain in their posts in order to keep services running (something that W should have done in Iraq). Hence police took orders from the occupiers, hence the Belgians were guilty of collaboration, hence they now have to pay compensation to those Jews who lost property to the Germans. Go figure, as they say in polite high society.
But here comes the catch. On the same page as the headline about Belgium—I am referring to the International Herald Tribune, which is the NYTimes—another headline. “War-Crime trial starts for Croatian general. Charges include shelling of civilians.” Now is there anyone out there in the vast universe of the Internet who would like to bet me that charges of shelling civilians in the occupied territories of Palestine will not be brought to justice any time soon? Israel, after all, is way above international law.