Why No One Should Apologize for Confronting Bettel
There is a perspective circulating that it was inappropriate for activists to confront Bettel while he was having lunch. This critique reflects a position of privilege. It comes from people who do not understand what activism is, nor what it means to speak up for what is right. Most importantly, it comes from those who fail to grasp how far Bettel has gone in ignoring the Luxembourgish people’s demands and his responsibility under international law.
First things first: what those protesters did was not only legal but also a direct exercise of their constitutional right to protest. Rights enshrined in the constitution are the most important rights because they are the highest form of legal protection in a country. They cannot be overridden by ordinary laws, government policies, or authorities. They are the foundation on which all other rights and laws are built. This is precisely why feminist organizations and the left are pushing to include abortion rights in the constitution — to make them untouchable.
Bettel chose to have lunch in a public space. Activists used that opportunity to confront him — not only over his failure to act to protect the safety of a Luxembourgish citizen but also for his complete inaction in addressing Israel’s ongoing impunity.
Secondly, we must remember Bettel’s position: he is a public servant. A public servant is anyone who serves the public by working for the state, whether elected, appointed, or employed. In this sense, ministers are public servants because they hold office to serve the people, implement policies, and manage government departments.
Being a public servant as a minister means:
having a duty of accountability to the public and parliament,
serving the public interest, not private interests,
exercising public power with responsibility, ethical obligations, and legal limits,
acting with transparency, fairness, and integrity, since their authority comes from the people through the constitution and democratic processes.
Now that this is clear, it is important to recall that part of the population has been urging Mr. Bettel for the past two years to act to prevent genocide. This is not only a demand from taxpayers who fund his salary, but also a legal obligation under international law. The Genocide Convention of 1948 is a binding treaty that requires states to prevent genocide, a duty reinforced by the International Court of Justice. Bettel has failed to take any action to prevent the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. Between the activists and Bettel, it is the latter who is acting unlawfully.
Finally, the purpose of confronting politicians for their inaction in the face of genocide is not about securing the evacuation of a single Luxembourgish citizen — a privilege denied to Palestinians. The point is to make Bettel feel the weight of his inaction and to remind him of his legal duty: to act on behalf of the people’s demands and to fulfill Luxembourg’s binding responsibility under the Geneva Conventions. Activists in Luxembourg have been calling for sanctioning Israel and for a free Palestine. They deserve not only to be heard but also to see their demands implemented in every possible way.
