|
|  |
Rosenthal: In Whose Name Are You Speaking?
Rifat Odeh Kassis - 19.02.2011 12:47
Some Latin American countries recently expressed their recognition of Palestinian statehood. Given that a Palestinian state doesn’t yet exist, this recognition amounts to supporting the Palestinian right to statehood. To Israel and defenders of Israeli policies, the “snowball effect” of nations recognizing this right is, unsurprisingly, unnerving.
One such defender is the Dutch Foreign Minister, Uri Rosenthal. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post,1 Mr. Rosenthal argues why he believes international support for a Palestinian declaration of statehood “does no good.” But what strikes me most about the interview is not the straightforwardness of his opposition. Rather, I am struck by what his opposition barely manages to mask: the hypocrisy of his rhetoric on “negotiations” and “democratic values;” a repressive attitude toward what he characterizes as “inflammatory language regarding Israel” within the EU; and, ultimately, a betrayal both of the Netherlands’ strong record of commitment to international law and of his responsibilities as their representative.
It is important not only for Palestinians and Israelis to know exactly what Mr. Rosenthal is defending (inequality, systematic human rights violations, restrictions of free speech and press, the moral bankruptcy of an apartheid state). It is also important for all citizens of the Netherlands to know what their own Foreign Minister is saying and doing in their name.
With this in mind, I’d like to examine a number of the statements made by Mr. Rosenthal in his interview with the Jerusalem Post, as well as the contextual remarks provided by Herb Keinon, his interviewer.
Mr. Rosenthal asserts, “on the one hand, steps should be taken” to advance the diplomatic peace process, but international recognition of a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood “does not do any good whatsoever” to “bring the Middle East process to a higher level.” According to the article, “Rosenthal’s comments came before an afternoon meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, during which Netanyahu stressed that a unilateralist track would ‘kill negotiations with the Palestinians.’”
Part of what Mr. Rosenthal clearly opposes is a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. But he doesn’t utter a word of objection to the unilateral steps taken by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), which are internationally recognized as such. Israel has illegally annexed East Jerusalem, confiscated vast amounts of Palestinian land to build its apartheid wall and protect terrain for illegal settlements, built and encouraged people to inhabit those settlements (which have eaten away at more than 40% of the West Bank), practiced brutal detention policies, restricted freedom of movement and other fundamental liberties, tried children in military courts, put the Gaza Strip under a state of permanent siege, and killed over 1,400 Gazans in a total bombardment in late 2008/early 2009 (mostly civilians, including over 300 children). The list of unilateral acts – the list of crimes – goes on and on. Mr. Rosenthal claims to oppose decisions taken by governments without balanced, negotiated political processes. But if this were really true, he would understand the need to bring Israel before the Hague instead of defending it in the Jerusalem Post.
As for the “negotiations with the Palestinians” in danger of being “killed,” according to Netanyahu, they have taken place for twenty years and accomplished virtually nothing. Perhaps it is such negotiations – tired, redundant, increasingly irrelevant as Israel creates more and more facts on the ground – that must die in order for a just peace to come alive in our region.
The interview informs us that “the Dutch parliament recently passed a resolution calling on the government to work against EU recognition of a Palestinian state….”
Let’s translate. The Dutch government (including Mr. Rosenthal) doesn’t want to take positive steps toward stopping the bloodshed – positive steps in the form of granting Palestinians their inalienable rights as stipulated by numerous UN resolutions and tenets of international law. That would be “unilateral”! That would be wrong. Instead, the Dutch government would rather decide (unilaterally, by the way) to prolong inequality and suffering by prohibiting other nations from taking a positive, proactive, and peaceful stance on ending the conflict altogether.
This is the language of hypocrisy, not of justice.
The article mentions, “Rosenthal, who is Jewish and married to an Israeli, was characterized recently by Czech Foreign Minister Karl Schwartzenberg as one of the two most active supporters of Israel among EU foreign ministers.” And he defines himself as “among the ones” in the EU who ‘regularly try to warn against unnecessary inflammatory language’ on Israel, and says his government has actively worked against efforts to “bash” and “delegitimize” Israel partly through the use and “disproportionate” application of such “inflammatory” language.
The passages quoted above constitute an exercise in euphemisms. Within the Dutch context, Rosenthal’s role is not simply a “supporter” of Israel, one who tries to “warn” against “unnecessary inflammatory language” that aims to “delegitimize” the Israeli state. Rather, it is the role of a censor, a repressor of criticism, and a political blacklister, supported by and supporting the work of Zionist lobbies like NGO Monitor and CIDI.2 Mr. Rosenthal’s rhetoric and policies go hand-in-hand with those of such organizations, which terrorize NGOs exposing the truth of the Israeli occupation and bully the Dutch public out of hearing it. For instance, NGO Monitor recently slammed ICCO, a Dutch aid organization, for financing the Electronic Intifada, an independent news source focused on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. (ICCO is also under fire from CIDI for supporting the Olive Tree Campaign, “Keep Hope Alive,” realized by the YMCA/YWCA JAI.) NGO Monitor vilified the Electronic Intifada and condemned ICCO by association. Rosenthal’s response? “I will look into the matter personally,” he said. If ICCO’s funding proves to be true, “it will have a serious problem with me.”
Is this the really level that Mr. Rosenthal – not to mention the lobbies who share his tactics of finger-pointing, threats, and repression – has stooped to? Persecuting organizations and publications that support human rights and social justice for Palestinians as “delegitimizing” and “anti-Semitic,” publicly smearing them, and seeking to sabotage not only their work but also their rights to free speech and free press? This is an appalling position for any human being to have. It is all the more appalling to see it in a democratic representative, ostensibly part of an apparatus designed to uphold those rights in the first place.
It is important for Mr. Rosenthal to be confronted by Jewish and Israeli human rights organizations and activists, of which there are many; he must be told “not in our name.” It is equally important for these organizations and activists to condemn NGO Monitor, CIDI, and other repressive lobbies: to remind them that their tactics serve only to prolong the damage done to both Israelis and Palestinians, that everyone suffers when rights are denied and governments are given a blank check to inflict harm without monitoring or criticism.
Mr. Rosenthal says, “We have seen over the last few months some events where some of the EU partners were eager to engage in straightforward initiatives, and I was among those who said ‘Let’s keep a little bit more restrained attitude, and look especially at whether this will be conducive to the Middle East peace process at large.” Later, he denies portrayals of Israel’s image within the EU as “the lowest it has been in decades,” replying, “I think this is an exaggeration. When you look at the conclusions of a series of council of foreign affairs ministers’ meetings, you will see balanced conclusions vis-à-vis the Middle East peace process.”
Mr. Rosenthal advocates being “restrained” in responding to policies that flagrantly violate international law and human rights – a “restraint” that seeks to prohibit other EU countries from taking positive initiatives that might bring the conflict closer to an end. Even worse, he defends these violations through public office, and thus makes his own country a partner in their perpetuation. The Dutch people are well-admired throughout the world as prioritizing human rights and international law; they, then, are being damaged and degraded by Mr. Rosenthal’s audacity. Likewise, his praise for “balanced” views in an utterly imbalanced situation serve to make the EU complicit in Israeli crimes committed against Palestinians. The Dutch people must know that their Foreign Minister is sacrificing the image of the Netherlands for the sake of Israel – that he is working hard to represent Israel’s interests while tarnishing those of his own country – and they should reject this insult, this injury.
He asserts, “If you take a positive stance toward Israel you might expect from Israel something in return. I’m happy to say that in the last few months Israel has taken an open attitude toward the requests made by the Dutch government to be more lenient on exports and goods from Gaza. That is a subtle game.”
It is not subtle, and it is not a game. Economic “leniency,” the mere relaxation of commercial restrictions imposed on Palestinians, solves nothing. The last 43 years have proven to Palestinians that economic band-aids will only prolong our occupation, will only intensify the destructive dependency of the Palestinian economy on the Israeli one, will distract the international community into thinking Israel is taking concrete steps toward meaningful change – when in reality it allows Israel to get away with taking none at all.
As we have read, Mr. Rosenthal urges taking a “positive stance” toward Israel. But showing a “positive stance” toward Israel should never mean sacrificing one’s own principles of justice and dignity, nor should it involve sacrificing Palestinians’ human rights. I urge Mr. Rosenthal to adopt a “positive stance” toward Israel that respects these values – because Israel certainly has not adopted one of its own. The Israeli state is responsible for the deaths of 352 Palestinian children during its 2008/2009 attack on Gaza; between 26 March 2010 and 18 January 2011, its military shot 24 children while collecting gravel near the border between Gaza and Israel; it has demolished Al-Araqib, a Bedouin village in the Naqab (Negev) Desert, 18 times in the past several months; the state continues to build illegal settlements on confiscated land in the oPt, including East Jerusalem. Is this openness? Is this positive? This is devastation; this is violence; these are policies that seek to crush, control, and erase. The only truly “positive stance” toward Israel is one that insists that these crimes must end.
“Rosenthal also dismissed reports that the US was interested in the EU taking a tough stand on Israel, since domestic political constraints prevented Washington from doing so itself – a kind of good cop/bad cop arrangement. ‘I hear that story over and over again,’ he said. ‘I would not like to be placed in the position of the bad cop; I don’t think Europeans like to be placed in the position of bad cops.’”
Mr. Rosenthal may not like to be placed in the position of the bad cop, but he is undeniably putting both the Netherlands and the EU in the position of the bad friend – to Israel. Israel needs good friends to remind her that its treatment of Palestinians, its behavior at home and on the international stage, cannot go on forever. To really understand this, we need only to look toward Egypt: the Mubarak regime, a dictatorship supported by the US and many European countries for the past 30 years, was brought down in a mere 18 days by the nation’s youth and peaceful means. The young people of Egypt managed to do, in 18 days and with tremendous integrity and clarity, what three decades of “positive engagement” by the US and the EU (trying to “convince the regime” of taking democratic steps while continuing to fund its dictator) failed to do. We Palestinians are going to do the same against our occupation – with the support of the EU or without it.
“Rosenthal diplomatically declined to weigh in on the debate whether it was ‘undemocratic’ for the Knesset to establish a committee to investigate where certain NGOs were getting their funds, saying this was ‘for the Knesset to decide.’” With respect to the Knesset panel, he added, “There is no reason to hide anything. I am in favor of transparency,” and “a vivid and lively civil society, where NGOs are a part of it, is very important.”
The contradictions continue. Is it not the role of the Dutch Parliament to also investigate the funding sources of, say, CIDI? How can Rosenthal claim to support transparency, not to mention the vividness and liveliness of civil society, while only acting repressively against groups and individuals he disagrees with? How can he say, free of irony, that the presence of NGOs in civil society is “very important,” when he supports a smear campaign against NGOs in his own civil society? And how can he praise the ideals of civil society in the first place while simultaneously practicing another campaign – silence – when it comes to Israel’s repression of the NGOs whose existence he finds so valuable in abstract?
FM Rosenthal’s pronouncements on the Israeli government are so blind, so brazen, hypocritical, and so unjust that I am sometimes surprised he can utter them comfortably in his own name. But when we consider his vocal and prominent role in the parliament of his own country, and in the political arena of others’, it is especially important for all communities and individuals he attempts to represent (Jewish, Israeli, Dutch, European, etc.) to say, loud and clear:
“Not in ours.”
|
| Read more about: vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten | | supplements | | Israel's two state solution | nn - 19.02.2011 18:15
Has anyone ever noticed that Israel's two (Palastinian) state solution is a success?
Half a decade ago the IDF (not very defensive) destroyed the governing structures of Fatah in Gaza as a response to Hamas and I J rocket attacks while, at the same time, doing far more damage to Fatah's opponents (then to Fatah self) in the west bank.
Israel's government is not going to "negotiate" away thier won position.
If the U.S. reduces thier millions of dollars a day subsidy to the Israeli government by just the amount that it spends on occupation then the Israeli economy would collapse.
Maybe an American should file a complaint in the American justitial system against the government on the grounds of financing government sponsered terrorism and other human rights violations?
S
| | US veto in UN underscores its unwillingness | Badil - 19.02.2011 19:43
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refugee Rights (Bethlehem, Palestine)
Tel: +972-2-277-7086
Fax: +972-2-274-7346
Email:  info@badil.org
Website:  http://www.badil.org
US veto underscores failure of US-sponsored 'peace process'
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights is dismayed by the US’s
opposition to a UN Security Council Resolution that seeks to affirm the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
The US’s position demonstrates its continued neglect of international law and human rights norms and its incapacity to act as an 'honest' peace broker in the decades-old colonial conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Security Council Resolution, which has 120 co-sponsors, deliberately reflects well-established US policy on settlements in order to avoid a US veto. That the US would nevertheless veto this resolution reflects its unwillingness to hold Israel to account for its violations of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence, sovereignty and return.
Instead, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice have insisted that a Security Council Resolution is counterproductive to the peace process and that the controversy over settlements should be settled in direct negotiations.
Given the US’s dismal record in halting settlement expansion and its inability to pressure Israel to extend its 10-month settlement moratorium, despite offering lucrative incentives, the exercise of the US veto gives Israel the green light to continue and accelerate the growth of its colonial settlements.
Since the advent of the peace process in 1991, illegal Israeli settlements have more than doubled and have been accompanied by a complex network of road blocks, check points, the systematic expropriation of Palestinian lands, destruction of Palestinian homes and the displacement of thousands of Palestinian families. Moreover, under the veneer of a 'peace process', Israel has built an Apartheid Wall within the occupied West Bank in an attempt to circumscribe its illegal settlements and solidify its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, in defiance of a 2004 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion deeming the route of the Wall, the settlements, and the associated regime of restrictions and closures to be illegal.
Far from bringing a viable resolution to this conflict, 20 years of the 'peace process' has afforded Israel impunity to continue its colonial and Apartheid policies and provided cover to further expropriate and de-facto annex Palestinian land. The US’s veto continues its legacy of shielding Israel from accountability.
Between 1972 and 1997, the US used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from rebuke; amounting to nearly half of the 69 vetoes the US has cast since the founding of the UN. The US’s insistence that accountability to international law and human rights norms are mutually exclusive to the peace process has undermined the viability of establishing peace and has been especially deleterious to Palestinians who, stateless, living under occupation and exile, lack the international protection otherwise afforded by humanitarian and human rights law.
By vetoing this resolution, the US will cast the final nail in the coffin of the terminally ill peace process and destroy any lingering doubts regarding its credibility as a peace broker. The US’s intransigent diplomatic, financial and military support for Israel and opposition to international law and human rights norms further amplifies the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel as the most effective method by which Israel's respect for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and peace can to be achieved.
http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-02-19T18%3A13%3A00%2B01%3A00
| | EU & ISRAEL disrespect for international law | Badil - 19.02.2011 20:10
Akram Salhab
Communications Officer
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refugee Rights (Bethlehem, Palestine)
Tel: +972-2-277-7086
Fax: +972-2-274-7346
Email: info@badil.org
Website: http://www.badil.org
REF.: 71/2011
DATE: 17 FEBRUARY 2011
VANISHING EAST JERUSALEM:
EU MUST USE ASSOCIATION COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT ISRAEL RESPECTS INTERNATIONAL LAW
In view of the upcoming EU-Israel Association Council scheduled for 21 February 2011 we, the undersigned Palestinian human rights organisations committed to the promotion and protection of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), would like to express our grave concerns about the continuous deterioration of the human rights situation. In particular, we are alarmed by Israel’s protracted policies aimed at entrenching the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.
1. The Human Rights Situation in East Jerusalem
Since its de facto annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, Israel has implemented various measures and policies in order to consolidate its territorial, demographic and political control over the city. This includes the systematic attempt to secure a Jewish majority while reducing any Palestinian presence in the city through a process of acquiring more land and the introduction of the centre-of-life requirement.
The centre-of-life policy requires Palestinian residents of East-Jerusalem (whom Israel considers as “permanent residents” rather than citizens) to consistently prove that their “centre of life” is in East Jerusalem or else they risk losing their residency rights.[1] Since this policy was adopted, in 1995, Israel has revoked the status of over 10,000 Palestinian residents of the city.[2]
Moreover, Israel prevents Palestinians who are registered - in the Israeli-controlled population registry - as residents of the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) or the Gaza Strip from residing in Jerusalem. If Palestinian permanent residents wish to live in East Jerusalem with their non-resident spouses and children, they need to apply for family unification, a process that Israel de facto suspended as of 2000.
Moreover, in 2003, Israel adopted the “Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law,” which makes it illegal for mixed residency couples to live in East Jerusalem.[3]
The restrictive planning and zoning regime of the Jerusalem municipality is another tool used by Israel in order to induce the transfer of the Palestinian population out of the city.[4] This regime, which allows for only very limited Palestinian construction in the city, has resulted in an acute housing shortage for Palestinians in East Jerusalem.
Israel’s systematic denial of the required permits to build, repair and/or maintain their homes confronts Palestinian residents with the dilemma of moving outside Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries, losing therefore their residency status, or building without a permit, risking the demolition of their homes.
In 2010 alone, Israel demolished 78 Palestinian owned structures in East Jerusalem, displacing 116 people (most of whom are children) and affecting a total of 289 Palestinians.[5]
In some cases, Palestinian owners carry out self-demolitions of their homes in order to avoid being charged for the costs of the demolition.
Israel further undermines the Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem by preventing the opening or ordering the closure of Palestinian institutions[6] and NGOs. Moreover, Israel continues to carry out archaeological excavations in the old city of Jerusalem, aimed at creating a Jewish-Israeli character and subverting any Palestinian cultural or religious connotations, in a deplorable attempt to rewrite the historical narrative of the city. Meanwhile, Israel severely restricts Palestinians’ access to holy sites in East Jerusalem.
East Jerusalem is severed from the rest of the West Bank by the Annexation Wall, which serves to
physically reinforce Israel’s claims over the city and to illegally annex Palestinian land. The Wall’s
associated regime of physical obstacles, such as checkpoints, gates, closures, and a restrictive permit system separates Palestinians from their families, places of employment and worship, educational institutions, agricultural lands and markets and exacerbates East Jerusalem’s administrative andsocial detachment from the rest of the West Bank.[7]
The route of the Wall cuts through the Israeli-declared municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, dividing Palestinian communities and in some cases cutting off whole neighbourhoods from the rest of the city. The separation of these neighbourhoods from Jerusalem has dangerous repercussions for the residency status of Palestinian Jerusalemites residing in municipal areas located east of the Wall.
Over the last few years, many Palestinian residents of Jerusalem have moved to these areas in order to legally maintain residency in Jerusalem while enjoying cheaper living conditions, more secure housing and the ability to live with their West Bank ID holding spouses and children. The municipal areas east of the Wall are less at risk of home demolitions,[8] and are the only location where Palestinian mixed residency couples can live together with their children, without contravening Israel’s centre-of life requirement.
Facts on the ground and official statements indicate Israel’s intention to make the Wall the new Israeli municipal boundary of Jerusalem. Should Israel unilaterally re-draw the city’s municipal boundaries along the route of the Wall, and thus exclude the areas of the current Jerusalem municipality located east of the Wall, the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem would become irreversible. Palestinians who live in the areas east of the Wall would no longer be able to fulfil the centre of life requirement, losing therefore their Jerusalem residency status.[9]
In addition to minimising the number of Palestinian residents in Jerusalem, Israel is encouraging the migration of Jewish-Israeli settlers to settlements built on lands illegally appropriated from Palestinians in the West Bank, including in and around East Jerusalem. The settlement infrastructure, including the Annexation Wall, and Israeli-only bypass roads, checkpoints and roadblocks fragments the OPT into isolated, non-contiguous enclaves.
This fragmentation not only hinders the Palestinian people’s ability to use their land and natural resources, but establishes facts on the ground, which essentially prevent the Palestinian people from exercising their right to self-determination, prejudge the outcome of any final status negotiations and threaten to make the two-state solution impossible.
2. EU Position on East Jerusalem and Relations with Israel
The EU has “has never recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem” and has repeatedly asserted that it “will not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties.”[10]
The EU “remains committed to a comprehensive settlement of the Arab- Israeli conflict”[11] and acknowledges that “if there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states.”[12]
The EU holds that “the two-state solution with an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state (…) constitutes a fundamental European interest. It is an indispensable and urgent step towards a more stable and peaceful Middle East.”[13]
The EU maintains that its bilateral relations with Israel will help influence Israeli practices in this regard.
Freezing the Upgrade of EU-Israel Relations
At the 8th meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council in June 2008, the EU expressed its determination to “develop a closer partnership with Israel” and to formulate the content and scope of a new Action Plan.[14]
The decision to “upgrade the level and intensity of its bilateral relations with Israel,”[15] however, was “put on hold” the following year. In the aftermath of Israel’s 2008/2009 military offensive on the Gaza Strip, and with the Netanyahu government’s refusal to commit to a two state solution, the EU declared at its 9th Association Council in June 2009 that it would not adopt a new Action Plan with Israel, thus allegedly “freezing” the upgrading process.
The EU argued that
“ [the] upgrade must be based on the shared values of both parties, and particularly on democracy and respect for human rights, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, good governance and international humanitarian law.“[16]
The EU further affirmed that the EU-Israel upgrade needs to be viewed “in the context of the broad range of our common interests and objectives,” including “the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the implementation of the two-state solution, the promotion of peace, prosperity and stability in the Middle East.” To this end, the 27 member states called “on the government of Israel to commit unequivocally to the two-state solution,”[17] “to improve the daily life of the Palestinian population,”[18] “to ensure the protection and unimpeded access of all religious groups to religious sites, notably in Jerusalem,”[19] and to immediately suspend the practice of home demolitions and evictions, which “threaten the viability of a two- state solution.”[20]
Furthermore, the Council has urged “the government of Israel to immediately end settlement activities, including in East Jerusalem,”[21] to cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem” and to reopen Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem.[22]
“Business as Usual”
Despite the declared suspension of the upgrading process, which formally would entail the adoption of a new EU-Israel Action Plan, and despite the EU’s condemnation (in words) of Israel’s illegal practices in the OPT, including East Jerusalem, the EU continues, in practice, to strengthen its relations with Israel.
The technical and economic cooperation between the EU and Israel continues undisrupted, with the parties consistently signing new agreements allowing for additional forms of cooperation. Since the “freezing” of the upgrading process, the EU and Israel have, for example, concluded agreements in the areas of civil aviation, agriculture and pharmaceutical products and are currently negotiating a cooperation agreement between Europol and Israel; thus de facto upgrading their relations.
This “business as usual” approach disregards Israel’s systematic violations of international law, renders the EU’s condemnation of such practices meaningless and seriously undermines the Union’s credibility as an authentic peace broker. While Israel continues to create facts on the ground, which seriously threaten the EU’s vision of a two-state solution and “peace in the Middle East,” the EU fails to use the crucial leverage of its bilateral relations with Israel to influence the latter’s behaviour.
3. Legal Analysis
Israel’s above mentioned policies are in blatant violation of international human rights and humanitarian law.
Israel’s de facto annexation of East Jerusalem violates the international humanitarian law prohibition of the annexation of occupied territory,[23] which forbids the Occupying Power from claiming sovereignty over occupied land and from unilaterally creating facts that would change the status of that area.[24]
Moreover, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, reflective of customary international law, prohibits the annexation of territory by force or threat of use of force.[25]
Israel’s policy of undermining the Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem by demolishing Palestinian homes, prohibiting Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem from living with their non-resident spouses and children in the city and the revocation of their ID cards if they fail to fulfil the centre-of-life requirement all result in the forcible displacement of Palestinians from the city, in blatant violation of international humanitarian law. The forcible transfer of persons from occupied territory is prohibited[26] and constitutes a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention,[27] entailing the individual criminal responsibility of the perpetrators.
Israel’s policy of home demolitions as well as land confiscation and appropriation to build and expand settlements, the Wall, Israeli only roads, and other illegal infrastructure for the benefit of Jewish Israeli citizens violates the prohibition under law of occupation of confiscation[28] and/or destruction of private property unless imperatively required by military necessity.[29]
Israel’s practice also violates international human rights law, including Palestinians’ right to freedom of movement,[30] the right to work,[31] the right to the highest attainable standard of health,[32] the right to education[33] and to a family life.[34] The deprivation of the ability of the Palestinian people to fully achieve these rights, to make use of their land and to dispose freely of their resources undermines their ability to live in dignity and ultimately to meaningfully exercise their right to self-determination, in violation of Article 1 of the UN Charter, reflective of customary international law.
4. Conclusions
The EU has publically rejected Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and considers the two-state solution as well as the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital as “a fundamental European interest” and a precondition for peace in the Middle East. The Union has repeatedly called on Israel to stop settlement activities, discriminatory treatment of Palestinians, house demolitions and evictions in Jerusalem, and to allow Palestinians access to holy sites, affirming that it would not recognise any changes to the pre-1967 borders.
In the meantime, Israel continues to entrench its de facto annexation of East Jerusalem and undermines any Palestinian presence in the city through a deliberate, aggressive and illegal policy of land annexation and population transfer. Israel’s prolonged violations of international law have changed the socio- demographic nature of city, redrawn its municipal boundaries and isolated East Jerusalem from the rest of the OPT. This practice not only seriously undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination, but precludes the outcome of any final status negotiations, threatening to make the two state-solution and a peaceful resolution to the conflict impossible.
While Israel’s policies directly undermine the EU’s positions and its objectives regarding the OPT, including East Jerusalem, and the Middle East as a whole, the EU has so far failed to use the significant leverage of its bilateral relations with Israel in order to pressure the latter to refrain from its illegal practices. Contrary to the EU’s intention to link the upgrading of its relations with Israel to human rights and international humanitarian law, and despite its decision not to proceed with the formal upgrading process, the EU continues, in practice, to strengthen its relations with Israel. The EU’s “business as usual” approach amounts to tacit acquiescence of Israel’s systematic violations of international law.
The EU’s current policy of “empty words” challenges the Union’s ability to positively impact the human rights situation in the OPT and to contribute to a “comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.” The upcoming EU-Israel Association Council provides an important opportunity to adopt a crucial new EU policy relating to the OPT, in particular on East Jerusalem, and to condition the upgrading of EU-Israel relations on international human rights and humanitarian law.
5. Recommendations
At the upcoming EU-Israel Association Council, the EU must send a strong message to Israel, confirming that the upgrade of EU-Israel relations will remain on hold, both formally and in practice, until there is tangible progress regarding the human rights situation in the OPT, including East Jerusalem. To this end, the EU should request Israel to immediately:
• Freeze all settlement activity, including in and around East Jerusalem
• Refrain from implementing discriminatory zoning and planning policies
• Stop all forms of house demolitions and evictions
• Stop the construction of the Annexation Wall and dismantle the parts already built (in accordance with the ICJ Advisory Opinion)
• Refrain from banning family unification.
In addition, the EU must:
• Ensure that goods produced in Israel’s illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and in the rest of the West Bank do not enter the EU market under the EU-Israel Association Agreement
• Ensure EU intervention whenever Palestinians are arrested or harassed by Israeli occupying forces for participating in peaceful political, social and/or cultural activities in East Jerusalem
• Ensure EU presence at courts where cases are discussed that involve the demolition of Palestinian homes and/or the eviction of Palestinian families
• Systematically bring high-level visitors to sites of human rights violations in East Jerusalem (including but not limited to demonstrations, home demolitions and evictions and the Annexation Wall).
- Ends -
Endnotes
[1] For more in depth reading on this issue, kindly see Al-Haq, The Jerusalem Trap:
The Looming Threat Posed by Israel’s Annexationist Policies in Occupied East Jerusalem - 2 October 2010, available at
http://www.alhaq.org/etemplate.php?id=549; The Civic Coalition for Defending Palestinians’ Rights in East Jerusalem, 42 Years of Occupation – Jerusalem File, December 2009, available at
http://www.civiccoalition-jerusalem.org/ccdprj.ps/new/pdfs/Welfare%20J%20Book.pdf.
[2] B’tselem, “East Jerusalem: Revocation of Residency in East Jerusalem – Statistics on Revocation of Residency”, available at
http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/Revocation_Statistics.asp.
[3]Adalah, Special Report – Family Unification, available at http://www.adalah.org/eng/famunif.php.
Sahar Francis
General Director
Addameer Prisoners’ Support and Human Rights Association
Zakaria Odeh
General Director
The Civic Coalition for Defending Palestinians’
Rights in Jerusalem
Khalil Abu Shammala
General Director
Aldameer Association for Human Rights
Rifat Kassis
General Director
Defence for Children International-Palestine
Section
Hassan Jabareen
General Director
Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel
Shawqi Issa
General Director
Ensan Center for Human Rights and Democracy
Shawan Jabarin
General Director
Al-Haq
Issam Aruri
General Director
Jerusalem Center for Legal Aid and Human Rights
Mohammad Zeidan
General Director
Arab Association for Human Rights
Raji Sourani
General Director
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
Issam Younis
General Director
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
Iyad Barghouti
General Director
Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies
Najwa Darwish
Acting Director
BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights
Maha Abu Dayieh
General Director
Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling
[4] For further reading, see The Civic Coalition for Defending Palestinians’ Rights in East Jerusalem, Aggressive Urbanism, December 2009, available at
http://www.civiccoalitionjerusalem.org/ccdprj.ps/new/pdfs/Aggressive%20Urbanism%20Report.pdf
[5] United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), occupied Palestinian territory, The Humanitarian Monitor, December 2010, available at http://www.ochaopt.org/reports.aspx?id=118.
[6] Such as the Orient House (the PLO headquarters in East Jerusalem).
[7] For more information about the Annexation Wall, kindly see Al-Haq, The Annexation Wall and its Associated Regime, June
2009, available at http://www.alhaq.org/pdfs/Annexation+Wall-+english.pdf.
[8] For more in depth reading on this issue, kindly see Al-Haq, supra note 1.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Council of the European Union, Council conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process, Brussels, 8 December 2009 (Foreign Affairs Council), para. 2, available at
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/foraff/111829.pdf.
[11] Council of the European Union, Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process, Brussels, 15 June 2009 (Foreign Affairs Council), para. 1, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/108500.pdf.
[12] Supra note 10, para. 8.
[13] Ninth Meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council, Luxembourg, 15 June 2009 (EU statement), para. 4, available at
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=
&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff_TITRE=+association+council+israel&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DA
TE_DOCUMENT=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&dd_FT_DATE=&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100&ssf=.
[14] Eighth Meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council, Luxembourg, 16 June 2008 (EU statement), para. 6, available at
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=
&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff_TITRE=+association+council+israel+2008&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&d
d_DATE_DOCUMENT=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&dd_FT_DATE=&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100&ssf= .
[15] Council of the European Union, Strengthening of the European Union's bilateral relations with its Mediterranean partners, 8
& 9 December 2008 (Council Conclusions, External Relations), para. 9, available at
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/gena/104571.pdf.
[16] Supra note 13, para. 2.
[17] Ibid, para. 6.
[18] Ibid, para. 3.
[19] Ibid, para. 31.
[20] Ibid, para. 30.
[21] Ibid, para. 7.
[22] Supra note 10, para. 8.
[23] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article. 47 and 1907 Hague regulations, Article. 43 and 55.
[24] Jean Pictet (ed), The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Commentary – Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in the Time of War, (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2005), 275.
[25] For a more detailed legal analysis kindly see Al-Haq, supra note 7.
[26] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article. 49.
[27] Ibid, Article. 147.
[28] Hague Regulations, Article. 46.
[29] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article. 53.
[30] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article. 12 (1).
[31] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article. 6.
[32] Ibid, Article. 12.
[33] Ibid, Article. 13.
[34] Ibid, Article. 10.
http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2011/02/zionist-regime-19_19.html
| | Israel: anti-boycott bill introduced in Kness | WW4-Ynet - 19.02.2011 20:16
Israel: anti-boycott bill introduced in Knesset
Submitted by WW4 Report on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 17:01.
Israel's Knesset approved an initial reading of a bill banning boycotts against the state Feb. 16, following a heated debate during which Arab and left-wing MKs walked out. Meanwhile, the Foreign and Justice ministries warned that the bill could harm Israel's relations with other states. The bill was proposed by MK Zeev Elkin (Likud) and 24 other MKs, including some from the Kadima Party. The bill would impose fines on any Israeli calling for or supporting a boycott against Israeli citizens, factories, companies or state agencies. The basic fine is $8,200. Additional fines can be charged if damages are deemed to have been incurred. (YNet, Feb. 15)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4029198,00.html
| | Israel turns blind eye to settler violence | WW4-Ynet - 19.02.2011 20:25
Report: Israel turns blind eye to settler violence
Submitted by WW4 Report on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 16:59.
A report from Israeli rights organization Yesh Din shows 91% of Palestinian complaints about settler violence on the West Bank end without indictments. Yesh Din has filed such cases of behalf of West Bank Palestinians since 2005. The report shows that 488 of the 539 cases, or 91%, filed by Yesh Din were closed without indictments. In 315 cases, police cited "assailant unknown" as the reason for this and in 33 cases "no criminal culpableness" was found.
http://www.yesh-din.org/postview.asp?postid=150
http://www.yesh-din.org/userfiles/file/datasheets/Final%20Data%20Sheet%20Law%20Enforcement%202011%20ENG.pdf
One of these cases was filed in 2009 by a Palestinian who claimed three men attacked him, two of them masked. He said they beat him with sticks and axe-handles, after which he was taken to a Qalqilya hospital and then filed a report with the Ariel police. Yesh Din says the Palestinian provided a description of the unmasked man and subsequently recognized him in a line-up. However, the suspect was not interrogated by police and the case was closed and filed under "assailant unknown" less than a month later. An appeal filed by the organization caused the court to reopen the case and order police to investigate once more. Yesh Din legal advisor Michael Sfard called the failure to protect West Bank residents "a mark of Cain upon the brow of Israeli society." (YNet, Feb. 16)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4029576,00.html
http://ww4report.com/node/9500
| | ISRAËLISCHE MINISTER LIEBERMAN is verdacht.. | Belgen hebben mazzel - 19.02.2011 20:35
AANKLACHT TEGEN ISRAËLISCHE MINISTER LIEBERMAN IN DE MAAK
Niet in de Nederlandse media:
De Israëlische procureur-generaal Yehuda Weinstein gaat "binnen enkele dagen" zijn besluit aankondigen om een aanklacht te formuleren tegen minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman wordt verdacht van fraude, vertrouwensbreuk, het witwassen van geld en het belemmeren van de rechtsgang. Lieberman zal niet beschuldigd worden van omkoping, en mogelijk ook niet van heling.
DEMORGEN.BE | REUTERS | 17.02.2011
Het bureau van de procureur-generaal zou eerst een reeks vergaderingen houden om de exacte bewoordingen van de aanklacht te formuleren.
Na een vijf jaar durend onderzoek had de politie in 2009 reeds aanbevolen Lieberman te vervolgen wegens het ontvangen van smeergeld, heling, fraude, vertrouwensbreuk, belemmering van de rechtsgang, het omkopen van getuigen en het witwassen van geld. Lieberman blijft zijn onschuld uitschreeuwen.
De politicus, in een niet al te ver verleden nog buitenwipper in Moldavië, heeft steeds gezegd dat hij ontslag zou nemen mocht hij in staat van beschuldiging worden gesteld. Zijn extreem-rechtse partij Yisrael Beiteinu (Ons Israël) is de grootste coalitiepartner van Likoed-premier Benjamin Netanyahu. (belga/edp)
http://eindpunt.blogspot.com/2011/02/aanklacht-tegen-israelische-minister.html
| |
| supplements | |
