www.aljazeerah.info
Opinion Editorials, March 2011
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
The European Union's Blind Eye
Table of Contents
-------------------------------
Executive Summary
4
1 - The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
6
1.1) The
1.2) Israeli breaches of the Barcelona Declaration in 1995
1.3) EU double standards vis-à-vis
1.4) Israeli breaches of the Barcelona Declaration today
2 - The Euro-Med Agreement
10
2.1) The Euro-Med human rights clause
2.2) Israeli breaches of international humanitarian law
2.3) EU fails to act on Israeli breaches
3 - The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)
13
3.1) Purpose of the ENP
3.2) Israeli discrimination against its Arab minority
3.3) Israeli action in the
3.4) EU fails to act on Israeli breaches
4 - The Road Map
17
4.1)
Road Map pre-conditions
4.2)
5 - The Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA)
19
5.1)
AMA arrangements
5.2)
6 – Conclusions
20
Appendices
A) Milestones in EU-Israel relations
22
B)
C) UN Security Council resolutions contravened by
D) The International Court of Justice on the Wall
26
References
29
Executive Summary
The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership between the EU and states bordering the
For example, the Declaration obliges its signatories to “respect the
territorial integrity and unity of each of the other partners” and a series
of other norms of international law.
And the EU has continued to turn a blind eye ever since and allowed Israel
to remain an EU partner, even though today Syrian and Lebanese territory
remains under Israeli military occupation and Israeli military aircraft
frequently invade Lebanese air space.
THE EU HAS ENTERED into a number of agreements with
As we have said, under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Israel is required
to “respect the territorial integrity and unity” of its partners, which
THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT with
There isn’t the slightest doubt that
SINCE 2004,
“Issues raised in the framework of the political dialogue included inter alia: the peace process, the situation in the Middle East, the situation of the Arab minority in Israel, restrictions of movement in West Bank and Gaza Strip, the construction of the separation barrier, administrative detentions, the dismantling of outposts, the envisaged expansion of certain Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, more checkpoints. Little concrete progress has however been achieved on the issues as such.”
There has been no significant change since this was written.
Nevertheless, the EU turned a blind eye to
1 The
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
Section 1 outlines some of the obligations required of signatories to the
Barcelona Declaration, which established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.
It shows that
1.1
The
The most important development in the EU’s relations with Israel (see
Appendix A) occurred in November 1995, with the signing of the Barcelona
Declaration
[1], which established
the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
[2]. This Partnership
encompassed the 15 EU states at the time plus 11 states in the Mediterranean
region (
The
Barcelona Declaration set up what it describes as “a comprehensive
partnership among the participants” and the participants undertook to behave
according to international norms in their relations with other states,
promising to
“act
in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, as well as other obligations under international law, in
particular those arising out of regional and international instruments to
which they are party;”
The participants also entered into a number of specific obligations in
respect of their “partners” in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, for
example, to:
(1)
“refrain, in accordance with the rules of international law, from any
direct or indirect intervention in the internal affairs of another partner;”
(2)
“respect the territorial integrity and unity of each of the other
partners;”
(3)
“settle their disputes by peaceful means, call upon all participants to
renounce recourse to the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity of another participant, including the acquisition of territory by
force, and reaffirm the right to fully exercise sovereignty by legitimate
means in accordance with the UN Charter and international law;”
1.2 Israeli breaches of the Barcelona Declaration in 1995
In 1995, when Israel signed the Barcelona Declaration and undertook to abide by these principles, so did Lebanon and Syria. At that time, Israel was occupying parts of Lebanon and Syria militarily and it had annexed the Syrian Golan Heights. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that Israel was refraining from intervention in the internal affairs of its Lebanese and Syrian partners, or respecting their territorial integrity, or settling disputes with them by peaceful means. Manifestly, Israel was contravening obligations (1), (2) & (3) in the Barcelona Declaration, at the time it signed the Barcelona Declaration.
At that time, Israel was also in breach of the general obligation in the Barcelona Declaration to “act in accordance with the United Nations Charter”. It was in military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (as well as parts of Lebanon and Syria) contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter (see Appendix B).
Also, Article 25 of the UN Charter requires UN member states, including Israel, “to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council” [3]. In 1995, Israel was in violation of some 25 Security Council resolutions requiring action by it and it alone (see Appendix C). These demanded, amongst other things, that Israel
·
cease building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, including in
·
reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem and the
·
open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection.
President Bush told the UN General Assembly on 12 September 2002:
“We
want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We
want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be
enforced.”
[4]
There is no excuse for
Manifestly,
So, the EU was happy to make
That is an extraordinary stance for the EU to adopt.
1.3
EU double standards vis-à-vis
In the Barcelona Declaration, Israel also signed up to the
following:
“The parties shall pursue a mutually and effectively
verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear,
chemical and biological, and their delivery systems.
“Furthermore
the parties will consider practical steps to prevent the proliferation of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as excessive accumulation
of conventional arms.”
Israel is the only state in the Middle East that possesses nuclear
weapons (and probably the only one that possesses chemical and biological
weapons). So, its disarmament of these weapons is a necessary, and
probably a sufficient, condition for bringing about a “Middle East Zone free
of weapons of mass destruction”, as required by the Barcelona Declaration.
However, progress in bringing this about has been noticeable by its absence
since Israel signed up to “pursue” this objective in 1995.
There has
been no progress either on the Security Council’s demand in resolution 487,
passed on 19 June 1981, that “Israel urgently … place its nuclear facilities
under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards”
[5]. 30 years later, Israel still
hasn’t opened its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection, nor is there any
noticeable pressure from the EU to make it do so, let alone disarm in order
to produce a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, which parties to the
Barcelona Declaration are supposed to “pursue”.
By contrast, Iran’s
nuclear facilities, including its uranium enrichment facilities, are open to
IAEA inspection. It is worth noting that, after extensive inspection
in Iran, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons
programme, or ever had one. By contrast, Israel has possessed nuclear
weapons and the means of delivering them for around 40 years. It is
estimated that today Israel has around 200 nuclear warheads and various
delivery systems, including by submarine-launched missiles. It is
capable of wiping Iran, and every Arab state, off the map at the touch of a
button.
Strange that the EU is actively pressuring Iran about its
nuclear activities, but not Israel, despite the requirement in its
partnership agreement with Israel to “pursue a mutually and effectively
verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction”.
1.4
Israeli breaches of the
Today, Israel is still contravening the terms of the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership as laid down in the Barcelona Declaration in a variety of ways,
much as it was doing in 1995.
The West Bank and Gaza remain under
Israeli military control, as do parts of Lebanon and Syria, and East
Jerusalem and the Golan Heights remain annexed. Today, Israel is
violating even more Security Council resolutions requiring action by it and
it alone (see Appendix C).
The building of Jewish settlements on
occupied Arab land continues apace, contrary to Security Council resolutions
and the total number of Jewish settlers on occupied Arab land is now around
500,000. It is worth noting that this transfer of population to
occupied territory is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court. Article 8.2(b)(viii) of the Statute
defines
“the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying
Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies”
[6]
as a war crime.
Since 1995, Israel has added to its
illegal activity as an occupying power by building a wall in the West Bank.
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice declared (see Appendix D):
“A. The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying
Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East
Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law;
“B. Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of
international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of
construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure
therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all
legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with
paragraph 151 of this Opinion;”
[7]
Israel has categorically refused to comply with this ruling by the Court –
and has continued to build the wall, contrary to its obligation in the
Barcelona Declaration to act in accordance with its obligations under
international law.
Israel’s use of force, and threat to use force,
contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, continues unabated. On 6
September 2007, an Israeli aircraft entered Syrian airspace and bombed a
building allegedly housing a nuclear facility (which is not obviously
compatible with the principle of settling disputes with a partner by
peaceful means, as required by the Barcelona Declaration). Israeli
aircraft regularly enter Lebanese airspace and violate Lebanese sovereignty,
and hardly a day passes without a member of the Israeli government
threatening to attack Iran.
One might think that this continued
contempt shown by Israel for the principles enshrined in the Declaration
establishing the partnership might lead the EU to question Israel’s
suitability as a partner. But, on the contrary, on 16 June 2008, the
EU made a decision to upgrade its relations with Israel. While this
upgrade was formally put on hold in the aftermath of Israel’s military
assault on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009, it has never been revoked and
in reality the EU has continued to enhance its relations with Israel in a
variety of ways.
2
The Euro-Med
Agreement
Section 2 discusses the human rights clause in the Euro-Med Agreement,
signed by Israel in 1995. It cites UN, EU and Irish government
sources, who all categorically state that Israel has breached international
humanitarian law by its economic strangulation of Gaza. It concludes
that the EU has turned a blind eye to Israel’s contravention of human rights
obligations under the Euro-Med Agreement.
2.1
The Euro-Med human rights clause
In November 1995, Israel signed an
Association Agreement
[8] with the EU under the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. This is
commonly known as the Euro-Med Agreement. It gave Israel privileged
access to the EU market from 1 June 2000. The EU provides the largest
market for Israeli goods after the US, around 30% of Israel’s exported
goods, amounting to €8.8 billion, going to the EU in 2009
[9].
The Euro-Med Agreement also contains human rights
obligations. Article 2 of the Agreement states:
“Relations
between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself,
shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which
guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential
element of this Agreement.”
That states plainly that human rights
compliance by Israel is an “essential element” of the Agreement – not an
optional element, nor a desirable element, but an essential element.
2.2 Israeli breaches of
international humanitarian law
There isn’t the slightest doubt that
Israel has continuously failed to live up to these obligations, notably in
its treatment of the people of Gaza.
Notwithstanding its
‘disengagement’ from Gaza in August 2005, Israel is still the Occupying
Power there within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention, since it
remains in ‘effective control’. As such, it is responsible for the
welfare of the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza.
Yet, for
many years, Israel has maintained an economic blockade of Gaza of increasing
severity, by closing the crossings between Israel and Gaza. This is in
breach of international humanitarian law, to be specific, Articles 33 and 55
of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Article 55 requires that:
“To the fullest extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has
the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it
should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and
other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.”
[10]
Israel has signally failed to fulfil this obligation.
This has not
merely been a sin of omission on Israel’s part. On the contrary, it
has been a deliberate act of Israeli policy, with the objective of exerting
pressure on the people of Gaza collectively to reject Hamas. Lest
there be any doubt about it, here’s what the US embassy in Tel Aviv reported
back to Washington on 3 November 2008:
“Since the Hamas takeover,
Israel has designated Gaza as a ‘hostile entity’ and maintained an economic
embargo against the territory. … As part of their overall embargo plan
against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to econoffs [US embassy
economic officers] on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan
economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge.”
[11]
This deliberate act of Israeli policy is in breach of
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids the Occupying
Power from applying “collective penalties” on people under occupation.
Article 33 states:
“No protected person may be punished for an
offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and
likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”
[12]
In
February 2008, John Holmes, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian
Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, reported to the Security Council
on Israel’s economic blockade of Gaza. He said:
“… the
effective Israeli isolation of Gaza is not justified, given Israel’s
continuing obligations to the people of Gaza. It amounts to collective
punishment and is contrary to international humanitarian law.”
[13]
The EU itself has described the economic strangulation of Gaza as
‘collective punishment’, External Relations Commissioner Benita
Ferrero-Waldner saying on 21 January 2008:
“I am against this
collective punishment of the people of Gaza. I urge the Israeli authorities
to restart fuel supplies and open the crossings for the passage of
humanitarian and commercial supplies.”
[14]
Irish
Foreign Minister, Micheál Martin agreed, telling
Dáil Éireann on 5 November 2008:
“The Government agrees with
those who state that the effective isolation of Gaza constitutes collective
punishment and is illegal under international humanitarian law.”
[15]
This collective punishment of the people of Gaza was going on before
Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s military assault on Gaza, which began on 27
December 2008 and killed over 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 400
women and children. This collective punishment has continued since
Operation Cast Lead with increased severity.
2.3
EU fails to act on Israeli breaches
So, it is widely acknowledged
that, by its economic strangulation of Gaza, Israel has violated
international humanitarian law.
And it is not as if this economic
strangulation of Gaza is a momentary lapse from an otherwise unblemished
record of human rights compliance. On the contrary, the collective
punishment of the people of Gaza is the openly acknowledged policy of the
Israeli Government that has been in operation, to a greater or lesser
extent, for years. Famously, when Israel limited commercial shipments
of food into Gaza in 2006, a senior government adviser, Dov Weisglass,
explained that “the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to
make them die of hunger”
[16].
There is not the slightest doubt that, by its economic strangulation of Gaza
in recent years, Israel breached its human rights obligations under Article
2 of the Association Agreement, obligations that are stated to be an
“essential element” of the Agreement. And Israel’s treatment of the
people of Gaza is but one example of its inhuman treatment of Palestinians.
If Article 2 of the Euro-Med Agreement is to be taken seriously, then the
Agreement should be suspended.
But, yet again, the EU turned a blind
eye to Israel’s contravention of obligations under an EU-Israel agreement.
3 The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)
Section 3 describes the upgrade of EU relations with Israel in
2004, namely, its admission as a partner within the European Neighbourhood
Policy. It cites reports published by the European Commission which
describe Israel’s discrimination against its Arab minority and its breaches
of international humanitarian law in its treatment of Palestinians within
the Occupied Territories.
3.1
Purpose of the ENP
A further upgrade in EU-Israel relations took
place in 2004, when Israel became a “partner” in the EU’s European
Neighbourhood Policy
[17]. This encompasses both the EU’s southern neighbours that were
already in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and its Eastern European
neighbours.
The EU provides money for projects under the ENP, €5.6
billion in total being allocated for the period 2007-10. However,
because of Israel’s relatively advanced state of economic development, a
very small amount of this – €8 million – is specifically allocated to it
(see European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
[18]). Clearly, Israel’s reasons for participating in the ENP are
political rather than economic.
EU relations with other states under
the ENP are supposed to be tailored to the honouring of human rights and
other obligations. As the ENP website says:
“The EU offers our
neighbours a privileged relationship, building upon a mutual commitment to
common values (democracy and human rights, rule of law, good governance,
market economy principles and sustainable development). The ENP goes beyond
existing relationships to offer a deeper political relationship and economic
integration. The level of ambition of the relationship will depend on the
extent to which these values are shared.”
[17]
Despite Israel’s manifest failure to meet its obligations under earlier
agreements with the EU, Israel was in the first tranche of 7 states with
which the EU agreed ENP action plans in December 2004.
3.2
Israeli discrimination against its Arab minority
The action plan for
Israel
[19] was based on a European Commission report on Israel
[20] dated May 2004. One might expect that this would have
examined Israel’s human rights record closely in order to determine whether
or not Israel shared European values and was therefore fit for an ENP
relationship. And it does, to a degree: in a 24-page document, there
are a few paragraphs that comment on (a) discrimination against Israeli
Arabs and (b) Israeli action in the Occupied Territories.
On
discrimination against Israeli Arabs, the document says:
“The Arab
minority, Muslim, Christian and Druze, makes up almost 20% of the Israeli
population. Although the Declaration of Independence proclaims equality for
citizens, Israeli legislation contains laws and regulations that favour the
Jewish majority. … As highlighted by an Israeli Commission report
presented in 2003 (“Or Commission”), the Arab minority also suffers from
discrimination in many areas including budget allocations, official
planning, employment, education and health. … The Arab minority is severely
affected by the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law of 2003, suspending
for a renewable one-year period, the possibility of family reunification,
subject to limited exceptions.
“About 100,000 Arabs (Bedouins),
mostly in the Negev, live in villages considered illegal by the State. …” (p
10)
“According to the Israeli poverty definition, about 14% of the
Israeli households were living in poverty in 2001, and the share is expected
to have risen in the following years. Figures are higher among the
Arab minority (where 45% of the families fell in the poverty category).” (p
16)
Giving evidence to a parliamentary commission of inquiry on 11
November 2008, former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert added weight to
this assessment, saying:
“I feel uncomfortable with the fact that
the state for many years acted improperly and should have made fundamental
changes. We have not yet overcome the barrier of discrimination, which
is a deliberate discrimination and the gap is insufferable”
[21].
He continued:
“… there are government agencies who employ a
miniscule number of Israeli Arabs, among them the Bank of Israel and Israel
Electric Company. There is no argument that there were ministries and
offices that did not accept Arabs. It's terrible that there is not
even one Arab employee at the Bank of Israel and at the Electric Company
Arab workers represent less than one percent of all employees.”
One
might have thought that a state which, throughout its existence, has
deliberately engaged in religious discrimination against its Arab minority
would be deemed unfit by the EU for an ENP relationship. Root and
branch opposition to religious discrimination is surely a fundamental
European value.
And it’s not as if Israel has taken steps to
eliminate, or even mitigate, this discrimination since 2004. In April
2008, the European Commission published a report entitled Implementation of
the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2007: Progress Report Israel
[22]. Here is what it says on this issue:
“The promotion
and protection of the Israeli Arab minority did not advance significantly
during the reporting period, particularly in areas like land allocation,
housing, planning, economic development, investment in social infrastructure
and justice. A number of initiatives were launched in the field of justice
and education but results were limited. The Arab education system continued
to lag behind Jewish education. A clear strategy for land allocation to
Israeli Arabs remains to be adopted. In March 2007, the UN Committee for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) published a report on the
situation of the Israeli Arab minority and asked the Israeli government to
take significant measures to promote minority rights in the above-mentioned
areas.” (p 3)
Lest it be thought that progress has been made since
2007, here is an extract from a second Commission report, Implementation of
the European Neighbourhood Policy in 2009: Progress Report Israel
[23], published in May 2010:
“As regards rights of minorities,
little progress was registered in the situation of the Arab minority. Arab
citizens are still underrepresented in the civil service and in government
offices, with a participation of only 6.7%, although the Law for Fair
Representation of Arabs and Women in Governmental Offices sets a target of
10% by 2010. There were further decreases in budget allocations to the Arab
sector. More sustained efforts are needed to further increase employment of
Arab employees in the public sector, as well as regarding housing and
planning schemes, economic development, investment in social infrastructure
and justice (see also section on Employment and Social policy). With regard
to the Bedouins, the Goldberg Commission, set up in 2008, recommended that
the recognition of Bedouin villages takes place on a broad basis and
following an accelerated schedule. The Government appointed an
implementation team for that purpose in January 2009, but this team made
little progress in its work. Its detailed implementation plan was due in
July 2009 but had not been finalised by the end of 2009. 99 house
demolitions took place in Bedouin communities in 2009 and at least 39 houses
were demolished in the Negev after the reporting period, in early 2010.”
(p3)
In the section on Employment and Social policy, the report
states:
“Poverty and inequality remain widespread in Israel. Over
20% of households are below the poverty line compared to the OECD average of
11%. Poverty is concentrated among the 20% of the population belonging to
the Arab minority (of which 50% are below the poverty line) and the
estimated 8% who are ultra-orthodox Jews (of which 60% are below the poverty
line). The Bedouin community suffers from a very high poverty rate
estimated at 80% among the unrecognized villages.” (p 8)
There the
European Commission states bluntly that Israel continues to discriminate
deliberately against its Arab minority.
3.3
Israeli action in the Occupied Territories
On Israeli action in the
occupied territories, the European Commission report from May 2004
[20] says:
“… In August 2003 the [United Nations] Committee [for
Human Rights] reiterated its concerns at the increasing extent of human
rights violations in those territories, particularly through military
operations, the obstruction of freedom of movement and house demolitions.
The EU recognises Israel’s right to protect its citizens from terrorist
attacks. It has urged the Government of Israel, in exercising this right, to
exert maximum effort to avoid civilian casualties and take no action that
aggravates the humanitarian and economic plight of the Palestinian people.
It has called on Israel to abstain from any punitive measures which are not
in accordance with international law, including extrajudicial killings and
destruction of houses.” (p 8)
It is difficult to believe that these
few sentences constitute the full extent of what the EU has to say about the
misery Israel has inflicted on Palestinians in 40 years of occupation.
Even so, one might have thought that the evidence presented in them was
sufficient to render Israel unfit in the eyes of the EU for an ENP
relationship. Surely, the EU cannot be said to have common values with
a state that engages in “extrajudicial killings and destruction of houses”.
Have matters improved since 2004? The European Commission
progress report from April 2008
[22] says:
“Issues raised in the framework of the political
dialogue included inter alia: the peace process, the situation in the Middle
East, the situation of the Arab minority in Israel, restrictions of movement
in West Bank and Gaza Strip, the construction of the separation barrier,
administrative detentions, the dismantling of outposts, the envisaged
expansion of certain Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, more
checkpoints. Little concrete progress has however been achieved on the
issues as such. In 2007 the fatalities resulting from conflict-related
incidents were 377 Palestinians (compared to 643 in 2006) and 13 Israelis
(compared to 27 in 2006).” (p5)
Likewise, the European Commission
progress report from May 2010
[23] had little progress to report. On Gaza it says:
“During 2009, the EU repeatedly called on Israel to open the Gaza crossings
for the flow of aid, trade and persons to and from Gaza. While towards the
end of 2009 Israel granted permission for glass and a limited range of other
products to be imported into the Gaza strip and a limited range of
agricultural products to be exported, including strawberries and cut
flowers, there was no significant improvement as regards access to Gaza.
Only minimum access was granted to allow the delivery of humanitarian
assistance. This undermines the ability of Palestinians to meet basic needs
such as protection, shelter, food, water, and healthcare. Restrictions on
the import of construction material also have a negative impact on the
population, 90% of whom are aid-dependent.
“The Israeli Security
Agency in several instances denied authorisation, citing security concerns,
to medical patients attempting to exit the Gaza Strip in order to access
medical treatment.”
There, the European Commission admits that
Israel continues to commit collective punishment against the people of Gaza.
3.4 EU fails to act on Israeli
breaches
The ENP action plan for Israel drawn up by the European
Commission in 2004 boldly asserts:
“The EU and Israel share the
common values of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law and
basic freedoms.”
[19]
The ENP progress reports drawn up by the European
Commission in 2008 and 2010 freely admit that Israel is guilty of (a)
deliberate discrimination against its Arab minority and (b) collective
punishment, and other human rights violations, against Palestinians in Gaza.
Have religious discrimination and collective punishment now become
European values? If not, then perhaps the EU should reconsider its ENP
partnership with Israel?
4 The Road Map
Section 4 outlines the commitments contained in the Road Map,
which was promoted by the Middle East Quartet, of which the EU is a member.
It shows that the EU failed to criticise Israel for failing to live up to
those commitments, let alone punish it for failing to do so.
4.1 Road Map pre-conditions
The Road Map is the internationally approved framework for negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinians about a “two-state solution”
[24]. It was drawn up by the US and approved by the Middle East
Quartet (US, EU, Russia and the UN Secretary General) in April 2003.
The EU is therefore a party to this agreement, which was later endorsed by
the Security Council in resolution 1515 [5]
passed in November 2003.
The Road Map requires
-
“Israeli leadership issues unequivocal statement affirming its
commitment to the two-state vision of an independent, viable, sovereign
Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside
- “GOI [Government of Israel] immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001”, and
- “Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)”.
These conditions couldn’t be clearer: before negotiations start,
- make a public commitment to an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state,
- dismantle all settlement outposts erected since March 2001, and
- freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth
On 25 May 2003, the Israeli Government, then headed by Ariel Sharon,
approved the Road Map by 12 votes to 7, albeit with reservations
[25].
However, these reservations did not relate to the pre-conditions. The
PLO accepted the Road Map without reservations.
These pre-conditions
are the least one would expect Israel to adhere to prior to negotiations
about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It makes very little
sense to begin such a process if Israel is not committed publicly to the
creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state at the end of it.
Nor does it make sense to begin such a process while Israel is continuing to
colonise the territory which is supposed to belong to the Palestinian state
at the end of the process. As Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the
PLO, once said, that’s like negotiating over a piece of pizza while one
party to the negotiations is eating it.
4.2
Israel’s failure to honour Road Map pre-conditions
Israel fulfilled
none of these conditions prior to the recently aborted brief round of
negotiations. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu never made a public
commitment to an independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state. It
was only after severe pressure from the US that, in a speech on 14 June 2009
[26], he used the word “state” to describe the Palestinian entity that
might be the outcome of negotiations. But, he said that the security
needs of Israel demanded “clear commitments” from the US that “in a future
peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be
demilitarized”, by which he meant:
“without an army, without control
of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons
smuggling into the territory - real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza
today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military
pacts. Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another
Hamastan.”
Clearly, the “state” he had in mind would be neither
independent, viable nor sovereign, as required by the Road Map.
Rather, it would be firmly under Israeli control, much as Gaza is today.
And, Netanyahu categorically refused to “freeze all settlement
activity”, as required by the Road Map, even for a limited period, despite
being offered an enormous bribe by the Obama administration to do so.
But, Israel’s failure to live to its obligations under the Road Map has
attracted barely a word of criticism from the EU. As a party to the
Road Map, the EU should have stood shoulder to shoulder with Palestinians as
they demanded that Israel fulfil the Road Map conditions prior to the start
of negotiations. But it didn’t. Yet again, the EU allowed
Israel’s failure to live up to a past agreement to go uncriticised, let
alone unpunished.
5 The Agreement
on Movement and Access (AMA)
Section 5 outlines the commitments
contained in the Agreement on Movement and Access, which was promoted by the
Middle East Quartet, of which the EU is a member. It shows that the EU
failed to criticise Israel for failing to live up to those commitments, let
alone punish it for failing to do so.
5.1
AMA arrangements
The Agreement on Movement and Access
[27], which was drawn up by the US and sponsored by the Middle East
Quartet, was agreed by Israel in November 2005. Condoleezza Rice (US
Secretary of State) and Javier Solana (EU High Representative for the Common
Foreign and Security Policy) announced the Agreement at a press conference
in Jerusalem on 15 November 2005
[28].
The Agreement set out the arrangements that were supposed
to operate to maintain and develop the economic life of Gaza, in the wake of
the Israeli ‘disengagement’ in August 2005, and to pave the way for the
creation of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
These arrangements included:
(1)
continuous operation of crossings between
(2)
bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and
(3)
the building of a seaport in
(4)
re-opening of the airport in
Had
5.2
It goes without saying that
As a party to the Agreement, the EU should have been vociferous in demanding
that
This failure alone should have led to the EU suspending the Euro-Med
Agreement, on the grounds that
6 Conclusions
This paper has produced compelling evidence that the EU has consistently
turned a blind eye to Israel’s failure to fulfil its obligations in
EU-Israel agreements. These obligations are not trivial matters.
On the contrary, they are of the utmost importance to a just settlement in
the Middle East.
For example, the Barcelona Declaration, which
established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in 1995, obliges signatories
to “act in accordance with the United Nations Charter”.
Article 2.4
of the Charter forbids the acquisition of territory by force. Had the
EU enforced that obligation with respect to Israel, it would have refused to
allow Israel to become a partner until such times as it relinquished all the
territory it had acquired by force in 1967.
Article 25 of the
Charter requires UN member states to “to accept and carry out the decisions
of the Security Council”. Today, Israel is in violation of over 30
Security Council resolutions requiring action by it and it alone, demanding,
amongst other things, that it
-
cease building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, including
in
-
reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem and the
- open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection.
As we said, these obligations in EU-Israel agreements are of great
importance. In the light of
Thus, when in 2007 Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, requested a
further upgrade in relations with the EU as a 60th birthday
present for Israel, the EU agreed on 16 June 2008.
While this upgrade was formally put on hold in the aftermath of
In December 2010, a group of former European politicians, led by former
vice-President of the European Commission, Chris Patten, suggested that “the
EU must make absolutely clear that enhancement or upgrading of the EU-Israel
Association Agreement and other bilateral agreements and programs will not
occur unless settlements are frozen”
[31].
That is the very least that the EU should do.
It would be far better if it made clear that there will be no upgrade
until
* *
* *
Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Lisbon
Treaty, lays down the principles that the EU should apply in the conduct of
international relations. It
states:
“The Union's action on the
international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired
its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance
in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and
indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human
dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the
principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.”
[32]
It’s not obvious that the EU has been guided by these principles in its
relations with Israel. It has developed ever closer relations despite
Israel’s complete lack of respect for the principles of the United Nations
Charter and international law.
Lest there be any doubt about this,
listen to the words of Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, at a meeting
with Palestinian negotiators on 13 November 2007, when Terms of Reference
were being drawn up for the Annapolis negotiations:
“I was the
Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law -- international law
in particular. Law in general. If we want to make the agreement
smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law,
this will make the agreements easier.”
[33]
Tzipi Livni was then a senior member of the Kadima-led government headed by
Ehud Olmert. She has since become the leader of Kadima, which is
widely regarded as a “moderate” party.
Israel is a member of the UN
and, in addition to the UN Charter, is a party to umpteen conventions and
treaties, for example, the Geneva Conventions. Yet here is Israel’s
Foreign Minister stating dogmatically that Israel does not consider itself
bound by the principles of international law embodied in these or other
international instruments.
As far as Israel is concerned, this means
that, for example, Security Council resolutions can be ignored and territory
acquired by force contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, as the West
Bank and Gaza was in 1967, can be held on to indefinitely.
Tzipi
Livni’s remarks constitute a confession that Israel is a rogue state, which
does not consider itself bound by international norms in its relations with
other states.
In December 2003, the EU approved a European Security
Strategy called A secure Europe in a better world
[34].
This states:
“A number of countries have placed themselves outside
the bounds of international society. Some have sought isolation; others
persistently violate international norms. … Those who are unwilling to
do so should understand that there is a price to be paid, including in their
relationship with the European Union.” (p10)
Israel claims the right
to violate international norms – and persistently does so. The
European Union should make it pay the price.
Appendices
A Milestones
in EU-Israel relations
1975: Israel signs an economic co-operation agreement with the
European Community.
1981: The Delegation of the European
Commission to the state of Israel officially opens.
1995:
Israel signs the Barcelona Declaration, which established the
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership as a framework for political, economic and
social co-operation between the EU and states in the Mediterranean region.
1995: Israel signs an Association Agreement under the
Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, which granted it privileged access to the EU
market in 2000.
1996: Israel becomes the first non-EU state to
take part in the EU’s scientific and technical research programme.
2004: Israel signs an agreement with the EU, allowing it to
participate in Galileo, the EU’s project for a Global Satellite Navigation
System.
2004: Israel becomes a partner in the European Neighbourhood
Policy agreeing an action plan with the EU covering activity in political,
economic and social fields.
2008: The EU decides to further upgrade
its relations with Israel.
2009: The EU puts this upgrade on hold,
in the aftermath of Israel’s military assault on Gaza in December
2008/January 2009. However, it has never been revoked and in reality
the EU has continued to enhance its relations with Israel in a variety of
ways.
B Israel’s contravention
of the UN Charter
Article 2.4 of the UN Charter states:
“All [UN] Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.”
[3]
Throughout its
existence as a state, Israel has contravened this Article of the UN Charter
on many occasions, by threatening or using force against its neighbours -
and relentlessly expanded the area under its control.
IN
NOVEMBER 1947, the UN General Assembly proposed that Palestine be
partitioned. If Jewish leaders had accepted this UN partition plan,
Israel would today consist of about 56% of the land area of Palestine, and
Jerusalem would be under international control. That’s what the UN
General Assembly recommended in Resolution 181, passed on 29 November 1947.
But they didn't.
Instead, the area allocated by the UN General
Assembly for a Jewish state was expanded by force to include 78% of
Palestine, even though at the time Jews made up only about a third of the
population of Palestine as a whole and owned a mere 6% of the land. To
ensure that Jews were numerically dominant in the new Jewish state, nearly
all the Arabs — around 750,000 — were expelled from it into the rest of
Palestine and the surrounding Arab states, where they and their descendants
live today [35]. Over 500 Arab villages were destroyed so that those
expelled had no homes to return to.
IN OCTOBER 1956, Israel
entered into a secret arrangement with the UK and France, who wished to
seize the Suez Canal, whereby Israel invaded Egypt and by so doing provided
the pretext for the UK and France to “intervene” and occupy the Canal Zone,
ostensibly to protect the Canal. The conspirators were forced to
withdraw by the US. This action was contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN
Charter.
IN JUNE 1967, Israel attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria,
forcibly occupying the remaining 22% of Palestine (the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, and Gaza), plus portions of Egyptian territory (the Sinai
Peninsula) and Syrian territory (the Golan Heights). These actions
were contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.
The Sinai remained
under Israeli military occupation until the Camp David Accords over a decade
later. The West Bank and Gaza remain under Israeli military occupation
today. The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were subsequently annexed.
Israel proceeded to build Jewish settlements in the areas it occupied,
contrary to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It has
continued to do so despite Security Council demands (in resolutions 446, 452
and 465) that it cease building settlements and remove those it has built.
Likewise, Israel has refused to comply with Security Council demands
that it reverse its annexation of East Jerusalem (in resolutions 252, 267,
271, 298, 476 and 478) and of the Golan Heights (in resolution 497).
Israel has also refused to comply with the ruling of the International Court
of Justice in July 2004 that it “cease forthwith the works of construction
of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in
and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein
situated and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and
regulatory acts relating thereto” (see Appendix D).
More than 40
years later, the West Bank and Gaza remain under Israeli military control,
the building of Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land continues apace,
East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights remain annexed – and the Wall lengthens
daily.
IN 1978, AND AGAIN IN 1982, it attacked Lebanon and
occupied parts of it militarily until 2000. These actions were
contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter. For over 20 years, it
ignored the Security Council demand (in resolution 425, passed on 19 March
1978) that called upon it “immediately to cease its military action against
Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all
Lebanese territory”. It finally withdrew its ground forces from
Lebanon (apart from Shebaa Farms), because of military pressure from
Hezbollah.
ISRAEL’S USE OF FORCE, and threat to use force,
contrary to Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, continues unabated. On 28
December 2008, Israel mounted a ferocious military assault against Gaza,
which continued for 22 days and cost the lives of more than 1,400
Palestinians, including over 400 women and children.
Today, Israeli
aircraft regularly enter Lebanese airspace and violate Lebanese sovereignty;
and hardly a day passes without a member of the Israeli government
threatening to attack Iran – all actions that are contrary to Article 2.4 of
the UN Charter.
C
UN Security Council resolutions contravened by Israel
Israel is
contravening over 30 UN Security Council resolutions
[5], dating back
to 1968, resolutions that require action by it and it alone
[36].
This doesn’t include resolutions violated by Israel for a number of years
that have subsequently been implemented, such as those dealing with Israel’s
20-year military occupation of southern Lebanon.
In these
resolutions, the Security Council demands action by Israel on, amongst other
things:-
(1) Jewish settlements in occupied territories
Resolution 446, passed on 22 March 1979, demands that Israel cease building
Jewish settlements in the territories it has occupied since 1967, including
in Jerusalem, and that it remove those already built. Paragraphs 1 & 3
state:
[The Security Council]
1. Determines that the policy and
practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other
Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a
serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
the Middle East;
3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying
Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to
rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which
would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and
materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to
transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab
territories;”
The Fourth Geneva Convention bans the planting of
settlers on territory under occupation. Article 49, paragraph 6, of
the Convention states:
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or
transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies.” [37]
Israel’s failure to comply with this resolution prompted further
resolutions – 452 on 20 July 1979 and 465 on 1 March 1980 – demanding
compliance.
(2) The annexation of East Jerusalem
Resolution
252, passed on 21 May 1968, demands that Israel reverse its annexation of
East Jerusalem. Paragraphs 2 & 3 state:
[The Security Council]
2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions
taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon,
which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot
change that status;
3. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such
measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further
action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem;
Israel’s
failure to comply with this resolution prompted further resolutions – 267 on
3 July 1969, 271 on 15 September 1969, 298 on 25 September 1971, 476 on 30
June 1980, and 478 on 20 August 1980 – demanding the reversal of its
annexation of East Jerusalem.
(3) The annexation of the Golan
Heights
Resolution 497, passed on 17 December 1981, demands that
Israel reverse its annexation of the Golan Heights, which were captured from
Syria in June 1967. Paragraphs 1 & 2 state:
[The Security
Council]
1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws,
jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null
and void and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel,
the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;”
(4)
Nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards
Resolution 487, passed on
19 June 1981, demands that Israel open its nuclear facilities to inspection
by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). Paragraph 5
states:
[The Security Council]
5. Calls upon Israel urgently to
place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”.
By refusing to
open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection, Israel is violating this
resolution.
Conclusion
It is important to emphasise that
these resolutions place obligations on Israel, and Israel alone, so it is
within Israel’s power to implement them of its own volition, without
negotiation with the Palestinians or with neighbouring states. It
doesn’t need to negotiate with anybody before ceasing settlement building,
or undoing the annexation of East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, or opening
its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection.
Had Israel wished to do
so, it could have implemented these resolutions at the time they were passed
by the Security Council, or at any time since. Had Israel done so, the
political landscape in Palestine would have been transformed.
D The International Court of Justice on the Wall
On 8 December 2003, the UN General Assembly passed resolution
ES-10/14 requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an
Advisory Opinion on the following question:
“What are the legal
consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by
Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the
Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international
law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security
Council and General Assembly resolutions?”
[5]
The Court agreed to the request and delivered the Advisory
Opinion (entitled Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory
[7]) on 9
July 2004. The key points of the Opinion are:
A. The
construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and
its associated régime, are contrary to international law;
B. Israel
is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is
under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall
being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around
East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and
to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory
acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion;
C. Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage
caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;
D. All States are
under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from
the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in
maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties
to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation,
while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure
compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that
Convention;
Regrettably, Israel has categorically refused to comply
with these obligations and has continued to build the wall.
Israel
has maintained this recalcitrant stance despite a near unanimous demand by
the international community that it complies. In resolution ES-10/15,
passed on 20 July 2004, the UN General Assembly demanded that “Israel, the
occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations” as laid down by the
Court [5]. This resolution was
passed by 150 votes to 6. Ireland, and all other EU states, supported
it. Only Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and
the United States opposed (representing only 5% of the world’s population).
The Court stated in its opinion:
“The United Nations, and
especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider
what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation
resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated regime.”
Israel has ignored the action taken four years ago by the UN General
Assembly, with the support of all EU states. It is now time for the EU
to seek to persuade the Security Council to take action, as requested by the
Court.
References:
[1]
trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/july/tradoc_124236.pdf
[2]
europa.eu/legislation_summaries/external_relations/relations_with_third_countries/
mediterranean_partner_countries/r15001_en.htm
[3]
www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
[4]
www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/102545.pdf
[5]
UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on
[6]
www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
[7]
www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
[8]
ec.europa.eu/delegations/israel/documents/eu_israel/asso_agree_en.pdf
[9]
ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/israel/
[10]
www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600062
[11]
www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3972840.ece
[12]
www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600038
[13]
www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2008.htm
[14]
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7201061.stm
[15]
debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2008/11/05/00011.asp
[16]
www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/makdisi
[17]
ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm
[18]
ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/0703_enpi_figures_en.pdf
[19]
ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/action_plans/israel_enp_ap_final_en.pdf
[20]
ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/israel_enp_country_report_2004_en.pdf
[21]
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036798.html
[22]
ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/progress2008/sec08_394_en.pdf
[23]
ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/progress2010/sec10_520_en.pdf
[24]
unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/6129b9c832fe59ab85256d43004d87fa
[25]
www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=297230
[26]
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2009/Address_PM
_Netanyahu_ Bar-Ilan_University_14-Jun-2009.htm
[27]
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/Agreed+documents+on
+movement+and+access+from+and+to+
[28]
unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C73B42AA9C864783852570BA0064EF7E
[29]
www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/111833.pdf
[30]
ec.europa.eu/delegations/israel/eu_israel/political_relations/agreements/index_en.htm
[31]
www.usmep.us/usmep/wp-content/uploads/2010-12-10-EFLG-letter-to-EU.pdf
[32]
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:EN:HTML
[33]
transparency.aljazeera.net/document/2003
[34]
www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf
[35]
See The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe
[36]
www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html
[37]
www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600056
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||
