11
   

EU's Hostile Fixation on Israeli Settlements

 
 
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 08:28 am
Palestinians display pessimism about the peace process . . . and both parties express distrust of the other side

by Ambassador Alan Baker, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, July 18, 2013

The publication of guidelines by the European Commission on the eligibility of Israeli entities for EU cooperation is the culmination of a concerted policy initiative led by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, directed against Israel's settlements in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] to press the Israeli government into making territorial and political concessions.

This unprecedented and hostile EU fixation with Israel and its settlements is based on a series of long-standing and deliberately misleading and flawed legal and political assumptions regarding the illegality of Israel's settlements and the status of the pre-1967 armistice lines as Israel's border.

Similarly, they negate the very positions supported by the European states that endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 calling for "secure and recognized boundaries," and negate the EU's own commitments as signatory and witness to the Oslo Accords not to predetermine and undermine specific negotiating issues including the final status of the territories, borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and other issues.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), often cited as the basis for the claim that Israel's settlements are illegal, relates to deportations of over 40 million people subjected to forced migration, evacuation, displacement, and expulsion in World War II. The vast numbers of people affected and the aims and purposes behind such a population movement speak for themselves. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel's settlement policy.

The rigid fixation of the EU to assert that its agreements with Israel must reflect the non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over any territory beyond the 1967 lines stands out in contrast to European policy toward other conflicts.

The EU has many free trade agreements and understandings with countries whose territorial boundaries are in dispute. The EU has been negotiating a free trade agreement with India, yet its applicability to Kashmir is not under discussion. An EU fisheries agreement from 2005 allows European fisherman to operate in Western Sahara, even though the EU does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty in this territory.

The EU Targets the Settlements

The current dispute between the European Union and Israel emanates from the publication on June 30, 2013, of guidelines by the European Commission on the eligibility of Israeli entities, in territories administered by Israel since June 1967 as a result of the Six-Day War, for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards. The current commission notice reflects a number of decisions taken recently by EU bodies on how past EU-Israel agreements are to be applied.1

On December 10, 2012, the EU Foreign Affairs Council determined that "all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967."

The EU statement added that the determination also conforms to the EU's long-standing position that "Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and with the non-recognition by the EU of Israel's sovereignty over the occupied territories, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law."2

Pursuant to the European Commission's June 30 notice, the EU published a directive to its 28 member states, effective July 19, 2013, forbidding funding, cooperation, scholarships, research funds, or prizes to anyone residing in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The regulation requires that any agreement or contract signed by an EU country with Israel include a clause stating that the settlements are not part of the State of Israel and therefore are not part of the agreement.3

The directive includes a territorial clause stating that all agreements will be valid only within Israeli borders recognized by the European Union, meaning the borders prior to the 1967 Six-Day War. It forbids cooperation by European Union members with private or governmental bodies located beyond the "Green Line." The European Commission notice states that its aim is "to ensure the respect of EU positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel's sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967."

This directive complements intensive activity by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, devoted almost exclusively to the issue of Israel's settlements, and repeated calls to EU foreign ministers to fully enforce EU legislation regarding the labelling of products from Israeli settlements, with a view to preventing such products from benefiting from lower tariffs, and to rendering them easily visible to European consumers and importers. As stated by Ashton: "Our consumers have the right to an informed choice; this initiative will help support our retailers to provide this. The correct labeling of products is necessary to ensure our consumers are not being misled by false information."4

As such, the publication of the commission notice is the culmination of a concerted policy initiative led by Ashton, with active and substantive encouragement by the EU member governments and the official EU representation to Israel, directed against Israel's settlements in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank], the aim of which is to press the Israeli government into making territorial and political concessions, by harming the products coming from the settlements.

Flawed Legal and Political Assumptions

This unprecedented and hostile EU fixation with Israel and its settlements, to the almost total exclusion of the other pressing issues in the Middle East, Europe, and throughout the world, is based on a series of long-standing and deliberately misleading and flawed legal and political assumptions regarding the illegality of Israel's settlements and the status of the pre-1967 armistice lines as Israel's border.

These assumptions are all the more misleading and misguided in that they totally negate or deliberately flout the historic and legal rights granted by the international community, including Europe, to Israel and the Jewish people in a series of international agreements and commitments. The assumptions totally ignore the indigenous rights of the Jewish people in the area, as protected by international declarations.

Similarly, they negate the very positions supported by the European states that endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 calling for "secure and recognized boundaries," and negate the EU's own commitments as signatory and witness to the Oslo Accords, to honour the content of those accords, and not to predetermine and undermine specific negotiating issues including the final status of the territories, borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and other issues.

As such, the present EU policy, including the commission notice, specifically undermines the negotiating process by taking sides, and by pre-determining the negotiating issues of settlements, Jerusalem and borders. As such, this fixation prejudices and obviates any claim by the EU to impartiality, and precludes the EU from performing any function within the negotiating process.

Israel's Rights Cannot Be Denied

The legality of Israel's settlements stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.

They include the declaration unanimously adopted by the League of Nations, including the major European states, in the 1920 San Remo Declaration, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel as well as close Jewish settlement throughout.5 This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. This was subsequently affirmed internationally in the League of Nations 1922 Palestine Mandate instrument,6 and accorded continued validity, up to the present day, by Article 80 of the UN Charter which determines the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations).7

The "1967 Borders" Do Not Exist

The "1967 borders" do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors, establishing the armistice demarcation lines, clearly stated that these lines "are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." Accordingly, they cannot be accepted or declared to be Israel's border.8

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called upon the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve "secure and recognized boundaries."9 The European state members of the Security Council approved that resolution.

The Geneva Convention Does Not Apply to Israel's Settlements

The EU assumption regarding the illegality of Israel's settlement policy is legally flawed, and ignores authoritative sources regarding the provenance and interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). This article prohibits the mass transfer of population into occupied territory, as practiced by Germany during the Second World War. It was neither relevant, nor was it ever intended to apply to Israel's settlements.

According to the authoritative and official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross, published in 1958,10 as well as opinions by prominent international jurists, Article 49 relates to deportations of over 40 million people subjected to forced migration, evacuation, displacement, and expulsion. The vast numbers of people affected and the aims and purposes behind such a population movement speak for themselves. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel's settlement policy.11

One may further ask if this is not a misreading, misunderstanding, or even distortion of that article and its context.

Contradicting the Oslo Accords

In the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Israel and the PLO undertook to negotiate inter alia the issues of borders, Jerusalem and settlements, and undertook not act to change the status of the territories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations. The EU signed and witnessed this agreement, and as such cannot now undermine it or take a position that is clearly ultra vires the terms of the agreement.12

Israel and the PLO agreed in the 1995 Interim Agreement (together with the EU, Egypt, Jordan, Russia, the U.S. and Norway as witnesses) on a division of their respective jurisdictions in the West Bank into areas A and B (Palestinian jurisdiction) and area C (Israeli jurisdiction).13 They defined the respective powers and responsibilities of each side in the areas they control. Israel's powers and responsibilities in Area C include all aspects regarding its settlements – all this pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. This division was accepted and agreed upon by the Palestinians, and acknowledged by the international community, including the EU and the UN.

The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what is known as the "Oslo Accords" in the full knowledge that Israel's settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on either side regarding planning, zoning, or construction of homes and communities in their respective areas of jurisdiction and control, pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

The repeated use by the EU of the term "occupied Arab," or "Palestinian territories" to refer to the area of Judea and Samaria has no basis in law or fact. Prior to 1967, there was no Palestinian state in the West Bank, which was under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The area has never been determined to be Palestinian territory. Thus the continued EU usage of the term runs against the very concept of negotiations to resolve the dispute regarding these areas, supported by the EU, to determine their permanent status.

The EU Fixation with Israel's Settlements

The EU fixation with Israel's settlements, and the action presently being taken against Israel pursuant to its directive, is clearly incompatible with the EU's standing as a member of the International Quartet, and serves to neutralize any pretentions the EU might have to serve a useful function in the negotiating process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The EU cannot presume to come with clean hands and claim to be an impartial element in the negotiating process. The EU has taken sides and as such, in its actions against Israel, it is undermining the negotiating process. Moreover, the rigid fixation of the EU to assert that its agreements with Israel must reflect the non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over any territory beyond the 1967 lines stands out in contrast to European policy toward other conflicts.

The EU has many free trade agreements and other commercial understandings with countries whose territorial boundaries are in dispute. The EU has been negotiating a free trade agreement with India, yet its applicability to Kashmir is not under discussion. An EU fisheries agreement from 2005 allows European fisherman to operate in Western Sahara, even though the EU does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty in this territory. In Israel, EU policy is likely to be perceived as a case of double standards, according to which Israel is not granted the same rights as other states, in defiance of the principle of sovereign equality.

Finally, the position and actions of the EU against Israel are all the more unfortunate and regrettable in light of the tragic Jewish history in Europe, which cannot be ignored or forgotten. One might have expected that realization of this factor would guide the wisdom and logic of the actions of the EU.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 11 • Views: 8,929 • Replies: 202

 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:29 am
@Advocate,
The main thing to consider is: The best possible guess about the middle east is that there will NEVER EVER be anything resembling real peace so long as there is a state of Israel...and any Arabs living in the area.

The ONLY real hope for PEACE is for every Arab to be killed...or for the state of Israel to leave the area.

These negotiations are nonsense. The EU's fixation on the Israeli "settlements" is completely understandable and reasonable. The fact that the US does not join with the EU in condemning the Israeli "settlements" is unfortunate.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:04 am

I say just ignore Europe and let them whine. They forfeited any right to ask for 1967 borders when they helped the Palestinians abrogate the Oslo Accords.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 03:02 pm
@oralloy,
Yeah, let them whine! Europe whined about the apartheid in South Africa, and look at where that got them.

You figure they would have learned something by now.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 03:11 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Yeah, let them whine! Europe whined about the apartheid in South Africa, and look at where that got them.
You figure they would have learned something by now.

There's a bit of a difference between "European anti-Semitism" and "opposition to Apartheid".

The biggest difference on a practical level is that the world is not going to join with Europe in their anti-Semitism.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 04:58 pm
@Advocate,
In yet another of Advi's cut and paste jobs, where he doesn't even get the title right, he quotes Alan Baker who wrote:
The publication of guidelines by the European Commission on the eligibility of Israeli entities for EU cooperation is the culmination of a concerted policy initiative led by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, directed against Israel's settlements in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] to press the Israeli government into making territorial and political concessions.

Good. At least one of the Middle East Quartet has the balls to stand up to the US/Zionists and their repression of the Palestinian peoples.

Quote:
This unprecedented and hostile EU fixation with Israel and its settlements is based on a series of long-standing and deliberately misleading and flawed legal and political assumptions regarding the illegality of Israel's settlements and the status of the pre-1967 armistice lines as Israel's border.

It’s not that the EU’s view of the Zionists’ settlements is misleading and legally flawed. It’s that the Zionists’ interpretations of the international laws concerning the settlements are self-serving rationalizations to further repress the Palestinian peoples.

Quote:
Similarly, they negate the very positions supported by the European states that endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 calling for "secure and recognized boundaries," and negate the EU's own commitments as signatory and witness to the Oslo Accords not to predetermine and undermine specific negotiating issues including the final status of the territories, borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and other issues.

What Baker conveniently ignores is that the Zionists themselves are unilaterally predetermining the final status of the territories they’re occupying by continuing to build and expand their settlements therein.
Another more important thing that Baker ignores about UN SCR 242 is that before it even mentions “secure and recognized boundaries” it demands the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
What the UN Security Council members should have done since it passed this resolution was to send a military force to drive the Zionists out of the territories.

Quote:
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), often cited as the basis for the claim that Israel's settlements are illegal, relates to deportations of over 40 million people subjected to forced migration, evacuation, displacement, and expulsion in World War II. The vast numbers of people affected and the aims and purposes behind such a population movement speak for themselves. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel's settlement policy.

Here, Baker is demonstrating that he is either a complete ignoramus as concerns the Fourth Geneva Convention, or that he is completely disingenuous about that convention.
Since 1993 after the Yugoslav Wars the entirety of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been held by the UN Security Council to be binding on all nations whenever they engage in armed conflicts. This of course included the Zionist state of Israel.

Quote:
The rigid fixation of the EU to assert that its agreements with Israel must reflect the non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over any territory beyond the 1967 lines stands out in contrast to European policy toward other conflicts.

The EU has many free trade agreements and understandings with countries whose territorial boundaries are in dispute. The EU has been negotiating a free trade agreement with India, yet its applicability to Kashmir is not under discussion. An EU fisheries agreement from 2005 allows European fisherman to operate in Western Sahara, even though the EU does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty in this territory.

Baker’s hysteria aside, the EU isn’t completely cutting off trade with Israel. It’s merely demanding that people and things emanating from its settlements be identified and shunned.

Quote:
The EU Targets the Settlements

Bully for the EU!

Quote:
Flawed Legal and Political Assumptions

This unprecedented and hostile EU fixation with Israel and its settlements, to the almost total exclusion of the other pressing issues in the Middle East, Europe, and throughout the world, is based on a series of long-standing and deliberately misleading and flawed legal and political assumptions regarding the illegality of Israel's settlements and the status of the pre-1967 armistice lines as Israel's border.

See my response above.

Quote:
These assumptions are all the more misleading and misguided in that they totally negate or deliberately flout the historic and legal rights granted by the international community, including Europe, to Israel and the Jewish people in a series of international agreements and commitments. The assumptions totally ignore the indigenous rights of the Jewish people in the area, as protected by international declarations.

Baker, like the typical Zionist that he is, completely ignores the historic and legal rights granted to the Palestinians—albeit prejudiced against them by the very international community through the very agreements and commitments to whom he refers—and their indigenous rights in the area as protected by international declarations.
Conveniently, Baker, again like the typical Zionist that he is, indulges in obfuscatory, religious-mythological flimflammery and ignores the fact that the Zionists are indigenous to Europe. What originated in Palestine is the cult of Yahweh and his worshippers, not the Ashkenazim.
The Palestinians are indigenous to the lands arrogated by the Zionists.

Quote:
Similarly, they negate the very positions supported by the European states that endorsed UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 calling for "secure and recognized boundaries". . .

Baker’s repeating himself here. See my response above.
Quote:
. . . and negate the EU's own commitments as signatory and witness to the Oslo Accords, to honour the content of those accords, and not to predetermine and undermine specific negotiating issues including the final status of the territories, borders, settlements, Jerusalem, and other issues.

What the EU is doing is countering the Zionists predetermination and undermining of specific negotiating issues as regards the final status of the territories they occupy, and borders through their construction of settlements that are deemed illegal by the international community in general, the spineless position of the Zionists’ superpower lapdog notwithstanding.

Quote:
As such, the present EU policy, including the commission notice, specifically undermines the negotiating process by taking sides, and by pre-determining the negotiating issues of settlements, Jerusalem and borders. As such, this fixation prejudices and obviates any claim by the EU to impartiality, and precludes the EU from performing any function within the negotiating process.

Again, the Zionists’ barefaced flaunting of international law is what is undermining the negotiating process. The EU is merely responding to the Zionists’ actions.
What Baker should be addressing in regard to impartiality is its lapdog’s impartiality in these negotiations which have effectively transformed them into negotiations between the Zionists/US and the Palestinians.
If impartiality precludes anyone from performing any function within the negotiating process it is the US that should be precluded.

Quote:
Israel's Rights Cannot Be Denied

The legality of Israel's settlements stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.

The Palestinians’ rights to these lands stem from the historic (not religious/mythological), indigenous and legal rights granted pursuant to those selfsame valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by the international community to which Baker refers. Additionally, their rights stem from other valid and binding international legal instruments recognized and accepted by most of the international community which the Zionists/US ignore because these instruments are inconvenient to their ends. The Palestinians’ rights cannot be denied or placed in question.

Quote:
They include the declaration unanimously adopted by the League of Nations, including the major European states, in the 1920 San Remo Declaration, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel as well as close Jewish settlement throughout.5 This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. This was subsequently affirmed internationally in the League of Nations 1922 Palestine Mandate instrument,6 and accorded continued validity, up to the present day, by Article 80 of the UN Charter which determines the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations).

None of these instruments validate the Zionists discrimination against and oppression of the Palestinian peoples. What’s more other instruments reiterate the Palestinians’’ rights to Palestine, namely, UN General Assembly Resolution 194, United Security Council Resolutions 237, 242 and 338.

Quote:
The "1967 Borders" Do Not Exist

The "1967 borders" do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors, establishing the armistice demarcation lines, clearly stated that these lines "are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." Accordingly, they cannot be accepted or declared to be Israel's border.8

UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called upon the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve "secure and recognized boundaries."9 The European state members of the Security Council approved that resolution.

Nowhere in these documents is it stipulated that the Zionists can unilaterally establish “borders” and “boundaries” pursuant to their own ends, which is the crux of the issue concerning their settlements.

Quote:
The Geneva Convention Does Not Apply to Israel's Settlements

The EU assumption regarding the illegality of Israel's settlement policy is legally flawed, and ignores authoritative sources regarding the provenance and interpretation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). This article prohibits the mass transfer of population into occupied territory, as practiced by Germany during the Second World War. It was neither relevant, nor was it ever intended to apply to Israel's settlements.

Baker’s repeating himself again. See my response above.

Quote:
According to the authoritative and official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross, published in 1958,10 as well as opinions by prominent international jurists, Article 49 relates to deportations of over 40 million people subjected to forced migration, evacuation, displacement, and expulsion. The vast numbers of people affected and the aims and purposes behind such a population movement speak for themselves. There is nothing to link such circumstances to Israel's settlement policy.11

Quoting the opinions of the International Committee of the Red Cross does not negate the fact that the international community applies the entirety of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all nations engaged in armed conflict.

Quote:
One may further ask if this is not a misreading, misunderstanding, or even distortion of that article and its context.

In regard to Baker’s obfuscations, indeed.

Quote:
Contradicting the Oslo Accords

The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what is known as the "Oslo Accords" in the full knowledge that Israel's settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on either side regarding planning, zoning, or construction of homes and communities in their respective areas of jurisdiction and control, pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

What this ignores is the fact that the Zionists’ continued building and expansion of its settlements undermines the sincerity and spirit of the negotiations seeing as how the territories it occupies were granted by UN resolution 181 as the Arab state in its partition plan.

Quote:
The repeated use by the EU of the term "occupied Arab," or "Palestinian territories" to refer to the area of Judea and Samaria has no basis in law or fact. Prior to 1967, there was no Palestinian state in the West Bank, which was under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The area has never been determined to be Palestinian territory. Thus the continued EU usage of the term runs against the very concept of negotiations to resolve the dispute regarding these areas, supported by the EU, to determine their permanent status.

This is more Zionist obfuscation. "The Palestinian territories" refers to those lands referred to by the Palestine Mandate that Baker points to as an instrument of Zionist legitimacy. The fact that there was no Palestinian state in the West Bank, or all of Palestine for that matter, is irrelevant.
The Palestinian peoples have rights to Palestine through the various instruments mentioned here that the Zionists continue to violate.

Quote:
The EU Fixation with Israel's Settlements

The EU fixation with Israel's settlements, and the action presently being taken against Israel pursuant to its directive, is clearly incompatible with the EU's standing as a member of the International Quartet, and serves to neutralize any pretentions the EU might have to serve a useful function in the negotiating process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The EU cannot presume to come with clean hands and claim to be an impartial element in the negotiating process. The EU has taken sides and as such, in its actions against Israel, it is undermining the negotiating process.

Baker’s repeating himself again.
Quote:
Moreover, the rigid fixation of the EU to assert that its agreements with Israel must reflect the non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over any territory beyond the 1967 lines stands out in contrast to European policy toward other conflicts.

The EU has many free trade agreements and other commercial understandings with countries whose territorial boundaries are in dispute. The EU has been negotiating a free trade agreement with India, yet its applicability to Kashmir is not under discussion. An EU fisheries agreement from 2005 allows European fisherman to operate in Western Sahara, even though the EU does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty in this territory. In Israel, EU policy is likely to be perceived as a case of double standards, according to which Israel is not granted the same rights as other states, in defiance of the principle of sovereign equality.

This is a red herring seeing as how neither India nor Morocco has settlements in Kashmir and Western Sahara in violation of international law. The Zionists have settlements in territories it occupies in violation of international law which is exactly what the EU’s directives are all about.

Quote:
Finally, the position and actions of the EU against Israel are all the more unfortunate and regrettable in light of the tragic Jewish history in Europe, which cannot be ignored or forgotten. One might have expected that realization of this factor would guide the wisdom and logic of the actions of the EU.

See Godwin’s law.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 06:53 pm
@oralloy,
Not according to Nelson Mandela, a man who knows something about opposition to Apartheid.

Heck, Nelson Mandela isn't even European.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 07:47 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Not according to Nelson Mandela, a man who knows something about opposition to Apartheid.
Heck, Nelson Mandela isn't even European.

Baldersash! You're suggesting that Mandela is an anti-Semite.

Balderdash again!
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 08:17 pm
@oralloy,
Factually you are suggesting that Mandela (or anyone who questions Israel's actions in the occupied territories) is an anti-Semite.

Mandela is clear on the topic.

Nelson Mandela wrote:
When in 1977, the United Nations passed the resolution inaugurating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, it was asserting the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine. In the same period, the UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system.

But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians; without the resolution of conflicts in East Timor, the Sudan and other parts of the world.


Whether you think this makes Nelson Mandela an anti-Semite (or a European) is your business.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:26 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Factually you are suggesting that Mandela (or anyone who questions Israel's actions in the occupied territories) is an anti-Semite.

No. But I say that anyone who associates Israel with Apartheid is an anti-Semite.

In regards to "questioning Israel's actions" more nuance is required before a judgement can be made. It can be anti-Semitism, or not, depending on details.



maxdancona wrote:
Mandela is clear on the topic.
Nelson Mandela wrote:
When in 1977, the United Nations passed the resolution inaugurating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people, it was asserting the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine. In the same period, the UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system.

But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians; without the resolution of conflicts in East Timor, the Sudan and other parts of the world.

Clear indeed. He clearly did not in any way link Europe's anti-Semitism with opposition to apartheid as you alleged he did.

Nor did he question any act by Israel.

He merely called for the Palestinians to gain their freedom.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:49 pm
@oralloy,
What does "the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine" mean to you?

Mandela made this speech in an international conference of "solidarity" with the Palestinian people suffering under Israeli occupation.

oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 09:56 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
What does "the recognition that injustice and gross human rights violations were being perpetrated in Palestine" mean to you?
Mandela made this speech in an international conference of "solidarity" with the Palestinian people suffering under Israeli occupation.

It means he is calling for the Palestinians to be free.

He certainly says nothing that can be construed as comparing Israeli actions to Apartheid.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:15 pm
@oralloy,
You can even lie to yourself, Oralboy, but that shouldn't come as any surprise.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:17 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
"opposition to Apartheid"


Was Europe's opposition to Apartheid a bad thing, Oral?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 10:38 pm
@JTT,
The question is irrelevant . There is no aparttheid in Israel.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 11:03 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201362661634861807.html

Whitewashing apartheid with Israel's dirty water
The glaring discrepancy in water allocation from West Bank supplies forces Palestinians to rely on water from tankers.
Last Modified: 01 Jul 2013 10:25

Belen Fernandez

Last week, on June 23, Israeli President Shimon Peres and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel attended a ceremony in Jerusalem in honour of a new joint initiative between Israel's Ben-Gurion University and the University of Chicago.

Hailing the Peres-Emanuel presence as an instance of "rare political star power", the Chicago Tribune explains:

"The two schools soon will begin funding a series of research projects aimed at creating nanotechnologies that address water shortages in arid climates. The project's goal is to find new materials and processes for making clean, fresh drinking water more plentiful and less expensive by 2020."

Among Israel's qualifications in the business of dealing with water shortages is, of course, its legendary success in "making the desert bloom" via the removal of Palestinians that began in the 1940s.

Indeed, Peres himself wrote in his 1970 book David's Sling: The Arming of Israel:

"The country was mostly an empty desert, with only a few islands of Arab settlement, and Israel's cultivable land today was indeed redeemed from swamp and wilderness."

The expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel no doubt assisted somewhat with the cultivation of the "empty desert" myth. Blooming projects have presumably also benefited from Israel's diversion of various regional bodies of water.

Water apartheid

A 1993 article in The New York Times outlines two competing visions of Israeli water policy:

"What Arabs depict as Israel's disproportionate use - even theft - of water, Israelis portray as the result of foresight, technological advances like computerised irrigation and good management in securing and exploiting supplies."

Of course, "theft" would appear to be an accurate description of Israeli practices such as usurping Palestinian springs for the benefit of illegal settlers in the West Bank.


Spotlight
Gaza Crisis
As for managerial deftness in the exploitation of supplies, consider this Reuters report from 2009: "Amnesty says Israel curbing water to Palestinians." Citing Amnesty International's calculation that per capita water consumption in Israel was four times higher than in the Palestinian territories, Reuters quotes an Amnesty official's concern:

"Water is a basic need and a right, but for many Palestinians obtaining even poor-quality, subsistence-level quantities of water has become a luxury that they can barely afford."

For one thing, the glaring discrepancy in water allocation from West Bank supplies leaves Palestinian residents of the territory reliant on water from tankers that are "forced to take long detours to avoid Israeli military checkpoints and roads off-limits to Palestinians".

According to a 2012 Oxfam briefing paper, tankered water is up to five times more costly, "further erod[ing] Palestinian farmers' and herders' profits, and reduc[ing] their ability to pay for essentials such as food, health care, and education for their children".





Quote:

http://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-apartheid-more-sophisticated-south-africas-says-new-book/12581

Israeli apartheid "more sophisticated" than South Africa’s, says new book

David Cronin The Electronic Intifada 1 July 2013
130701-dadoo-osman.jpg
Cover of new book Why Israel?
Why Israel? It is a question that every Palestine solidarity campaigner has probably been asked.

Usually, the question is posed as a diversionary tactic. Why excoriate Israel when more people are being killed in Syria than in Gaza?

Suraya Dadoo and Firoz Osman’s book Why Israel? cites numerous reasons to justify focusing on crimes committed in the name of Zionism. Every Zionist believes in the oppression of the Palestinians, the authors state. So an apologist for Israel has no moral authority to champion freedom anywhere.

Zionists like to moan that their opponents are trying to hold Israel to higher standards than other states. Yet it is Israel itself which pretends to have higher standards than its neighbors.

Israel purports to be an enlightened democracy that recently welcomed an A-list of Hollywood celebrities to a 90th birthday celebration for Shimon Peres, its president. Strip away that glamorous veneer, however, and you will find a vicious form of apartheid.

Dadoo and Osman are well-placed to identify what constitutes an apartheid state: they are from South Africa. In their book, which spans more than 630 pages, they draw plenty of parallels between how Israel treats the Palestinians and how blacks were treated in South Africa under white rule.

Many things they underscore are critically important, yet not widely-known.

Cherry-picking international law

How often does the mainstream media remind us that Israel’s approach to political prisoners mirrors that of apartheid South Africa? Both states decided to cherry-pick which parts of international law to respect; both refused to sign a protocol to the Geneva Conventions requiring that resistance fighters should not be treated as criminals when they are jailed.

How often are we encouraged to be outraged by how Israel’s inhumane laws keep families apart? Palestinians from the occupied West Bank and Gaza are denied the right to live in Israel, even if they wed Israeli citizens. Apartheid South Africa, too, imposed restrictions on who the country’s inhabitants could marry by forbidding interracial relations.

How often are we informed that Israel has declared itself to be in a “state of emergency” every year since its inception in 1948? This declaration is used as a pretext to prevent freedom of expression and assembly and to forbid Palestinians from entering “closed military areas.” Apartheid South Africa, too, was fond of issuing diktats on the grounds that it was in a “state of emergency.”

And how often are told that Israeli propagandists use almost identical techniques to those employed by apartheid South Africa? During the 1980s, Israeli journalists were brought to South Africa on all-expenses-paid trips on the understanding that they would help whitewash apartheid. Israel and the lobby groups dedicated to defending it offer the same kind of junkets to reporters, subject to the same provisos today.

Challenging lies

A key reason why you should read this book is that it provides activists with ammunition for challenging Zionist lies. When the term “apartheid” is applied to Israel, a common riposte is to brag that Israel is so kind towards its Palestinian citizens (“Israeli Arabs,” as Zionists call them) that it allows them vote and stand in elections. This situation contrasts with that of apartheid South Africa, where the black majority was completely disenfranchised.

Dadoo and Osman demonstrate that such arguments are specious. Denying the right to vote, they point out, is not explicitly mentioned on a list of what constitutes racial discrimination included in the United Nations’ Apartheid Convention from 1973. That convention also makes clear that a state doesn’t have to mimic white-ruled South Africa in all respects to be guilty of apartheid.

In an especially perceptive passage, the authors write: “Israel’s version of apartheid is more sophisticated than the South African version. South African apartheid was rudimentary, petty, primitive — literally black and white, clear separation, no rights. Israel’s apartheid is more hidden with the deceptive image of ‘democracy.’ Palestinian citizens of Israel have the right to vote. However, in every other area they are discriminated against by law and policy.”

Comprehensive

Though rigorously researched and accompanied by copious footnotes, this book relies slightly too much on secondary sources for my liking. Rather than paraphrasing the numerous writers and journalists whose work they have studied, Dadoo and Osman tend to paste excerpts from other publications.

With the exception of some references to the Media Review Network, which the duo represent, we are not given a direct insight into the authors’ own experiences. As a result, the book is not as engaging as it had the potential to be.

If you have only recently become active in the Palestine solidarity movement and require a primer on the comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa, then this wouldn’t be the first source of information I would recommend. Ben White’s book Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide and the documentary Roadmap to Apartheid by Ana Nogeuira and Eron Davidson are both more concise and digestible.

Those seeking a comprehensive overview of all the important issues relating to Palestine would be well-advised, on the other hand, to check out Why Israel?

Few, if any, of the essential facts have escaped its authors’ attention.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 11:33 pm
The question is not "Is Israel the same as South Africa?"
It is "do Israel's actions meet the international definition of what apartheid is?"

The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

http://www.ceia-sc.org/page55/page55.html
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jul, 2013 11:35 pm
@JTT,
Notes for:
A brief overview of apartheid in "The only democracy in the Middle East"

Source: http://www.interfaithpeaceinitiative.com/apartheid.php

Unequal funding for Arab education
There are separate and inferior school systems for Arabs inside Israel. In 2001, Human Rights Watch reported that one in four of Israel's 1.6 million schoolchildren is educated in a completely separate public school system. The report stated that "Palestinian Arab children attend schools with larger classes and fewer teachers than do those in the Jewish school system, with some children having to travel long distances to reach the nearest school. Arab schools also contrast dramatically with the larger system in their frequent lack of basic learning facilities like libraries, computers, science laboratories, and even recreation space… The educational system has given a low priority to teacher training for the Arab school system… Palestinian Arab teachers on average have lower qualifications and receive lower salaries than non-Palestinian Arab teachers."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-10.htm
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/49/8/1075
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-06.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-06.htm#P1339_191271

Arab history, Israel's borders removed from public school textbooks
Teachers are not allowed to teach students in public schools about the Arab history in the region. Israeli textbooks do not show the "Green Line" or the internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied territories. They refer to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria." "Teachers for the Arab schools are approved by the state security service, the Shin Bet, and the curriculum is designed to remove references to Palestinian history and culture…. The Shin Bet prohibits even great Arab and Palestinian literature from inclusion in the curriculum"
http://www.peykarandeesh.org/noFarsi/Condition.html,
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/796896.html,
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/21480/format/html/displaystory.html

Unequal funding for Arab towns
Arab towns and villages in Israel do not receive the same funding as Jewish towns, even though taxation rates are equal for Arabs and Jews. Israel has a system of progressive taxation, with wealthier individuals paying more than those with low incomes. Under such a system, poorer communities are supposed to be helped by the higher taxes paid in wealthier ones, but this is not the case when it comes to Arab neighborhoods in Israel According to a report by the US State Department, Government spending was proportionally lower in predominantly Arab areas than in Jewish areas, which adversely affected children in Arab villages and cities."
http://www.jewishcurrents.org/2003-jan-muraskin.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm
According to Israeli journalist Ori Nir, "Between 1975 and 2000, only 0.3 percent of public construction initiated and subsidized by the Israeli government was for Arabs." In the years 2000 -- 2004,Arab citizens received less than 5% of the overall Regular Budget of Israel. In 2005, less than 3% of the Development Budget was allocated to the Arab communities.
http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/israels_arab_minority.html,
http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/arabsinisrael.htm
http://www.mossawacenter.org/files/files/File/mossawa%20news%202005.pdf

Right of return for Jews only
Palestinians are denied the right to return to homes and lands that have been taken from them in Israel, while a person with one Jewish grandparent anywhere in the world can settle on land that has been taken from Arabs inside Israel or on Palestinian land in the occupied territories in violation of international law. (The Geneva Conventions prohibit a country from moving its own population into territory it occupies: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." -- Article 49)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/issues/1099279.stm
http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html,
http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english,
http://www.jewishcurrents.org/2003-jan-muraskin.htm

Denial of family unification for Arabs
In 2003, the Israeli Knesset enacted legislation that denies any possibility of formal residency status for Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza who are married to Israeli citizens or residents. According to UCLA professor Saree Makdisi, "Israel's newly revised nationality law … prohibits Palestinian citizens of Israel from marrying Palestinians from the occupied territories and living with their spouses in Israel. The same law does not apply to Jewish Israelis who marry Jewish settlers living in the occupied territories. Interestingly, similar legislation had been proposed in South Africa at the peak of Apartheid, only to be rejected by that country's supreme court. Israel's nationality law, however, was endorsed by Israel's High Court just this year." (2006) The law is unconstitutional as it discriminates on the basis of national origin.
http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=255.
http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A2104_0_1_0_M,
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/racism.html

Unrecognized Arab Villages Denied Basic Services or Destroyed
Many Palestinian villages, some predating the establishment of Israel, are unrecognized by the government, and thus receive no running water, electricity, or access roads. Some do not appear on maps. A number have been destroyed in recent years.
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/382
Approximately 450 Palestinian villages were destroyed after Israel declared its independence in 1948
.http://www.palestineremembered.com/.
215,000 Palestinians in 220 villages have no connection to a sewer system.
http://www.peykarandeesh.org/noFarsi/Condition.html


READ ON AT,


http://www.ceia-sc.org/page55/page23/page23.html
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 24 Jul, 2013 02:14 am
With this, Advocate is incapable of seeing the truth in this matter. The facts about Israel's apartheid system have been pointed out lots of times before. He just chooses to bury his head in the sand. I think he's got his eye on a Palestinian kidney.

The only ethical response is to keep solidarity with the Palestinians and observe the boycott.

Quote:
Israel continues to build illegal settlements and the wall, controls Gaza, denies Palestinian refugees their right to return, grows produce and sets up industrial zones on stolen Palestinian land. Only international pressure can deliver a just peace for Palestinians.

As Governments have failed to hold Israel accountable, it is up to people of conscience in civil society worldwide to heed Palestinian calls for protection and justice. Only international pressure can make Israel cease its violations of international law and human rights.

Why boycott?

It lets the Palestinian people know that they are not forgotten and the justice of their cause is recognised.

It sends a signal that the world will not sit by whilst Israel flouts UN resolutions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention and other international laws – Israel cannot be allowed to act with impunity.

It enables decisions made in their everyday lives by people outside Israel and Palestine to refresh and reinforce their opposition to Israeli policy.

It exerts moral pressure on the British Government by giving expression to the desire to move towards a more ethical foreign policy.

It provides an excellent way of stimulating public debate, offers a focus for leafleting and discussion, as well as exerting moral and economic pressure on Israel to comply with international legislation and principles of justice.

Apartheid was weakened by a similar international movement of solidarity that succeeded in branding South Africa as a pariah state. Despite obvious differences between these two forms of oppression, this antecedent provides an inspiring model


http://www.palestinecampaign.org/boycott/
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jul, 2013 02:45 am
@Advocate,
This directive is just a legal procedure, a result of the decision made by all 28 EU-countries' foreign ministesr in December 2012.


Quote:
Finance Minister Yair Lapid said: "This decision is another in a long line of decisions that isolate Israel. Time is not in out favor, and every day that Israel does not engage in peace talks is a day in which our international status sustains more damage."


Quote:
Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yachimovich also responded to the EU's decision to ban agreements with Israel which include settlements, saying that "the increasing diplomatic isolation is causing harm to the country and the market, and poses a strategic threat no less severe than the one posed by the sophisticated weapons aimed at us.

Yachimovich, the opposition leader, also called on the prime minister to hold peace talks with the Palestinians as soon as possible, with the real intent of reaching a final agreement, "not for the sake of the Europeans, the Americans or the Palestinians, but for Israel.

All quotes fro ynet, published last week.

 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
  1. Forums
  2. » EU's Hostile Fixation on Israeli Settlements
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/16/2018 at 12:22:08