Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2006, pages 21-22

The European Front

The EU, Israel and International Law: a Blueprint for Peace

By The International Forum for Justice and Peace

The International Forum for Justice and Peace (IFJP) selected as its principal aim promoting lasting peace between Israel and the emerging State of Palestine. Its two points of departure are international law and the Israeli claim to be a Western state.

The European Perspective

Israel is, geographically speaking, a small country. Considerable inequality in political, economic and social rights exists between Jewish groupings from Western Europe, Russia and the Arab world. Bedouins and Arab Israelis live in even worse conditions. Israel does not separate church and state. Hence Jewish democracy, with exclusive rabbinical power over birth, marriage and death, is a contradiction in terms.

Israel is highly dependent on external military and economic aid, mostly from private and official sources in the United States and, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, directly and indirectly from Europe. Without these inputs, it should be considered a failed state.

From Israel’s foreign policy perspective, the realization of the Zionist ideal of creating a Jewish State, the Palestinian territories included, takes center stage. As a result, the identity of the Palestinian people is being destroyed in a comprehensive and decades-long strategy. Israel’s refusal to make peace is all too obvious—that would mean the end of the Zionist dream. Although this policy is unsustainable, the EU nonetheless doggedly condones and even actively supports it.

Israeli foreign policies also aim at weakening surrounding Arab states and Iran—if necessary, with military might. Israel is the military heavyweight in the region. Palestine apart, its military power is limited to just incidental incursions abroad.

The U.S. administration has adopted the doctrine of “rogue states.” These possess weapons of mass destruction illegally, suppress large populations, torture, keep people in detention on a large scale and commit murder outside their national borders. Presently, the U.S. considers Syria, Iran and North Korea to be members of the “Axis of Evil.”

Israel has adopted as a strategy land and water grabs, the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure (including in security, education and health), the carrying out of extraterritorial executions, torture, collective punishments and keeping a million people in prison in Gaza and thousands of Palestinians imprisoned indefinitely without charge or prosecution. According to U.S. criteria, Israel has, ever since its establishment, been a monumental rogue state and a highly active member of the Axis of Evil.

Why should Europe become an accessory to Israeli violations of international humanitarian law?

Is Israel important for Europe? Hardly—no more so than, say, the Lebanon. Economic interests are modest at most. Political assets are virtually nonexistent. Liabilities abound.

Israel’s foreign policies are nothing less than a disaster for Europe. The Middle East is an important, but sensitive, neighboring region:

• Constant energy flows from the Middle East to Europe are vital. Europe’s favorite, Israel, plays a negative role in this equation;
• The community of 1.4 billion Muslims—quite a few of them citizens in the inner cities of EU member states—is deeply upset by Europe’s continuous support of Israel and its aggression against the Palestinian people and its institutions;
• The present political and financial isolation of Palestine by the Western world creates a political vacuum. Already irritated Muslim countries and dubious groupings are eager to fill the gap, seriously reducing the Western world’s leverage in that part of the world;
• The Muslim world is equally enraged by the invasion of Iraq, [which] allegedly ignored four U.N. Security Council resolutions. Israel has ignored 33 resolutions, risking no retaliation whatsoever;
• Violations of the law committed by Israel against the Palestinian population are not the sole, but certainly one explanation of the fury among 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide. This anger erupts, among other ways, in the form of Muslim terrorism and renewed anti-Semitism. As a result, European constitutional and personal freedoms are revoked, ministers and other persons in the public eye are threatened and hundreds of innocent people are killed in terrorist attacks in the Western world, the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.

Supporting Israel and condoning its crimes has made the EU an unreliable ally for Muslim countries and has eroded its credibility and influence. In political, economic and military terms, Israel is hardly an asset for Europe’s interests abroad, but rather a huge liability.

In addition to this disequilibrium, there are legal and moral aspects of concern. Why should Europe, in its continued passivity, condoning and even subsidizing, become an accessory to the large-scale Israeli violations of international humanitarian law and universal human rights? Why should the Western world want to throw away its honor and its international standing for a manifestly wrong cause?

The European Union and its member states have fallen victim to misdirected guilt feelings, Israeli manipulations of truth and law, as well as to blackmail by Jewish and Christian lobbies. Europe has become an instrument of Israel’s foreign policy and thus become part of the problem and not of the solution. Europe has forgotten to protect its core moral and legal standings and neglected its own vital interests. The future of a viable, peaceful, civilized Israeli state is in real danger. In defending this regime, Europe contributes to Israel’s inevitable downfall.

The ICJ Opinion

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague—the supreme international authority administering justice—made history in its Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004 on “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The Court authorized Palestine’s participation at the peace negotiations on an equal footing, thus acknowledging Palestine as a partner in the conflict. Rejecting the argument that the Wall is necessary for self-protection as well as its being established on Palestine territory, as argued by Israel, the Court ruled that Israel must demolish the Wall and pay compensations for damages inflicted; that Palestine territory is “occupied” and not “contested,” as Israel advanced; that the settlements constitute a violation of international law.

The ICJ opinion denies Israel the legal grounds to negotiate the annexations of the occupied territories, East Jerusalem included. It confirmed that the international treaties on universal human rights as well as conventions on humanitarian law apply.

The ICJ Opinion stated present international law, and is devastating for Israel and the Security Council. According to the ICJ, the latter failed in its first and foremost duty: maintaining international peace and security. The Court was of the opinion that the U.N. should redouble its efforts toward a speedy solution, taking this Opinion into account. The ICJ thus reconfirmed the validity and applicability of the international rule of law.

The U.S. and Israel rejected the ICJ opinion even before they knew its contents. Both countries have thereby acknowledged that international law is not on their side. During the ICJ court proceedings, Israel—supported by the U.S.—stated that the wall was a temporary measure and not the permanent border with Palestine. This, obviously was a lie—sadly enough, a bloody lie.

Lasting Peace Is Feasible

No solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears to be in sight. The most important reasons presently are the structural refusal on the Israeli side and the deviation from international law of peace initiatives such as Madrid, Oslo and Geneva. Yet, lasting peace between Israel and Palestine is feasible. The basis, of course, is international law, notably:

• Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 (meant to be the foundation of any peace, it demands Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories. The acquisition of land through war is stated as illegal.);
• Security Council Resolution 338 of 1973 (cease all firing and terminate military activity and start immediately implementing 242);
• Security Council Resolution 1515 of 2003 (the two-state solution);
• The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 2004;
• The Fourth Geneva Convention in respect to humanitarian law, on the responsibilities of the occupying power and the rights of the occupied people. Israel should provide them with security, education and health services. Israel has done the contrary. The occupied people have rights, including armed self-defense.

As a result of the ICJ ruling, Israel has no right to negotiate on the occupied territories and must withdraw from these territories forthwith, and Palestinians should be in a position to subsequently negotiate with Israel on an equal footing. The international community, and notably the Western world, must recognize the State of Palestine without delay.

The international community must recognize the State of Palestine without delay.

Israel must immediately apply the Fourth Geneva Convention, thus ending its military aggression and giving the Palestinians the necessary protection against military violence and the constant abuse by illegal colonists. Israel must—on the basis of Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967—give up the occupied territories forthwith and fully honor the directives of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. Following the member states of the EU, Israel must recognize the State of Palestine. Israel may have just two properties in the former occupied territories: an office in East Jerusalem as the future Israeli embassy in the State of Palestine, and a residence for the future ambassador. Israel must issue an agreement without delay for the Palestinian ambassador in West Jerusalem.

Consequences of Rejectionism

If it fails to do so promptly, Israel would face the consequences:

• An EU proposal for a U.N. tribunal for Israel in The Hague (the proposal is important to make, even given an automatic U.S. veto);
• In cases of dual nationality with European countries, Israeli citizens would be subject to prosecution in the International Criminal Court for offenses against universal human rights and humanitarian law committed after July 2002 (when the International Criminal Court was established);
• Elected Israeli politicians (the key decision-makers), judges (who rule torture as being within the law) and top military brass (who instruct soldiers to kill Palestinian citizens at random) will be prosecuted in member states that provide the legal base: France, Germany, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden;
• All official Israeli deposits in the European Union will be frozen pending the imposition of financial sanctions;
• These will be applied where Israel fails to: dismantle its weapons of mass destruction in a verifiable manner, in return for internationally guaranteed borders; recognize the State of Palestine; withdraw from the occupied territories and evacuate all settlements; disarm all illegal colonists forthwith and repatriate them to Israel; dismantle the illegal Wall and pay reparations; free the Palestinian prisoners; stop the siege of Gaza completely; refrain from attacking Palestinian targets; end the identification system for Palestinian citizens. (Israeli assets also will be used for financing a proper Palestinian identification card replacing the Israeli instrument of suppression. The EU would underwrite this project.);
• Because it is Israel’s legal obligation, the EU stops financing Palestine, thus ending its subsidy of Israel’s mechanisms of suppression;
• Israel would be excluded from cooperation with NATO and other forms of military cooperation, the Association Treaty with the European Union would be suspended, commodities and services would be barred from importation into the EU;
• The assets of Israeli politicians, judges and high-ranking military personnel would be frozen, to be taken into consideration in EU court proceedings against these individuals;
• All infrastructure and buildings in the Israeli settlements must be handed over in excellent condition as a first installment for reparation payments;
• Reparation payments of many billions of euros would serve as compensation for material and immaterial damage inflicted on the Palestinian people since Jan. 1, 1968—the date by which Israel could have withdrawn from the occupied territories on the basis of Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967. This amount is to be doubled as from the start of the construction of the illegal Wall until its total demolition and complete compensation to Palestinian victims;
• Visas for Europe would be imposed, denying Israeli politicians, judges and top military brass access to the EU. Because settlers seizing Palestinian properties committed a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention they would be refused entry, also when in transit.

With the adoption of these measures, Israel will listen and climb down within two years—and lasting peace will be in sight.

This is an abridged version of an IFJP Policy Note issued in May 2006. The complete version may be viewed at <www.just-peace.org>.

< Prev		Next >