Palestinian issue takes centre stage

Israel’s illegal occupation and its persistent violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been gaining wider attention ahead of the next UN General Assembly session that starts in September, 2016 in New York and also the US Presidential election that takes place slightly later on in November

The sensitive question of Israel’s relation with the USA and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian issue has grabbed particular attention within the evolving equation of the US Presidential election. Analysts were consequently not surprised with the harsh exchange of views between Democratic US Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in New York in the second week of April. The two candidates according to “Politico” took different approaches. Sanders focused on the Palestinians and Clinton focused on the Israelis. Sanders commented that “we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity”. Clinton shot back that she had been involved in high level peace talks with both groups for years and also added that Israelis “do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted against Israel”. Sanders retorted that Clinton had a pattern of not focusing enough on the Palestinians. He, a person with a Jewish background, went on to add that “there comes a time when we have to say that Netanyahu is not right all the time”. It may be added that recently, four candidates for the US Presidency, including Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have made it a point to voice their ardent support for Israel at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention.
This has assumed special significance in the past few days given the growing Palestinian criticism over the 'double standard' of the European Union with regard to the question of illegal Israeli settlements. Many observers are also pointing out an existing disconnect between European actions and rhetoric on labeling Israeli settlement products. It may be mentioned here that the European Union incidentally is Israel's largest trading partner, with bilateral trade in 2014 amounting to $34 billion.
This paradox in relations led to the convening of a conference in Jerusalem in March, 2016 where hundreds of Israelis and their supporters gathered under one roof, with an explicit aim to combat the Palestinian-led human rights campaign -“Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement. Analysts were shocked to note how some panellists - including the US comedian Roseanne Barr - called for varied methods to fight the movement, including the "targeted civil elimination" of BDS leaders, which some have called a euphemism for assassinations. Among the speakers at the Stop the Boycott conference was the European Union's Ambassador to Israel, who said that Israeli settlement products were "welcome on the EU market". Lars Faaborg-Andersen also said that "the EU is against BDS”, and that "our policy is totally the opposite - one of engagement with Israel, and we have a long track record to prove it."
The interesting thing is that the European Union is not only Israel's largest trading partner but also one of its most important science and technology partners. It also maintains a web of military relations and weapons research. Faaborg-Andersen's comments came after the EU had issued a set of guidelines for labelling products from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories - a move that caused uproar in Israel. This was despite the fact that such a measure would affect less than 1 per cent of the country's trade with the EU. Observers have consequently pointed out that Faaborg-Andersen's attendance and statement at the forum highlighted a double standard on the part of the EU and was an indicator of a large discrepancy between the rhetoric of the EU and its actions.  
It may be noted here that while it is mandatory to identify some products - such as fruits, vegetables, honey and olive oil - as having been made in illegal settlements, such labelling is voluntary for other goods, including pre-packaged foods and the majority of industrial products. Israeli companies also circumvent the labelling guidelines process by mixing goods produced in illegal settlements with others made in Israel, and then exporting them as the latter. The EU has claimed that the Office of the EU Representative for the West Bank and Gaza Strip is aware of such risks, and is working to minimise these types of circumvention.
 Some analysts however believe that this distinction - labelling rather than banning settlement goods – detracts from the effectiveness of the guidelines. Supporters of this trend of thought also assert that by only labelling products made in settlements while maintaining trade relations with these settlements; the EU is actually indirectly continuing to finance their expansion and perpetuate Israel's occupation.
Latest developments within this dynamics also appear to have added to the complexity.  This has been so partly because at the request of the US, the EU has delayed publishing its own comprehensive set of labelling rules in 2014. This was done because Washington pointed out that it was attempting to restart peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The activists associated with BDS are now feeling that much more insecure with the way politics is evolving in the Presidential election year in the USA. To that has been added the anti-boycott measures that have targeted activists in Europe, most notably in France in recent months. BDS activism has been criminalized in that country. Barghouti, one of the leaders of BDS has also stated that "the UK [also] is seeking to restrict local democracy by attempting to intimidate elected local councils and other publicly funded institutions and prevent them from supporting BDS initiatives."
Interestingly, it has also been revealed that a few weeks ago the Human Rights body of the United Nations approved a plan to create a database of Companies that might be profiting from illegal settlement activities. Contrary to expectations of human rights activists all eight EU States who are currently members of the UN Human Rights council abstained from voting on this Resolution. Some members aligned with the bloc- Albania, Macedonia and Georgia also did likewise. The United Kingdom and Denmark even spoke against the proposal. This was interpreted by some as being in contrast with the European Union’s espoused values and legal commitments.
Israel’s illegal occupation and its persistent violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been gaining wider attention ahead of the next UN General Assembly session that starts in September, 2016 in New York and also the US Presidential election that takes place slightly later on in November. It is also being pointed out in this regard that there is no ambiguity with the term occupation. This is so because Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are governed under military law, rather than civil law. That is evidence that Israel itself recognizes the legal fact of occupation, despite what its right wing politicians might claim.
It would be worthwhile to re-visit some of the factors associated with the Palestinian issue. That would explain the importance of this critical question.
One has to start in this regard with the word “Occupation”. This refers to the fact that Israel seized in 1967 what is now termed as the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) in an act of war. The United Nations condemned this action, and expressed that condemnation in Resolution 242 (November 1967). This Resolution emphasizes “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security.”
The UN also set forth principles calling for “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; termination of all claims or state of belligerency and respect for, and acknowledgment of, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” This statement thereby connoted the inviolable right of the Palestinians to a State. Unfortunately, instead of Israel acting in accord with this resolution, which was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council, including the United States, what we have is an unbroken history of Israel denying Palestinians their rights and land for decades. In addition, there has been no reduction in the appropriation of Palestinian land and Israel’s building of illegal settlements.
It needs to be understood here that Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate various international laws of occupation- the Fourth Geneva Convention (which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its citizens into the territory it occupies and from transferring or displacing the population of an occupied territory within or outside the territory) and the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, which established the Court’s jurisdiction over war crimes (including the crime related to transfer of civilian population of an occupying power into an occupied territory, and the forcible transfer of the population of an occupied territory). It may also be noted here that the State of Palestine is now an ICC member. Israel’s confiscation of land, water, and other natural resources for the benefit of settlements and residents of Israel also violate the Hague Regulations of 1907, which prohibit an occupying power from expropriating the resources of occupied territory for its own benefit. In addition, Palestinian activists also point out that Israel’s settlement projects violate international human rights law because of its associated discriminatory policies against Palestinians.
It appears that the paradox of the existing Israel- Palestinian situation is being further exacerbated by the ongoing scramble among US politicians to gain the favor of the Israeli lobby and its financially supported media. It is almost Orwellian by denotation, particularly when one comes across promises made by US Presidential hopefuls that they will not only increase the sum of direct, unrestricted military aid to Israel in case one of them wins, but also continue to provide diplomatic cover against UN resolutions or any other mode of censure or sanctions.
This equation assumes an interesting dimension when one notes that on 27 March, 2016, the UN Human Rights Council adopted six resolutions in Geneva at its 31st regular session.  Of the six measures it approved, four had to do with Israel-Palestine: (a) reaffirming the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its support for the solution of two States living side by side in peace and security; (b) requesting the High Commissioner to review the implementation of recommendations addressed to all parties since 2009; (c) demanding that Israel immediately cease and reverse all settlement activities and that the High Commissioner should  investigate the implications of settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people.
One can only hope that reason prevails within this contentious paradigm and the continuing vexatious issue of an independent State of Palestine is resolved sooner than later. The next generation growing up there deserves a better future than their parents.
It also needs to be remembered by the Permanent as well as the other members of the UN Security Council that all Member States of the UN, including Israel, have to abide by decisions of the UN Security Council. Israel’s latest views on the Golan can only exacerbate an already sensitive issue.
 Muhammad Zamir, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs,
right to information and good
governance. He can be reached at [email protected]

 

Palestinian issue takes centre stage

Israels illegal occupation and its persistent violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been gaining wider attention ahead of the next UN General Assembly session that starts in September, 2016 in New York and also the US Presidential election that takes place slightly later on in November

The sensitive question of Israels relation with the USA and Israels treatment of the Palestinian issue has grabbed particular attention within the evolving equation of the US Presidential election. Analysts were consequently not surprised with the harsh exchange of views between Democratic US Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in New York in the second week of April. The two candidates according to Politico took different approaches. Sanders focused on the Palestinians and Clinton focused on the Israelis. Sanders commented that we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity. Clinton shot back that she had been involved in high level peace talks with both groups for years and also added that Israelis do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by Hamas aided and abetted against Israel. Sanders retorted that Clinton had a pattern of not focusing enough on the Palestinians. He, a person with a Jewish background, went on to add that there comes a time when we have to say that Netanyahu is not right all the time. It may be added that recently, four candidates for the US Presidency, including Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have made it a point to voice their ardent support for Israel at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) convention. This has assumed special significance in the past few days given the growing Palestinian criticism over the double standard of the European Union with regard to the question of illegal Israeli settlements. Many observers are also pointing out an existing disconnect between European actions and rhetoric on labeling Israeli settlement products. It may be mentioned here that the European Union incidentally is Israels largest trading partner, with bilateral trade in 2014 amounting to $34 billion. This paradox in relations led to the convening of a conference in Jerusalem in March, 2016 where hundreds of Israelis and their supporters gathered under one roof, with an explicit aim to combat the Palestinian-led human rights campaign -Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Analysts were shocked to note how some panellists - including the US comedian Roseanne Barr - called for varied methods to fight the movement, including the targeted civil elimination of BDS leaders, which some have called a euphemism for assassinations. Among the speakers at the Stop the Boycott conference was the European Unions Ambassador to Israel, who said that Israeli settlement products were welcome on the EU market. Lars Faaborg-Andersen also said that the EU is against BDS, and that our policy is totally the opposite - one of engagement with Israel, and we have a long track record to prove it. The interesting thing is that the European Union is not only Israels largest trading partner but also one of its most important science and technology partners. It also maintains a web of military relations and weapons research. Faaborg-Andersens comments came after the EU had issued a set of guidelines for labelling products from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories - a move that caused uproar in Israel. This was despite the fact that such a measure would affect less than 1 per cent of the countrys trade with the EU. Observers have consequently pointed out that Faaborg-Andersens attendance and statement at the forum highlighted a double standard on the part of the EU and was an indicator of a large discrepancy between the rhetoric of the EU and its actions. It may be noted here that while it is mandatory to identify some products - such as fruits, vegetables, honey and olive oil - as having been made in illegal settlements, such labelling is voluntary for other goods, including pre-packaged foods and the majority of industrial products. Israeli companies also circumvent the labelling guidelines process by mixing goods produced in illegal settlements with others made in Israel, and then exporting them as the latter. The EU has claimed that the Office of the EU Representative for the West Bank and Gaza Strip is aware of such risks, and is working to minimise these types of circumvention. Some analysts however believe that this distinction - labelling rather than banning settlement goods detracts from the effectiveness of the guidelines. Supporters of this trend of thought also assert that by only labelling products made in settlements while maintaining trade relations with these settlements; the EU is actually indirectly continuing to finance their expansion and perpetuate Israels occupation. Latest developments within this dynamics also appear to have added to the complexity. This has been so partly because at the request of the US, the EU has delayed publishing its own comprehensive set of labelling rules in 2014. This was done because Washington pointed out that it was attempting to restart peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The activists associated with BDS are now feeling that much more insecure with the way politics is evolving in the Presidential election year in the USA. To that has been added the anti-boycott measures that have targeted activists in Europe, most notably in France in recent months. BDS activism has been criminalized in that country. Barghouti, one of the leaders of BDS has also stated that the UK [also] is seeking to restrict local democracy by attempting to intimidate elected local councils and other publicly funded institutions and prevent them from supporting BDS initiatives. Interestingly, it has also been revealed that a few weeks ago the Human Rights body of the United Nations approved a plan to create a database of Companies that might be profiting from illegal settlement activities. Contrary to expectations of human rights activists all eight EU States who are currently members of the UN Human Rights council abstained from voting on this Resolution. Some members aligned with the bloc- Albania, Macedonia and Georgia also did likewise. The United Kingdom and Denmark even spoke against the proposal. This was interpreted by some as being in contrast with the European Unions espoused values and legal commitments. Israels illegal occupation and its persistent violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been gaining wider attention ahead of the next UN General Assembly session that starts in September, 2016 in New York and also the US Presidential election that takes place slightly later on in November. It is also being pointed out in this regard that there is no ambiguity with the term occupation. This is so because Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are governed under military law, rather than civil law. That is evidence that Israel itself recognizes the legal fact of occupation, despite what its right wing politicians might claim. It would be worthwhile to re-visit some of the factors associated with the Palestinian issue. That would explain the importance of this critical question. One has to start in this regard with the word Occupation. This refers to the fact that Israel seized in 1967 what is now termed as the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) in an act of war. The United Nations condemned this action, and expressed that condemnation in Resolution 242 (November 1967). This Resolution emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security. The UN also set forth principles calling for withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; termination of all claims or state of belligerency and respect for, and acknowledgment of, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. This statement thereby connoted the inviolable right of the Palestinians to a State. Unfortunately, instead of Israel acting in accord with this resolution, which was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council, including the United States, what we have is an unbroken history of Israel denying Palestinians their rights and land for decades. In addition, there has been no reduction in the appropriation of Palestinian land and Israels building of illegal settlements. It needs to be understood here that Israeli settlements in the West Bank violate various international laws of occupation- the Fourth Geneva Convention (which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its citizens into the territory it occupies and from transferring or displacing the population of an occupied territory within or outside the territory) and the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, which established the Courts jurisdiction over war crimes (including the crime related to transfer of civilian population of an occupying power into an occupied territory, and the forcible transfer of the population of an occupied territory). It may also be noted here that the State of Palestine is now an ICC member. Israels confiscation of land, water, and other natural resources for the benefit of settlements and residents of Israel also violate the Hague Regulations of 1907, which prohibit an occupying power from expropriating the resources of occupied territory for its own benefit. In addition, Palestinian activists also point out that Israels settlement projects violate international human rights law because of its associated discriminatory policies against Palestinians. It appears that the paradox of the existing Israel- Palestinian situation is being further exacerbated by the ongoing scramble among US politicians to gain the favor of the Israeli lobby and its financially supported media. It is almost Orwellian by denotation, particularly when one comes across promises made by US Presidential hopefuls that they will not only increase the sum of direct, unrestricted military aid to Israel in case one of them wins, but also continue to provide diplomatic cover against UN resolutions or any other mode of censure or sanctions. This equation assumes an interesting dimension when one notes that on 27 March, 2016, the UN Human Rights Council adopted six resolutions in Geneva at its 31st regular session. Of the six measures it approved, four had to do with Israel-Palestine: (a) reaffirming the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its support for the solution of two States living side by side in peace and security; (b) requesting the High Commissioner to review the implementation of recommendations addressed to all parties since 2009; (c) demanding that Israel immediately cease and reverse all settlement activities and that the High Commissioner should investigate the implications of settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people. One can only hope that reason prevails within this contentious paradigm and the continuing vexatious issue of an independent State of Palestine is resolved sooner than later. The next generation growing up there deserves a better future than their parents. It also needs to be remembered by the Permanent as well as the other members of the UN Security Council that all Member States of the UN, including Israel, have to abide by decisions of the UN Security Council. Israels latest views on the Golan can only exacerbate an already sensitive issue. Muhammad Zamir, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. He can be reached at [email protected]