The Fictitious claims of Israel’s Occupation-Apologists in Northern Ireland

Posted on by
Reply

During the course of the last year, a concentrated effort has been made by the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel, and the Democratic Unionist Party to unfairly single out the cooperative group for attack. This is largely due to its 2012 Human Rights and Ethical Trading policy, outlining clearly under what circumstances the Co-op would withdraw its trade and investment.

Certain communities in Northern Ireland – encouraged by a political class that often demonstrates proclivity for espousing morally obscene positions on the Middle East conflict – have become steadfast, unwavering even, in their uncritical support for Israel’s anti-Palestinian policies.

It is no surprise then that the DUP’s contribution is the publishing of fictitious statements and delusory claims in support of the Israeli government position. After all, as a party, they often cynically deceive people, perhaps even themselves into believing they support peaceful cooperation and co-existence when in reality they are bolstering an illegal settlement enterprise and reinforcing the occupation of Palestinian territories.

Blind support for the Israeli government, as displayed by the DUP, is indicative of an agenda with no interest in holding Israeli officials, organisations and individual perpetrators accountable for violations of Palestinian human rights.

The pro-settlement, anti-negotiation and anti-Justice advocacy at work – performed in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel – is hypocritical, if not verging on sheer callous indifference towards the plight of the oppressed.

The statements, activities and actions of the DUP and its allies provide an interesting context to what I have written above, allowing me to outline a number of the mendacious points they make (all of which could easily be lifted straight out of a student hasbara handbook):

So what exactly do they say and why is it misleading and non-factual?

Under the ‘Israel news in Northern Ireland’ section of NIFI’s website there are various news clippings and links. Some of these directly discuss the campaign being pushed against the cooperative. For instance, in June of last year, DUP Councillor, Peter J Martin put out a joint statement with Peter Weir MLA, William Humphreys MLA, David McIlveen MLA and Steven Jaffe [Co Chair - Northern Ireland Friends of Israel] with calls for a rethink on Co-op policy on boycott. More recently, some of the same DUP representatives put out a press release where representatives called for the end of The Co-operatives Israeli boycott.

Ian-Paisley-291x275

Ian Paisley Jr MP

Boycotting Israel in Northern Ireland is founded in “anti-Israel bias”.

Simply, this point conflates a means and a cause, conveniently glossing over the wider context of injustice that withholds and denies basic civil, human, political, economic, social and cultural rights from the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories, East Jerusalem and Israel proper.

It’s kind of like saying all vegetarians are anti-capitalist or they’re all prejudice towards meat eaters – simply untrue and without any factual backing at all.

Perhaps it hasn’t yet crossed Paisley’s mind that most people aren’t unfairly singling out Israel, but rather pushing a human rights based agenda that seeks to non-violently hold Israel democratically and legally accountable.

Boycotts pander “to the lowest of all instincts”, allowing “prejudice against the Jewish state to become an acceptable face of ugly and vicious anti-Semitic hatred”.

Linking boycotts with anti-Semitism is not a new tactic. The Jerusalem post only just recently compared the European Union’s decision to label Israeli settlement products to nothing less than Nazism. These types of accusations are designed to caricature those promoting nonviolent methods of holding Israel accountable as racist Jew-haters. This ultimately delegitimizes boycott advocates, attacking their characters and diminishing their legitimate criticism of Israel because no decent decision or policy-maker wants to be associated with anti-Semites. Paisley’s claim also undermines the work of the human rights community inside Israel and Palestine – damaging their work through personal slurs against them and their supporters.

Paisley fails, not only to make a distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and instances of genuine prejudice, and anti-Semitism, but by misusing the accusation he takes focus away from challenging real instances of such anti-Jewish hatred, doing a disservice to communities everywhere.

The Co-Op boycott of certain Israeli companies is “one-sided and discriminatory”.

When we discuss a targeted and strategic boycott of Israeli companies that are effectively profiteering from illegal settlement of occupied territories and the exploitation of indigenous inhabitants it is not only a political or moral question; this is a direct challenge for fellow human beings to demand the upholding of international law. I favourably compare boycotting Israel’s occupation as akin to nonviolent, democratic methods used against sweatshops or blood diamonds – you don’t see Paisley or anyone else claiming that people are taking a one-sided approach or being discriminatory when it comes to those industries, nor have we seen any DUP member criticise the crippling sanctions against Iran.

It appears that in this instance, Paisley is only interested in obscuring the discussion surrounding International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Paisley, when challenged, rarely brings even a single reference, or link, to anything he asserts on these matters which is significant given his outspoken views.

Jim-Wells-291x275

Jim Wells MLA

Jim Wells, a DUP MLA in South Down is another on record as being a staunch advocate for Israel. He frequently meets with NIFI co-chair Steven Jaffe and often pledges his personal support for Israel as “the only democratic state in the Middle East” (There’s a pattern here somewhere). Mr Wells also expressed his opposition to the Co-op policies that “boycott certain Israeli companies”.

The point to highlight here is a failure to provide context and information as to why certain Israeli companies are boycotted by the Co-Operative. You will of course never hear a DUP politician acknowledge that East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza strip and Golan Heights are occupied territory or that settlement of occupied territory breaches International Humanitarian Law, namely the fourth Geneva Convention and Hague regulations.

Legally speaking, Israel’s use of assets in occupied territory for the benefit of its own population and economy is illegal and could even be defined as pillage. Furthermore, an occupied territory is not an open field for economic or other exploitation; Israel is not permitted to consider the national, economic and social interests of the state above the interest of the local population.

Mr Wells has also expressed disappointment regarding the stance of Christian Aid and Trócaire in seeking to ban certain trade with Israel as he believes that the extension of trade and facilitating human contact between Israelis and Palestinians are the paths to peace.

Again we see the use of the term ‘certain trade’ which is undoubtedly a deliberate glossing over of appropriate terminology: the trade in question is with illegal Israeli settlements. It suits the DUP agenda to seduce the public, deceiving them into believing that in order to support paths toward peace we must indulge Israel’s every illegal activity, bolstering the settlement enterprise as we go and killing a two-state solution.

Extending trade to settlements that are illegal under international law does not facilitate peace. Quite the opposite, in fact, the lack of action taken to pressure Israel to peaceful settlement is actually contributing toward sustaining the occupation. By favouring Israeli government and settlements’ interests and simultaneously disenfranchising Palestinians – exploiting the occupied territories resources for the benefit of Israelis – the DUP and NIFI are helping to prolong an unacceptable reality on the ground whereby Israeli settlements thrive and Palestinian life continues to deteriorate into nothing, along with their basic human rights.

Worryingly, Jim Wells is the vice chair of the Northern Ireland Assembly all party group on co-operatives and international development.

Co-Op-620x455

DUP representatives attempting to hand in a Friends of Israel orchestrated petition at their local Co-op in North Down

The “so called boycott will never alter the direction of the Israeli government”

Larry Derfner, writing for +972 Magazine states that there have been a growing number of prominent voices acknowledging that the boycott of Israel is working. Adding to this acknowledgement is the voice of the current Israeli Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, who recently warned of EU boycott if peace with Palestinians isn’t reached. This public warning was picked up by Gideon Levy in his column where he declared outright support for an economic boycott of Israel.

If that isn’t enough then I suggest reading what Israeli Knesset member Tamar Zandberg had to say as she called for Boycotting Settlement Goods in a recent interview.

“Boycotts are counterproductive, encourage extremism and are about destroying Israel”

Boycotts are actually about Palestinian rights, not destroying Israel – support for the rights of Palestinians is frequently missing from the statements made by the DUP and Northern Ireland Friends of Israel, surely there is a level of hypocrisy here?

Isn’t it possible that boycotts are carried out due to the exploitation facing Palestinians and because the source and conditions under which goods are produced is illegal and unethical?

“Boycotts damage the livelihoods of the workers in the boycotted country” and The Co-Op’s “divisive boycott it will only further hurt the livelihoods of people working in the West Bank by pressurising these businesses to relocate away from that area, where they currently provide job security for many Palestinian employees”

This is nothing more than a fictitious and cynical attempt to mislead people. If the DUP and others were to face facts, then they would know that had the settlements and the occupying forces been withdrawn as per numerous UN resolutions, and the lands returned to their Palestinian owners, the Palestinians would have real job security and prospects for a truly sustainable and functioning economy.

In essence the DUP are saying that boycott as a method of challenging injustice is completely wrong in every situation – they are advocating that we shouldn’t boycott unethical coffee companies until they improve conditions for their workers because such an action would harm those workers and not the company exploiting them.

Such self-righteous, sanctimonious and orientalist attitudes demonstrate that those making them do not actually care for the exploited workers job security, employment or income – otherwise they would be supporting direct trade links with ethical Palestinian businesses and companies so as to help the development of the Palestinian economy as opposed to that of the settlers.

Now is an appropriate time to discuss the fact that for Palestinians living in the West Bank, Israel has devised an ingenuous system, mired with bureaucracy that issues up to 101 different kinds of work and travel permits: only for Jerusalem, only for a specific hospital in Jerusalem, only for daylight hours, for all hours, for a few hours, etc. etc. Palestinians have no information about how to qualify for a permit and the permits are issued at the whim of the “Civil Administration”, a non-communicable, totalitarian arm of Israel ruling the lives of 2.5 million Palestinian residents of the West Bank.

Palestinians are literally a captive labour market whose own economy has been crushed by the occupation. Of course the propaganda aimed at legitimizing businesses in settlements, claiming that they provide labour to Palestinian workers is easily refuted by facts provided by organisations such as whoprofits.

One other source of information on this is a Kav Laoved report entitled: Employment of Palestinians in Israel and the Settlements: Restrictive Policies and Abuse of Rights – I suggest the DUP and NIFI familiarize themselves with it instead of shedding crocodile tears for Palestinian workers whom they really couldn’t care less about.

The truth about the Cooperative policy & position:

I emailed the cooperative about a year ago to discover some of the facts and ask their positions on the matter. The response, from a customer relations officer, Richard Carroll, revealed that the DUP are arguably doing nothing short of propping up the current status quo. Both the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel and the DUP have been grossly misleading in their claims that The Co-op policy “targets one country and its people” and is thus discriminatory and counterproductive as can be revealed with the facts straight from the Co-op itself:

“Dear Gary,

Thank you for your recent correspondence. We welcome the opportunity to clarify our position on the issue of the illegal Israeli settlements.

Our Human Rights and Trade Policy, adopted in 2009, established the exceptional circumstances under which we will withdraw all trade from a particular state, area or settlement. One such circumstance is where there is a broad international consensus that the status of a settlement is illegal. There are only two examples of such settlements: the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories and the Moroccan settlements in Western Sahara. On this basis, our policy has been not to source any produce or own-brand product from these settlements.

On the 25th April, The Co-operative’s Board determined that, going forward, we will additionally no longer engage with any supplier of produce known to be sourcing from the illegal Israeli settlements. This decision will impact four suppliers, and circa £350,000 of trade. In reaching this decision, the Board was mindful of the additional costs involved in the tracing and auditing of all produce supplied by these businesses.

We would like to state categorically that our position does not constitute a boycott of Israeli businesses. Indeed, we remain firmly committed to sourcing produce from Israel, and we continue to have valued arrangements with some twenty Israeli businesses (worth around £1.75 million per annum). Our need to source high-quality seasonal produce, including peppers, tomatoes and herbs, means that it will predominantly be our Israeli growers and suppliers who benefit from the transfer of trade from those delisted. As such, this decision is not expected to lead to a significant overall reduction in our trade with Israeli businesses.

In addition to our firm commitment to Israeli produce, we continue to seek increased trade links with Palestinian businesses. For example, we were the first major UK retailer to stock Fairtrade Palestinian olive oil.

I hope that this information clarifies our position and if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again.” – [Source: ‘229095/RAC Israel’ – email dated 21st June 2012]

I feel assured that the Cooperative position is consistent with high standards and principled ethics which is why I am confident that despite the misleading bully tactics of the DUP, the Co-op position won’t be changing any time soon. Perhaps, the DUP can regain some moral ground by being consistent and preserving some integrity in future statements when it comes to Israel’s occupation and their supposed-support for peace in the Middle East. After all, peace without justice is no peace at all.

Closing, I’d like to quote Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, to remind people of our responsibility to uphold the basic rights, of both ourselves and others, equally:

“Morally speaking, there is no limit to the concern one must feel for the suffering of human beings, that indifference to evil is worse than evil itself, that in a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

Support progressives in Israel by all means, but don’t vilify boycotts

Posted on by
Reply

The idea of nations and peoples cooperating, instead of fixating on individual respective national interest is popular in the trade union movement, largely due to strongly held ethos of solidarity found in trade unionism.

Unfortunately internationalism of this kind rarely succeeds when campaigning for peace in an imbalanced conflict, nor shall it achieve true solidarity. This is because uncritical cooperation ignores the context of inequality and smugly overlooks the power dynamics in play – that of a military occupier (Israel) and those occupied by it (Palestinians).

Speeches such as Emine Ibrahim’s often portray a misleading scenario in which boycotts can be written off as non-progressive or damaging to peace. Such is demonstrably not the case where Israel – Palestine is concerned for if we scrutinize these claims we might discover that boycott is implemented legitimately to target or highlight actions and activities that are considered illegal under international law or contrary to basic human rights standards.

In defining ‘solidarity’ between Palestinian and Israeli workers one mustn’t place conditions to make such legitimate only where explicit support for the ‘peace process’ is given. I mean the so-called peace process hasn’t materialized any substantial progress but rather more strife throughout the past 20 years.

Trade union members should start listening to analysts on the ground, such as +972 Magazine’s Noam Sheizaf, when discussing that “there is no peace process, nor has there been one in recent times”.

A new way forward, inclusive of honesty and trust – key factors when seeking progressive solutions to protracted conflicts – is required.

There is of course, no doubt that trade unionists, in an ideal world, mostly support cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis. However the claim that “almost all trade union centres” favor a defunct peace process is unfounded.

Critique of the Histadrut

In the admittedly succinct speech from Ms Ibrahim, one sees outspoken support for Histadrut intertwined with factual errors and a tendentious version of reality.

Throughout the Mandate era, Histadrut collaborated with the Jewish Agency and actively colluded with Britain to deny Palestinians their right to self-determination. Or so Tom Segev alleges in his book One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate.

In earlier years, Histadrut certainly didn’t achieve free democratic trade unionism, rather it actively organised boycotts of Arab produce and until 1959 did not even permit Palestinian Arabs membership rights.

Indeed, where Palestinian Arabs are concerned the Histadrut fails to represent, especially in the occupied Territories, where [Palestinians] have been employed in appalling conditions with no security of tenure, a lack of health and safety protection and no minimum wage.

A recent report from Kav LaOved highlights this reality in great detail, demonstrating the obstacles and forms of exploitation faced by Palestinians who have to participate in a system currently defended by Histadrut and those feigning sentiments of ‘cooperation’.

Quite simply, Histadrut is not a progressive force inside Israel today and won’t be until it tackles the occupation. Through boycott we in the international community are sending a critical message: workers everywhere fully reject complicity in human rights abuses, belligerent occupation and illegal unilateral actions.

Histadrut’s conformity is what brings damage not only to the prospect of peace but justice, revealing an unwillingness to challenge right-wing anti-Palestinian policies held by Israel’s government.

Support for the labour movement in Israel in its current form is effectively propping up the status quo. Palestinians cannot accept a permanent situation whereby Israeli settlements thrive while Palestinian rights continue being thrashed.

Legally speaking

When assessing Israeli conduct, UN Treaty Bodies have concluded that Israel’s practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories violate not only the provisions of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), but further violate Palestinians’ economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights enshrined in several bodies of international human rights law (IHRL).

Trade Unions have an obligation to ensure that in any undertaking they do not have an adverse impact upon or act in conformity with abuses of Palestinian human rights.

Justice is a basic pre-requisite for a peace in protracted conflict. The Israel/Palestine situation, whilst complex in its own right with its own unique nuances, is no different to any other conflict in this particular respect.

Supporting genuine progressives in Israel and Palestine

Boycotting without sending an appropriate message detailing clearly ‘WHY’ action is being taken is as useful as full complacency in crimes in this context. Numerous progressive organisations such as Rabbis for Human Rights, Zochrot – who try to encourage Israelis to look at the Palestinian narrative and educators teaching the Palestinian Nakba in spite of political persecution by the Israeli government – deserve our support rather than non-engagement.

We should respect that two national people groups live in Israel-Palestine – each possessing rights of self-determination – and are fully capable of finding ways to co-exist. For some this means a two state solution. For others it means a common bi-national or democratic state encompassing both peoples, a regional confederation, or any another arrangement that respects human, national and democratic rights to determine a future.

Supporting progressives in Israel should, whilst the occupation endures, always be done in the context of co-resistance. We shouldn’t be vilifying legitimate, nonviolent means of resistance like boycotts.

A slightly different version of this article was originally published at LeftFootForward.org and is re-posted here for my own records.

Meet the ‘Committed Zionist’ Director of UK Lawyers of Israel

Posted on by
2

On Friday of last, Newry and Mourne District Council had to delay the tabling of a motion aimed at ethical trade and human rights which would ban trade with Israeli settlements after a legal threat from one David Lewis, director of UK Lawyers for Israel was received by the council’s chief executives.

I have personally been heavily involved in the drafting of these motions for both the Northern Ireland Assembly and more recently District and City councils across Northern Ireland. As the founder of Queen’s University Belfast Palestine Solidarity Society I noticed, when operating the society’s twitter account that the same David Lewis, author of the aforementioned implicit legal threat has a vicious streak when on social media.

Below are a selection of tweets and commentary about this twitter thread that I hope sheds some light on the type of people involved with UKLFI.

Screen grab of David Lewis' twitter page

Screen grab of David Lewis’ twitter page – note the lack of a disclaimer which would usually disassociate a personal twitter profile from the businesses or groups in which an individual may be affiliated.

Now for a selection of his tweets:

According to David Lewis, the thing that Palestinians love best is killing Jews -

When challenged on his claim by way of a comparisons leaning on South Africa David Lewis gives this retort -

BDS is paving the way for a second Holocaust against Jews -

David Lewis believes that being Jewish is synonymous with being Israeli, but if we look at the Zionist supported EUMC working definition of antisemitism it is made clear that ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’ and ‘Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel’ is regarded as anti-Semitic.

I want to remind David Lewis that Antisemitism is wrong full stop.

All Palestinians are “deeply and irremediably antisemitic -

David Lewis has “whole files on Palestinian fascism” and “They [Palestinians] hate us [Jews], & they want to kill us [Jews]. Fact.” -

These statements tweeted by David Lewis are quite distasteful and worrying. His views and opinions show the possibility that he may not be an honest interpreter of UK and Northern Irish law when it comes to issues relating to Israel because of his obvious political bias, hatred and woefully racist misconceptions towards Palestinians.

It is plainly obvious that David Lewis, as director of UK Lawyers for Israel follows a political agenda which he applies using legal knowledge to protect Israel’s interests, activities and anti-Palestinian policies. My view is that it is always shameful when someone interprets the law for to make political gain or for a specifically politicized agenda.

For all intents and purposes, Mr Lewis’ mask has slipped, and he can be seen as an angry and cruel man that isn’t interested in justice, equality or peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Disclaimer: I obviously have a vested interest in posting this particular blog and I wish to make it clear that I have no personal enmity towards Mr Lewis. This blog post is intended as an exposé of Mr Lewis and by extension UK Lawyers For Israel’s extreme ideology and political views and not his personal character.

Irish Christian Friends of Israel’s tacit support for Illegal Settlements cannot go unchallenged

Posted on by
1

An open letter from the Irish Christian Friends of Israel, publicised by nefariously anti-Palestinian pressure group Irish4Israel entitled “Ban of Israeli Settlement Products”, was sent to the Tánaiste, Eamon Gilmore, on 06th of June 2013, containing factual errors so numerous, twisting easily verifiable facts and making so many tendentious allegations it cannot go unanswered.

They start off by expressing how ‘appalled’ they are that Eamon Gilmore is seeking to label Illegal settlement produce and post the question “why is he singling out Israel?” and go on to ponder “why no comparable Irish zeal exists to single out products from such occupied lands as Tibet, West Papua New Guinea, Western Sahara or Northern Cyprus, to name but a few.”

Such a spurious argument is nothing more than a straw man designed to imply that a level of hypocrisy is at work where none actually exists. Something that should concern us all is the misuse of other instances of human rights abuse for propaganda purposes. Why for example has the Irish Christian Friends of Israel never once mentioned the occupation and subsequent Chinese suppression of Tibetan rights in any other context except to obfuscate around, and shut down legitimate criticism of Israel?

Let us depolarize this for a moment, taking a totally unrelated example; a gay rights activist in the UK whose activism is focused upon gay rights in the United States of America. Would you ever usually see any individual or group take an example of human rights abuse elsewhere, for instance the fate of the Roma in Europe, and denigrate such an activist by suggesting he be suspected of bigotry toward the Roma simply because he happens to focus on a different rights issue elsewhere in the world with more tenacity? Of course not, because such a thing would be nonsense and offensive nonsense at that.

We therefore need to look at the agenda behind the claims made by the Irish Friends of Israel – are they highlighting other human rights abuses in the numerous countries listed out of genuine concern for the lack of focus they receive compared to Israel or are they just abusing those examples to attack anyone who wishes to take legitimate action on Israeli settlements? I think the answer should be obvious by this point.

Of course the Irish Christian Friends of Israel didn’t cease their deceptive use of language at this stage, no they continued by comparing Israel with “truly ruthless occupiers” in an attempt to scale down the crimes of Israel and set a hierarchy according to their own standard. Again this is offensive nonsense that attacks anybody who dares focus on Israel without having first criticised every other country in the entire world.

Recent history, particularly to those of us that pay attention to the reality on the ground, has shown that Israel’s track record is certainly not “good” nor do any of the statements coming Israeli government figures bring confidence or even truth to the idea that the state affirms “its readiness to cede most of the remainder [territory]”. Israeli newspaper Haaretz, just this morning reported that “Israel is continuing with a plan to expand the West Bank settlement of Itamar” this in spite of United States Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

We will now see 537 additional residential units and a move to legalize [by Israeli law] the 130 existing ones in the illegal settlement.

Not convinced that Irish Christian Friends of Israel are disingenuous in their claim?

Well, let us review the words of Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister, Danny Danon who is reported as saying “there was never a government discussion, resolution or vote about the two-state solution” and he continued by adding “if you bring it to a vote [in the Knesset], you will see the majority of Likud ministers, along with the Jewish Home [party], will be against it” – The Times of Israel 06.06.2013

Another recently published article claims that settlement construction is at a seven-year high, and according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, new construction projects in West Bank settlements have grown by 176 percent (!) compared to the same period last year (January-March 2012).

Now let’s highlight some real, evidence based facts:

Israeli settlements in West Bank are regarded by the entire whole world, except from Israel and her right-wing supporters, as Occupied Palestinian Territories, that is, outside the internationally recognised territory of Israel on the territory meant for a Palestinian state. Looking at Article 49(6) of the 4th Geneva Convention, it clearly forbids any occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies.

The occupation of the territories is indeed a legal occupation, but the actions of the Israeli government in settling or allowing their civilians to settle in those territories is contrary to international law and thusly regarded as illegal.

UN resolution 242 clearly calls for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and UNISPAL even provides a map of what they meant by territories occupied.

For clarification all of Israel is not considered “a settlement by its enemies”, indeed the Palestinians, through the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, have repeatedly indicated what they do and do not consider an illegal settlement as have the international community.

In relation to West Bank Settlements there should never be an acceptance of unreferenced percentages at face value. Numerous human rights reports present a bigger picture if only one bothers to do the research. A recent B’tselem publication; Acting the Landlord: Israel’s Policy in Area C, the West Bank, highlights that 60 percent of the West Bank under full Israeli control.

A press release from earlier this year also displays how Israel has been taking over Palestinian land in the West Bank by declaring it “state land”.

Area C is home to an estimated 180,000 Palestinians and includes the major residential and development land reserves for the entire West Bank. Israel prohibits Palestinian construction and development on some 70 percent of Area C territory, arguing various rationales, such as being “state lands” or “firing zones.”

A point made by ICFI in relation to Israel’s 20% Arab population is completely irrelevant because we aren’t discussing the Palestinian population within Israel but those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories namely, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The claim that 95% of Palestinians in the West Bank are under the Palestinian Authority may be accurate. However this claim ignores a massive chunk of the context in that regardless of where the majority of the Palestinian population live (in Area A) the fact remains that the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem is regarded as occupied territory and it is thus illegal for Israel to settle its civilian population within it. I dare say we shouldn’t ignore the fact that Israel has literally fenced in Areas A & B which, if we look at a map are nothing more than non-contiguous and unsustainable Bantustans. Of course 95% of the Palestinian population are going to live in Areas A & B when they have no other choice because of Israel’s policies and occupation.

Any suggestion that there have been no new outposts since 1998 is utterly spurious. All one must do is review the settlement list published by Peace Now to discover that Nirit expanded into the West Bank in 2004 and Sansana was established in 2009. Additionally a total of 72 outposts were established according to Peace Now’s outpost list. This oversimplification also ignores that illegal settler numbers in the occupied territories have steadily increased from a total of just over 350,000 in 1999 to where it stands now at well over 650,000 as of July 2012 according to the Guardian.

As with any exploitative regime we can expect to see absurd arguments that misframe the entire issue, suggesting that Palestinians actually benefit economically, socially and in terms of rights from the illegal settlement enterprise.

According to a Who Profits position paper, in 2011, 26,831 Palestinians worked in Israeli settlements in the West Bank with work permits and near 10,000 did so without permits. So that they can work in settlements, Palestinians must obtain work permits from the Israeli Civil Administration – these permits can be revoked at any time, especially when workers demand their rights or try to unionize or become involved politically.

Contractors are frequently seen passing on costs, such as those accumulated by the apparent need for special security fees, to the workers themselves. According to a Kav Laoved report published in October 2012, there are a series of obstacles and forms of exploitation faced by Palestinian and the report details Palestinian employment in Israel and the West Bank settlements, looking particularly at restrictive policies and the abuse of rights.

Isn’t it time we asked why Irish Christian Friends of Israel’s and Irish4Israel continue their tacit support for illegal settlements and look at how they use pressure in numbers to intimidate those in the Irish Government that dare to stand up for peace in the middle east?

What you call ‘Solid moral ground’ the International Community regards as illegal settlement

Posted on by
3

Displacement, exploitation and a now permanent situation in which Palestinian rights are daily abused whilst Israeli settlements thrive is definitely part of the problem not the solution.

Dani Dayan, an ex-settler leader, known for his uncanny ability to make even the most adamant two-state advocate question their political position, often attempts to cloud discourse when it comes to Israeli settlements’ in territories under Israeli military occupation. Misframing the issue in a recent Guardian Comment is Free piece, Dayan tries to portray settlements’ and settlers as innocent “communities”, ignoring the wider scope of human rights abuses, settler attacks, restrictions on freedom of movement and humanitarian impact’s that come as a direct result of the settlement enterprise.

Criticism levied against Catherine Ashton is hardly unexpected or coincidental considering that at this time European Union officials are pushing to label Israeli settlement produce. Indeed just two months ago Ashton wrote to EU foreign ministers, asking them to ensure that produce from settlements on occupied territory is labelled as such. If this push is successful, all goods coming into the European Union from Israeli settlements will be easier to identify, thus offering consumers the ethical option of an informed choice to boycott said goods.

Another prominent voice of reason is Irish MEP Emer Costello, who recently published an article on how Europe, not the United States, now has the leverage and opportunity to resuscitate the Middle East peace process. Costello frequently comes under attack from virulently anti-Palestinian groups because of her moderate yet robustly critical approach. She eloquently highlights that continued settlement expansion “threatens to slice the West Bank in two” and is only “further splintering Palestinian communities and undermining the future of an independent state of Palestine”.

Of course don’t just take the word of one Irish politician, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, a self-described “natural friend of Israel” recently stated that Israel had lost international support in recent years over its building of settlements. The Guardian also reported Hague as saying the time was approaching when “hard decisions” needed to be made.

We can begin to understand what Hague was potentially hinting at when referring to ‘hard decisions’ if we reflect upon Dayan’s use of a Jimmy Carter quote to emphasise the difficulties Israel shall face if settlements eventually must be dismantled.

In reality, few who visit an Israeli settlement in the West Bank can deny that a complex, entirely new dimension must be thoroughly debated when one faces the pertinent question of what to do with settlers and settlements. On one hand we must acknowledge that many of the civilians have been living in such a way for well over twenty years; building homes and indeed entire communities. On the other hand we cannot overlook the fact that the Israeli government has actively cemented the occupation of the Palestinian territories by flouting numerous international laws and the Oslo Accords.

Surely decision makers mustn’t disregard the voices of the Palestinians, the International community and even the British Government? – all of whom openly regard Israeli settlements constructed over the green line (West Bank and East Jerusalem) to be illegal according to international law.

Some voices say that despite the ruckus, obfuscating remarks and attempts to push the narrative of “disputed territories” as opposed to occupied, there remains a chance for Israel to make the difficult decision of withdrawing its citizens from settlements, rehousing them inside Israel proper with appropriate compensation from the state.

According to a recent B’tselem report ‘Acting the Landlord’ discussing Israel’s Policy in Area C of the West Bank, the [Israeli] Civil Administration – the body responsible for implementing Israeli government policy in Area C (60 percent of the West Bank), has violated its obligation to administer the area for the benefit of the Palestinian population. This runs contrary to all legal requirements to protect occupied populations as stipulated in international law.

Who really controls the West Bank? Image showing a B’Tselem map on Israeli control of Area C, the West Bank.

Who really controls the West Bank? Image showing a B’Tselem map on Israeli control of Area C, the West Bank.

Dayan seeks not only to deny Palestinians equal rights, but to fundamentally misrepresent their entire situation. His protestations that settlements are “Built on vacant land” are absurd when one considers the bigger picture accompanying the action of settling civilians of Israel in those territories – something that is illegal regardless of whether the land is vacant or not. Reviewing the Migron case, one wonders whether Dayan, just like his government will ever realize that regardless of the somersaults he performs to try and establish legitimate claims to the land, eventually his position of power will one day run out.

Discussing “civil disputes” Dayan pushes readers to accept that land ‘disputes’ are a ‘civil matter’ for the [Israeli] courts. This is done without mention of the existing double standard within the current legal structure. Dayan cannot possibly claim that Israel operates an entirely independent court, devoid of a politicised application of laws.

By circling around the impact Israel’s settlement policies have upon Palestinian communities, Dayan certainly seems to stand on solid moral ground. Now if only we complacently fall into line, overlook the duality in applied legal systems and ignore the fact that Israel’s justice system fails to protect the Palestinians it rules. Unfortunately for Dayan people are standing up to highlight the role of settlements as a contributing factor to the Israel – Palestine conflict and are thusly a definitive impediment to peace.

The problem here isn’t Ashton’s perception of settlers or settlements but rather Dayan’s failure to even address what international law says in relation to the occupying power settling territory that is already inhabited and doesn’t belong to it. Perhaps more importantly, he doesn’t reflect on what many agree is absolutely essential for a non-violent, just, equitable and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the dismantling of settlements.

If a Palestinian state isn’t created alongside Israel soon, then only two options remain; one state for everyone or a system of apartheid that denies equality between Israelis and Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Lessons of a Fruitful Peace Process – the Northern Ireland Experience:

Posted on by
Reply

Achieving genuine conflict resolution requires a dedicated approach that incorporates building trust and relationships between communities from opposing sides of a deeply divided society. Learning to understand the necessary stages required for a fruitful peace process is just one way Israelis and Palestinians can take serious lessons away from the Northern Ireland experience.

Israeli and Palestinian flags are frequently seen flying in Northern Ireland, often in loyalist and republican areas respectively.  This is symbolic of how even in a place that has seen 15 years of a peace process, divides still exist to the extent that some communities take sides in the conflict of another in slight continuation of their own.

A loyalist flag protestor sports an Israeli - Northern Ireland combo flag outside Belfast City Hall Saturday May 4th 2013. Photo: Gary Spedding

A loyalist flag protestor sports an Israeli – Northern Ireland combo flag outside Belfast City Hall Saturday May 4th 2013. Photo: Gary Spedding

Be wary when comparing “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland to the situation in Israel/Palestine, especially when it gives opportunity to public figures such as Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Ron Prosor to disingenuously proclaim a desire to export lessons from the Northern Irish peace process (his loud exclamations that “We [Israel] can learn from Ulster” are just another form of propaganda to sooth the international community).

A major aspect to building peace is in finding a way for communities to reconcile differences whilst holding on to one’s own identities whilst respecting ‘the others’ opposing identity and ideas for the future.

The push for a genuine reconciliation has to adhere closely to the ideal of fairness and look at how people can deal with the memories and legacies of the past.

Having defined structures for delivering equal justice is key, which is why a continuous, flowing discussion is necessary when it comes to finding a civil pathway to peace (as Haggai Matar noted in his recent piece on Northern Ireland).

Two important points stand out in Haggai’s piece: the first is the acceptance that “no two conflicts are alike,” and the second is the emphasis on realizing that “a solution that fits one conflict could never be copied successfully to anywhere else.”

True peace and reconciliation comes from people as human beings feeling valued, respected and dignified. If there is no genuine relationship and respect among the parties involved then the situation isn’t going to get anywhere and achieving peace remains little more than a fantasy.

Thus, in order to reach genuine peace, a set of basic rules and stages is required. A recent article from Quintin Oliver, a man who helped run a non-party ‘YES’ Campaign in the 1998 Referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, illustrates this in his fifteen laws of peace processes.

Whilst Oliver’s laws discuss Northern Ireland, I find some points give an inkling as to what may be lacking in Israel today;

1. Citizenship should be clarified and open to all. Those under Israel’s direct control are not all afforded the right to citizenship, and therefore to democratic participation and other benefits that come with it. Palestinians and Israelis must be free to make and exercise their own choices with relation to citizenship and national self-determination within either Palestine, Israel or both.

2. Security must be guaranteed for all, without fear or partiality. Achieving a stable situation is desired in order to bring about an end to violence. Confidence among communities can only increase when Israel and Palestine reach a consensus on the primacy of evenhanded application of security, where both parties can be trusted with ensuring a commitment to one another’s safety and rights.

3. Interpretation and implementation of the law must be assured through an independent judiciary. There cannot be room for a politicized application of the law, as this will only deepen the sense of injustice towards those who are being or perceive themselves to be oppressed by structural discrimination.

4. Truth will always vie with justice as we try to understand what happened to us. A robust process of managing and dealing with the past is essential. Justice however may not always fit well given that perceptions differ greatly among many truths which manifest in a conflict.

5. Armed groups must be subject to full disarmament, disbandment and reintegration. All Palestinian and Israeli armed groups must agree to an internationally observed decommissioning. This must be followed by an agreement to lift the siege on Gaza and an Israeli military withdrawal from the West Bank. Undoubtedly there will be resistance to this particular point but this bold step for peace must be taken.

6. International and external forces must be eased out of the day-to-day decision-making. Though important in order to kick start the first stages of a peace process, there must be space for standalone interaction as over-dependence on international actors, some of which provide dishonest brokerage, has given Israel ample opportunity to continue its occupation 20 years after the Oslo Accords were signed.

7. All legal voices must be included, so as to absorb their political views appropriately or else you will remain dependent on a military solution. A solution cannot simply involve the Palestinian Authority alone. There needs to be inclusivity, and the question one must always ask is whether the voiceless are being heard.

8. Societal infrastructure must be based on equality and sharing, or risk intensifying division. If the Israeli government and some Palestinian groups continue to institutionalize discrimination using the education system, public transport, housing, teacher training, arts and sports then division will remain in both societies.

9. A free press which would hold the powerful to account without interference is self-evident. The need for a critical and proactive approach within Israel to push creative policy development is obvious. Israeli society seems dominated by nationalist discourse propagated by the government. Furthermore, there is a need for freedom to criticize the Palestinian Authority and Hamas on legitimate issues affecting the areas under their control.

10. Each party to the conflict must be afforded the right to argue for its own vision of the future with impunity. There are still political groups that advocate the destruction of Northern Ireland as an entity, and yet there has been an end to violence, discrimination, checkpoints etc. A strong desire to end conflict on all levels must be expressed by all sides. Israel requires a fundamental societal shift to achieve circumstances in which other visions are given space for peaceful expression. Of course, the advocation of hatred, murder and other crimes must not be ignored.

11. Your side hates our side much more and has done/continues to do much worse things than we do. An overwhelming majority in Israel perceive Palestinians as violent and perpetual aggressors. Some examples of violence cited contribute to a selective memory and a level of unhealthy denialism. Existence of two or more disparate sides means that recognition for different roles played by Israel and Palestinians is essential. Regardless of the imbalanced conflict, victims of violence deserve justice. A careful definition of ‘violence’ is required in order to make progress in this area.

12. Policing must be seen to be fair and reliable. One of the largest problems in conflict occurs when those enforcing the law, be it civilian or military do so without any equal application or human-rights compliance. When parity in the treatment of Israeli and a Palestinian suspects by police and military officers disappears because of institutional discrimination towards the later it compounds the issues.

13. A vibrant civil society must be enabled and dissent encouraged. The sign of any true democracy is the ability to allow differing political ideas to be presented in a pluralist way. If a government actively discourages nonviolent dissent or punishes civil society for crying out then it isn’t a real democracy but rather an oppressive state.

These necessary stages must be adhered to for a fruitful peace process. Lord John Alderdice highlights this concisely in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on the 13th of September 2012;

“The key element in building trust, achieving agreement, ending violence, and eventually contributing to reconciliation is the construction of a process through which by direct engagement with each other, the two or more, sides begin to see ‘the Others’ as human beings who have their positive as well as negative elements. If you treat others as less human than you and your people they will feel able to treat you and your people as less than human too.”

If civil society demands a peace process that adheres to the above ground rules, rather than skipping essential stages, we can remain optimistic about achieving peace between Israel and Palestine.

A shorter version of this article first appeared on +972 Magazine and can be found here.

Recognising Palestine

Posted on by
Reply

Language plays an important role when defining a conflict, this is because the clever use of words can be positive and powerful when used for beneficial effect. Whilst reading a recent statement by the European Parliamentary Delegation to Palestine I noticed that the release, instead of using the term oPt (Occupied Palestinian Territories) actually says:

“visit to the occupied State of Palestine (East Jerusalem and the West Bank).”

Some may look at this as insignificant, however I find that by specifically using that particular description of Palestine the press statement has more power. This reveals a vital shift in discourse, taking us away from talking about ‘Palestine’ as a set of territories under Israeli occupation and into the realm of actually recognizing Palestine as a country and nation state.

Clever use of wording can often help shape a new dynamic in which healthy debate can occur. This (new?) development, though not massive, is still quite impressive. By recognizing the State of Palestine the EU Parliamentary delegation is bringing us closer to a pathway to a just peace, whilst giving acknowledgement and dignity to the Palestinian people.

Through changing the reference in this ever so subtle way it could help create a more diverse perception among the public.

Well done I say, keep it up!