Articles
Can Jews of the Diaspora criticize Israel policy ?
Can Jews of the Diaspora criticize Israel policy ?
3 March 2011
I often meet Jews who in private admit they are offended by the settlement policy in the West Bank, in East Jerusalem and in the Golan. Nevertheless, they do not want to criticize Israel openly. They consider that they should respect Israeli sovereignty because they are not citizens of Israel, which, moreover, is the only democracy in the Middle-East.
Their questioning must be taken seriously, and, above all, answered, for once, with precision.
The first question is about citizenship. Many Jews hesitate to question Israeli sovereignty openly because Israel remains, in 2011, the only democracy in the Middle-East. This stand is highly respectable, but misused and distorted.
The issue is not about « democracy », but really about « sovereignty », because the settlement policy is not implemented within Israeli borders, i.e. beyond the limits of Israeli sovereignty. Surely, sovereignty and respect thereof only apply to policies implemented within the borders of a State, be it democratic.
Therefore, this does not apply to the settlements in the West Bank because they are built beyond the internationally recognized borders of Israel.
International law is clear
Uncertainty has nevertheless instilled on the « international nature » of these territories. Since Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and extended its national law to the Golan, some people consider that these territories are not international anymore. As to the West Bank, they describe it as “disputed territory”.
However, such considerations have no relevance in international law. Since 1967, the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, as well as all members of the international community, including the United States governments, have repeatedly stated that the lands captured during the Six-Day War do not belong to Israel.
Another fact is also often neglected. All Israeli governments, including Netanyahu’s, have accepted Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, all of which establish that these territories were occupied in 1967 and do not belong to Israel.
The most recent significant document is the « Road map » adopted in 2003. It indicates that the final agreement “puts an end to the occupation which began in 1967”. The Sharon administration opposed certain parts of this document but did not question this sentence.
There are, admittedly, a handful of hawkish Israeli jurists who consider that these territories do not belong to the Palestinians nor to the Arabs. However, not even they ever claimed these territories fall under Israeli sovereignty according to international law.
To sum up, claims regarding Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan have no legal basis, according to international law. Therefore, anyone, including Jews of the Diaspora, is free to publicly express their views on what is happening there.
Questioning the legitimacy of international law
In fact, many Jews of the Diaspora possibly question the legitimacy of international law more than its legality. I understand them very well, as I share their doubts myself. International law is indeed determined by power struggles between states. Moreover, it often stems from majorities dominated by dictatorships which should not teach lessons about democracy or human rights. The ridiculous displays at the Human Rights Council in Geneva are symbolic in this respect.
Is this enough, however, to deprive all of international law of any legitimacy? Must we throw out the baby with the bath water? This is, in any case, the settlement proponents view. They hope to silence critics by delegitimizing totally international law.
They are forgetting, however, that Israeli governments themselves legitimized international law when they ratified treaties in a sovereign and democratic way.
Besides, funnily enough, the very ones who reject international law haven’t recently stopped repeating that « Egypt must respect its peace treaty with Israel ». There can be no better illustration of the dangers incurred by totally delegitimizing international law.
In fact they are playing against their own side without realizing it, because without international law, the very legitimacy of the State of Israel would be called into question and, above all, even its right to defend its sovereignty could be disputed.
I have also recently heard a new argument in favor of continuing the settlement activity. The rationale is as follows: since Palestinian negotiators have accepted in secret negotiations that « large blocks of settlements » and Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would ultimately be left to Israel, building new settlements there is acceptable. Palestinians are even described as hypocrites when they are offended by the building activity in these very areas which they would agree to part with.
Without going into long legal and moral considerations, it is obvious that the proponents of this argument are once again playing against their own side. Indeed, the Palestinians could, on their part, claim that Israeli diplomats were ready to make concessions during the aborted negotiations. What would these pro-Israel hawks say if 100 000 Palestinian « refugees » settled in Israel because Olmert and Livni have considered it in 2008?
In conclusion, I understand perfectly Diaspora Jews’ reluctance to question Israeli sovereignty since they are not citizens of Israel, which is a democratic state. Yet this argument is only valid within this country’s internationally recognized borders. It is a fact that the settlements are built outside Israeli sovereignty; international law is indisputable on this matter.
Whatever partially understandable doubts about international law one can have, the fact remains that a total deligitimization of international law would in the end lead to a delegitimization of the State of Israel, of its right to defend its sovereignty and to enforce its international agreements, especially with Egypt.
Therefore, all citizens of the world, including Jews of the Diaspora, have the right to publicly express their opinion on the situation in East Jerusalem, in the West Bank and in the Golan. Due respect to the only democracy in the Middle-East simply stops at the borders of its sovereignty.
René Schwok, March 3rd 2011
Back to summary
Newsletter N° 4
Tonight we will observe the first night of Passover, the seder. Reading the Haggadah we will remember the days when the Jewish people was enslaved in Egypt and we will celebrate its freedom. But we will also teach our children that we cannot be free if we prevent a nation from getting its own freedom.
As a ceaseless testimonial of a desire for unity that goes beyond exoduses and persecutions, Passover will also be an opportunity for Jews across the world to wish “next year in Jerusalem” to each other.
Nevertheless, this fine unity must now face a growing suspicion coming from some Israeli leaders who may be mistaken about who their true friends really are, as they confuse the defence of Israel’s legitimacy with a blind and absolute support to the decisions taken by governmental authorities.
Years after the implementation of a policy that only led to ever more isolation, some elected people and Israeli representatives are now ready to throw themselves into the arms of whoever is ready to declare its unconditional support to Israel, presented as the first barrier against barbarism (read: Islam).
No matter that these leaders seek their backing among Christian fundamentalists whose dangerously regressive political agenda is similar to a literal implementation of Gospels!
No matter that they welcome the representatives of self-confident European far-right extremist parties that claim their attachment to Israel as an indefectible ally in the “Clash of Civilizations”, all too eager to appear modern and to have their old slogans forgotten. This trend was illustrated last December as delegations of leaders who belong to far-right parties were welcomed by members of the government and Knesset MP’s. They view their support to Israel as an unlikely way to prevent the lingering bad smell of open or hidden messages of xenophobia, intolerance and anti-Semitism that can still be heard among their ranks. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Recollections “In politics, shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships” .
Being trapped by a growing feeling of resentment, will Israel give credit to everyone who “still dares” to defend its right to security, but for bad reasons? “As we prepare the path to friendship, we cannot be friends with Evil; we must do Evil to Evil” (Bertolt Brecht).
A few weeks later, Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Sreet’s President, was summoned to give explanations before the Knesset. He explained that a pressing necessity to break with a “hand-tied” support is being felt by almost 170,000 American Jews and the reasons why this should lead Israel to reflection instead of reactions of disgrace.
Link to Jeremy Ben-Ami’s speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcXmCyTCfDQ
A reflection, first, about its ties to Jews all over the world. On 29th September 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu gave, “in the name of his people”, a speech before the UN General Assembly, particularly in reaction to endless Iranian provocations.
Then, a reflection on the values Israel should embody within the international community and defend within its borders. In a worthy democracy, the right to security, if it is of utmost importance, does not necessarily erase the respect that is due to other equally preeminent rights: the respect of the Rule of Law, non-discrimination, freedom of speech, etc.
Turning down this « call for reason » expressed by a significant part of the Diaspora and beyond, with the facile excuse of a distrust toward the fidelity of those who deliver it, would amount to act like the idiot who stares at the finger rather than looking at the moon the finger points to.
To support without complacency, to be trustful, to argue usefully, calmly, with sincerity, these are probably the essentials of true “friendship”.
With this in mind, thirteen JCall supporters have chosen to express the reasons for their commitment in a book coordinated by David Chemla, “Les raisons d’un appel” (The Reasons for a Call).
The JCall initiative is also the commitment of almost 8,000 JCall’ists who have expressed their support through their comments since 3rd May 2010. We offer you a compilation of these reactions.
We cannot act together efficiently without getting to know who you are. Please answer the proposed questionnaire that will only take you a few precious minutes to fill in…
An even better way is for you to participate to the events organised throughout Europe by JCall. We will be waiting for you.
Finally, to express your support, it is important that you sign our Call for Reason and become a member of JCall online.
Best wishes for a meaningful and joyous Passover celebration and Hag sameah
Ivan Terel,
Lawyer, Newsletter editor
Back to summary
Newsletter N° 5 : JCall, one year later
We are happy to inform you that JCall’s first European meeting will be held in Paris on Sunday, 19th June 2011. The program of the day’s events can be found below.
Since the European Call for Reason was launched in May 2010, the long chess game of diplomatic manoeuvers Israel and its neighbours have been playing has by now turned into something more of a blitz, played in a very limited time. One after the other, the foundations of Israel’s geostrategic policy have recently been profoundly shaken.
The impact of the « Arab Spring » on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The current « Arab Spring » is legitimately creating hope for democracy in the region. Nonetheless, nothing is settled yet and the reservations many Israelis have expressed are understandable: they worry that members of radical Islamic parties may take part in the governments which will be formed. Still, the peace agreements signed in the past have not, as of now, been questioned.
Well aware that these changes would eventually have an impact on the Palestinian populations, Fatah and its old rival Hamas have just announced a ‘reconciliation agreement’. This agreement has been designed to allow the West Bank and Gaza to be reunited, politically at least, a few months before an independent Palestinian state is unilaterally declared, as announced, during the UN General Assembly this September.
Despite the sheer scale of these changes, the Netanyahu government does not seem ready to take any initiative and seems more in a reactive mode than an active one.
The question of the impact of Arab uprisings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be one of the topics discussed during the round-table talks which will be held during the JCall conference.
Israeli civil society faced with the occupation
While a large part of Israeli civil society seems to adjust to the situation with growing indifference towards the Palestinians’ fate, another considerable part is taking actions, in particular within the NGO’s, to face the consequences of the occupation. Some of these will present their work to us.
The delegitimization of Israel is still going on
For a year now, the « two peoples – two states » principle has been regularly questioned and calls for large-scale boycott campaigns as well as criticisms of the very legitimacy of Israel have not weakened.
The question of the delegitimization of Israel and what to do against it here in Europe will be discussed at another round-table.
Europe has a role to play in the resolution of the conflict
Unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration is more than willing to associate other partners such as Europe in the resolution of major world issues, particularly in the Middle-East. As we wait for a possible new American initiative, our guests will be given the opportunity to tell us what they think Europe can do to help Israelis and Palestinians find a solution to the conflict.
See you on 19 June 2011 in Paris!
It is essential that as many of us as possible gather to discuss and support the « Call for Reason » launched about a year ago, because today more than ever, we worry about the future and security of Israel to which we are unfailingly attached.
This is precisely what we propose to do in this first European JCall conference. Its program aims to allow us to ask ourselves the right questions and, hopefully, to sketch the outlines of operational answers.
We hope to see you in Paris on the 19th of June. Remember to register on line
http://fr.amiando.com/jcall.html
Ivan Terel
Lawyer, JCall newsletter editor
Back to summary
Newsletter N° 6 : First European Conference of JCall on June 19th
“A Palestinian state is in Israel’s best interest” read one of the posters used during the demonstration for the recognition of a Palestinian state which took place in Tel Aviv on June 4th and attended by around 5 000 people.
What conclusions can be drawn from the points of views expressed by the Israeli Prime Minister and American leaders in their respective speeches?
On May19th, President Obama has endorsed a solution “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed exchanges of territories in order to establish secure and recognized borders for the two states”.
A few days later, in a speech warmly applauded by the members of Congress, Netanyahu discarded the idea of a withdrawal on the 1967 lines, while explicitly accepting the principle of a Palestinian state coexisting next to Israel.
So an inflexible antagonism remains but the Palestinian people as well as the international community have waited long enough for the two parties to sort things out and resume negotiations.
It is now necessary for the Israeli society to be mobilized
Since a possible unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state by this autumn has been announced and the beginning of the Arab spring, the Israeli government has chosen to stay put rather than anticipate by contributing to the definition of the Middle East’s future.
On the Palestinian side, uncertain attempts to bring together the powers in place in Gaza and in the West Bank as well as the tributes Hamas paid to Osama Ben Laden after his death did not encourage Israel to resume dialogue. In a way, this is understandable.
Well aware that the American influence is not sufficient to help Israeli and Palestinian leaders out of the inextricable situation they find themselves in, it is now up to the Israeli society to change the situation.
This is why JCall supports the Appeal for the “Recognition of a Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 borders in Israel’s best interest” published in Haaretz on May 19th by several eminent personalities among which 18 retired army generals and 27 “Israel Price” winners. Thanks to JCall, the Call for Reason of European Jews, this Appeal was published in several European newspapers.
First European Conference of JCall on June 19th
The first European Conference of JCall will take place in Paris on June 19th. It is a testimony of our mobilization in Europe. Through several workshops, we will try to answer these questions together: how will the Arab spring influence the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? How does the Israeli civil society react to the occupation? How should we react to the delegitimation of Israel, which is still vivid in Europe? What role can Europe play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
France has just offered to organize a peace conference in order to give Palestinians and Israelis a last opportunity to negotiate an agreement.
The stakes are now important. The urgency is considerable. Our mobilization in favor of peace and security for Israel must develop now, to match the stakes.
We’ll see you on June 19th in Paris. Make sure to register on line :
http://fr.amiando.com/jcall.html
Ivan Terel,
JCall Newsletter editor,
Lawyer
Back to summary
Newsletter N° 9 : 5772, the year of our mobilisation
With their bid for Palestinian statehood to the UN on September 23rd and to UNESCO this week, the Palestinian Authority opened a new stage in the history of the conflict: that of the battle brought to the international diplomatic arena.
We said in our previous press release that we understand the motives which pushed them to make this choice, after almost two decades of negotiations which, up to now, have not succeeded. Their bid is based on the inalienable right of nations for self-determination. It was the very right on which the request for the recognition of the State of Israel was based at the time of its creation. The right of a nation to have the protection of its own state, a sovereign entity, faced with history’s rifts, has been at the heart of the Zionist project.
Palestinians have the same right and it is urgent to put an end to this situation of occupation where Israel occupies the land on which they want to build their state.
However, even if we all share at JCall the objective of seeing a Palestine emerge next to Israel, there are, among those who signed the ‘Call for Reason’, some voices who claim that the Palestinians’ unilateral move at the UN cannot free them from direct negotiations with the Israelis. This perfectly legitimate argument should also apply to the actions of the Israeli government; indeed, what could be more unilateral than the settlement policy carried out since 1967?
The speeches by President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu at the UN have once again shown the gap between the two positions, with each side leaning on its own narrative and blaming the other for everything that’s wrong.
Yet, whatever the responsibilities for the current situation, the status quo into which the peace process has been entrenched has become humanly and politically untenable, especially in the context of ongoing revolts in the Arab world.
That is why, in our last press release posted this week, we call on the two parties to unconditionally accept the Quartet’s proposition and to start negotiations quickly and with the Quartet’s help. The Israeli government has already announced its agreement, but we are not fooled. We know that they have no intention to put an end to the development of settlements, as was shown by their recent decision to build 1100 housing units at Gilo. But we also know that the worst is the upholding of the status quo. Given the threat of an American veto at the Security Council, wouldn’t the Palestinian Authority, which would be satisfied with a non-state membership at the UN (for which they need a simple majority at the General Assembly, which they already have) come out sufficiently strengthened in the international arena to tackle these negotiations?
To get back to politics, to have audacity, to get out of the pincer held by the extremes which, on both sides, strive to weaken the powers in place in order to exist: this is what the whole world expects from now on from Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
« Politics is the art of reconciling what is desirable with what is possible » (Aristide Briand, in Paroles de paix).
But we know that they will not succeed on their own. That is why we also call upon the European countries to fully play their part in the Quartet and be the driving force in the running of these negotiations which will have to stick to a precise and restrictive timetable in order to avoid the mistakes of previous attempts.
This new year 5772 must be the year of our mobilisation to support the process that we all wish to succeed. Join us, become a member of our association, we need you!
We wish you and your loved ones a happy new year, hoping it will finally be the year of a serious resumption of negotiations in the Middle-East.
Ivan Terel, JCall Newsletter editor, lawyer and David Chemla, European JCall secretary
Back to summary
Newsletter N°7 : JCall’s first anniversary
First, just a quick word to thank all of you who attended our first European conference on the 19th of June, to celebrate JCall’s first anniversary, in particular the JCall delegations from Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland as well as the representatives of Ya’chad (UK) and JStreet (USA).
The seventh newsletter gives us the opportunity to share with you the accounts of the deep and enlightening interventions that took place during the conference.
For its first anniversary, it has been decided to transform JCall into a genuinely European movement, with an integrated structure and whose fundamental principles, sum up in the Call for Reason, remain unchanged.
A new wave of flotillas or “flytillas” attempted to sail for Gaza, with the usual slogans stigmatizing Israel.
Even though one can question the way the activists have been treated by Israel, who appears to have fallen into a public relations set up, even more controversial is their vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as far as mutual respect and peace are concerned.
In the meantime, the enduring peoples’ uprisings in the Arab world, from Morocco to Syria, are evidence that Europe should play a key role in North Africa and the Middle East. They are our neighbours from the other side of the Mediterranean sea and they want more freedom. These are two reasons why we, as European citizens, must lend them a helping hand to be side by side with them in their struggle for democracy.
Negotiations are necessary to implement the 2 State solution.
A unilateral declaration of independence of Palestine is more likely everyday.
The Israeli government seems satisfied with the idea that the US and some European states will block this move diplomatically. It is no mystery however that President Obama is reticent in backing Israel if Israel does not make constructive concessions in exchange.
The only way for Israel to stop this course of actions leading to the recognition is to break the status quo and offer to resume unconditional negotiations.
If no initiative is taken in the coming weeks, the recognition of the Palestinian state is more than likely next September. The situation will be very uncertain however, for Palestinians as well as Israelis.
What will happen when the Palestinian state is internationally recognised? Will secure and mutually agreed borders emerge? Will the question of the status of Jerusalem be answered? A declaration of sovereignty will not be enough to give the Palestinian state actual sovereignty.
In any case, and regardless of one’s opinion on the unilateral recognition, talks will still have to take place in September.
In an interview published by Le Figaro on the 23rd of June, Tzipi Livni was right to stress the fact that “the status quo is dangerous for Israel” and that “ending the conflict with the Palestinians is in Israel’s interest”.
The present situation renders the promotion of the principles put forward by JCall only more necessary and legitimate. It is no easy endeavour. We must strive to convince as many people as possible that our point of view is accurate. You receive this newsletter because you have signed the Call for Reason. With our treasurer, we now ask you to join JCall to take part in this struggle.
Ivan Terel
JCall Newsletter editor, Lawyer
Back to summary
Should a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine be feared ?
by Ivan Terel, Lawyer, Newsletter Editorial Manager JCALL
A negotiated settlement between the parties shall lead to the creation of an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state, living side by side with Israel and with its other neighbors in peace and security.
Will this agreement, drawn from the “roadmap for peace” endorsed by the UN, the EU, the United States and the Russian Federation on the 30^th of April 2003, be forgotten in a few months? Though not entirely new, the issue of a unilateral declaration for an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, recognized by the international community, has been making the headlines recently.
Let us not waste time and energy in guesswork and prognoses as to the consequences of such a unilateral declaration of independence. It is nonetheless possible to ponder the opportunities and risks this initiative presents.
Faced with the deadlock in peace talks, Palestinian officials have skillfully deployed a bypass strategy based on a possible unilateral declaration of independence. If this strategy turns out to be questionable from a strictly legal perspective – the validity of a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine being at best uncertain – it is nevertheless effective from a political perspective.
Indeed, it is a powerful symbol and this strategy shows the international community the Palestinians’ determination to get what they want. It also creates for Palestinians an alternative – real or theoretical – to peace negotiations; finally, it makes it more difficult for Israelis to steal time and delay the resumption of peace talks.
Faced with a quasi-split between Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian officials mean to press Israel and all the other peace-talk participants into returning to the negotiation table, in contrast with the Israeli government’s reluctance.
By putting forward the idea of a unilateral /fait accompli/ strategy, Palestinian negotiators have made it possible to size up the existing diplomatic “forces”. Recent recognitions of the Palestinian state within the 1967 borders by a whole series of South-American states, led by Brazil and Argentina, have given much publicity to this initiative.
The intense bargaining between European countries before their final refusal to go toward recognition of a unilateral declaration of independence, show they are getting impatient and annoyed that negotiations might resume only to get bogged down again.
The idea is after all quite simple: for Palestinians, it is a question of reversing the current balance of power with their Israeli counterpart, by showing that the creation of a Palestinian state is a project nearing completion and unavoidable, with or without negotiations, rather than the result of a negotiated compromise with Israel.
But this strategy is risky. First, from the Palestinian perspective: by announcing that a state will be born in the year 2011, political decision-makers’ credibility is put on the line. It runs the risk of adding disappointment to despair among the peace advocates living in the West Bank or Gaza.
Furthermore, accepting the idea of a unilateral creation of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders amounts to giving up /de facto/ any right of return of the Palestinian refugees, regardless of its practical implementation.
Last but not least, giving rise to the idea that a unilateral action can replace a negotiated settlement may well weaken the “peace camp” for a long time, by marginalizing it.
The Israeli army pullbacks from southern Lebanon and from the Gaza strip, and the dreadful political, diplomatic, military and humanitarian consequences which followed, should be enough to convince us that only a negotiated solution to the conflict will allow to ensure peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians as well as for all countries in the region.
Brandishing the threat of a unilateral declaration of independence as sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy is a double-edged sword, which will either hasten a resumption of the peace talks, or, on the contrary, finish off the negotiations and further consolidate distrust in both sides.
Ivan Terel, January 30th
