Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts

EU statement provides green light for Israeli onslaught

LONDON,(PIC)-- The Arab Organization for Human Rights in UK (AOHR UK) has stressed that EU leaders’ statement regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza is nothing short of a betrayal of the principles of human rights on which the EU was founded.
AOHR UK added in a statement on Wednesday that the EU statement on Tuesday (16-7) had put the victim on par with the killer and lacked any reference to the need to cease the targeting of civilians at a time when the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli strikes had topped 213, most of them women and children, in addition to the 1623 Palestinians who have been wounded. Israeli massacres wiped out most members of at least 15 Palestinian families.
On Wednesday, Israeli shells killed four boys from the Bakr family playing on a beach in Gaza. As well as on Thursday 17/07/2014, Israeli warplanes targeted Shuheiber family house in Sabra neighborhood in central Gaza killing three children Fulla, Jihad and Waseem, ages between 8 and 10 years, the statement added.
AOHR UK pointed out that, despite all these facts, EU leaders’ statement referred to “Israel’s right to defend itself” without announcing any measures against Israel, which enjoys military and economic privileges with the EU, similar to the measures undertaken by the EU to punish other countries which committed crimes against innocent civilians.
AOHR UK stressed that the EU position vis-à-vis Israeli crimes was not surprising considering EU’s history of justifying Israeli atrocities, a stand which implies that human rights are divisible and could be breached with total impunity.
The organization said that EU leaders’ statement does not represent the position of most Europeans who condemn the killing of civilians in Gaza and view them as crimes against humanity that should not go unpunished.
AOHR UK urged EU countries to revisit their shameful position and put an immediate freeze on all security and military contracts with Israel because Palestinian women and children are being murdered with European technology and weapons Israel imports from Europe.
The Organization called upon EU countries especially Britain, France and Germany to freeze all contracts with Israel and put an immediate stop to all arms exports to Israel. Reports estimate that these three countries alone account for billions of dollars’ worth of weapons deals with Israel.
The Organization also urged the international community to sever its military links with Israel and cease their arms imports from Israel because most of these weapons had been tested on innocent civilians. Reports from Gaza indicate that Israel has used newly-developed weapons during its latest offensive on Gaza in a clear sign that Israel is testing these weapons in preparation for marketing them.
Share:

Why Jews flee to Europe (or at least half of it)

Have you heard about Europe’s Jewish exodus? Amid growing tensions and tough economic conditions, tens of thousands of educated middle-class Jews are fleeing every year – not out of the continent, but rather from Israel into Europe, and especially to Germany, which has become the chief destination (after the United States) for the half-million Israelis who have left the country amid its much-discussed “brain drain.”


DOUG SAUNDERS
This has taken both Israelis and many Europeans by surprise – and offended some Israeli leaders. Last month, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, during a visit to Budapest, took to Facebook to denounce the growing wave of Europe-bound Jews who have become known in the Israeli media as the New Yordim (emigrants, or literally, “fallen”).
“A word to all those who are fed up, and are leaving for Europe,” he wrote, then described his family’s tragic history in the Holocaust, concluding: “Forgive me if I’m a little impatient with those who are willing to throw away the only country the Jews have because it’s easier to live in Berlin.”
Easier to live in Berlin? That would not, even a generation ago, have been a common Jewish sentiment. Among North American Jews, even visiting Germany on vacation remains a matter of controversy and distaste. The black years of the Shoah are too fresh in many family histories.
Yet for this generation of Israelis, the shift to Europe is surprisingly uncontroversial. Last year, I had a conversation with a successful Israeli historian who had taken up residency in Germany. “That move must have shocked a lot of your friends in Israel,” I suggested. She looked askance, as if this was an unheard-of notion: “No, of course not,” she said. “My friends are all just jealous that I can get a visa to live here. Every Israeli academic of my generation wants to move to Europe.”
Much of this emigration has to do with Israel’s impossible economic conditions – writer Ruth Margalit recently noted that 87 per cent of Israelis over 25 are financially dependent on their parents.
But it is also political: European countries are seen by Israelis as stable, egalitarian and safe, while in an Israel governed by hard-line regimes, the zealots and the Orthodox seem destined to prevail. “With all due respect,” Jerusalem Post columnist Susan Hatis Rolef recently wrote, “I think it is physically safer for a Jew to live in Berlin these days than in Jerusalem, though I do not belittle the emotional difficulty involved for a Jew to do so, given the not-too-distant history.”
She listed the reasons for the exodus: “loss of hope that peace will ever prevail … discomfort with the lack of determination of Israel’s leaders to make a serious effort to separate religion and state … and the feeling that life in Israel frequently feels like life in a pressure cooker.”
Still, it might seem more logical that the Jewish exodus would be out of Europe, not into it. Here in Austria, a party with an anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi background won nearly a fifth of the vote in the Sept. 29 elections. In Hungary, France, Greece and the Netherlands, parties based on religious and racial intolerance have had strong showings (although they govern nowhere). In a recent survey, 76 per cent of European Jews said they believe anti-Semitism has increased over the past five years. In France, home to half of Europe’s Jews, almost half said they had considered emigrating out of Europe.
So which is it: a Europe safe for Jews disenchanted by Israel, or a Europe Jews are seeking to flee? It’s important to understand that there are really two Europes.
The most comprehensive recent study of cross-European attitudes toward religious minorities was conducted two years ago by Andreas Zick of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Resarch on Conflict and Violence. It found a huge divergence in attitudes.
On the statement “Jews have too much influence in my country,” a staggering 69 per cent of Hungarians and 50 per cent of Poles answered yes, compared to far smaller numbers in Western Europe (14 per cent in France, 20 per cent in Germany and 6 per cent in the Netherlands) Likewise, majorities in Poland, Hungary and Portugal agreed with the statement “Jews in general do not care about anything or anyone but their own kind,” while this was a small minority view in the larger economies.
In Europe’s centre and east, where hardly any Jews remain to be found, public intolerance has risen to dangerous proportions. In the larger economies, Jews are largely seen as fellow citizens with a different religion. Unfortunately, the places where people of any religious minority are free from annoying zealotry are becoming fewer in number.
Share:

European Union: The European Court Of Justice Overturns, Unfreezes EU Iran Sanctions

While a full review of the developments in each case would be beyond the scope of this blog article, a few representative matters bear closer scrutiny. 

by Mark L Jensen


In a series of recent rulings, theEuropean Court of Justice overturned economic sanctions issued by the Council of the European Union (EU) on several Iranian banks and shipping lines.
iran-sanctions_ OBAMA CHARADEOn September 6 and 16, 2013, the Court halted sanctions on Persia International Bank plc, Bank Refah Kargaran, Export Development Bank of Iran, Post Bank Iran, Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co., Iran Insurance Company, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Khazar Shipping Lines, and Good Luck Shipping. The EU had sanctioned these entities for their support of nuclear proliferation activities in Iran, but the Court determined that the EU lacked sufficient evidence to introduce such sanctions. The cases are notable for their effect on global sanctions against Iran, although it seems unlikely that U.S. sanctions against Iran would be lifted on similar grounds.
While a full review of the developments in each case would be beyond the scope of this blog article, a few representative matters bear closer scrutiny. In the case against IRISL, the Court noted that the imposition of sanctions was only permitted where a party had allegedly supported nuclear proliferation. The Court indicated that sanctions could not be imposed simply based on a risk that IRISL might provide support for nuclear proliferation in the future. In particular, the Court determined that, while the EU established that IRISL had been involved in exports of arms from Iran, that activity was not alone sufficient to support the imposition of nuclear sanctions. As a result, the Court struck down the sanctions against IRISL.
Similarly, in considering sanctions against Iran Insurance Company, the Court noted that the EU had sanctioned the company for insuring the purchase of helicopter spare parts, electronics, and computers with applications in aircraft and missile navigation, which the EU alleged could be used in violation of nuclear proliferation sanctions. The Court ruled that the EU had relied on “mere unsubstantiated allegations” regarding the provision of insurance services, and annulled the sanctions.
We think these two matters are noteworthy for the types of evidence used to link the activities of the entities to nuclear proliferation. When viewed in the light of a formal court proceeding, it seems somewhat remarkable that the EU sought to tie the insuring of items including helicopter spare parts to nuclear proliferation at all. But, as we have discussed previously in this blog, [ see May 2013 sanctions article] economic sanctions against Iran have been broadly construed and applied by the United States and the EU to target industries integral to the functioning of the Iranian economy. Insofar as a functioning Iranian economy also supports the nuclear development efforts of its government, it may make political sense for the EU and the United States to impose leverage through sanctions. As a legal matter, however, the European Court of Justice rulings suggest that Court will be loathe to tie restrictions on general economic activity to a statute focused on the specific activity of nuclear proliferation.
In other words, the European Court of Justice seems unlikely to defer to the EU, even where European security is at stake. This stands in relatively stark contrast to U.S. courts, which have generally shown deference to government activity on issues of national security. 1
For the time being, U.S. sanctions on Iran and key entities within the Iranian banking and shipping sectors remain in place, with far reaching consequences that will continue to deter Western business from even considering business in Iran. And ultimately, any warming in diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran will likely be more momentous than judicially vacated sanctions. But at a minimum, the European Court of Justice has signaled that EU sanctions are subject to standards of proof that cannot be broadly construed to incorporate all types of economic activity.
Footnotes
1 At least one U.S. court has overturned criminal sanctions charges on individuals by reading regulatory provisions in the accused’s favor due to issues of vagueness in the sanctions regulations. [see Clarity Required: US V. Banki]
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Source : http://www.mondaq.com
Share:

IDF Major General Detained in London


serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envyTitus 3:3
Never underestimate the value of simple means in international relations. The picture shows Sara Netanyahu attending Margaret Thatcher's funeral in London, on April 17, 2013. Her smile beats the one of Buddha after achieving Nirvana. She was not being disrespectful to Thatcher; her bliss was due to the British fascinator hat.
Hedonist Israelis cannot live without their favorite shopping center. After Sara's fascinating discovery of British fashion, Israeli media were stunned to discover how much Sara's bliss had cost. On May 13, 2013, it was disclosed that the State of Israel had invested $127,000 in four walls and a door installed around a double bed, as well as 22 business class seats fitted on a plane chartered from El Al, Israel's national airline. The aircraft cost about $300,000 to use, before the custom fittings, designed for a flight of about five-and-a-half hours. Yet, Sara needed a powerful nap before boasting the ridiculous garment.

"Bibi is king, and in a monarchy, when the king and queen fly, price is no object," said political commentator Sima Kadmon.
Sharon's Fascinator
Avi Benayahu
Brigadier General Avi Benayahu
IDF Spokesperson August 2007—April 2011
James Bond
Unlike Netanyahu's third lady, Ariel Sharon couldn't buy a fascinator in Harrods for many years. Only on February 15, 2002, the International Court of Justice halted a Belgian attempt to try Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians during the Sabra and Shatila Massacre in Lebanon in 1982, when he was Israel's Minister of Defense. It ruled that serving ministers are protected from prosecution. Before that, Sharon had avoided visiting mainland Europe, specially the Belgian capital Brussels, due to a justified fear of being arrested and tried.
No less heart-breaking is the story of former IDF Spokesperson Brigadier General Avi Benayahu. In an interview given in January 2011 to British magazine Defense News, he revealed that in 2010 he had flown to Britain using a pseudonym so as to avoid getting arrested and investigated for war crimes. "In my last visit to London, I had to assume a false name because well-funded anti-Israel activists are exploiting universal jurisdiction powers to wage lawfare against us," he said while refusing to be photographed with his fascinator.
Former IDF Southern Command Chief Maj. Gen. (res.) Doron Almog escaped arrest in 2005 after being indicted for war crimes in a British court. The British judge said the warrant was annulled in light of the fact that Almog had left the country and is therefore "no longer under the court's jurisdiction." Apparently, his fascinator hat had fooled the British immigration officers.
In 2006, current Head of the Intelligence Corps Major General Aviv Kochavi had to cancel his studies in the Kingdom following the recommendation of IDF legal advisors. He would have been arrested upon arrival.
In December 2009, a British court issued an arrest warrant against Israel's opposition leader Tzipi Livni+ for her involvement in war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead while serving as Foreign Affairs Minister. The warrant was cancelled when it was found that Livni was not even in Britain at the time. She had been warned and didn't take the flight.
In 2009 former military chief Moshe Yaalon—current Minister of Defense—called off a visit to Britain because of similar concerns.
In 2010, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor canceled a scheduled trip to the UK for fear he would be arrested upon his arrival. In 2011, MK Amir Peretz escaped an arrest warrant issued for him in London on suspicion of committing war crimes during the Lebanon War. Israel's Justice and Foreign ministries were aware of the arrest warrant ahead of time, and advised Peretz, who was in New York, to cancel his trip to the UK.
Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak faced a similar fate, but the British court ruled that as a sitting minister (he was Minister of Defense at the time) he enjoyed diplomatic immunity. He cannot defend himself after a very clear indictment issued by the United Nations on Operation Cast Lead.
On November 6, 2012, Turkey announced that a court in Istanbul will try in absentia ("in the absence," a trial at which the defendant is not physically present) four ex-Israeli military commanders over the IDF Freedom Flotilla raid in 2010.++ The Mavi Marmara was trying to break the blockade of Gaza and bring humanitarian aid to the refugees there. Nine Turkish activists were killed by Israeli naval commandos (Shayetet 13), who had boarded the ship. Israel had in the past conducted no less questionable legal processes; thus it cannot oppose the Turkish decision on procedural grounds. One of the officers in the trial is Major General* Eliezer "Chiney" Marom, who commanded the Navy during the Israeli attack.
Eliezer Marom, Chief of Staff Gantz, and Ram Rothberg
Eliezer "Chiney" Marom, Chief of Staff Gantz, and Ram Rothberg
During Navy Commander Exchange Ceremony, October 10, 2011

Interlude: Israel Bends Britain
The Israeli Administration decided to put an end to the continuous harassment it suffered from its main provider of fascinators. In September 2011, following massive Zionist pressure, the UK decided to amend The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, a law that had not been changed since WWII. Despite Israel's mighty lobbying, the amendment barely passed with 223 votes in favor and 222 against.
The amendment bars detaining people when there is no realistic chance of their prosecution. The meaning is simple, Israeli officials were given a formal exemption by the Queen; they can visit Harrods and buy pretty hats even if the violate international laws, commit war crimes, or even if they commit crimes against humanity. Fascinators rule!
Buddha's Smile
The amendment cannot stop Palestinians living in the UK from placing charges against Israeli officials visiting the Kingdom by the Sea.
The amendment cannot stop the police from starting an investigation. Under the corrected law, the Director of Public Prosecutions must approve the detention of the official, but that's all.
The British public and police can still make clear that the guest is unwelcome and create an embarrassing headline for him. That is what happened today, October 14, 2013, to General Marom.
Upon arrival at London's Heathrow Airport, he was detained for questioning on his role during Operation Cast Lead and the raid on the Gaza's Freedom Flotilla attack. He used his allotted phone call to contact Israel's Ministry of Justice and shortly afterwards was released.
Sara Netanyahu's next fascinator will probably be bought in Tel Aviv's London Ministores, in the shop just above McDonald's. Hearing this, Buddha surpassed Sara's smile.
———
+ Out of nowhere, Tsipi Livni was elected as a member of the Knesset for the Likud party, on the general elections held on May 17, 1999. Her sudden appearance there was enough to prove her credentials to the Israeli public, any formal mention that she was Mossad would have been superfluous; yet, reliable rumors appeared on the newspapers claiming she had been a low-rank Mossad agent.
In Israeli jargon, the statement was clear. She had not been an officer like Victor Ostrovsky and probably held a position similar to the one of "Cindy," the code name for Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov. The last, apparently posing as a bar-girl, had a key-role in the kidnapping of Mordechai Vanunu by Israel in 1986.
Bar-girl or not, in the Israeli political life, a Mossad agent has the right (or maybe the information needed to blackmail others) to bypass the regular political path and to land as a prince at the parliament, right next to the top.
* IDF ranks do not match those of other armies. His rank is sometimes translated as "vice-admiral" or "rear-admiral," but reality is different. The IDF does not have separate ranks for its different arms. Navy, Air, and Ground arms use the same name and shape of ranks; only their colors are different. The commander of an arm has the rank of "aluf," which is parallel to a major general.
Roi Trov
Share:

Jewish Peer Attacks Violinist for Israel Apartheid Remark

by Anthony Lawson

World-renowned violinist Nigel Kennedy has been attacked by Baroness Deech, of Cumnor, for something that he said at a BBC Proms concert, featuring the Palestinian Strings, a group of talented young musicians aged between twelve and twenty-three.
Apart from the seriousness of attacking a fine musician who was speaking the truth, then having his words censored from any future broadcasts by the BBC, the video looks into the activities of the Jewish lobbies in the United Kingdom in attempting to suppress the vicious activities of the Jewish, Apartheid State of Israel against the Palestinian people.

References:
Nigel Kennedy plays Spring from Vivaldi's The Four Seasons at the 2013 BBC Proms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDXBnS…

Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby Video – Channel 4 UK – Broadcast November 16, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E70Bw…

Gresham College The Universities: Under Regulation – Baroness Ruth Deech
Published on Apr 24, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sYzVl…
Share:

Israel says won’t sign EU deal under new terms

Turkish Daily News


JERUSALEM – Israel would rather forego hundreds of millions of dollars in EU research grants than accept an anti-settlement clause Europe wants written into any new partnership deal, Israel’s deputy foreign minister said Friday, a day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened top Cabinet ministers to stake out a position.
The deputy minister, Zeev Elkin, said Israel still hopes to soften the terms of Horizon 2020, a seven-year Europe-wide research grant program that begins in 2014 and has a budget of 80 billion euros.
If it joins, Israel would pay in about 600 million euros and likely receive more than 1 billion euros in grants. Israelsuccessfully participated in the outgoing European grant program.
“We want to sign and we are ready to negotiate, but if the conditions are as they are today, which are unprecedented … we can’t sign,” Elkin told Israel Radio.
The new EU guidelines say any partnership agreements with Israel must state clearly they are not applicable to the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in 1967. The guidelines were introduced, in part, to show the EU’s growing dismay over Israeli settlement expansion on war-won land the Palestinians want for a state.
The settlements, home to about 560,000 Israelis, are deemed illegal by most of the international community, including the EU. Israel’s 1967 annexation of east Jerusalem into its capital has not been recognized by most countries in the world.
Negotiations between Israel and the EU on signing Horizon 2020 are to begin in the coming days.
On Thursday, Netanyahu met with Cabinet ministers to try to find a way out of the dilemma.
Netanyahu presides over a center-right coalition that includes prominent pro-settler politicians and would likely find it difficult to accept the EU’s new “territorial clause.” However, turning down the research partnership could cause significant harm to Israeli research and economic interests.
Zehava Galon of the dovish Meretz Party said the government is acting recklessly by endangering Israel’s participation in the grant program.
“This is what a sinking ship looks like when its captains decide to establish the State of Judea (biblical term for the West Bank) while destroying the future of Israel,” she told Israel Radio. “Because this is destroying the scientific future of Israel, Israeli research.”
Elkin said Israel was faced with a decision of principle.
Losing access to Horizon 2020 would be considerable, mainly “in terms of promoting Israeli science and its need to compete with scientists around the world,” he said. However, “Israel cannot discriminate (between different areas), as the EU demands now, with special certificates and commitments.”
It remains unclear how much wiggling room, if any, negotiators would have.
Europe might want to avoid a showdown with Israel at a time when Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are finally underway, following a five-year freeze. Negotiations resumed last month.
However, the EU appeared unlikely to agree to the changes sought by Israel, since their new wording “reiterates the long-held position that bilateral agreements with Israel do not cover the territory that came under Israel’s administration in June 1967,” as the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, put it last month.
On Friday, her spokesman Michael Mann said the EU Commission, the 28-nation bloc’s executive arm, is aware of media reports that Israel is planning to seek clarifications.
“We stand ready to organize discussions during which such clarifications can be provided and look forward to continued successful EU-Israel cooperation, including in the area of scientific cooperation,” he said.
Share:

Israel Declares Sanctions on Europe

Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.Romans 12:20
-
“Don’t bother me with the Palestinians. If the Egyptian new dictator—What’s his name? Order a lecture on his name!—calls, tell him that I am busy with two wars,” Israel’s Minister of Defense told to his military secretary.
He was serious. In June 2013, a struggle against McDonald’s had escalated after a decision of the chain not to open a branch in the West Bank. He will show those American Ronalds that Jews have the right to eat a non-kosher cheeseburger wherever their wish.
Unluckily, McDonald’s is an American corporation. Due to the strategic relations between the countries, he needed to conduct this war underground, guerrilla-style. Elite soldiers disguised as settlers spraying nasty graffiti on McDonald’s branches during the little hours of the night. “What a waste!” He said aloud while bravely chewing his commando-knife.


wordpress stats

 The Other War
The second war being commanded by the Minister of Defense took place on the same territory but against a different enemy. In the confused reality of the occupied West Bank, the Minister is the sovereign. His word is worth more than the feeble voice of the Prime Minister or even than the Palestinian Authority. This meant that sometimes he acts as a foreign affairs minister.
In July 2013, the European Union published its guidelines banning EU funding of projects in territories occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East War. According to the EU decision, from 2014, all existing agreements between European countries with Israel will exclude East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. Israeli projects applying for EU funding will be required to sign a clause to state that it will not apply to the Occupied Territories.
The EU is attempting to stop the bisection of the West Bank. Israel is trying to create Jewish contiguity between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, where one of Israel’s main industrial centers is located. Once this is achieved, the West Bank will be effectively bisected,* splitting the State of Palestine in three non-contiguous zones (Gaza would be the third). If the West Bank is bisected, Palestine would not be viable.
As explained in EU Hits Israel, this public event took Israel by surprise. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is being temporarily run by the Prime Minister, who doesn’t have time to get involved. The ongoing strike of that ministry has left Israel unable to deal with other countries except for emergencies. Nobody considered the excruciatingly slow politics of the EU to be an emergency; thus Israel was forced to react only afterwards.
Since the decision was taken, Israeli politicians were consistently nasty towards the EU, but nothing was done. On July 26, the Ministry of Defense declared sanctions on Europe.

Birkat Ram
European War of Sanctions
Courtesy of The Economist
Related: EU Hits Israel
Did you know? Israel Wars McDonald’s

 Sanctions War


As in the case of McDonald’s and the USA, Israel must be careful while dealing with Europe, which is the largest recipient of Israeli exports, with 35% of the total. Declaring war would have been foolish. Instead, Israel started a war without declaring it.
The European couldn’t react to the Minister of Defense. “We have got no formal messages on the issue,” was their invariable message, including from the spokeswoman of the European Foreign Affairs Council. Moshe Ya’alon, Sovereign of the West Bank, had won the first battle of the Sanctions War.
The Sovereign of the West Bank didn’t bother to contact the EU. Instead, he delivered orders to the IDF and the Civil Administration and sent a copy to the Hebrew media.
He ordered to stop the cooperation with people of the European Union in the West Bank and to deny them help in the different projects they are implementing. In Gaza, they will be denied entry and exit via Israel, forcing them to cross via the Sinai, an area suffering violence these days.
Israel can block projects only in Area C, the parts of the West Bank under complete control of the IDF. In other parts, the cooperation would continue as usual, unless Europe gets really nasty. Right wing extremists in Israel have called to cut diplomatic relations with the EU.
“Bring me a cheeseburger! Tell the Palestinians to wait with their war!” Ya’alon yelled at his secretary.
———

full version and free subscriptions at http://roitov.com/articles/euwar.htm
* Israel’s strategy is changing rapidly. For many years, the official viewpoint was “two countries for two peoples,” attempting to create a two-states solution of the conflict with Palestine. Yet, three out of three Prime Ministers who attempted to sign a permanent agreement ended their terms violently. Rabin was assassinated with the Court-proven help from the Shin Beth secret police, Sharon suffered a sudden stroke and was clumsily evacuated to the hospital by ambulance during the rush hour while administered a wrong drug. Olmert was wrongly impeached. Lucky coincidences? The Shin Beth knows that this is not the case.
Israel was gaining time. During all this period, the settlements grew rapidly. In mid 2013, there are more than 500,000 Jewish settlers in over 100 settlements. In recent months, Israel is attempting to strike its coup de grâce on Palestine by planning a settlement in an area known as E1 (E1: Trashing Evil). If completed, the West Bank would be bisected.
Share:

Trading Away Peace - How Europe helps sustain illegal Israeli settlements


– On 30 October a coalition of 22 leading European organisations released a report on the EU’s economic relationship with Israeli settlements –Trading Away Peace: How Europe helps to sustain illegal Israeli settlements. The foreword to the report was written by Hans van den Broek, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (1982-1993) and former EU Commissioner for External Relations (1993-1999).
The report describes the settlements as follows: “Israeli settlements are communities established on territories occupied by Israel since 1967. Today there are more than 500,000 Israeli settlers living across the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Settlements control more than 42% of the West Bank’s land and the majority of its water and natural resources.”
The report focuses on highlighting the disparity between what the EU says in regards to the settlements, and what it actually does in practice.

What the EU says about the settlements
The report notes that the EU’s position on the settlements is “absolutely clear”. “Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory are ‘illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible.’”

What the EU actually does in practice
Each year, the EU imports approximately EUR 230m (US$300m) worth of goods from the settlements, or 15 times the value of EU imports from Palestinians. Or to put it another way, the EU imports over 100 times more per settler than per Palestinian. The most common import from the settlements is agricultural produce, such as citrus and dates.

The report notes that: “[D]espite its firm position that settlements are not part of Israel, Europe has been accepting imports of these settlements products with origin designated as ‘Israel’, thus acquiescing to Israel’s extension of its sovereignty over the occupied territory. Many of these products are sold in European stores under the misleading label ‘Made in Israel’, denying consumers their right, under existing EU consumer protection legislation, to make informed decisions when they shop. As a result, many European consumers are unwittingly supporting the settlements and the attendant violations of human rights.”
Further, a number of European companies have invested in the settlements and provide them with services. The report specifically names: G4S (UK/Denmark); Alstom (France); Veolia (France); and Heidelberg Cement (Germany).
The report continues: "[A]dding to the contradictions at the heart of EU policy towards Israel’s illegal settlements, the EU has failed to fully exclude settlements from the benefits of its cooperation programmes and bilateral agreements with Israel.” The report also refers to the newly ratified EU-Israel Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA), as another example of the EU’s failure to adequately distinguish between Israel proper and the illegal settlements.

Discrimination and human rights violations as a result of settlement activity
The report further notes that: “[T]hrough the establishment of settlements, successive Israeli governments have created a discriminatory two-tier system in the West Bank with settlers enjoying all the rights and benefits of Israeli citizenship, and Palestinians subject to Israeli military laws that deprive them of their fundamental rights.
The discriminatory legal systems applied by Israel in the West Bank has overseen the incarceration of over 730,000 Palestinian men, women and children since 1967 and was the subject of a recent joint submissionby DCI and WCLAC to the UN. The submission noted that the settlements, and their associated infrastructure, act as friction points where numerous human rights violations occur, involving men, women and children.

Practical solutions
The report notes that: “[T]he many linkages with settlements are inconsistent with Europe’s obligations under international law, which stipulates that third parties, including European governments, have the duty not to recognise, aid or assist settlements as well as a duty to effectively oppose them.” Based on this legal obligation, the report makes a number of practical recommendations, including:
• Ensure correct consumer labelling. As a more comprehensive option, ban imports of settlement products, as called for by Ireland.
• Exclude settlement products and companies from public procurement tenders. This would include European companies associated with the settlements, such as G4S.
• Remove organisations funding settlements from tax deduction systems, as done in Norway.
• Draw up a list of companies misstating the origin of settlement goods as “Israel” as requested by the European Parliament.
Van den Broek concludes that the practical measures recommended by the report “directed only at illegal settlements […] do not constitute an anti-Israel agenda. On the contrary, the preservation of the two-state solution, in accordance with international law, should be seen as a contribution to Israel’s security and legitimacy.”

Related links:
Share:

EU clashes with Israel


EU Report on Israel: Saving the Two State Solution?

By: Jonathan Cook

Nazareth - Already-strained relations between Israel and Europe hit an all-time low this week after a leaked internal European report on the so-called peace process criticised Israel in unprecedented terms.

The document, which warned that the chances of a two-state solution were rapidly fading, appeared to reflect mounting exasperation among the 27 European member states at Israel’s refusal to revive talks with the Palestinians.

Israeli newspapers, reporting on the developing crisis, have led with headlines such as “Israel vs Europe.” One, Israel Today, known to be close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recently announced “Europe becomes irrelevant,” in an echo of a rebuff to the Europeans issued by Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s far-right foreign minister.

Israeli observers have warned that a falling-out with Europe is the last thing Israel needs, following its recent fallout with key strategic allies in the region, such as Turkey and Egypt.

The tensions have been provoked by the emergence of what appears to be an increasingly independent European approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, suggesting a possible break with the EU’s traditional submissiveness towards the United States’ Middle East agenda.

European powers appear to be balking at the prospect that the two-state solution is about to slip out of grasp, as Netanyahu’s rightwing government refuses to make meaningful concessions and speeds up the pace of settlement-building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That would end the framework of the Oslo accords, a diplomatic process that Europe has invested in heavily and which has dictated the West’s approach to peace-making for nearly two decades.

The EU’s critical stance has been expressed most clearly in two internal documents that were leaked separately to the Israeli media over the past weeks. Both suggest that European states are seeking to become actively involved in areas of Palestinian life under Israeli rule, possibly taking on a stewardship role, even if – as seems certain – it would risk angering Israel.

In particular, the EU appears to be considering radical moves to push its own agenda in relation both to the large Palestinian minority living inside Israel and to the Palestinians in the so-called “Area C” of the West Bank, which covers nearly two-thirds of the occupied territory and was placed under full Israeli control by the Oslo accords.

Until now, Europe had mainly restricted its criticisms to Israeli activities in occupied East Jerusalem.

Europe’s reluctance to go public with either document indicates the great sensitivity of its proposed more activist role. In the report on Israel’s Palestinian minority, a copy of which has been seen by Al-Akhbar, European embassies warn that “we need to be sensitive about perceptions of foreign interference in issues which Israel sees as a strictly internal question.”

An Israeli official quoted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper on Friday was dismissive that the reports would have any impact on the ground, suggesting it would not affect the official positions adopted in Brussels.

However, the documents do indicate that pressure is mounting on European states, which collectively have been the largest donor to the Palestinians during the Oslo period, to take a firmer line against Israeli intransigence. Public opinion in many leading European countries has become far more critical of Israeli policies than their governments.

In addition, the demise of the Oslo process threatens to provoke further conflict in a region already undergoing political upheavals that Europe fears may spill over on to its own shores.

The paper leaked this week, on Israel’s control of the largest area of the West Bank, uses particularly confrontational language, arguing that Israel has “continuously undermined” a Palestinian presence there and is “rapidly closing the window” on a two-state solution.

Using phrases that imply Israel is conducting a policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Area C, the report notes the Palestinian population has shrunk dramatically to only 150,000, compared to as many as twice that number in the Jordan Valley alone in 1967. The Jewish population in the settlements, meanwhile, has grown to 310,000, tripling in less than 20 years.

The 16-page report, which was written by European heads of mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah, was leaked to Israel’s popular Ynet website this week and has been seen by Al-Akhbar too.

A diplomat told the Israeli media that all the European governments backed the document: “What’s special about this report is that we are all partners in it and agree on the wording.”

The paper blames a raft of Israeli policies for what is termed “forced transfer of the native population.” These include home demolitions, severe prohibitions on construction, settlement expansion, movement restrictions, and denial of access to land and water.

The result of Palestinian migration to other parts of the West Bank is that less than 6 percent of the territory’s Palestinians now reside in an area that is expected to comprise the majority of any future Palestinian state. Area C, the paper notes, includes “crucial natural resources and land for the future demographic and economic growth of a viable Palestinian state.”

A European official in Israel, who wished to remain anonymous, said the report highlighted growing concerns in Europe that the viability and territorial contiguity of a Palestinian state was being undermined by Israel’s policies in Area C and East Jerusalem, leading to a series of “ghettoes.”

The report recommends that the EU take an active role in promoting Palestinian economic development and backing infrastructure projects related to roads, water, schools and medical clinics to “support the Palestinian people and help maintain their presence [in the area].” No mention is made of Israeli involvement or cooperation.

In a sign of the mounting concern about the loss of direction in the so-called process, another added: “The continuation of settlement construction will lead to one state for two peoples. We don't know where this government is leading [Israel] to or what its position is regarding the peace process.”

The report, which was completed in July 2011, may have been one of the reasons for an unexpectedly harsh statement from Britain, France, Germany and Portugal last month at the United Nations, expressing “dismay” at Israel’s settlement policy.

The four EU states, all currently members of the Security Council, condemned Israeli plans to speed up settlement construction in the West Bank. They also castigated Israel for failure to control extremist groups among the settlers, who have grown increasingly bold in launching violent attacks on Palestinians, including burning crops and torching mosques.

The UN action coincided with the submission, by Andrew Standley, the EU ambassador to Israel, of a formal protest to Israel’s foreign ministry over the growing number of house demolitions in Area C and the economic distress of its Palestinian inhabitants. The statement was reportedly agreed to after the EU’s foreign ministers received the Area C report.

Standley’s letter also highlighted EU concerns about a plan for the so-called E1 zone, between Jerusalem and the settlement of Maale Adumim in the West Bank. Israel is currently threatening to clear out 2,500 Bedouin living at the site to prepare for the construction of a new settlement called Mevasseret Adumim, which would connect with Maale Adumin, increasing Israel’s hold on East Jerusalem and cutting the West Bank in two.

Two weeks earlier similar fears were expressed in a letter to Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, by Kristalina Georgieva, the European commissioner for international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response.

Lieberman, Israel’s far-right foreign minister, responded to the rebukes by accusing the Europeans of “interfering” in an internal Israeli issue and of “losing their credibility and making themselves irrelevant.” He also advised Europe to concentrate instead on "peacemaking in bloodshed hotspots” such as Syria.

Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, warned that Israel was “starting a war against its closest friends in Europe.” Meanwhile, the liberal Haaretz newspaper argued that, with the loss of Europe, Washington was now “the only barrier between Israel and international isolation – which borders on strategic danger.”

Last month Lieberman also expressed outrage at another secret EU report, this one a draft by European embassies in Israel on an even more sensitive subject – Israel’s Palestinian minority. The paper, which was completed in November, was leaked to Haaretz late last month. The Israeli foreign ministry accused the EU of drafting it “behind our backs”.

The 27-page report breaks new ground in proposing that the EU play a central part in protecting the interests of Palestinians within Israel’s borders rather than only in the occupied territories.

It catalogues widespread discrimination in education, employment, housing and access to land, notes a surge in legislative proposals targeting the Palestinian minority and “a political climate in which discriminatory rhetoric and practice go unsanctioned.”

It suggests that Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian citizens should move from being “second tier to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” to a “core issue.” It adds that Israel’s obligation to “ensure the equality of all its citizens” cannot wait on a revival of the stalled peace process. Tackling inequality, it concludes, “is integral to Israel’s long-term stability.”

A long list of recommendations for the EU to implement include lobbying against discriminatory laws, encouraging greater investment by European hi-tech firms in Arab areas, ensuring each European state “adopts” an Arab community, and awarding more scholarships for Arab students.

According to the Israeli media, several EU states, including the Netherlands, objected to these recommendations, but appear to have the backing of many key states.

The proposal to step up EU involvement inside Israel is particularly controversial given that Israel has vehemently objected in recent months to European funding of local human rights groups that assist Palestinians inside both Israel and the occupied territories.

The cabinet has given its support to legislation that would severely limit foreign donations – chiefly from the EU – to such groups and heavily tax any remaining funding. Netanyahu put the bills on hold last month after coming under fierce criticism from Washington and Europe.

The crisis in relations with Europe was one of the main topics under discussion at Israel’s annual ambassadors’ meeting in Jerusalem, held over the Christmas break when Western capitals go into brief hibernation. More than 100 senior diplomats attended, with ambassadors to Europe reporting that they felt “hated and unwanted,” and as isolated as at any time as they could remember in Israel’s history.

The pessimistic, consensual forecast at the meeting was that developments in the region, especially the Arab Spring, have ruled out any progress in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians for at least the coming year.

Netanyahu’s advisers offered their own warnings that the diplomatic impasse would not let up and Israel’s international standing, especially in Europe, was likely to erode yet further.






The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Share: