Toespraak Gretta Duisenberg op conferentie in Iran 4-5 maart 2009
International Law
and
Peace for Palestine
address by
Mrs Gretta Duisenberg
Chairperson
at the
Fourth International Conference
Supporting Palestine as the Symbol of Resistance
and
Gaza as the Victim of Crime
Tehran, 4th - 5th March 2009
The ghastly Israeli assault on Gaza is a fresh memory. The summer war of 2006 against Lebanon, equally horrific, also lingers on in our minds. However, both are no more than vivid illustrations of Israeli abuse of power in the Middle East. The history of boundless aggression and war stretches a period of at least sixty decades, if not more. There is ample reason to be infuriated. And , indeed, I am.
Still, we should not let ourselves be swept away by anger, by frustrations or by revenge. We should, instead, keep our cool and maintain a clear vision. We should look into the future and ask ourselves the overriding question: how can we stop aggression and war. How can we make peace, a truly just and lasting peace. To this end, I kindly ask your attention for four main topics:
- international law and Israel;
- Israel's overdue maintenance of international law;
- the so-called Quartet;
- the key to peace in the Middle East.
These issues illustrate my core beliefs and my basic principles. In my view, Israel constitutes the main obstacle to peace. The nature of the problem is political, thus the problem must be solved by peaceful, political means. And, finally, international law is the one and only benchmark, the singularly important set of rules showing the way to peace.
International law
International law has may faces. It is a large, sometimes complicated, set of rules and regulations. They were built up during many centuries. They are the codification of worldwide accepted and shared values and norms. International law is the best that the civilization of mankind can offer. Reality, sadly, is sometimes in sharp contrast with these goals.
On a daily basis and on a large scale, Israel violates a whole host of things set out in International Law:
- the Preamble of the United Nations Charter;
- 39 UN Security Council resolutions on Israel;
- international legislation resulting from the Peace Conferences of The Hague in 1899 and 1907;
- human rights, as set out in the Geneva Convention, especially the IVth;
- the many treaties and declarations concerning Universal Human Rights;
- the treaties on the Rights of the Child;
- the treaties against torture;
- the Advisory Opinion on existing international law of the International Court of Justice, July 9, 2004 regarding ‘the Wall’ and other aspects.
Every country sometimes has difficulty applying international law. It happens in my own country, especially in relation to this conflict. However, Israel’s mistakes are not accidental. The country has come up with their very own ‘unique’ interpretations of international law that have never been accepted by the international community. The goal is to make international law inferior to national interests.1 In this way, judges can give the torture of men, women and children a so-called ‘basis in law’, against all international accords and declarations on human rights, the rights of the child and against torture. Due to the extent and reach of these violations, the international justice system is being corroded. That is why this type of behaviour is called ‘state terrorism’.
Do the Palestinians violate international law? Of course this is the case when they target Israeli citizens in terrorist attacks. As this is a violation of international law, these attacks must be condemned. However, there is a big difference between this and Israeli terrorism. Palestinian factions commit these attacks out of desperation and because of the hopelessness of their plight. It is not the policy of the Palestinian authorities. In this sense, unlike Israel, there is no question of state terrorism.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague – the highest legal authority in the world – made history with its Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004 regarding the ‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’. The ICJ took the first opportunity to concern itself with the conflict, to confirm existing international law and to speak out on several aspects.
The Court authorised Palestinian participation in the peace talks on an equal footing and thereby recognised Palestine as a partner in the conflict. The Israeli desire to erect a wall in Israel for self-protection is not disputed, but the Court does not agree with the erection of the wall on Palestinian territory. It believes that Israel should take down the wall and pay damages. The Palestinian territory is occupied and not open to question, as Israel claims. The settlements are a violation of international law. This takes away Israel's legal right to negotiate about the annexation of the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. International treaties on universal human rights and humanitarian laws apply.
This finding is damning for Israel and for the Security Council. The latter has failed, according to the Court, in its foremost task – the maintaining of international peace and security. The Court believes that the UN must double its efforts for a timely solution and should take these findings into consideration. The ICJ has thereby reaffirmed the validity of international law and its application to Israel.
The US and Israel dismissed the findings even before they knew the outcome. They thereby confirmed that international law does not apply to them. The EU contented itself with empty gestures.
Immediately following the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 on November 22, 1967, Israel was supposed to have pulled out of the Occupied Territories. Right up to the present, the Palestinians are afflicted by an occupation that has lasted more than 40 years. This makes a mockery of international law. It is also a gross scandal that the US and the EU have allowed this to go on for so long and stubbornly continue to do so.
The encirclement of the Palestinians on the West Bank of the Jordan is almost complete. On one side there is already a wall. On the other side, the Palestinians have almost been driven out of their territory along the shore of the river Jordan. When this is completed, the killing on small-scale can be stepped up and the mass killing, as in Gaza, can begin.
It is incredible that in the current situation, the emphasis is being placed on details to isolate Hamas, even though it cannot be denied that Israeli political Zionism is the root of all the political, economic and social ills being suffered by the Palestinians. This is especially true in Gaza. The victim is being victimised.
Israel's overdue maintenance of international law
Israel has great disdain for international law. Israel has much overdue maintenance to carry out before it can call itself a civilised member of the United Nations that conforms to international law. Israel must:
- desist from any form of aggression against the entire Palestinian population by the military, as well as the residents of all Jewish settlements;
- desist from murder by any means and using any methods, including targeted assassinations;
- desist one hundred percent from crimes committed by the Israeli military and the secret service in the entire Middle East;
- withdraw as soon as possible from all Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem and Gaza;
- carry out the right of return of the Palestinian refugees;
- desist from the violation of territorial integrity of all surrounding sovereign states;
- immediately release the approximately 12,000 kidnapped, illegally arrested Lebanese and Palestinian citizens, including approximately 48 democratically-elected members of the Palestinian parliament;
- take down the wall on Palestinian territory on the West Bank and compensate the affected Palestinians;
- hold talks with democratically-elected Hamas, who continuously make sensible suggestions for peace based on international law.
A continuous feature of the conflict is Israel’s obstruction and rejection of every peace initiative. The preparation, course and aftermath of the Meeting of Annapolis (it wasn’t even allowed to be called a Conference) in November 2007 is a recent example. Neither the key subjects nor a timescale were mentioned in the concluding communiqué. Immediately following the meeting, Olmert already undermined the agreements: no results should be expected.2 Two days later, Israel, concerned that the Security Council would involve itself with the negotiations, instructed the US to withdraw a draft resolution submitted to the Security Council that supported the agreement made by Israel and the Palestinians.3 Israeli power goes so far that the American saying applies: When I say jump, you jump.
In the view of the Israeli regime, it is not in their interest to make peace. The political-Zionist project – the conquest of the entire West Bank and complete control and eventual expulsion of the Palestinian population – is coming along nicely, but is not yet complete. What the people of Gaza have to endure is a striking illustration. It does not stand alone, however. The many ways in which the Palestinians on the West Bank are held in serfdom is just another side of the same coin: total subjugation of the Palestinians and total destruction of their political, economic and social life.
One quartet, wrong four times over
The Quartet consisting of the US, the EU, Russia and the UN foster an idea of how peace between Israel and the Palestinians can be achieved. The ‘Annapolis Initiative’ expands on this. As the concept does not have anything to do with international law, this idea is already impossible. Because of the usual Israeli sabotage of any peace initiative, it is already dead in the water.
Even more interesting, is the fact that it is not even a quartet. It is a quintet. Israel is fully involved, but the Palestinians are excluded. Talk about impartial negotiators! This foursome refuses to make room at the negotiating table for Hamas. Consequently a false picture is formed of the peace intentions of this winner of the last parliamentary elections in Palestine.4
Four demands are placed on Hamas, the only party to present meaningful proposals for peace that are close to the criteria of international law. Each one is a scam:
- Hamas must recognise Israel. Israel has always resisted determining its borders. The question arises: Which Israel, since the country expands, without noteworthy opposition from the West, every day at a cost to Palestinian territory;
- Hamas must reject the use of force. Why? Under the Fourth Geneva Convention this party has the absolute right to defend itself, including through use of weapons, against the occupying power. The same is not required of the occupying power, Israel, who uses force on a large scale;
Hamas must recognise the previous accords with Israel. Why? These were extorted by Israel and are in contradiction to international law. Hamas has every right to reject peace terms dictated by Israel being imposed on them;
Hamas must allow Fatah to be involved in the running of the Palestinian areas, especially in Gaza. Curious. Hamas won a fair parliamentary election, at the cost of a very corrupt Fatah. Their democratic right to govern was denied them and a coalition with Fatah was imposed on them. No less than 46 Hamas members of parliament were kidnapped by Israel and to date are still being held prisoner. The Western world went along with Israel and Fatah to eliminate Hamas by force. To thwart a coup by Fatah in Gaza, Hamas exerted by force their democratic right to rule the area.
It is gradually becoming clear that the involvement of Hamas in peace negotiations is unavoidable. What has not sunk in is that Hamas has more right to this than Fatah, has better proposals and are better at representing the interests of the Palestinians than the corrupt and mistrusted Fatah, undemocratically clinging to power, will ever be able to.
the key to peace in the Middle East
Peace would mean vacating the Occupied Territories, returning East Jerusalem and an end to the suppression of the Palestinians. Peace would also entail no longer instilling fear in the Israeli population as a means to gain broad political support for the regime.
As peace is in the interest of the region and the stability of the world, external force must be applied to enforce peace. Many external forces are in a position to use their influence promoting peace. The Muslim world could be more united and more effective. The Arab world makes peace proposals that, to a large extent, are derived from international law. This is a potentially useful approach. The so-called Western world is shamefully biased in favour of Israel. This makes the United States of America and the member states of the European Union dishonest brokers. They painted themselves in a corner: useless as peacemakers.
I belong to the Western world. Thus, I limit myself to analysing a possible role of the European Union . One of my tasks is to try and convince the EU to adopt a different political view on the issue. The member states should place themselves in a more realistic, a more useful, peace seeking position.
The evidence on the Middle East conflict is overwhelming. The difference between the virtual and false visions of Israel and the reality is immense. Political decision makers have no choice but to view the reality, for some an inconvenient and uncomfortable truth.
Recently, Jimmy Carter called Europe 'supine', lazy, and their failure to criticise Israel as 'embarrassing'. He qualified the blockade of Gaza by The Quartet following the 2006 election win by Hamas as 'one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth'.
Carter said that the European Union conspired with the United States in this crime and called for the EU to break with the US over the blockade of Gaza. Why wouldn't they, he questioned, they are not our puppet. They take the same position as the US.5 'The United States, the Netherlands and Israel form a sort of unwritten geopolitical axis, says André Krouwel, political scientist at the Free University in Amsterdam. 6
The key to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East lies with the European Union. The United States has a new president since 20th January. Although some tiny rays of hope emerge, it is still too early to judge President Obama's potentials for peacemaking. As US policies now stand, the country cannot have a useful part in the peace process for at least two reasons: because of the total grip of the pro-Israel lobbies on the decision makers, the US is mainly seen as the 'dishonest broker' and because of loss of power and prestige.
Israel, as the main problem in the Middle East, is more harmful to Europe than the United States. The EU must – and can – take the initiative and make the difference between chaos and peace.
As long as the EU still has global power, they are in a position to bring about peace. Europe has enough influence and, if necessary, more than enough tools, to enforce peace. The minimum requirements are:
- the leading principle of international law;
- enough political will amongst EU member states;
- the determination to hold on to the goal until it has been achieved;
- the willingness to continue to withstand the anger and aggression of Israel and the US.
Israel has obligations under international law. The country must immediately apply The Hague rules on warfare of 1899 and 1907 and the humanitarian rights of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In this way there will be an end to military aggression and the Palestinians will receive the necessary protection against military violence and the continuous mistreatment by the heavily armed, illegal, colonisers. Israel must – on the basis of Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 – give up all Arab occupied territories and honour all stipulations of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 2004.
In addition, under international law, Israel must:
- in the interest of a nuclear-free Middle East, dismantle their weapons of mass destruction in a verifiable manner, with internationally-guaranteed security in its place;
- recognise the state of Palestine within the pre-1967 borders, including East Jerusalem;
- evacuate all settlements and hand over the running of East Jerusalem;
- immediately repatriate all settlers who do not want to live under Palestinian rule to Israel;
- dismantle the illegal wall on the West Bank and pay damages;
- release all Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners;
- end the occupation of Gaza;
- refrain from military operations on the West Bank and in Gaza;
- end the identification system for Palestinian citizens and take down the wall;
- refrain from any form of aggression and violation of the integrity of neighbouring countries.
Should Israel fail to comply with the above, the European Union will enforce a massive, but peaceful, package of sanctions. In the Security Council of the UN, legal sanctions are proposed, such as the suspension of Israeli membership to the various organs of the UN family7 and the establishment of an Israel Tribunal in The Hague. The responsible politicians, military officers and judges who allow torture can then be made responsible in front of the international community for their deeds from a prison cell in The Hague. The US will, at least in the short term, apply their veto in order to prevent this from happening. Nevertheless, the sending of a signal is of great importance. The EU will apply its own series of sanctions: legal, consular, military, financial and economic. The EU will also demand, as a result of 60 years of material and psychological damage inflicted by Israel, extensive compensation for the Palestinian people. And of course there can be no question of the maintaining of links between Israel and the EU, as long as the country has not joined the community of civilised nations.
Bearing in mind the vulnerability of Israeli society, Israel will listen and comply within two years. The proposed peace strategy of the EU is presently the only political instrument through which a just and lasting peace can be achieved.
1] Dr. Lisa Hajjar, Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza, University of California Press, 2005. Acting on advice from Israeli advisors, this system was adopted by the United States regarding 'the war on terror', which resulted in: the removal of rights and legal protection, illegal combatants [change in Dutch], torture, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Greib, extraordinary renditions.
2] Carolien Roelants, Op naar vrede, maar zonder tijdpad, NRC Handelsblad, November 28, 2007
3] Trouw, VS trekken VN-resolutie in na bezwaar Israël, December 1, 2007
4] Jan Elshout, Palestina: meer dan apartheid, daarom oplosbaar?, Internationale Spectator, March 2007, page 164
5] Jonathan Steele and Jonathan Freedland, Carter urges 'supine' Europe to break with US over Gaza blockade: Ex-president says EU is colluding in a human rights crime, The Guardian, May 26, 2008
6] Thijs Niemantsverdriet, Een jaar Balkenende IV, Het Taboe-Kabinet, Vrij Nederland, February 23, 2008
7] Francis A. Boyle, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Clarity Press, Inc., pages 153 - 156
