Friday, 5th November

 

Opening Session

11:30 – 11:35             Welcome address by the chairman of the day

Mr. Paul Aarts, M.A. Senior Lecturer in International Relations,

University of Amsterdam

 

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

 

On behalf of the three organizers of this conference, i.e. The International Forum for Justice and Peace, the International Dialogues Foundation and United Civilians for Peace, I would like to welcome you.

You all will be aware of the fact that we are dealing with the longest military occupation in modern history (that is 37 years to date) and there is no end in sight of that occupation. Day by day, matters are being made worse by creating facts on the ground while the so-called peace process, or what was left of that, has unilaterally been frozen by the Sharon government.

The future indeed looks dark, very dark, but there is a kind of silver lining: on the 9th of July of this year, in this building, ‘the holy soil of justice’ so to speak, the World Court or the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s West Bank barrier violates international law. The voting was fourteen against one. Now we also all know that this ruling or advisory opinion in principle is non-binding, but it certainly has some important legal consequences – and we will here more about that today and tomorrow.

More important, though, is the fact that on July the 20th the UN General Assembly voted 150 to six to endorse the ICJ opinion – which may be seen as a first step trying to bridge the gap between international law and the world of ‘real politics’. This world of real politics certainly doesn’t look brighter, one should admit, after the Americans have decided that George W. Bush will again lead this world of real politics in the coming four years.

The organizers’s goal is to help ‘proliferate justice’ and try to find ways to formulate a plan of action to have the ICJ ruling implemented. That’s what we are here for today and tomorrow. Prof. Van Agt, whom I would like to invite to take the floor, will now give more details on the intention of the meeting to you.

 

 

11:35 – 11:50            General Introduction, intentions and aims of this meeting

Prof. Andreas van Agt, M.L.L. Former Prime Minister and Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands

 

We are meeting here at the premises of the Peace Palace where the International Court of Justice has ruled the construction of the wall in violation of International Law. The court’s verdict was that the construction should stop, the already finished parts of the wall to be removed, and compensation for the damages to be offered to the Palestinians. However, the Israeli government stated that it would not allow anyone to meddle with their security actions, thus dismissing International Law.

The General Assembly asked Israel to respect the Court’s findings and act accordingly. However, earlier the Israeli government had made it clear not to be prepared to adhere to this request. Israel dismissed both the Courts Advisory Opinion decision and the General Assembly’s decision as it did before. Since 1967 there have been repeated demands from the UN to end the occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Instead of withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, successive governments allowed hundreds of thousands of settlers in Occupied Lands, the Palestinian home in violation with the 4th Geneva Convention 1949.

Jerusalem keeps on acting under the umbrella of Washington, which makes this successive dismissal of International Law possible. But what does the European Union do, we cannot blame everything on the US. We cannot neutralize US vetoes in the Security Council and we have no military power. Even so we could make our presence felt by deploying diplomatic power and actions. Although being co-signatory to the Roadmap to peace we keep silent and tolerate óur Roadmap to be torn to pieces.

Should the EU stay reluctant to suspend the execution of the great privileges Israel holds on the European market? The EU presidency now rests by the Netherlands, but the Dutch government and parliamentarians and a large part of the media are at worst biased pro-Israel and at least indifferent to the Palestinian reality. This conference is to influence that disposition. Second, the Israel / Palestine conflict has a destabilizing effect both on the Middle East and the world. Thirdly, it is a violation of International Law and a threat to its authority, however, there is no contesting Israel’s right of existence, the goal should be allowing both people’s to live in peace, justice and happiness.

 

 

Session I: Brief Historical review of the Middle East

11:50 – 12:10            Historical review of Israel and the Israel / Palestine conflict

                        Dr. Abdel Salam Majali, Former Prime Minister of Jordan

 

Dr. Majali gives a speech with an historical approach on the Middle East. The speech starts with the situation in Palestine in 1895. He distinguishes the difference between Jews and Zionists, linking the Jews to the other Abrahamic religions Christianity and Islam. The speech describes further the main events from 1922, 1947 (UN GA Res. 181), the role of the conflict during the Cold war, including the five Israeli-Arab wars, notably 1967 ‘War of Water’ and 1973 ’Jom Kippur’. The legalising of the PLO as the Palestinian Authority in 1974. The Camp David talks of 1978, the revolution in Iran in 1979, the Gulf Wars I, II, III. The Intifadah of 1987 and the recent uprising, or second Intifadah starting in 2000, the Camp David talks and the Oslo Treaty in 1994, the assassination of Rabin..

 

 

12:10 – 12:30            Anti- Semitism and Zionism, The Basis of a Historical Tradegy

                        Dr. Hayo G. Meyer, Publicist

 

Why is the Israeli conflict important?

Firstly because famous political scientists, such as S.P. Huntington write theories that focus on Israel and their strategic and historic relevance. Secondly, because of the Washington-Jerusalem axis.

If we listen to the first speech that was given by the current US president Bush, it could have been written by Likud. It describes the Western world’s representation by Israel in the Middle East. Israel violates human rights and International Law, it exacerbates in violence and the conflict has effects even in the Netherlands, as the murder on T. van Gogh clearly shows.

 

National narratives are not a way to solutions, these are biased and opposing. Some states say that the Palestinians started it all. It is important to support action by political and historic analysis.

 

 

Analysis of Zionism:

Zionism is a remedy against anti-Semitism. At the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th Century anti-semitism was a serious problem in Europe. In Russia it was Alexander the III, in France Drumont and Dreyfuss, in Austria and Germany it was Lueger and in Germany Stoecker, Treitsky and Chamberlain. It was a huge problem, but purely a European one.

Zionism was an intellectual way to find a solution to this problem. In those days Zionism was an anachronism combining of colonialism and nationalism with a Nation State idea, totally in line with the common behavior of states in the West. Due to occupation, it has deteriorated into apartheid. After the Second World War however, colonialism and nationalism was not accepted anymore. No politician in Israel ever called it colonialism though.

 

In 1967, on the 7th day of the 6 day war, there was a political decision to stay in the by then occupied territories. That decision was the start of the mistake that got the legal situation from bad to worse.

 

What is the Palestinian part in the primary problem?

Essentially, none whatsoever

Their involvement is due to former nationalisation and colonisation

 

What is the Palestinian part in the present problem?

Vicious circle of state terror vs. anarchistic terror

Formidable might (Israel) against Anarchy

Palestinian murderous terror is intolerable and counter productive to their cause.

 

Both sides are suicidal and murderous and breaking this cycle is not possible without any outside help. And what does the world: Nothing.

 

Paradox of the present world

Four weeks ago, Ramsey Nasser addressed Balkenende (PM NL and EU chair) pleading to establish European values (Human Rights) to be a task for the EU inside and outside Europe. But Balkenende responded not to this.

 

Why does nothing happen?

Politicians in Europe are under pressure of being accused of anti-Semite motives.

 

Why is this pressure so effective?

6 million Jews were slaughtered in the WOII due to anti-semitism and Auschwitz still smells.

The co responsibility of the rest of Europe as well as the US is undeniable. Nobody undertook any action.

This history creates feelings of guilt, and guilt or fear is a basis for blackmail.

Israeli cabinet members made this explicit by stating: “Criticism of Israel is present anti-semitism.” This action of placing Israel outside the rules of civilized nations is just unacceptable.

 

This pressure borders on blackmail.

In blackmail are always two parties: the one party that blackmails and the blackmailed party.

The vicious circle of mutual destruction needs an outside source to intervene.

 

12:30 – 12:50            Political situation, involvement, responsibilities and obligations of Western Nations.

                        Mr. Radi Suudi, M.A. Political Scientist

 

The seeds of the current conflict can be traced back to the First World War. Arabs fought for the British because they believed to be given independence after the war. In 1918 they did not get independence, but Mandate instead.

 

King Crane Commission of Inquiry (1919): “It is to be remembered that the non-jewish population (Arab) of Palestine (9/10) of the total population are emphatically against the entire Zionist Israeli immigration that aims at disenfranchising the Arab population by acquiring lands”

 

Lord Balfour (1919): “In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the process of consulting the current inhabitants, because the ‘accidental’ current inhabitants of the Ancient Land have far less important interest than the Great Power geopolitical commitment to the Zionist project.”

 

Palestinian Rights violated:

-            Partition of Palestine without any consultation of the population (Aban Eban: “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” On the 1947 partition as motive for the conflict) 

-            Subsequent uprooting of the Palestinian refugees in ’47-’49 (Ethnical cleansing to induce fear under the population in order to cause the uprooting of the Palestinian population)

-            Occupation of the remainder of Palestine by Israel after the war of 1967

 

At time of the partition the Jews were outnumbered in almost the whole of Palestine. During the 1947 - 1949 war 800,000 Palestinians were expelled from future Israeli land. This is ethnic cleansing.

 

Two basic wrongs that need to be corrected

Refugee problem

Occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, 1967

The partition of 47-49 is a problem already solved.

 

How?

The ICJ should adhere to the right of return by the Palestinian refugees to be ruled upon by the ICJ prior to final status negotiations. This means the end of the 1967 occupation as stated in UN resolutions and the ICJ Advisory Opinion (July 2004). The ICJ considers all the 1967 land taken as occupied territories including those in Jerusalem and the settlements of Jews in violation of International Law.

 

Guiding Principles

Principles are, that the request by the Palestinian to be granted the Right of Return to the West Bank area and the Gaza strip, as well as to East Jerusalem are recognised internationally as legal requests.

The settlements by Jews in Palestinian lands are illegal.

 

 

Political Agenda

Disengagement Plan, Gaza to be used as a first step and good practice.

The Disengagement Plan could create a political vacuum, which has to be filled by European countries in the next weeks or months. (E.g. an international force or mandate)

Most Palestinians in Gaza would greet a Multi National Force

Italians have been very successful in Beirut and the French are in a good political position now (Arafat)

No need for US or Israeli approval, to start thinking and preparing for this MNF.

 

 

12:50 – 13:20            Comments and Opinions from Panel Members

 

Menachim Klein

When Arafat ended his political activity, Sharon lost a political excuse for his policy towards the Palestinians and the Palestinian Territories. There should be more political pressure imposed on Sharon now for disengagement from Gaza and the rest of the 1967 occupation.

The best model is the Geneva Agreement. Solana is involved in downgrading the roadmap to a streetmap. Europe should upgrade the roadmap to a streetmap. The Geneva Agreement is a reason for Sharon to disengage from Gaza. The key element is that politicians will not move if their own constituency does not pressure them. This model has influenced the opinion in the rightist hawkish Likud clan. A first step could be that the UK stops following Bush on their policies towards Iraq and the Palestinians.

 

Anti-Semitism:

Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti-semitism

Disengagement from the Occupied Territories is a Zionist imperative in my and my colleagues view

Withdrawal of the settlements is to the orthodox settlers like giving up Temple Mountain

It is a European and Israeli interest to solve the problem, and there is a draft available.

 

Petrovsky

Mentioned the 242 and 388 resolutions. Described that during the cold war between the USA and the USSR the conflict has been used for oil and strategic reasons. There have always been words of compromise that steered the policies towards the conflict. The essence of the matter is the evacuation of the territories occupied by the Israelis in 1967. All participants in the region should participate in a conference that involves simultaneous negotiations between Israel and Arab countries. One cannot separate bilateral and unilateral contacts. Only after 9/11 has the Arab-Israeli conflict progressed from a national to an international conflict. Now it is time for action and to follow the international rule of law.

 

Meihuizen

It goes without saying that the American led coalition is in need of support of both the European Union and Arab League members in helping to avoid the situation in Iraq remaining unsettled. In return both Arabs and Europeans are entitled to ask the US for a more serious and even handed approach of dealing with the future of the Palestinians, by returning to the roadmap and involving not only the EU, but also Arab countries in this process. The Middle East crisis in conjuncture with escalation of unrest in Iraq, which risks to degenerate in a state of civil war, may threaten seriously the West’s interest and security, but equally the political future of Arab governments in the region, {and let me add: also the security of Israel}. This kind of connection between two crises is already felt for a long time in Arab circles and may be stronger than is the case in Europe. In this light we should view the plan launched by the Saudi Crown Prince, the so called Abdallah initiative, at the Arab summit in Beirut, covering both dimensions of a serious approach to peace making in the Middle East: justice and security for all parties involved, as a project that deserves a better hearing than it actually enjoined.

 

Against this background it should not be devoid of logic to enlarge the so called quartet of the roadmap with countries like Jordan and Egypt, both having proven their valuable role in peace making exercises, and to find room for Saudi Arabia to be heard properly, if merely to avoid that only non Arab actors contribute in prescribing the future of the region, as so often happened in past history.

As to the European role, to be played not only in concert with Washington, but also in good understanding with Arab countries closely involved, engaging a EU force to police Israeli withdrawal from occupied ground might not only serve Europe’s position in the Middle East, but also help to bolster EU projects to develop a defense force of its own.

 

Coon

The Israeli political conception of legality of their policies towards the conflict is as follows: “Do whatever we want, if the US don’t object, it is legal.” This is how the Israeli conception of right and wrong has evolved.

Therefore I also believe it is time for action by the international community.

 

 

13:20 – 13:45            Remarks and Questions from Guests   

 

Walker

Conferences such as these should make a statement that is interesting to the press, not just to the government. The conference should not just bash Israel, but give Israel the credit of allowing them to live behind secure walls. WOII did cause a Jewish-Israeli paranoia on the subject of security. That paranoia is an important motivator for their current security policy.

 

Degelers

On Gaza: Mr. Bot is very active in the on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He visited Arafat and has good will to do something. He definitely saw a role for Europe in this problem.

 

S. Arah (Jemen)

When we are just critical but eventually we do nothing, Israel will implode. Israel might shift from a democratic western state into a Taliban-like state. Supporting Israel should include supporting the Palestinians.

 

Hessel (France)

There should be a continuous focus on the legal aspects of the state of Israel. Best friends are Israeli’s fighting for peace. It is essential to not allow the present government of Israel to break and violate International Law. Naturally this would be in favour of Israel.

 

Amaki

The situation is frustrating. He is against the behaviour of Israel. The aggressiveness of Israel is overwhelming. Even Japan hesitates to criticise its policies. In Japan Amaki showed a picture to influence the public opinion about the Apartheid system in South Africa. The Japanese public knowledge about the Palestinians is limited. To change this there is need for educational material such as film, to influence public opinion. The Palestinians are full of hate and revenge; they would not hesitate to use ABC weapons against Israel. The International community should see this problem and intervene.

 

Majali

Jordan peace treaty stipulates that the Middle East should be nuclear weapon free. Jordan and Israel are responsible for that. However, Jordan has no nuclear weapons, but Israel does.

To Israel there are three circles of security:

Iraq – Libya – Syria

Egypt – Jordan

Palestinians

 

Paradoxically Sharon is the only man who could change European opinion about the necessity of a Palestinian State.

We should cool the nerves of Israel, and give a guarantee for a safe future for Israel.

 

 

Session 2: Jerusalem, her Status and “the Wall”

14:25 – 14:45            Introduction

                        Dr. Menachim Klein, Geneva Agreement Negotiator

 

Mr. Klein described the situation of Israel and the Israeli concept of building the wall for security reasons. The Israeli goal after the 1967 war was to turn East Jerusalem into a part of Israel. By building the wall, East Jerusalem is becoming a part of the West Bank.

 

Phase 1: ’67 – ’94 was a phase of hope and a phase of illusion.

- Turn East-Jerusalem by occupation/annexation into Israeli territory

- Settlements of Jews in Jerusalem

- Limited rights for, and deprivation of the Palestinians in East-Jerusalem

 

Phase II: 1996 – 2000   

Israeli campaign of imposing annexation, brutal bureaucracy and the destruction of Palestinian houses. Israelis could not reach their goal by building and populating East-Jerusalem. They destroyed Palestinian identity cards, to obtain a different demographic situation. The entrances of settlements in Palestinian areas were placed in the middle of Palestinian neighbourhoods in order to change the demography. However, they cannot change the situation on the ground, nor exercise full control over the Palestinians.

 

Phase III: 2000 – 2004   

Intifadah, building the Wall, and the future of Jerusalem.

The construction of the wall aims at creating four to five enclaves in East-Jerusalem with the intention of isolating the Palestinian inhabitants of the city by cutting them off from their own hinterland and West-Jerusalem. This object will be reached by placing checkpoints and secondary mobile checkpoints.  The aim of building the wall is not security but it is part of a plan for isolation, annexation, and rule over the Palestinian community. If Israel wants to stay as a Jewish state, it has to absorb 1/3 of the Palestinians (10% of all Palestinians), which it cannot do. Israel wants an entirely Israeli/Jewish capital, the only thing they can do to achieve this in Jerusalem is to violate the rights of the Palestinians.

 

Currently there is no approved route for the wall. There are two sets of problems. The people inside the wall (East-Jerusalem) cannot get out, and are completely cut off from their hinterland, since there are no passages through the Wall in eastern direction. Secondly, inhabitants of Jerusalem cannot get inside although they have the right to. Daily about 135.000 people have to cross the Wall, including 5000 children that have to get to school. This causes large problems for these people.

 

The High Court approved the wall because the Ministry of Defence promised it would be a temporary solution. Klein used maps that indicated the official boundaries of 1967, the Geneva Agreement and the boundaries of the Wall. It shows that the Wall is an annexation of large portions of Palestinian land. Pressure can change the route, and thus lessen the damage done to the Palestinians by the construction of the wall. Debate is necessary to achieve this and there needs to be a call for the full implementation of international law. The route of the wall should be changed to the Geneva agreement route concept of a physical border. 1967 agreement. Sharon’s aims that are hidden under the veil of security need to be challenged.

His suggestion is to draw an alternative plan that will limit the damage done to the Palestinians that are living behind or around

 

 

14.45 - 15.25 Comments and Opinions from Panel Members

 

Gomaa

It is a shame that people all around the world, even in foreign ministries, care more about the non-binding character of the advisory opinions of the ICJ than for the actual content of the recommendations. Nevertheless, it is binding; the ICJ rulings stated that the settlements on Palestinian territory were and are against international law. The wall’s construction deprives the Palestinians of the right of self-determination; it is illegal to build a wall on Palestinian territory. It describes that there should not be any aid to Israel that will be used for the Wall. A quote from the ICJ ruling: “The ICJ shapes its judgement on the Wall and the Occupied Territories by weighing these issues on all kinds of law. Its judgement is that Israel is responsible for the negative effects of the Wall.”

 

It is disturbing that people only speak about the Advisory Opinion and take from this initiative what Israel is willing to offer or the US is willing to support. The Advisory Opinion (A.O.) is too important for that approach.

 

The Judges did not hesitate on the illegality of the Wall. The Court accepted the merits against the Wall.

The vote on the A.O. was unanimous (40:1)

Everything in the A.O. was new, but more important to the international community was, that the high Court of the ICJ recognised and investigated this situation. The general Assembly, the Security Council as well as other bodies have already issued resolution, but the ICJ decision is a legal statement to support these.

 

It was decided in July 2004 to take the A.O. to the General Assembly. However, the timing was not very good. In August there are worldwide holidays, and after the holidays the US elections delayed the executive power. By now, however, the A.O. should be referred to the Security Council. Because the Security Council has the power to enforce, implement and pose sanctions. The resolution to be drawn by the Security Council should be based on the expression of concern. This instead of sanctions.

 

In 1999-2000 there was a declaration by Russia and the Middle East on nuclear weapons. This declaration came to a halt when Israel inserted a clause that paramilitary were not to be included in that declaration, since they do not use nuclear weapons. This brought the draft of this resolution to a halt.

 

Parrish

The Palestinian Authority (PA) was a democratic chosen government. The PA’s infrastructure has been totally destroyed by the Israeli military actions, and the containment policy. Now we are witnessing lots of destruction in Iraq, which gets most of the attention of the media. This places the Palestinian problem in the shadow of Iraq. In this shadow the Wall is being build, which is an evil building.

 

She has been in Palestine as a delegation member. In 2002 unemployed in Gaza was 95%. She says that the young Palestinians are angry and not in need of our pity and our reports. They told the delegation to get lost. The situation in Palestine makes it difficult if not impossible to go the schools, hospitals or work. People are driven out of their houses, and the whole situation is causing psychological damage to all the kids living there.

 

The Wall is nothing but an effective means to isolate the problem. As an effect the educated cosmopolitan society of the Palestinians is turned into a backward society. Since 2002 the psychological devastation has quadrupled. The wall is a psychological prison as well as a physical one. The suicide bombers are people who are hopeless towards the future. There seem to be no possibilities to marry, work or grow. In the US the highest suicide rate is among teenage children, whose situation in life is in comparison to young Palestinians so much better.

 

Only Bush can solve the problem, the US. Bush, a devoted born-again fundamentalist Christian, is voted into office by fellow born-again Christians and others. These people should try to influence the president’s policies. The 80,000 Jews on the streets protesting against the injustice in Israel should keep up their work to influence the Israeli government.

 

I am not very optimistic.

 

Abdul Rahman

The EU is a counterweight to the lack of help coming from the US and the rest of the Islamic world. It is a pity that the economic giant Europe acts as a political dwarf. Maybe Blair needs more support from Europe to stand strong in his relation with Bush. The new policies of Sharon should be connected to the Roadmap. Solana’s Streetmap is a total disaster. We should have more Madrid conferences. The sleeping giants, Russia, the UN, the EU, should use their political power and play their role in the conflict to influence US and Israeli policies.

 

Walker

I plea for international law to play a role in world affairs, we should move on from a world based on dog-eat-dog to a world based on law. The ICJ was unanimous on their verdict on the illegality of the Wall. There should be lawful obligation to deal with the situation within the boundaries of International Law. I was struck by the effectiveness of the pictures used by Dr. Majali. People will be much more affected by pictures or maps than by words, which are always going to be complex. Visual material is also far more effective for journalists than complicated descriptions in words. We should add maps of Jerusalem in 1967-present to show how it has changed, to publications that are sent out.

 

 

15:25 – 16:00            Questions and Remarks from Guests

 

Zimmerman

(Dutch Palestine Committee)

 

Question to Gomaa: “Aren’t there differences in roles in International Organisation that make some ask for sanction while others are opposed to sanctions?”

 

Büchel (Liechtenstein)

 

Disagrees with all the speakers. We should be aware not to build walls in our hearts. Israel is based on the rule of law; Israel is indeed for peace; Israeli developments are indeed positive. There is a difficulty in making International Law enforceable. Then it should also apply to the Armenians or other European peoples.

 

Gomaa

Israel is not fully based on the rule of law. The occupation of 1967 is not based on rule of law, the wall is not based on rule of law, the security policy is not based on rule of law. Israel does have a legal right of safe existence.

 

Abdul Rahman

It is important to stay hopeful. Without hope there is no future.