Saturday 6^th November

10:00 – 10:05 Opening by the chairman of the day

Prof. Dr. Paul de Waart, Prof. Emeritus of International Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Dr. De Waart opens the discussion day in which he makes a remark confirming that the 40 to 1 vote for the Advisory Opinion was indeed a unanimous vote on the illegality discussed in the Opinion. Bourtendael voted against on technical grounds concerning the legal consequences of the A.O. The Court’s statement included that no state (Burgenthal) is allowed to aid in the construction of the wall. Can we imagine what kind of legal repercussions this has?

Session 3: The present Middle East policy of the powers that be

10:05 – 10:25 Dr. Abdel Salam Majali, Former Prime Minister of Jordan

At the Madrid conference in 1991 the Palestinians talked very civilized, changing the opinion about the Palestinians in the world.

The Israeli had the idea that the Palestinians learn nothing unless when they are beaten hard. This notion changed as well. It was recognised that there is a need to accept the Palestinian Authority. There used to be a law that said that anybody talking to the Palestinians should go to jail. Rabin changed this law first, by sending Palestinians to Lebanon instead of Jordan. He showed the Israelis by this, that he is still a strong leader, but that the world has changed. Soon after his policy change he also changed the non-talk law. This was around the time of Oslo 1994. At the Oslo talks, it was the first time that the Zionist movement recognised the existence of Palestine. Many Israeli did not like this, because it caused huge changes in the acceptance of the Palestinians. Rabin became the greatest enemy and betrayer of the Zionist movement.

At the Cairo conference it was decided that the Palestinian Authority was allowed on Palestinian ground. Rabin was killed because he was a traitor to the Zionists, had signed a peace treaty with Lebanon and Jordan, and moreover admitted that Jordan is not the only home ground for the Palestinian people. After the murder of Rabin, the government returned to its previous views.

Clinton did the best he could during the second Camp David talks. I personally believe that if Barak or Arafat had accepted the treaty, they would have been assassinated because their public was not yet ready for compromise.

Part of the strategy of Israel towards the Palestinians was to make the Palestinians fight amongst each other; destroy and attack cities; and kill all Palestinians on Israeli ground. It was anticipated that the US attack on Iraq would cause an uprising in Lebanon and Jordan. The Israeli Defence Forces would respond by occupying these territories and end the whole conflict at once. This however did not happen. A third party is needed now; here lies the role for Europe and the US. It is now acknowledged that the Iraqi problem cannot be solved without solving the Palestinian problem first. This is why the US and UK governments need to put pressure on Israel to end the conflict once and for all.

10:25 – 11:25 Comments and Opinions from Panel Members

Coon

My purpose is to try to explain the American point of view.

The opinions in the US towards Israel and the Arabs have changed over time under influence of what was most generally viewed as in America’s best interest at the time. At the time of partition in 1948, it was against it, which was regarded to be a communist point of view. The main focus of America at that time was the problem of communism spreading over the world. Even though America was not favouring partition, it did recognise Israel within minutes after it was officially announced, following the recognition of the USSR. At that time, the idea of multiculturalism and in addition the Anti-Semitist history during the war created a different purpose for Israel in the country. During the 50s and 60s the US had to deal with the mass emancipation of gays, blacks and women. When all these problems settled, it became clearer to the public that Israels practise was not as moral as the initial idea seemed to be. The opinion about the Palestinians and Islam loosened and this was the time that the US was involved in pressuring for peace. But the 9 – 11 events changed the public opinion on Islam and Israel. Israel became a partner victim defending itself against terrorism, just as the US are.

There are three groups in the US that explain where the US stand today on this issue. Groups that provide tons of misinformation and totally and willingly misrepresent the reality.

The Jewish lobby

The Neo conservative

The Bible belt

The Jewish lobby is dominated principally by the Jewish organisation Aepac. The neo-conservatives are mostly Jewish intellectuals, who are present in all levels of the administration and are now in charge of our foreign policy. These are the ones who got us into Iraq, and they did that to clear the neighbourhood for Israel. The FBI for leaking secret information to Israel has apprehended many of these neo-cons. In addition they have firm ties with Likud. The Bible belters are Christian fundamentalists, who take the bible literally and try to turn the US into a Christian nation. They would be laughed of the stage if there were not so many of them; they are the remnants of a long gone state. Their views on the world and America are influenced by their idea that God is just there for them, and that they act under the direct guidance of God himself. They form the backbone of the constituency that got the administration re-elected. They have an unholy alliance with the neo-cons based upon the American preservation and survival. They also believe that the whole Israeli area must be cleared from unholy gentiles to prepare the return of the Messiah.

I think it is important to use this conference to create some good recommendations of what to do to turn this nation around. On the official level, action involves a huge responsibility of Europe. There is a need for a tight public awareness of the sustained linkages between the problems of the US in Iraq and the problems in Israel. Europe should collectively insist to tell Bush that there has to be a quid pro quo. Bush should put pressure on Sharon and Europe should convince Bush of how serious they are about this, by imposing sanctions on Israel.

Second is the responsibility of all countries to turn the American public’s opinion on these issues. This starts with the recognition that the majority of the Americans is ignorant because they are misinformed about the issue. Even now, the majority of the American public believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to Al Qaida. Europe should try to impose some kind of more effective and transparent transportation of information to the US.

It is necessary to bring across the message that the Bush administrations policy towards the Middle East is immoral, illegal and inseparable from other and larger Middle Eastern problems. It is connected with our problems with terrorism.

Carolyn Parrish

It is of great concern to me that Canada is probably no longer a buffer against the US since our recent ‘regime change’. The prior vision of the world has changed into an overly pro-Israel view. In Canada there is a process of priming through US films that show terrorists to be of Arab descent.

It is in the best interest of the US and Israel to keep the conflict in the Middle East going. The Israelis cannot produce enough children; they can only attempt to get the whole country flooded by population.

Also in Canada we have neo-conservative movements and Bible belt groups. Also the Jewish lobby is strong and subtle. The liberals in government are support with a Jewish money link. There is even a Liberals for Israel group. There is a pattern away from dissociation from the US, resulting in a Canadian Foreign Policy on the Middle East that is very much framed by Israeli views.

For the near future Canada will not be able to put in a lot of weight against the US approach. It will be up to the UK and the EU to do this. The Jewish lobby in Canada has grown very strong during the past 12 months; they have been aided and abetted by the opposition party.

Walker

He also says that Blair can influence Bush in his Middle East policy towards a peace process. Bush did hold his word that the Palestinian State is of great importance to the US. However, Bush does seem to be a president who wants to make history and might want to be the creation of two states a contribution to his historic presidency. Blair mentioned this as well.

Israel saw the Palestinian population rate as a demographic threat. The notion in Israel, contrary to the past is, that time therefore no longer is on the Israeli side. Disengagement from East Jerusalem and the power over an unwilling Palestinian population could be interpreted as a parallel shift in Israel policy. On the short term this is shown in the extraction from Gaza, which does include the removal of the settlements.

The role of Europe should be an assertive approach on the current developments in the conflict, but they are unfortunately awfully quiet. Europe should maybe consider sanctions on Israel. Now there is no consensus on whether or not economic measures should be ruled in or ruled out.

Arabs should be more assertive as well; Jordan and Egypt do cooperate with the US after all.

A third necessity is information campaigns. Western news groups are mostly settled in Jerusalem and not in Gaza. Therefore the governmental views are more dominant in the reports than the views on the streets of Gaza. The media should pick this up, and be aware of a possible unconscious bias on the conflict.

De Waart

It is agreed upon that sanctions should not be ruled out, however, the Dutch presidency of the EU rules it out as an option.

Edward Peck

Quotes article: Netanyahu, “The root cause of terrorism is tyranny”, Wall Street Journal, 4.19.’02.

This article is an example of hypocrisy of a galactic scope.

And:

Frist, B., “Steps for saving lives in Palestine”, Washington Post, 8.11.’04

Shows the US attitude the world is a good place since there is an America in it. But this is not a universal view. The US is not interested in the rest of the world. Most people in the US do not even know where Iraq is situated. Because of the misinformation in the US, the public does not even value knowing about the rest of the world.

The problems in Palestine are always referred to as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. But it is not a conflict it is an occupation. The same applies to the peace process, but this requires two equal parties and Israel and Palestine are not.

When the Israelis withdraw from the settlements, what they leave behind is nothing but ruins.

In any democracy it is not the majority that rules, but those groups willing to work for their views and get them on the agenda. It is the tyranny of those most committed to their cause. This holds true for the US as well as the Netherlands. If we want to make a difference, we have to push and pressurize for our cause. There should be respect for the views of others, but not when they are wrong, illegal or damaging to others.

We must be a little more fierce in addressing our views and causes, in order to make a difference and escape from the tyranny of the majority that dwells on the opinions of the most committed minority.

Amaki

Explains that he was the only political figure in Japan that officially spoke against the policy of Bush on Iraq. He is now happy that he did that. Even though it caused him to loose his job. The Japanese government hated him for this; he did make many new friends by having done that, as well in Japan and abroad; people who like to see peace and order in the world.

Japan is far away from the Middle East, and that is a problem. In 1973 during the oil crisis, Japan did feel the causes of the Middle East at home.

Until 9-11 the Japanese chose a neutral course, because they were opposed to any kind of violence. After 9-11 the neutral position of Japan changed dramatically, because the US placed the engagement to terrorism central.

After WWII Japan was happy with the new American constitution that includes Article 9 that states: “[…] the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” and that “[…] land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognised”. ”.

Ironically, the country that wrote this article changed its policy soon after, so they could stand up to the communist threat. The security of Japan has been compromised; Japanese people have been killed just because we are with America. This security breach will increase when we continue our support in Iraq. Arab people have been so kind to us, I never considered we are hostile to them, till the Japanese government has decided to align itself with the US in Iraq by violating Article 9 of our constitution.

As ambassador in Lebanon, I was aware of the importance of the Israeli/Palestinian situation in the region and the world. What Israel did during the past 40-50 years is illegal and a clear violation of Human Rights. An outside response is necessary and should be clear. To make this policy possible, it is necessary to change the public opinion of the international community. We stand on the threshold of dramatic changes in the near future.

As an ambassador to Lebanon I was aware of the importance of the conflict in the region and the world. What Israel did during the past 40-50 years is illegal and a clear violation of Human Rights. An outside response is necessary and should be fierce. To make this policy possible, it is necessary to change the public opinion of the international community. We stand on the threshold of dramatic changes in the near future.

Dr. Abdul Rahman

Many of the ideas mentioned today are new but in line with what has been said yesterday. The Arabs have exhibited a great amount of willingness for peace; it needs to be emphasized because the world seems to have forgotten that all Arabs have compromised. A few years back one would have labelled Sharon a militant extremist, now the Israeli regime is different due to the transformation of Israel’s political body. Sharon has been creating his own Frankenstein; he is now seen as a centralist instead of extreme right because many are now extreme. The only alternative for Sharon is Netanyahu although he makes Sharon look extremely moderate. We need to keep working on Sharon so he does make the painful decisions he promised us. I believe he is the victim of the history of his own policies. Sharon has very little options; he will be susceptible for pressure, now more than ever.

Arafat’s leadership is seen as the moderates that are in power by the Palestinians. Arafat has been demonised in the last two years; optimistically he will recover, even though that is a remote possibility. The political scene in Palestine is that of extreme moderates, Abu Mazen is too moderate and regarded a traitor by the Palestinians. He was one of the main engineers of the Oslo agreement and put his faith in the US and Israel but was betrayed by both. Now he has to wait and see if he will be let down again.

If Bush resorts back to his original policy, we cannot continue with the optimism we have voiced until now. Maybe by passing away Arafat can clear the way; the last Israeli excuse would be removed, and Arafat could contribute to the peace process after his death.

Peck

It is unlikely a UN tribunal on Israel will be established. First there will always be the US veto. Second, the US see the UN as a tool for the Arabs.

The comment of Rummsfeld that the Turkish vote against US policy was a wrong decision is totally opposite to the process of democratisation in Turkey. The vote against the US policy was a clear sign of democracy. If democracy is only democratic when it is in support of US policy, what is the use of democracy? The US have used their veto on 33 security issues in the Arab world.

Mr. D. Schorer

We should put the number of 33 US vetoes prominently into our statement. Nowadays terrorism is identical in public opinion with Muslim fundamentalism. Nevertheless, Jewish and Christian fundamentalisms are both terrorism as well. They are just as dangerous to world peace.

Mr. Korthals Altes

The scenario of a clash of civilisation is only promoted by policies such as the policy on Iraq. Policies that increase fundamentalism all over the world do not lead to solutions. There is a need for a change of power. The EU is becoming stronger, therefore I regret it that the EU decided to not use sanctions as a means of pressure on Israel. The EU should take a serious stand on its opinion towards the conflict and the US foreign Policy in the Middle East. The EU should show a commitment and a willingness to do something.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the root of this clash of civilisations. We should set something up like the World Religions for Peace, so that religions can play a role in creating as situation for world peace.

Parrish

Fundamentalism is something that takes over peoples lives.

The US is a country that is always at war, be it terrorism, drugs, aids or poverty.

She is worried about the consequences of sanctions for the people living under occupation. They are the ones who will probably suffer from it.

There is a need for some dramatic moment that involves an inspiring figure.

When we speak about the Middle East, we should not focus on religion, or religious extremism, be it Christian, Jewish or Islamic. It is far more necessary to talk about humanity.

Session 4: The United Nations and International Law

13:30 – 14:00 Introduction

Dr. Pieter H. F. Bekker, Senior Counsel to Palestine in the ICJ proceeding

Remarks by Dr. Pieter H.F. Bekker

See: C. INTRODUCTORY PAPERS: The United Nations and International Law, by Pieter H. F. Bekker

14:00 – 15:00 Comments and Opinion from Panel Members

Hessel

How can we translate the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of July 9th into action? The state of Israel is protected from foreign criticism because of the fear of governments to be accused of anti-Semitism. Israel is after all the product of justice done to the Jews after the Holocaust. It is however important to recognise the way of thinking in the governments of neo-conservatives, the Jewish lobby and fundamentalist Christian ideas. Identify these ideas and overcome this way of thinking.

The current policies of Israel concerning Palestine and the Palestinian people are not at all in favour of Israel, neither for Israel nor the international community. If we can convince the Jews all over the world that it is in their own interest to be critical of the Israeli government, we find a way for Israel to recognise and prevent what it is about to become.

What can we do having a new US president maybe inclined to show a better interest in Foreign Policy. It is Blair and the EU that can influence Bush. We have to go back to a Security Council as the only powerful body that can give binding resolutions. After that we should use the Advisory Opinion as a blueprint to draw a powerful resolution in the Security Council, to be drafted in such a way that the US will not be able to veto it.

Gomaa

The Security Council is not as powerful anymore as it was in 1990. The Security Council is also a corrupt body with provisional rules of procedure.

The council should be enlarged to 28 members.

Bekker

The Advisory Opinion has already had its impact on the conflict. We should not be too pessimistic on the role of the Security Council. It is better to think of putting cultural or sportive sanctions on Israel.

Peck

I would like to point out that the wall is not like the Berlin Wall, nor is it a security wall, the wall is a prison wall; it goes all the way around and will encompass the Palestinian people into the world’s largest prison. Only 16/17% is left of the original 45% of Palestinian territory for 3 million Palestinians. They are granted the freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it is inside the walls. It is an example that one can do whatever one wants, as long as one is strong and big.

Nothing is enforceable unless one is willing to use force. Israel and the US do not care about illegality; and the ones that matter are Israel and the US. The US have always said that the Jewish settlements were illegal. Nations only do what they perceive to be their own best interest notwithstanding public opinion, etc. Israel has as much a chance of getting rid of the settlements, as the US has to get rid of guns; the people that want them are willing to do things to keep them that we are not willing to do (nastiness, etc.). I do not believe Sharon will be able to get rid of the settlements.

Petrowsky

Basic is that it should be the force of law, instead of the law of force.

International law as much as all law should be put in practise and not just remain to be a mere concept.

The trouble with sanction is that it are the people who suffer them most. We should not speak of rogue states and generalise and therefore penalise the populations. It is far more accurate to speak of rogue leaders.

Because the EU is a member of the Quartet that drew the Roadmap, it has an opportunity to intervene and put forward their opinion. The Roadmap has good goals, it are only the schedules and timetables that need to be revised.

Tsuboi

I am going to start a lawsuit against PM Chorizo for sending our troops to Iraq. The US war in Iraq is an illegal and wrong war.

Two things I want to do: - push for an educational program on the UN resolutions involving the conflict and make the Palestinian people a subject on the university.

Second I want to use my contacts with NGO’s and the Members of Parliament in Japan to talk about and bring across the many points discussed on this conference.

Bekker

Mr. Peck said the US and Israel do not care, well you bet they do. The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion has put Israel on the defence in public opinion. This is a big difference. We should not be pessimistic about the future role of the Security Council.

It is better to think of cultural or sportive sanctions on Israel.

A statement condemning the suicide-bombings should be put into the resolution; this would take away the need of the US to veto, and then the wall could be condemned in the resolution.

Questions and Remarks from the audience

Van Reenen

I doubt the ruling is very effective, since too little attention is made to Israel’s security needs. This looks to be a tactical error.

Reactions of the Panel:

Hessel

It is fair to say that the majority of Palestinians is peace loving and that they are able to curb radical elements. When the negotiations started there were no violent outbursts, they believed something was coming. During the negotiations, the first thing that was needed was some gesture from Israel but it never came. The problem is that there is no Palestinian leadership. If the Israeli partner makes the first move, the Palestinian partner will be co-operative. It is impossible that all the settlements on the West Bank will be dismantled. Let us start with the negotiations; let us not be stopped by the Israeli right of security. The problem of the veto-power and Sharon: history is a moving entity. It is possible that Sharon will start thinking it would be in his best interest so that he would want to be the one to establish peace.

Bekker

The alleged technical error of the ICJ are the four pages in their ruling about Israel’s right of self-defence and security, which is a lot for a party that did not (want to) make its case in court. Something has changed because of the ruling; now the starting point for negotiations is legal ground, Palestinians have the right to determine where Israeli settlements are constructed. It is up to them whether or not to give away (some of) these rights.

De Waart

In 1990 Jewish, Dutch, etc economists researched the viability of a Palestinian state; their conclusion was that a Palestinian state would be viable.

Peck

Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder; terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.

Arafat was confined to his bunker for the last two years, how was he supposed to rule or control the suicide-bombers. He has no way of knowing when a terrorist act is going to happen, especially not since he could not leave his 2,5 rooms for the last 2 years.

The ICJ will try Saddam for seven crimes; two of these same crimes have been committed by two great powers (US), three others Saddam committed while was on our side. Should the US be concerned with public opinion? Sure, but when you are that big and strong, you can afford to pay no attention to public opinion.

Hessel

The establishment of a viable Palestinian state will be very, very difficult but as a very old man, I have seen many difficult things happen. I hope in some time you will have too.

Closing Session

15:45 – 16:15 Summary

Dr. Peter Idenburg, Executive Chairman of International Dialogues Foundation

See: A.GENERAL INFORMATION: summery, by Peter Idenburg.

16:15 – 16:45 Recommendations and Closing Remarks

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