THE HANDSTAND

JUNE 2003

 
.SHARING OUR VALUES? ISRAEL AND THE EU
By Raymond Deane
1.
On June 1 2000, the EU-Israel Association Agreement entered into force following its ratification by the European Parliament, the 15 Member States of the European Union, and the Israeli Knesset. It is one of a series of agreements between the EU and (among others) Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco, whereby the associated states acquire privileged trading status similar to that enjoyed by EU candidate nations, with a view towards the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area by 2010.
This process has received so little attention in the media that a recent informal inquiry carried out by myself among a dozen or so political activists revealed that not one of them was even aware of its existence! This in itself reflects badly on the purportedly democratic character of the EU: not alone have the citizens of individual member states no influence over the Union's intimate relations with states outside Europe, but they are kept in the dark about the nature of such relations.

The provisions of the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements are supposed to have the following aspects in common: political dialogue; respect for human rights and democracy; establishment of WTO-compatible free trade over a transitional period; provisions relating to intellectual property, services, competition rules, etc; cooperation relating to social affairs and migration (including re-admission of illegal immigrants); cultural cooperation. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/
euromed/med_ass_agreements.htm)

It is clear that the majority of the states with which Association Agreements have been signed are tyrannies of one sort or another. The Ben Ali regime in Tunisia, for example, has become  more dictatorial by the day despite - or because of - its economic and cultural links to the EU. One suspects that "cooperation relating to. migration" above, with its all-important parenthesis about "illegal immigrants", looms larger in the consciousness of Eurocrats than "respect for human rights and democracy".
If one trawls through the relevant documents, one frequently comes across the aspiration that, as a result of partnership with the EU, the associated Mediterranean states will come to "share our common values" on human rights and democracy. Given a little extra prosperity thanks to privileged trading status plus a cosmetic improvement or two in the human rights department, it is implied, the citizens of these countries will no longer wish to flock to our European shores as asylum seekers or immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

2.
In the case of Israel, the situation is slightly different. Israel is, allegedly, a "western-style democracy" and hence it already "shares our values".  In an address to the EU-Israel Association Council, June 13 2000, former Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy paid homage to Europe as "the cradle of humanitarian and democratic values", citing the names of Montesquieu, Rousseau, Kant and Mill. He added the names of Maimonides, Spinoza, Freud, Mendelssohn, Mahler and others to emphasise - quite rightly - the colossal Jewish contribution to the formation of European culture, with the implication that the State of Israel has inherited the tradition embodied by these luminaries. He then welcomed the Association Agreement which is "based upon common interests [and] shared perceptions", "geographical proximity and economic ties, and .those same liberal and democratic values."  Finally, he stressed  that "our shared values. will have positive implications for the entire region." Nonetheless, in blaming every country in the region except Israel for the ongoing conflict, he issued the following caveat: "We are not living in Europe, and anyone who attempts to draw up a picture in his [sic] mind based upon European political principles and parameters is making a mistake. A mistake of this kind, on our part, is liable to be fatal for us." (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0hl60) In other words, Israel is all for "shared values", particularly when they are economically profitable, but will jettison them when it comes to the rights of the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and anybody else who gets in the way of its colonial project.

Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement states that the relationship between the two partners shall be "based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guide their internal and international policy as an essential element of the Agreement."
The Agreement was originally negotiated in 1994, in the heady days between the signature of the Oslo Agreement and the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin by a Jewish terrorist. Clearly, between its signature and ratification six years later, Israel had already demonstrated the tenuous nature of its "respect for human rights and democratic principles", both regarding  "international policy" and "internal policy" (the massive discrimination against the 20% of its population that is Arab).

In April 2002, Israel launched its re-invasion of the Occupied Territories, culminating in such horrors as the Jenin massacre and the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. In the words of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (an NGO based in Denmark), "the state of Israel has led a total war against the Palestinian people which comprises extremely high casualties, shooting at ambulances, shelling of refugee camps, mass arrests, closures and curfews, attacks on holy places, and destruction of institutional and civil society infrastructure" (http://euromedrights.net/English/emhrn-documents/pressreleases/11_04_2002.htm).

The EMHRN "calls upon the states of the region to act for an immediate and complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions and international humanitarian law." It "calls upon the EU to show its clear support to the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, to resist occupation and discrimination in accordance with international law."

On April 10 2002 the European Parliament itself adopted a resolution calling - by 269 votes to 208 - for the suspension of the EU-Israel Agreement, and "an immediate end to violence and for the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Palestinian territories." The EMHRN "welcome[d] the position taken by the EU parliament. and urge[d] the EU. to safeguard the credibility of its human rights commitment and its adherence to international humanitarian law." However, the European Parliament's resolution was non-binding, and has remained a dead letter, with Israel retaining its trading privileges.

3.
Pro-Palestinian solidarity groups throughout Europe have taken up the call for a suspension of the Association Agreement with Israel. At this point, enter stage-right the legendary "Road Map for Peace in the Middle East". This document, it is claimed, is sponsored by a "Quartet" consisting of the US, the EU, the UN and Russia. However, Ra'anan Ghassin - a marvellously tactless spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Sharon - has asserted more plausibly that it was "put together by the US and ourselves" [I.e. the Israelis] with a few minor modifications coming from "The Europeans". The Palestinians, negotiating as usual from a position of weakness and duress, have fallen over themselves to accept the document lock stock and barrel. The Israelis, on the other hand, have informed the US government of some 14 "reservations", and have received promises from the US that these will be taken on board.

It is almost possible to anticipate verbatim the line that will henceforth be adopted by EU governments in the face of demands for suspension of the Association Agreement: "the Israelis have accepted the Road Map, we must take no action that would prejudice negotiations." Indeed this probably explains why the Israelis have accepted the document in the first place since, while threats of economic boycotts have left them unmoved, they have been genuinely anxious lest the Agreement be suspended, an eventuality that would have been as damaging psychologically and symbolically as economically. They could now use such a suspension as proof that the Europeans wish to put obstacles in the way of negotiation, and are not to be relied upon to acknowledge Israel's interests and predicaments, unlike the United States which not alone shares Israel's values but supplies the dollars and the bulldozers necessary to put them into practice.

While the Road Map is geared entirely to the interests of Israel's so-called "security" and largely ignores the needs of the Palestinians and their rights under international law, the fact is that the document's contents are largely irrelevant. Most importantly, its "built-in gridlock. could enable Sharon and his successors to negotiate for three or more decades", (Naseer H. Aruri, Middle East International, No 700, 16 May 2003), meanwhile creating "facts on the ground" which render a viable Palestinian state impossible whatever is negotiated. In the interim, buoyed up by the unshakeable loyalty of their US backers and confident in the imperturbable docility of Europe, that "cradle of humanitarian and democratic values", the Israelis have once again begun to talk enthusiastically about joining the EU. They are already a regular fixture in the Eurovision Song Contest, so why not.?

4.
Perhaps I have phrased this argument incorrectly from the start, since I have appeared to accept the premise that there is such an animal as "western-style democracy", and that the animal in question is benign. Europe is, after all, the cradle of colonialism. European values continue to promote the division of the world into rich and poor, powerful and weak, and to define these oppositions - at least implicitly - in terms of  "civilised and uncivilised." These are values and definitions that we clearly share with the USA and with Israel - two militaristic states which are themselves products of European colonialism. The EU project is ultimately in thrall to the ideology of the European Round Table of Industrialists for whom "competitivity" supersedes democracy, however fine the veneer with which such  hard pragmatism is habitually coated. Thus weapons will continue to be sold to repressive regimes for use against their own populations, and Tony Blair will continue to posit a uni-polar world in which the USA is sheriff, Europe plays deputy, and the rest of the world takes orders. Within such a neo-colonial perspective, there is no doubt whatever that Israel "shares our values."

Raymond Deane©2003
DO WE SHARE THESE VALUES ?

INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT
May 28, 2003

Terrorizing Tulkarem: Israeli Incursion Day 5

[Refugee Camp, TULKAREM] Wednesday marked the fifth day of the Israeli Army incursion into the Tulkarem Refugee Camp, during which period soldiers have pillaged homes, stopped ambulances on their way to pick up wounded children, occupied houses, and killed or wounded several children in the city.

Pillaging of Houses

ISM volunteers witnessed the aftermath of the Army’s house-to-house ‘searches’ today, visiting five of the families whose homes had been searched by soldiers. Volunteers observed unnecessary property damage including: broken cabinets, televisions and refrigerators, photos torn and glass frames shattered and the defamation of religious items.

Two families reported that soldiers threw food such as coffee, yoghurt and eggs on the floor then poured cleaning fluids on top. A third family stated that Israeli Forces entered their house four times during this operation, overturning a vat of olive oil and breaking electronic appliances. Soldiers overturned flower pots and kept a family that included two mothers who had recently given birth and their infants outside in the sun for hours, denying them access to food or milk for their children. While outside their house one soldier dropped a table out of the second floor window scaring the family when it landed inches away. All five families, which contained young children or infants, reported that the Army threw teargas into their homes upon leaving. No family reported an arrest.

Occupying Houses

In addition to the pillaging of refugee homes, Israeli Forces have occupied three houses for days. In one of the houses soldiers forced fifteen people, including and elderly woman with a heart condition and two infants to stay in a tiny store room for hours before transferring them to another room where they remain imprisoned. As temperatures reached the low thirties Celsius (low eighties Farenheit), the families reported being denied access to cold water, food or milk for the babies.

Shooting Children

As of 8PM May 28, Israeli Forces and Border Police have shot nine children in two days; six with live ammunition and three with rubber-coated bullets. The children range from seven to sixteen years of age. One of the boys bled to death as Border Police denied an ambulance access and one remains in critical condition.

Conclusions

The current operation is the second large-scale invasion of the Refugee Camp by Israeli Forces in less than two months. During the last invasion ISM volunteers witnessed the Israeli Army order all males in the Tulkarem Refugee Camp between the ages of 15 and 45 to report to the UNRWA school for girls. Approximately 3000 Palestinians were detained, interrogated, packed into lorries, and transferred from the Tulkarem Camp to Nur Shams Camp as the army conducted house-to-house ‘searches’. After witnessing the massive and abject fear generated by Israeli Army tactics and their excessive destruction to the property of an already ravished population, ISM Tulkarem asks:
 
PHR-Israel Board Member Sentenced to 14 Days in Prison for Refusing to Serve Army Duty in the Occupied Territories

Dr. Dani Filc, a member of PHR-Israel's board, has been sentenced to 14 days in prison for his refusal to serve reserve military duty in the Occupied Territories. Dr. Filc, married with 4 children, serves as a brigade physician at the rank of Major in the armored corps. After serving his mandatory tour of duty in the air force, Dr. Filc requested to be transferred over to field operations. He finished the course for medical officers as an outstanding pupil, and in 1996 Dr. Filc received the Chief of Staff's Award of Excellence for his devoted service as a reserve officer.

Dr. Filc writes:
 
"After 12 years of service in the brigade, including several times in the Occupied Territories, I have reached the conclusion that I can no longer serve in the territories. This decision was not simple for me. Although I have always been against the occupation, and for many years I have been aware of the human rights violations in the territories, I debated with myself because of to my feelings of fellowship with the soldiers in the unit, because of the problematic issue of matters that are decided by governments elected by a majority, and because of the fact that my position there was that of a physician who treats everyone and might even be able to relieve some distress. 

"Nonetheless, the past two years have brought me to the decision that I can no longer collaborate with what is being done in the territories.  The killing of [Raed] Karmi by the IDF a day or two prior to the end of the "quiet period" set by Sharon, brought me to the conclusion that there is no real interest in negotiations.

"Moreover, I reached the conclusion that in regards to my beliefs in democratic values, the affront to them caused by the occupation - denying the rights of another people, contempt of the concept of basic equalities between human beings, and the daily affront to human rights - is inestimably more severe than any affront caused by the act of refusal. I also understand that the attempt to convince myself that I could be different there, or that by my being a physician I am not directly involved in human rights violations, is not true.
 
"From the moment we are in the territories, our ability to prevent suffering is minimal, no matter what our position is there. We are part of a mechanism of oppression.
  
"I made 'aliya' (Jewish immigration to Israel) as a Zionist who believed in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. However, I also immigrated as a person who believes in equality between human beings and equality between nations. One cannot argue in favor of the right to Jewish self-determination while denying the same right to the Palestinian people. The occupation negates this right and therefore it is wrong, and it is wrong to attempt to forcefully preserve it.
 
"The same principles which brought me to the decision to move to Israel bring me to the decision to refuse to serve in the territories."


Dr. Dani Filc is a doctor at a ‘Klalit’ HMO clinic, a senior lecturer in the faculty of Government and Politics at Ben Gurion University and is a member of the board of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel.