Website policy


We provide links to articles we think will be of interest to our supporters. We are sympathetic to much of the content of what we post, but not to everything. The fact that something has been linked to here does not necessarily mean that we endorse the views expressed in it.
_____________________

BSST

BSST is the leading charity focusing on small-scale grass roots cross community, anti poverty and humanitarian projects in Israel/Palestine
____________________

JfJfP comments


2016:

06 May: Tair Kaminer starts her fifth spell in gaol. Send messages of support via Reuven Kaminer

04 May: Against the resort to denigration of Israel’s critics

2015:

23 Dec: JfJfP policy statement on BDS

14 Nov: Letter to the Guardian about the Board of Deputies

11 Nov: UK ban on visiting Palestinian mental health workers

20 Oct: letter in the Guardian

13 Sep: Rosh Hashanah greetings

21 Aug: JfJfP on Jeremy Corbyn

29 July: Letter to Evening Standard about its shoddy reporting

24 April: Letter to FIFA about Israeli football

15 April: Letter re Ed Miliband and Israel

11 Jan: Letter to the Guardian in response to Jonathan Freedland on Charlie Hebdo

2014:

15 Dec: Chanukah: Celebrating the miracle of holy oil not military power

1 Dec: Executive statement on bill to make Israel the nation state of the Jewish people

25 Nov: Submission to All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

7 Sept: JfJfP Executive statement on Antisemitism

3 Aug: Urgent disclaimer

19 June Statement on the three kidnapped teenagers

25 April: Exec statement on Yarmouk

28 Mar: EJJP letter in support of Dutch pension fund PGGM's decision to divest from Israeli banks

24 Jan: Support for Riba resolution

16 Jan: EJJP lobbies EU in support of the EU Commission Guidelines, Aug 2013–Jan 2014

2013:

29 November: JfJfP, with many others, signs a "UK must protest at Bedouin expulsion" letter

November: Press release, letter to the Times and advert in the Independent on the Prawer Plan

September: Briefing note and leaflet on the Prawer Plan

September: JfJfP/EJJP on the EU guidelines with regard to Israel

14th June: JfJfP joins other organisations in protest to BBC

2nd June: A light unto nations? - a leaflet for distribution at the "Closer to Israel" rally in London

24 Jan: Letter re the 1923 San Remo convention

18 Jan: In Support of Bab al-Shams

17 Jan: Letter to Camden New Journal about Veolia

11 Jan: JfJfP supports public letter to President Obama

Comments in 2012 and 2011

_____________________

Posts

Behind the scenes of the EC Guidelines

See also Fall-out in Israel over exclusion from EU
 

This posting contains an introduction from Arthur Goodman, four letters by JfJfP or EJJP to EU and American diplomats concerning the implementation of the EC guidelines, and two statements about the parties involved. UPDATE: An earlier reference to Arthur Goodman having played a key role in creating the Guidelines was wrong, based on misinformation which was not provided by him, for which we apologise.

1) JfJfP: JfJfP note, Arthur Goodman explains why the Guidelines are so important,
2) Arthur Goodman: Kerry’s request to put aside Guidelines, letter from Arthur, JfJfP, to American embassy arguing why John Kerry’s request is mistaken;
3) Letter: EJJP lobbying EU-Israel Council meeting, letter of dismay at this branch of EU-Israel co-operation. 24th July 2012;
4) Letter:  Why the Guidelines Matter, EJJP to EC on why the guidelines will make a difference, with of recent Israeli acts intended to consolidate occupation
5) Letter: EJJP lobbying EC on territorial guidelines for member states, how Israel is trying to get round Guidelines and why EC should stand firm;
6) Introducing JfJfP, who JfJfP are and what we stand for;
7) European Jews for Just Peace, who EJJP are and what they stand for;

JfJfP Note:

The guidelines are genuine and are not up for negotiations with Israel.

They apply to anything done under the aegis of EU legislation if it has  implications for the EU budget extending into 2014 or afterwards. Thus, for example, anything with budgetary implications under the aegis of the Euro Med Agreement (which now incorporates the EU-Israel Association Agreement) or the Horizon 2020 Research Framework is covered by the guidelines, even if it is signed tomorrow. (“Budgetary implications” means anything going through the EU accounts, not just things that are a cost to the EU.) The burden of proof of location of entity and/or activity is firmly on the applicant.  

As a result, the document (memorandum of understanding, etc.) that  Israel will have to sign to implement any future cooperation or integration measure under the aegis of EU legislation, which has any  impact on the EU budget, will include the territorial limitation clause.  This covers the major integration agreements. Therefore, every time an Israeli Government signs such a document, it will be implying acceptance that it does not have sovereignty in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and Gaza. Unless Israeli governments are prepared to forego further major integration into the EU, they will be formally accepting that their writ doesn’t run in any part of the OPT.

As we know, so shocked was the Israeli government by the European Commission Guidelines  that it demanded an inquiry into how the Israeli Embassy in Brussels didn’t see them coming and stop them. More seriously, the Israeli government has been and is trying to manipulate the EU into nullifying the effect of the Guidelines. Our lobbying group has been lobbying hard to support the Guidelines and to argue against Israel’s various tactics. This is being done both in with European union officials as part of EJJP, and in London as JfJfP.  JfJfP signatory Arthur Goodman has been centrally involved in all this work.



To US Embassy, London
Jonathan Peccia
First Secretary, Middle East
Embassy of USA, London

September 12th, 2013

Dear Jonathan,

Further to our telephone conversation yesterday, I’ve thought more about Secretary Kerry’s
tactic in asking the EU to postpone implementation of the Guidelines to give the negotiations a chance, and I still think the logic doesn’t add up. In fact, I think it is a grave error, and would be a grave error for the EU to agree to it, because it would reduce rather than enhance the chance of achieving a durable solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

The essence of it is that this Israeli government, like the previous one, wants two contradictory things. It is determined to keep large parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, without giving up any land in return, much less an equal amount. Yet at the same time, like all Israeli governments, it craves complete international acceptance, preeminently through continued integration into the European Union for financial, political and – I would say – psychological reasons. Based on the pattern of Israeli government actions, I believe we agree on all this.

The Guidelines are a very clever means of forcing the Israeli government to make a choice. It can either sign the appropriate memoranda of understanding, including the guidelines, thereby accepting the precedent that they do not have sovereignty in any of the OPT, and in return get further measures of integration, or they can refuse to sign such memoranda and forego further important integration, including Horizon 2020 which is very important to Israel. This is the first tangible pressure on Israel since the first President Bush threatened to suspend loan guarantees in order to force Prime Minister Shamir to attend the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. I cannot emphasise the importance of the Guidelines strongly enough.

The logic of Secretary Kerry’s tactic can only be to persuade the European Union to allow Israel to join Horizon 2020, and perhaps other cooperative activities, without accepting the Guidelines.

Yet that would allow Netanyahu and his allies to continue believing they can have it both ways.

No amount of stern words to the contrary from him or the High Representative would change
that. Israel would continue to stonewall in the negotiations.

What could the EU then do when the awful truth had to be faced months later? Since Horizon
2020 is the big gain Israel wants from the EU now, reactivating the Guidelines would be relatively ineffective, if effective at all. The next big step would be suspending the EU Israel Association Agreement, with its valuable tariff concessions, but that would be much harder to achieve as it would require unanimity in the Council of Ministers.

The arguments set out in the previous letters my European colleagues and I wrote to EU officials and Permanent Representatives, also attached to my e-mail, also apply directly to the current situation. I would be grateful if you would send this letter and the other attachments to the State Department in Washington.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Goodman

Parliamentary and Diplomatic Liaison Officer, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, London and European Jews for a Just Peace

www.jfjfp.org, P O Box 46081, London W9 2ZF



EJJP lobbying EU-Israel Council meeting

Dear High Representative Ashton, et al,
24 July 2012

Like many others, we read yesterday’s newspaper articles about this week’s meeting of the EU Israel Association Council with extreme dismay. We have now learned that the EEAS, under the direction of the Council of Ministers, has devised a plan to formally implement a number of further cooperative activities which are implicit in the 2005 Action Plan but have so far been held in suspense, and also to request that Parliament passes the ACAA and the protocol for Participation in Community Programmes.

Without going into the procedural differences between things that the Commission can implement under the Action Plan, and more far-reaching things that require Parliamentary Assent, we would like to point out that all enhancements of benefits to Israel, or cooperation between Israel and the EU, will serve to reinforce Israel’s belief that it can continue to occupy and settle Palestinian land with impunity.

It is self-evident that Israeli governments’ basic objective since 1967 has always been to take over large parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. There is no credible alternative explanation for the pattern of Israeli actions. The current Israeli government continues to pursue that objective, but more overtly and with much less concern for international opinion than previous governments have shown.

Its obdurate refusal to commit to negotiate on the basis of the 4th June ’67 borders and its continual settlement expansion – both within and beyond the big settlements near the Green Line – make that perfectly plain. We are sure you understand all that as well as we do.

It is therefore also self-evident that enhancing EU benefits to Israel, or cooperation with Israel, will not influence this Israeli government in the slightest to moderate its policy, just as previous enhancements have not influenced previous governments to do so. Further enhancements will only encourage Israeli governments to think they can continue on their present path and simultaneously enjoy growing benefits from the European Union.

There is little point in reciting another litany of Israel’s violations of human rights and international law, and how they are fundamentally inconsistent with the human rights and international law requirements of the EU-Israel Association agreement and the European Neighbourhood Policy. The fundamental violation is the long occupation and the settlement project. The many other violations are part and parcel of Israeli repression of Palestinian resistance

The issues for the EU are therefore whether it actually wants to influence Israel to change course, and likewise whether it wants to be seen to be seriously trying to do so. If it does, then it has to apply conditionality to Israel by withholding any further benefits or cooperation until Israel formally commits to negotiate in good faith on the basis of the internationally legitimate solution of the conflict.

You should also appreciate that the Council of Ministers plan, if implemented, will create a blatant dichotomy between the EU’s actions and its words. Many people, especially in the Muslim world, will perceive this as hypocritically supporting universal human rights, including the right to independence, while in reality supporting Israeli settler colonialism. Memories of Europe’s own colonial past will be revived. This will have potential adverse consequences for Europe’s relations with the Muslim world which could take security, political or economic form.

We therefore urge you, even at this late stage, to reconsider the Council of Ministers’ plan.

Dror Feiler, Chair of EJJP and Judar for Israelisk-Palestinsk Fred (Stockholm), Board Member of the EJJP Foundation
Arthur Goodman, Parliamentary and Diplomatic Officer, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (London)
Max Wieselmann, Board Member of the EJJP Foundation, Director of Een A



EJJP to EC, Why the Guidelines Matter
August 15th, 2013

Dear Vice President and High Representative Ashton, Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner De Gucht, and Commissioner Tajani,

We are writing both to commend the Commission for the recently published Guidelines on the territorial limitation of grants, prizes and financial instruments relating to Israel, funded by the EU from 2014 onwards, and to urge you to withstand the efforts of the Israeli Government to nullify their effect.

Not only do the Guidelines implement long-standing EU policy not to recognize the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, they also create long-needed adverse consequences for Israel if the Israeli government continues its policy of refusing to negotiate a solution to the conflict along the internationally legitimate parameters. They quite justifiably put Israel in the position of either accepting the precedent that it has no sovereign rights in any part of the Occupied Territories or foregoing any further important integration into the EU.

The effectiveness of the Guidelines is self-evident from the Israeli government’s strong reaction against them. The paucity of the Israeli arguments is also self-evident. Two examples will suffice to demonstrate.

Firstly, Israeli spokesmen argued that applying the Guidelines would hurt Palestinians. This is of course the same argument that the Apartheid government of South Africa used against the international boycott movement against South African produce and the growing reluctance of international business to invest in South Africa. In the end, those growing actions, along with the sporting boycott, caused the demise of Apartheid.

Secondly, Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed that the Guidelines will encourage the Palestinians to demand the impossible. Well, this gets full marks for chutzpah but zero marks for honesty. There is nothing impossible in the PLO’s positions. The 1967 borders with an agreed, equal land swap, sharing Jerusalem, the refugee issue, and fair division of the shared aquifers are all possible.

Some of them will certainly be difficult for Israel, but the Palestinians should not be made to continue suffering because of Israel’s difficulties of its own making.

We know that you will be subject to all the usual Israeli manipulation of guilt for what some European countries did 75 years ago but which has been repudiated long since in words and deeds. Individuals will also be subject to disreputable pressure. We urge you to withstand all this and maintain the Guidelines in their entirety. By doing so you will gain the respect of decent people all over the world and you will be making a massive contribution to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Addendum to this letter lists the steady stream of measures taken by the previous and present Israel governments which indicate that they had and have no intention of voluntarily negotiating a solution along the internationally legitimate lines. The settlement announcements of the past week are but the most recent. We have attached the letter we e-mailed on 24 July 2012, whose arguments still apply today, and a brief description of our organization.

Dror Feiler, Chair of EJJP and Judar for Israelisk-Palestinsk Fred (Stockholm), Board Member of the EJJP Foundation

Arthur Goodman, Parliamentary and Diplomatic Officer, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (London)

Max Wieselmann, Board Member of the EJJP Foundation, Director of Een Ander Joods Geluid
(Amsterdam)

c.c. Helga Schmid, Waldemar Kutt, Lora Borrisova, Sylvia Bartolini, Leonello Gabrici, Martijn

Hendriksen, Jack Metthey, Wolfgang Burtscher, John Bell, Palayo.Castro-Zuzuarrequi, Bernard

Bulcke, St. John Gould.

Yours sincerely,

arthurgoodman
www.ejjp.org

ADDENDUM

Israeli government actions mid June 2011 – May 2013, indicating it does not intend to negotiate an end to the occupation along the internationally legitimate lines

(A) Prime Minister Netanyahu’s letter to President Obama in June 2011

Mr. Netanyahu refused to accept the long-established international parameters for resolving the conflict. He said that the settlement blocks must be annexed to Israel, that Israel must maintain a long-term security presence in the Jordan Valley, and that Jerusalem is off the negotiating table. We believe this is the first time since Oslo that an Israeli Prime Minister has dropped the obfuscation about their intentions for the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

(B) Settlement expansion in Ariel, Shilo, Har Homa, announced in March-August 2011

These settlements are among the most dangerous to the creation of a Palestinian state. Ariel extends eastward half way across the West Bank. Shilo is much further east and is the main part of a dense group of settlements and outposts extending from Ariel to the Jordan Valley. Together, Ariel, Shilo and the associated settlements and outposts would destroy contiguity between the northern and central parts of the West Bank. Har Homa largely blocks contiguity between East Jerusalem and Bethlehem, both of which are essential to a Palestinian state. East Jerusalem is the Palestinians’ traditional commercial and cultural centre, while Bethlehem is holy to all Christians, and particularly to Palestinian Christians.

(C) Quartet request for negotiating proposals from the PLO and Israel

In September 2011, the Quartet asked both the PLO and Israel to submit proposals for negotiations.

The PLO complied within three weeks, submitting proposals for borders, a limited land swap, and security arrangements including an international pace-keeping force on the Israeli border and in the Jordan Valley. Israel, while initially welcoming the Quartet initiative, subsequently refused to comply, saying it would only negotiate directly and confidentially with the PLO.

(D) Resource extraction in Area C of the West Bank

In December 2011, the Israeli High Court rejected a petition challenging the legality of the use of natural resources extracted by 11 Israeli companies quarrying and mining in Area C of the occupied West Bank. This activity has been underway since the 1970s, but this is the first time it has been explicitly endorsed by the High Court. Some 12 m. tons p.a. is extracted, of which 94% is used for sale in Israel. The remainder is sold to Palestinian companies. The profits go to the mining companies which remit a small part to the Israeli Civil Administration of the OPT. None goes to the Palestinian Authority.

The Laws of Occupation, as established by The Hague Convention, prohibit an occupying power from using property, including natural resources, in the occupied territory for its own use, except as may be “required by imperative military necessity”. The extraction, and the Court ruling, are clearly contrary to this basic customary principle of international law. They also demonstrate this Israeli government’s intention to continue using Palestinian natural resources.

(E) Settlement Outposts

In April 2012, a far-reaching decision was taken by an Israeli government Ministerial Committee which significantly extends settlement expansion in the West Bank. The Committee approved the legalization of three settlement outposts, Sansea, Ruchana and Bruchin. Once planning procedure is approved, they will be fully “legal” under Israeli law.

The significance of these approvals is twofold. Firstly, it is the first time an Israeli government has approved legalizing an outpost. Previously, Israeli governments simply left the outposts in limbo.

They were not approved by the government, but nevertheless were provided with infrastructure and services. Since the Oslo II Agreement in 1996, official settlement building, i.e. approved by the Israeli government and therefore legal under Israeli law, has always been by expanding existing settlements.

Secondly, none of the three outposts is in a large settlement that might become part of Israel in a land swap, or in the built-up area of any existing settlement, and two are far from the Green Line.

The implication of these approvals is clear: the Israeli government is no longer going to pretend that it is only expanding in the large settlements near the Green Line. It is a marker of its intention to keep large parts of the West Bank. The Financial Times (editorial attached), among other newspapers, has come to the same conclusion, and has also acknowledged that other countries must ”go beyond mere rhetorical condemnation” of Israel’s actions.

Note on settlements and outposts
Settlements are Jewish communities that Israel officially established after 1967 on Palestinian land occupied in the Six-Day War. Today, there are 120 settlements in the West Bank and 12 (called neighbourhoods by the Israeli government) in East Jerusalem. There are some 290,000 settlers in the West Bank and 190,000 in East Jerusalem. The Government of Israel has invested and continues to invest heavily in the construction and defence of settlements. Outposts are settlements “unofficially” established since the 1990s. In order to avoid political and international obligations, Israel calls them “illegal” or “unauthorized” outposts. There are now 99, with over 4,000 settlers living in them. At rare intervals, a rudimentary outpost, consisting of mobile homes, is removed by the IDF, only to be re-erected by the settlers nearby. All settlements and outposts are illegal under international law because they are in occupied land.

(F) Tenders issues for 92 new housing units in Male Adumim, October 2012
Maale Adumim, like Ariel, extends deep into the West Bank and is equally dangerous to the creation of a Palestinian state. The Maale Adumim municipal area abuts the Jordan Valley, and the currently planned wall almost abuts it. That would all but destroy contiguity between the central and southern West Bank.

(G) Announcement of several settlement expansions and/or new settlement building, some at an early stage of approval, others at a later stage. December 2012. This was a “punishment” for the PLO’s successful application for upgrading in the UN.

The plans listed are the most significant among the announcements in creating obstacles to establishing a Palestinian state.

E1: 3,400+ housing units. E1 lies between East Jerusalem and Maale Adumim. Except for a police station and some infrastructure, no building has taken place there yet. Planning has been frozen since 1993 on the insistence of the United States. If it is constructed, E1 will complete the separation of the east side of East Jerusalem from the West Bank. Together with the expansion of Maale Adumim eastwards, it would completely destroy contiguity between the central and southern West Bank.

Givat Hamatos A, B & C: 4,000+ housing units. This would complete the isolation of East Jerusalem from Bethlehem and the Southern parts of the West Bank, and specifically isolate the Palestinian neighborhood of Beit Zafafa.

Gilo: some 2,500 housing units. Gilo is north of Bethlehem and blocks Bethlehem’s urban development northward. The new units would be on the south side of Gilo and would therefore exacerbate the blockage. Karnei Shomron, Imanuel, Geva Binyamin and Efrat, nearly 500 housing units: These are all existing settlements far from the Green Line, never included in any potential land swap.

arthurgoodman
www.ejjp.org

(H) Further Settlement Outpost legalizations

On 14 May 2013, the government declared its intention to “legalise” four further settlement outposts Ma’ale Rehavam, Haroeh, Givat Assaf, and Mitzpe Lachshish. Three of these outposts are in isolated areas, not part of any potential land swap. The fourth, Givat Assaf, is a satellite of the Beit El settlement. Depending on exactly where it is, it could be included in one of the potential 1:1 land swaps. (Section E above describes the first outpost legalizations and explains the significance of “legalizing” outposts.)

28 May 2013

arthurgoodman@blueyonder.co.uk tel: 00 44 20 8977 5161, 07985 912 426

www.ejjp.org



EJJP lobbying EC on territorial guidelines for member states

To the Permanent Representative and the Political Advisor
31st August 2013

We have already written to High Representative Ashton and others in support of the Commission’s new Territorial Guidelines relating to Israel, and we are now writing to you as Israel has changed its tactics in attempting to nullify the Guidelines. It is now claiming that the Guidelines were only intended to be applied on a “case-by-case” basis to ensure that EU funds cannot be used beyond the Green Line. This claim is patently false. Section C, “Conditions of eligibility of Israeli entities”, applies to all Israeli entities (except public authorities at national level) that apply for EU grants, prizes or financial instruments. There is no exception for entities that are not located in the OPT, even if they say they will not relocate there in the future, or for any particular type of activity. This is clear from the wording of Paragraph 11. Section D, “Conditions of eligibility of activities in the territories occupied by Israel”, states clearly that no activities, or parts thereof, carried out in the OPT will be eligible for grants, prizes or the benefit of financial instruments. The only exceptions are any activities undertaken for the benefit of “protected persons under the terms of international humanitarian law who live in those territories and/or promoting the Middle East Peace process in line with EU policy.” All this is clear in the wording of Paragraphs 12-15. The “protected persons” are the Palestinians under occupation.

More important is the political issue underlying the Guidelines. Ask yourself why the Israeli government is so adamantly refusing to sign memoranda including the Guidelines, even to the extent of preventing further integration into the EU – even Horizon 2020 ? The only credible reason is that it will not voluntarily accept the precedent that it has no sovereign rights beyond the 1967 borders. This Israeli government, like the last one, is intent on taking over much of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, without swapping any land in return, much less an equal amount and quality of land.

There are also legal and moral dimensions to the question. The 1967 borders are without doubt the internationally legitimate borders. The Palestinian Liberation Organization formally accepted them in 1988 and has repeated its acceptance many times since. They give Israel 78% of Mandate Palestine. An agreed, equal land swap would allow Israel to retain most of the built-up areas near the Green Line while maintaining the legitimate 78%-22% division of the land. Surely, to any reasonable person, that should be enough for Israel. The European Union should not be expected to continue awarding Israel more integration while Israel continues acting as if it is above the law.

The Territorial Guidelines are a justified, effective means of creating adverse consequences for Israel while it continues to act that way. They are the first tangible pressure on Israel since the first President Bush threatened to suspend loan guarantees in order to force Prime Minister Shamir to attend the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. It is clear that right wing Israeli governments will not negotiate meaningfully to end the occupation unless pressure is applied to them. Awarding further integration, as the Commission did a year ago, was a serious error. It merely allowed Prime Minister Netanyahu and his allies to believe that Israel can continue to have it both ways, i.e. to increase its benefits from the EU and simultaneously entrench the occupation.

We urge you not to make the same error again and to stand your ground on the Guidelines. By doing so you will gain the respect of decent people all over the world and you will be making a massive contribution to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We have attached our letter to High representative Ashton and others of 15th August 2013, our letter to her and others of 24 July 2012, and a brief introduction to EJJP.

Yours sincerely,

Dror Feiler, Chair of EJJP and Judar for Israelisk-Palestinsk Fred (Stockholm), Board Member of the EJJP Foundation

Arthur Goodman, Parliamentary and Diplomatic Officer, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (London)

Max Wieselmann, Board Member of the EJJP Foundation, Director of Een Ander Joods Geluid
(Amsterdam


EJJP to the Permanent Representative and the Political Advisor
16th September, 2013

Further to our letter of 31 August, we are now writing to you about Secretary of State Kerry’s tactic in asking the European Union to postpone implementing the Guidelines in order to give the peace negotiations a chance by not putting undue pressure on Israel. While at first sight this might seem reasonable, a little reflection shows the logic to be fatally flawed. We would not be surprised to find that Israeli and AIPAC lobbying in Washington is behind it.

In fact, it is a grave error. If the EU acquiesces, it would reduce rather than enhance the chances of the negotiations achieving a durable solution to the conflict. The political, legal and moral arguments set out in our previous letter apply directly now.

The essence of the problem is that this Israeli government, like the previous one, wants two contradictory things. It is determined to keep large parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, without giving up any land in return, despite the manifest illegality and injustice of the occupation.

Yet at the same time, like all Israeli governments, it craves complete international acceptance, preeminently through continued integration into the European Union for financial, political and – we would say – psychological reasons.

The Guidelines are a very effective means of forcing the Israeli government to make a choice. It can either sign the appropriate memoranda of understanding, including the Guidelines, thereby accepting the precedent that Israel does not have sovereignty in any of the OPT, and in return achieve further measures of integration, or it can refuse to sign such memoranda and forego further important integration, including Horizon 2020 which is very important to Israel. This is the first tangible pressure on Israel since the first President Bush temporarily suspended loan guarantees in order to force Prime Minister Shamir to attend the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. It is an entirely justified means of
creating adverse consequences for Israel if it continues to act as if it is above the law.

We cannot emphasise the importance of the Guidelines strongly enough.

The logic of Secretary Kerry’s tactic can only be to persuade the European Union to allow Israel to join Horizon 2020, and perhaps other cooperative activities, without accepting the Guidelines, and thereby secure the Israeli government’s acceptance of the 1967 borders. The flaw in the logic is obvious. It will merely convince Netanyahu and his allies that they can continue to have it both ways. No amount of stern words to the contrary from Secretary Kerry or High Representative Ashton would change that.

Israel would continue to stonewall in the negotiations.

What could the EU then do when the awful truth had to be faced months later? Since Horizon 2020 is the important gain Israel wants from the EU now, reactivating the Guidelines would be relatively ineffective, if effective at all. The next big step would be to suspend the EU Israel Association Agreement, with its valuable tariff concessions, but that would be much harder to achieve as it would require unanimity in the Council of Ministers.

Therefore we urge you again to stand your ground and

implement the Guidelines immediately and in full.

Yours sincerely,

Dror Feiler, Chair of EJJP and Judar for Israelisk-Palestinsk Fred (Stockholm), Board Member of the

EJJP Foundation

Arthur Goodman, Parliamentary and Diplomatic Officer, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (London)

Max Wieselmann, Board Member of the EJJP Foundation, Director of Een Ander Joods Geluid
(Amsterdam)


Introducing JfJfP

JFJFP is the largest Jewish peace group in the U.K. or Europe, with more than 1,700 signatories. We know that we and the other Jewish peace groups in the UK represent the views of a significant part of the UK’s Jewish population, whose voice is rarely heard. We travel regularly to the Middle East and are in touch with all the main Israeli and Palestinian Peace organisations. We belong to the European federation of 11 peace groups, European Jews for a Just Peace.

We believe that the Palestinians have the right to their own state in the areas currently occupied by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, no less than Israel has the right to a secure existence within the 6 June 1967 borders. Accordingly we believe that Israel should negotiate in good faith to withdraw to the 1967 borders, subject to an agreed, equitable land swap to accommodate the built-up areas in some of the settlements adjacent to the Green Line.

We abhor terrorism of all kinds and believe it cannot be condoned. This applies equally to Palestinian attacks on civilians, to Israeli “targeted killings” by rocket in crowded places which inevitably kill and maim bystanders, and to Israeli attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza and Lebanon in 2006 and again in Gaza in 2008. We believe, however, that the vicious cycle of terror and state terror is caused by the long occupation, by Israel’s obvious intention to use the settlement project and the Separation Wall to annexe large swathes of the occupied land, and by the many punitive measures it takes against the Palestinian population.

www.jfjfp.com – P O Box 46081, London W9 2ZF – jfjfp@jfjfp.org



European Jews for Just Peace

Introduction

European Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP) is a federation of 11 European Jewish peace groups campaigning in 10 countries throughout Europe against the occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Israel and in favour of a durable peace solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was founded in 2002 out of concern both for Israel and the Palestinians.

The following groups are member of the European Jews for a Just Peace.

Jüdische Stimme für einen gerechten Frieden in Nahost Austria
Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Near East
Union des Progressistes Juifs de Belgique Belgium
Union of Progressive Jews in Belgium
European Jews for a Just Peace – Denmark Denmark
Union Juive Française pour la Paix France
Jewish French Union for Peace
Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost Germany
Jewish Voice for Just Peace in the Near East
Rete’ Ebrei contro l’Occupazione Italy
Network of Jews against Occupation
Een Ander Joods Geluid The Netherlands
A Different Jewish Voice
Judar för Israelisk-Palestinsk Fred Sweden
Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Jüdische Stimme für einen gerechten Frieden zwischen Switzerland
Israel und Palastina
Jewish Voice for a Just Peace between Israel and Palestine
Jewish Socialists’ Groups United Kingdom
Jews for Justice for Palestinians United Kingdom

European Jews for a Just Peace stands for:
 Israel to commit to immediate negotiations to end the occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories: the West Bank, East Jerusalem, as well as the indirect occupation of the Gaza Strip, with recognition of the June 4th 1967 borders (the Green Line).
 complete withdrawal of all Jewish settlements in all the Occupied Territories, except as may be agreed in these negotiations.
 the recognition of the right of both states to have Jerusalem as their capital.
 the recognition by Israel of its part in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

Israel should acknowledge the Palestinian right to return as a human right. The practical solution to the problem will come about by agreement between parties based on just, fair and practical considerations. It will include compensation, the return to the territory of the State of Palestine or of Israel, without endangering Israel’s existence. We see an important role for the international community, especially Europe, to give political and financial support for this solution.

European Jews for a Just Peace sees an active role for the European Union in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We call upon the Israeli government to change its current policies and implement the proposals as stated above, and we call upon all other governments – foremost the governments of the European Union – to put pressure on the Israeli government to implement these proposals.

European Jews for a Just Peace additionally strives to:
 show support for the peace camps in Israel and Palestine;
 engage into debates within Jewish communities across Europe on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict;
 facilitate meetings in Europe between Israelis and Palestinians;
 present the voice of the other Israel, the Israel of peace groups and human rights groups, in Europe.

Print Friendly

Comments are closed.