The English translation of the the report of Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs: Between words and deeds: prospects for a sustainable peace in the Middle East has just been published Summary and recommendations In accordance with the tenor of the request from the Senate, in this advisory report the AIV has primarily explored the question of how the peace process in the Middle East can be revived. The need to bring an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is more urgent than ever. The prospects of implementing a two-state solution are being seriously undermined by the continued expansion of Israeli settlements near East Jerusalem and on the West Bank, alongside the many other illegal Israeli settlements that have existed for years. The situation in the surrounding region is also highly unstable, and there is a great chance that the Palestinians will again resort to violence, with all its harmful repercussions. The AIV believes that a two-state solution would still provide the best basis for a peace settlement between the two parties. The option of a binational state may be attractive from a humanitarian and idealistic point of view, but it would meet with insurmountable objections both on matters of principle and on practical grounds. The alternative of permanent Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, coupled with repression, restricted freedom of movement for the local population and unequal distribution of water supplies, is bound to provoke the Palestinians to renewed violence – the only question is when. Furthermore, such a scenario, leading almost inevitably to the further undermining of the civil rights of Palestinians and also of dissident Israelis, would constitute a threat to the rule of law in Israel itself. A two-state solution would however have to be supported by agreements on land swaps, the legal return of Palestinians to their original homes in Israel – in so far as they wished – and security guarantees. Although the AIV realises that developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are to a large degree determined by political factors (power relationships, political leadership, the definition of national interests and the dynamics of domestic politics in interaction with external interventions), it is important that this conflict be assessed within the generally accepted legal framework, and brought to a satisfactory end within that framework. This report has therefore devoted particular attention to relevant aspects of international law based, among other things, on peoples’ right to self-determination, the rights and obligations of occupying powers and the rule of proportionality when it comes to the use of force. In this connection, the AIV has taken as its reference point the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Though this opinion was initially issued in response to questions about the legality of Israel’s construction of the ‘wall’ (much of it on Palestinian territory), the opinion of the Court encompasses almost all legal issues associated with the conflict. The Court also considered the Israeli settlements on the West Bank in its deliberations. It concluded that Israel’s settlement policy violates international law. The violations concern the Palestinian people’s right to selfdetermination, the freedom of movement of all inhabitants of the occupied territories, and the right to work, health care and education. The Court also believes that the barrier and the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention (relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War) and Security Council resolutions on the matter, because they are helping to change the demographic profile of the occupied territories. There can be no doubt as to the applicability of the Convention in these territories. Given the fact that the AIV – as indicated below – regards it as essential that the EU take an active stance in this conflict, it would also highlight the importance of the provision in the Association Agreements (article 2) with both Israel and the Palestinians, which refers to ‘respect for human rights and democratic principles’. The AIV has also considered the implications of the reform movements and revolutions that have been shaking large parts of the Arab world to their foundations for over two years now. It has concluded that these regional developments, which reveal complex interrelationships, have so far had no real impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in either a positive or a negative sense. Nevertheless, these developments make the need to find a solution all the more urgent, given the prevailing instability in the region. Furthermore, we cannot rule out the possibility that the increased influence of Islamist parties will translate into more overt support for the Palestinian cause. This might prompt the Palestinians to continue their struggle for an independent state with renewed conviction, potentially reducing their willingness to reach a compromise with Israel if no peace initiatives that take sufficient account of Palestinian aspirations are put forward in the near future. Given the fact that, for all kinds of reasons, both parties will find it difficult to return to the negotiating table of their own accord, active international mediation and external pressure will most probably be essential. In the recent past, hopes have been pinned mainly on the Quartet and its efforts to make the peace process a success. However, the AIV believes that the Quartet has not been able to live up to its initial expectations and ambitions. The formal inclusion of the UN, EU and Russia in the group could not disguise the fact that every attempt at mediation depended on the efforts of the US, which thus had a key position. Despite the relative decline in American power and the polarisation in US domestic politics, that country remains potentially the best placed to effectively influence relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Whether President Obama will be prepared to bring America’s considerable weight to bear during his second term, and if necessary to tackle any obstructive posture on Israel’s part, is uncertain, however. There are grounds to believe that the US may intervene actively in the conflict. They include America’s credibility and reputation in the Muslim world and the political capital President Obama stands to gain from a successful demonstration of international statesmanship. There are also, however, factors that give reason to believe that the US will continue to distance itself from the conflict, given the severity of America’s budget crisis, the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and US priorities elsewhere in the world. The lack of certainty about US efforts in the immediate future makes it even more important to consider the potential role of the EU. The AIV believes that the EU has more scope for breathing new life into the peace process than is often assumed. The Union has close economic and other ties with Israel, and the Palestinians are heavily dependent on the EU financially. Wherever possible, the EU should tie in its efforts for peace in the Middle East with any efforts made by the Americans. This would provide the best guarantee of talks being resumed. But if the Americans fail to make adequate efforts (or if they look likely to move in the wrong direction, by being too accepting of unreasonable Israeli positions), the EU should not shrink from fulfilling its own responsibility as a mediator. Given its ambition, or claim, to be a ‘normative power’, it should focus on generally accepted principles of international law (including humanitarian law and human rights conventions). To lend international peace proposals broad legitimacy, it is also important that countries from the Arab region, such as Egypt and Jordan, or Qatar, be involved in the mediation process. Of course, the chances of peace in the Middle East depend on the willingness of both parties to resume negotiations in good faith. This will happen only if a majority of Israelis and Palestinians are convinced that a peace settlement based on a two-state formula is ultimately in both sides’ interests. The Palestinians need to recognise that Israel’s concerns about its security, both now and in the future, are legitimate. They must be asked to cooperate fully in minimising those concerns. Such cooperation might include effective action against radical Palestinian groups that engage in violent opposition against the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state in the Arab world. This of course primarily concerns the militant groups in Gaza, an area that is effectively outside the control of the Palestinian Authority. A reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas would therefore be highly desirable. Contact with Hamas must not be avoided. Israel must be asked to introduce a radical turnaround in its settlement policy in the near future. The practice of establishing Israeli settlements far inside Palestinian territory encroaches on the land needed to create a viable Palestinian state. By ignoring repeated calls and warnings from the international community to stop expanding its settlements, the Israeli government has raised serious doubts about the sincerity of its stated desire for peace. Should Israel prove unwilling to put an end to the growing colonisation of the occupied territories, responsible actors in the international community will have no choice but to follow up their words of protest with actual deeds. In other words, persistent violations of international law and binding Security Council resolutions must lead to consequences if the situation does not change. For the European Union, this might mean restrictions or a freeze on its relations with Israel (and at any rate no upgrading of its cooperation) and, in connection with its international legal obligations, a ban on imports of products from the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Finally, the AIV would like to put forward a number of recommendations relating to possible contributions that the Netherlands might make, either directly or indirectly, to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or at least improve the political climate between the two parties: The Netherlands must focus its efforts on convincing the EU member states of the need, in the near future, to launch a joint initiative to move towards a two-state solution. To achieve maximum effect, this initiative must as far as possible be undertaken in conjunction with the US. If necessary, however, the EU must itself take responsibility and make independent efforts to bring the parties together. The Netherlands must accept that the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as the larger EU countries, should take the lead, in order to maximise the effect of Europe’s actions. When it comes to specifying the details of any European initiative, the Netherlands should actively promote the organisation of a new Middle East conference (preceded by thorough preparations). It would be logical for stakeholder countries in the region to send delegations to the conference, alongside Israeli and Palestinian delegations. The goal of the conference should be to reach agreement on the final parameters for a peace settlement. An alternative to a conference might be a special session of the Security Council requested by the UK and France, and including representatives of the parties to the conflict. The UK and France could submit a draft resolution setting out the final parameters on behalf of the EU. If the above initiative were to fail to win sufficient support, the Netherlands might consider taking the lead, following the example of Norway in the early 1990s, by offering to bring the parties to the negotiating table in this country (either openly or behind closed doors), based on the principles of international law. Depending on the needs and wishes of the parties, the Netherlands could limit its role to that of facilitator, or act as mediator. The Netherlands could also make a useful contribution by actively promoting certain forms of second-track diplomacy. Besides facilitating exchanges between opinion leaders from Israel and the Palestinian territories, it is particularly important to institutionalise a dialogue in which representatives of moderate civil society organisations on both sides can discuss issues of mutual interest, with a view to seeking common solutions. In the opinion of the AIV, the EU should take a stricter line on ensuring that Israel does not enjoy any benefit from its Association Agreement with the EU when it comes to products from the settlements. The AIV would also urge the Netherlands to actively discourage Dutch and European companies from doing business with Israeli companies in the settlements. To aid the development of the necessary capacity and judicial legislation in a new state of Palestine, the Netherlands must redouble its efforts in the area of training police officers, judges and administrative officials. The Netherlands could also usefully take a more active role in the field of ‘water diplomacy’. Given the technical breakthroughs that have been made in desalinisation techniques, the Netherlands could bring its large stock of knowledge and experience to bear in efforts to ensure that an enhanced water supply also benefits the Palestinians. Finally, in a general sense, the Netherlands should join forces with like-minded countries to ensure that the two parties comply with their obligations under international law and, if necessary, help to enforce this. Historical ties and solidarity with Israel must not preclude calling it to account for violating the law.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:25:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015