International Policy

Peace vs. Justice

editor — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:40:32 -0800

By Michael Lame

Israelis ... tend to put a premium on peace, but they place an even higher premium on preserving their national existence.

A real question ... is whether justice in Arab terms must be all-or-nothing.

Palestinians can’t return to the world they knew before ’48. It no longer exists.

Partners for Progressive Israel (Meretz USA) Statement on Palestinian Application for Full UN Membership

editor — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 06:49:15 -0700

On Sunday, September 18, 2011, Partners for Progressive Israel (Meretz USA) President Dina B. Charnin, Chair Theodore Bikel, and Executive Director Ron Skolnik issued the following statement on behalf of the organization:

The Palestinian decision to advance their statehood drive via the United Nations, and outside the framework of negotiations with Israel, is a diplomatic turning point that creates risks but also offers new openings for progress toward peace. For the benefit of both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples, we urge the government of Israel to focus on the positive elements we expect to be contained in the Palestinian request, as outlined below, and to refrain from precipitous responses that would escalate tension and serve the agenda of both sides' extremists.

International Law and Israel

editor — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:02:51 -0700

I was asked a few weeks ago why International Law matters when working on Israel issues. I confess to being very taken aback by the question. Why wouldn't International Law matter? Why should Israel be exempted from the norms that are supposed to guide, inform, and yes restrict, the actions of all states? The more I thought about the question the more it dawned on me that there were three underlying issues: 1) Why does law of any kind matter? 2) What exactly is international law? and 3) Are the UN and all international human rights bodies inherently and blatantly anti-Israel?

I'm not sure how to answer number one. I'm not an anarchist. I think that the vast majority of the time it is important to have a legal system. To be sure, that system should be as fair, just, and unbiased as possible, and often people have to struggle against unjust laws and legal system. But I think laws matter, and if that is really the core issue then there is not much more I can say to assuage the fears that underline the original question about Israel.

Number two is much more complex. Yes, I took five international law classes in grad school, and perhaps therein lays my problem. I know just enough about international law to understand how little I really know, and yet I know a great deal more than most. The challenge of how to distill five classes of knowledge down into a short and simple answer is a great one indeed, but I will try. International Law has many constituent pieces including: customary law, conventions and protocols (multi-lateral treaties), and treaties (bi-lateral agreements, usually between two states). Some of these laws are trade agreements like NAFTA, others attempt to regulate the way that wars are fought and civilians are treated during armed conflict like The Hague and Geneva Conventions, while still others like Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) seek to protect individuals from specific human rights violations.

Traditionally, International Law referred to the set of laws that govern the conduct of states in their relationships with one another, where state actors were considered to be the only actors on the international stage. This makes traditional International Law different from what one generally thinks of a legal system as being; a set of laws that is primarily concerned about the relationship between a state and its citizens. However, as international relations have evolved so too has International Law. International Law is now beginning to cover state relations with international institutions and other non-state actors. Additionally, in some instances individual people, under the emerging principle of universal jurisdiction, are now being held directly accountable to international criminal laws. But the laws that seeks to protect human rights is most often what people think about when they hear term International Law.

The shift in International Law to protect the rights of people beyond the battlefield began in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in response to World War II and the Holocaust. While The Hague and Geneva Conventions address rights directly relating to wars and combat situations, subsequent human rights conventions have sought to cover the full range of human rights. International human rights law is just one part of International Law but is nevertheless derived from a verity of sources, both international and national. One of the most important sources of human rights law is the UN Charter itself.

Including the UN Charter, to which Israel's own Declaration of Independence says that Israel will be faithful; there are a large number of conventions and treaties that are relevant to discussions of International Law in relation to Israel. Though Israel was not established until 1948, International Laws such as The Hague and Geneva Conventions (the first three of which were ratified proir to 1949) are applicable to Israel. Isreal is bound by them because they are now a part of Customary International Law and are binding on all states. In addition to binding Customary International Law, Israel is also a signatory party to the eight major human rights conventions.

This brings me to number three. My short answer is no, the UN and other international human rights bodies are not all inherently and blatantly anti-Israel. Within the UN structure there are numerous bodies that are charged with monitoring and adjudicating human rights issues; the Human Rights Commission being just one of seven bodies that were established under human rights conventions, in addition to the two permanent courts and several ad hoc courts and tribunals that have also been established. International Law, the UN, and International human rights law are much more than just the Human Rights Commission. It is important to state that because many casual followers of human rights and the UN frequently point out the bias of the Human Rights Commission, as if that one body were the totality of the UN's efforts on human rights and representative of a monolithic position on Israel. It is not and does not.

I would love to elucidate the human rights implications of Israeli policy on a number of specific cases or issues. I could write entire graduate level papers about why the ICJ ruling on the Separation Barrier was legally sound and not biased against Israel. I have written a paper on why many of Israel's interrogation methods violate the CAT. One issue that I can give a brief answer is that of the Settlements. Quite simply, the Settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, Article 49: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." The law itself is clear, and in the case of Israel means that a state policy that supports Israeli citizens moving into occupied territory constitutes a violation of this law.

In addition to the straight forward meaning of Article 49, the Geneva Conventions as a whole lay out the obligations that an occupying power has to the population being occupied. That's right; according to the law by becoming an occupying power Israel becomes responsible for upholding the rights of the people under its control. Let me put it another way, under international law Israel is responsible for the safety, security, and protecting the rights of the Palestinians living under occupation.

In my mind the core issues are not if International Law matters, if it should be applied to Israel, or if applying International Law to Israel somehow makes one anti-Israel. International Law matters. It should be applied to Israel. And while one UN body is clearly biased in its dealings with Israel that does not negate the rest of the UN, or International Law, and Israel's responsibilities under those laws. The real issue is that Israeli policies like the Settlements and the Separation Barrier clearly violate International Law and many Jews and Israelis are afraid to own up to those violations and their ramifications. It is important to be honest about how and where Israel falls short of the ideals it laid out for itself and that many of us hold it to. As painful as it is that Israel violates international law, it cannot be ignored that it does, and those of us who care about Israel have a responsibility to help it do and be better.

Meretz USA statement on the UN resolution regarding Israel’s West Bank settlement activity

editor — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:34:39 -0800

As the UN Security Council deliberates on a resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction over the Green Line, we appeal to the Israeli government to act in the country’s best interest, in the interest of peace, and in the spirit of friendship with the US, and implement a complete, effective settlement freeze, unlimited in time and including the area of annexed East Jerusalem.

Alternative Pathways to Peace: Is the Era of Direct Talks Over?

editor — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:34:56 -0800

(Part 1 of a series)

Ask a 5th grader what the shortest distance is between two points, and she'll probably tell you - a straight line. Similarly, ask a lover of Israel - right, center or left - what the best path is from the current Israeli-Arab conflict to the goal of peace and, with few exceptions, you'll hear: "Direct talks between the sides".

But what happens when the straight line to peace is blocked; when the direct road is indefinitely out of service? Is there a reasonable detour that can still get us, safe and sound, to our destination - "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security"?

The Power of Perception and the Possibility of Policy Change

editor — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:18:48 -0700

One of the biggest existential dangers facing Israel today may be not fully understanding how the country is seen by the world at large. The power of perception is significant. So too is the way we work to shape those perceptions. These ideas were presented by Avshalom “Abu” Vilan, a former Member of Knesset (MK), the Israeli parliament, during a talk last night at the Meretz USA offices.

Draw a line at the Green Line: Israel is legitimate. The settlements aren’t. A policy statement from Meretz USA

editor — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:33:15 -0700

The State of the Union – and the State of Israel

editor — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:57:55 -0800

In his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Obama assured the American people that he would continue to aggressively pursue his domestic agenda in 2010. He summed up his determination at the end of the speech with a rousing, "I don't quit" guarantee.

But does the same tenacity and steely resolve apply to his Middle East peace initiative? Is the President still in it for the long haul? Or is Mr. Obama getting ready to let Israelis and Palestinians "stew in their own juices", as Israeli political analysts are fond of saying? Will he throw them off like excess baggage, weighing down an Administration already saddled with challenges enough for the next 3 years?

The first month of 2010 has provided several alarming signals.

Meretz USA letter to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren

editor — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:58:02 -0800

December 16, 2009

Embassy of Israel 
His Excellency Michael B. Oren, Ambassador of Israel to the United States

Your Excellency,

Meretz USA for Israeli Civil Rights and Peace, a longstanding affiliate of the American Zionist Movement, wishes to express our deep disappointment and great alarm over your recent remarks with regard to the J Street organization, delivered at the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism's biennial convention.

Meretz calls for inquiry into Gaza War events

editor — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:10:05 -0800

The Meretz party has called on the Israeli government to set up an independent commission of inquiry that would investigate possible human rights violations committed during "Operation Cast Lead" - the Gaza War.

The chair of Meretz's board, former MK Mossi Raz, explained: "The government needs to correct its mistake and swiftly establish an independent inquiry commission, in accordance with the timetable laid out in the Goldstone Report. It is entirely in Israel's interests to investigate the events of ‘Cast Lead'."