Stop the Dishonest Academic Boycott of Israel

Stop the Dishonest Academic Boycott

by Lawrence Grossman
December 26, 2013

By: Lawrence Grossman Published: December 26th, 2013

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/stop-the-dishonest-academic-boycott/2013/12/26/0/

Stop the Dishonest Academic Boycott

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/stop-the-dishonest-academic-boycott/2013/12/26/0/

It started as barely a blip on the radar. 

At its annual conference last April, the Association for Asian American Studies, or AAAS, unanimously approved a resolution calling for an academic boycott of Israeli universities to protest the country’s treatment of Palestinians. 

While the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement had been active for some time on campuses across the country, it was the first time an American academic organization had signed on. 

But since the AAAS is a tiny group of barely 800 members, and fewer than 100 were still around on the final day of the conference when the vote was taken, the step was viewed more as a curiosity than the beginning of a trend. 

Now the blip is beginning to look more like a wave. This month, the much larger American Studies Association, or ASA – it has nearly 5,000 members –passed a similar resolution by a 2-to-1 margin in an online vote in which about a quarter of the members participated. 

The language, previously approved unanimously by the organization’s national council, claims there is “no effective or substantive academic freedom for Palestinian students and scholars under conditions of Israeli occupation” blames the United States for “enabling” the occupation; and endorses “a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.” 

While the ASA has long had a reputation for leftist and anti-Western bias, resolutions to the same effect are expected to be proposed at the upcoming meetings of the large mainstream academic bodies in the humanities, such as the Modern Language Association and the American Historical Association. Both will hold their annual meetings in January. 

The professoriate is the most highly educated sector of our society, its members taking justifiable pride in their ability to think clearly and not be swayed by faulty logic. Surely those who come to the subject with no preconceived anti-Israel feeling will see through the two-tiered hypocrisy of the boycotters. 

First, it is rather odd that the ASA has never before called for severing academic relations with any other country, not even such authoritarian regimes as China, Iran, Sudan or Syria, where no academic freedom exists. Whatever failings can be laid at Israel’s door, it is a democracy with free elections, a free press and, yes, academic freedom. 

Indeed, it was Israel that established the first Palestinian universities on the West Bank. Far from seeking to oppress the Palestinian population under its control, Israel is engaged in intensive negotiations with the Palestinian Authority to achieve a peace agreement whereby Israeli and Palestinian states can live side by side in peace. 

Acknowledging that Israel is hardly among the worst human-rights offenders, the ASA president insists nonetheless that “one has to start somewhere.” But why start by boycotting a free society rather than a repressive one – unless you come to the issue already predisposed against Israel? 

Second, for consistency’s sake, a boycott aimed at Israeli academia should insist on forgoing the use of anything produced by Israeli brainpower –much of it at the very universities targeted for boycotting. That would include computer laptops, cell phones, crops produced by drip irrigation, geothermal power, and a host of biomedical devices and pharmaceuticals. 

At the very least, such a boycott should logically include an end to the enjoyment of the most visible fruits of Israeli intellectual life – the path-breaking accomplishments of its 12 Nobel Prize winners, by far the highest per-capita number of Nobel laureates for any country in the world. 

The fact that none of the would-be boycotters has even suggested taking such a step raises the strong possibility that the entire academic BDS campaign is shot through with another form of hypocrisy, one that decries Israel as an international pariah while at the same time making use of the life-enhancing and life-saving breakthroughs that the objectionable country has achieved. 

If they remain fair-minded, and look behind the hypocritical rhetoric, American professors can stop the academic boycott in its tracks.

More universities reject academic boycott of Israel (update)

Dozens of universities reject academic boycott of Israel (update) 

By Valerie Strauss  December 23 at 1:59 pm

Dozens of American colleges and universities are rejecting an academic boycott of Israeli universities recently approved by the academic American Studies Association, the nation’s oldest and largest association devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history.  Some schools said they are withdrawing from the organization.

Rep. Eliot Engel, the senior Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sent a letter (text below) to the ASA president, Curtis Marez,  expressing concern over what Engel said was “the unfair double standard Israel is regularly and unfairly subjected to by organizations such as yours.”

The association’s membership — or, rather, 66.05 percent of the 1,252 votes that came in from the group’s 5,000 members — approved the boycott last week over the objections of numerous former presidents of the organization and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who angered activists by saying that he does not support a boycott of Israel (though he does support a boycott of Israeli products in the occupied territories).

Schools including Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton and Boston universities and the Universities of Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Texas at Austin  and others have slammed the boycott, issuing statements similar to one by Harvard President Drew Faust that said that academic boycotts “subvert the academic freedoms and values necessary to the free flow of ideas, which is the lifeblood of the worldwide community of scholars.”

Penn State University at Harrisburg and Brandeis University have said they are withdrawing their memberships from the American Studies Association, and other schools are considering doing the same thing. In addition, two major associations of institutions of higher education, the Association of American Universities and the Association of American University Professors, have issued statements rejecting the boycott.

The approved ASA boycott resolution, which followed a similar one by the Association for Asian American Studies, said in part:

The American Studies Association (ASA) endorses and will honor the call of Palestinian civil society for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. It is also resolved that the ASA supports the protected rights of students and scholars everywhere to engage in research and public speaking about Israel-Palestine and in support of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.

The Association of American University Professors has long opposed academic boycotts, saying in a 2005 resolution:

We reject proposals that curtail the freedom of teachers and researchers to engage in work with academic colleagues, and we reaffirm the paramount importance of the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas.

I recently asked Marez if his organization had instituted an embargo on any other country’s academic institution and he responded in an e-mail saying that:

ASA members condemned apartheid in South Africa and urged divestment from U.S. corporations with operations there. More recently the ASA condemned anti-immigrant discrimination in Arizona and in other states.

That’s a long way of saying that the Israeli boycott is the first and only for the ASA.
Here’s Engel’s letter, and following that are some of the statements that presidents of universities have issued:

Mr. Curtis Marez
President
American Studies Association
1120 19th St NW, Suite 301
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Marez:
I noted with great dismay the decision of the American Studies Association (ASA) to launch a boycott targeting Israeli academic institutions. I believe such action by the ASA is another example of the unfair double standard Israel is regularly and unfairly subjected to by organizations such as yours. I could not help but notice that the American Association of University Professors condemns such boycotts as violations of academic freedom, and that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself made clear that his government does not support boycotts of the institutions that the ASA is now targeting.
I take great issue with how supporters of the ASA’s misguided actions draw a distinction between boycotting individual Israelis and Israeli academic institutions, which the ASA has termed “party to Israeli state policies that violate human rights.” Simply put, I fail to see how cutting off ties to Israeli universities furthers the interests of peace and coexistence. Does your membership really believe the institutions such as the Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence Through Education at the Tel Aviv University, the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, or the Jewish-Arab Center at the University of Haifa contribute to the purported Israeli assault on human rights and academic freedoms?
Further, I was surprised to learn that Israel is the first country formally subject to a boycott by the ASA, which curiously has chosen to stay silent on China’s suppression of independent academic voices critical of the Communist Party, the Venezuelan government’s retaliation against opposition-oriented universities, or Zimbabwe’s denial of foreign academics from countries critical of Robert Mugabe’s dictatorial government from assuming academic residencies at the University of Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, your response that “we have to start somewhere” when queried about this contradiction only serves to highlight your organization’s bias against Israel. If you must “start somewhere,” than I strongly suggest the ASA turn its attention to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s forces have indiscriminately shelled universities, killing students even as they sat for exams.
I have attached several sections from the State Department’s most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for your review. I would note that under the Israel country section, the report states “there were no government restrictions on academic freedom.”
If you desire any assistance in further identifying other countries with human rights records of concern, I and my staff stand ready to assist you and the ASA in that regard.
Sincerely,
ELIOT L. ENGEL
Ranking Member
President Drew Faust

Harvard University
Academic boycotts subvert the academic freedoms and values necessary to the free flow of ideas, which is the lifeblood of the worldwide community of scholars. The recent resolution of the ASA proposing to boycott Israeli universities represents a direct threat to these ideals, ideals which universities and scholarly associations should be dedicated to defend. 

President Susan Herbst
University of Connecticut
The recent votes of two scholarly societies — the American Studies Association and Association for Asian American Studies — to endorse the Palestinian boycott of Israeli academic institutions is contrary to both academic freedom and the international exchange of ideas. The University of Connecticut joins the American Association of University Professors in firmly opposing all such boycotts. Choosing one nation for a boycott is patently unfair and represents a disturbing philosophy among some segments of the academy.
As a university with global reach and prominence, UConn seeks research and educational partnerships with people of all nations, and is proud to serve as a force for political conversation, inter-ethnic exchange, and the pursuit of scholarly excellence.
Academic leaders at UConn will continue to visit Israel and Arab nations, invite Israeli and Arab scholars to our campuses, encourage our students and faculty to study in these nations, and pursue research collaboration with the many outstanding Israeli universities. We do this with pride and a productive focus on social justice, to forge the very critical dialogues that will someday lead to the peace we all seek.
That is the true essence of a university — to foster dialogue and develop solutions to problems without regard to political, racial, and cultural differences.
Susan Herbst
President
University of Connecticut

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
PRESIDENT ROBERT A. BROWN
I am disappointed and concerned that the American Studies Association, invoking the principle of academic freedom, would vote to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Research, teaching, and scholarship flourish through robust exchange of ideas, across borders and among institutions in different parts of the world. Universities and their faculties can often transcend even profound political differences. It is ill-advised to make academic institutions the instrument with which to promote a political agenda by attempting to isolate students and scholars. Boston University cannot support this boycott.
I hope that there will be a serious discussion within our American & New England Studies Program, which has an institutional membership in the ASA that, obviously, is funded by the University. This institutional membership does not come with a vote that is exercised by either the program or the University. The poll taken by the ASA represents the votes of individual members of the organization. We are not prepared to suggest (implicitly or explicitly) to faculty members who hold individual memberships (some of which are funded out of professional funds allocated to individual faculty members) how they should vote. That would lead us onto a slippery slope.
I do hope the faculty in the American & New England Studies Program will consider whether or not continuing membership in the ASA will create the opportunity for a temperate and thoughtful reconsideration of the wisdom of the boycott.
For my part, I am somewhat cautious about following a boycott with a boycott. I’d rather see thoughtful discourse and engagement. This is a case in which the application of the principle of academic freedom is both important but fraught with subtlety. I take the point that the ASA boycott is pernicious and a rather direct attack on academic freedom and scholarly interactions across borders. With my formal statement, I have registered that objection. At the same time, we must be careful about reactions that have the effect of further limiting much-needed dialogue.
Robert A. Brown
President

 

Brandeis withdraws its membership in the American Studies Association, citing its politicization

Universities quit US academic body over Israel boycott

Brandeis and Penn State Harrisburg withdraw their membership in the American Studies Association, citing its politicization

By Yoel Goldman December 19, 2013

Two US academic institutions withdrew their membership in the American Studies Association this week, after the national body endorsed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions earlier this month, with its members approving the measure on Monday.  

Penn State’s Dr. Simon J. Bronner, chairman of the American Studies department, announced that his school was dropping its institutional affiliation, saying the ASA’s boycott measure would “curtail academic freedom.”

“The withdrawal of institutional membership by our program and others allows us to be independent of the political and ideological resolutions issued by the ASA and concentrate on building American Studies scholarship with our faculty, students, and staff,” Bronner added in a statement.

A similar message was posted on Brandeis’s American Studies program homepage.

“We view the recent vote by the membership to affirm an academic boycott of Israel as a politicization of the discipline and a rebuke to the kind of open inquiry that a scholarly association should foster.

“We remain committed to the discipline of American Studies but we can no longer support an organization that has rejected two of the core principles of American culture– freedom of association and expression,” the statement read.

The ASA’s boycott has not gone unnoticed by lawmakers.

On Wednesday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released a statement blasting the decision, which he said “applies a deeply offensive double standard.”

Nadler said that the ASA had “embraced an approach that is anathema to our desire for Israelis and Palestinians to co-exist in peace and security,” arguing that “such a stance undermines prospects for a two-state solution and ultimately will perpetuate the cycle of violence.”

The congressman warned that boycott would discourage direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which he described as the only route to “a peaceful and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

“The ASA’s decision is particularly troubling in that it comes in the middle of newly revived peace talks led by the Obama Administration,” he continued. “Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas opposes boycotts and sanctions against Israel, like the one passed by ASA, out of a concern for the potential damage to the talks and ultimately to an enduring peace.”

Earlier this week, Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) also criticized the vote.

Decrying “the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the expansion of illegal settlements and the Wall in violation of international law” and “the systematic discrimination against Palestinians,” the American Studies Association resolved earlier this month to “honor the call of Palestinian civil society for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.”

The “boycott is the best way to protect and expand academic freedom and access to education,” ASA president Curtis Marez said in a press release on December 4.

In the resolution passed unanimously by the association’s national council, the group justified its decision with the assertions that Palestinian students and scholars enjoy “no effective or substantive academic freedom” under Israeli rule and that “Israeli institutions of higher learning are a party to Israeli state policies that violate human rights and negatively impact the working conditions of Palestinian scholars and students.”

Two-thirds of the 1,252 members of the ASA who then voted on the measure approved the boycott, according to an ASA announcement Monday, a day after the deadline for voting.

At the time of the vote, there were 3,853 eligible voters, meaning one-third of the membership participated.

The membership-wide canvas was unprecedented and was undertaken in part at the behest of boycott opponents, who said at a session during the ASA annual conference in Washington last month that the matter was too sensitive to leave up to the 20-member national council, which unanimously endorsed the boycott.

“The National Council engaged and addressed questions and concerns of the membership throughout the process,” the ASA statement said.

“During the open discussion at the recent convention, members asked us to draft a resolution that was relevant to the ASA in particular and so the Council’s final resolution acknowledged that the US plays a significant role in enabling the Israeli occupation of Palestine.”

In its announcement, the ASA said it would invite Israeli and Palestinian academics to its 2014 national meeting in Los Angeles. The ASA describes itself as “devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history.”

The Anti-Defamation League called the vote to endorse the boycott “manifestly unjust.”

“This shameful, morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest attack on academic freedom by the American Studies Association should be soundly condemned by all who are committed to the ideal that open exchange of ideas is the most effective way to achieve change,” said National Director Abraham Foxman in a statement.

American Studies Association’s Marez admitted that the ASA has never before called for a boycott of any other nation’s universities and did not dispute that many other countries, including some of those in Israel’s region, are considered to have a comparable — if not worse — human-rights record than Israel.

“One has to start somewhere,” he said according to a New York Times report, adding that the US has “a particular responsibility to answer the call for boycott because it is the largest supplier of military aid to the state of Israel.” In addition, Marez noted, Palestinian civil groups had asked the ASA for the boycott, whereas no similar requests had been made by similar groups in other countries.

Founded in 1951 and now counting about 5,000 members, the Washington, DC-based ASA is America’s oldest and largest association devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history, according to its website.

On Wednesday, the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association became the third US academic body to push for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The boycott will be open to discussion at the group’s national conference in May in Austin, Texas.

Earlier this year, the Association for Asian American Studies became the the first US academic institution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. At its annual conference in Seattle in April, the group’s general membership unanimously voted in favor of a resolution that accuses Israeli universities of supporting systematic discrimination against Palestinian students, among other charges.

The US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel was founded in early 2009, in the wake of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Since then, it has been endorsed by 963 faculty members across the country.

Rebecca Shimoni Stoil, Stuart Winer, Raphael Ahren and JTA contributed to this report.

First Israel boycott shoe drops, how many more will follow?

Penn State Harrisburg to drop American Studies Assoc membership after Israel boycott

Posted by William A. Jacobson    Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Earlier today we published the list of universities which maintain Institutional Memberships in the American Studies Association.

Those memberships lend prestige and legitimacy to the ASA, and likely generate substantial revenue for ASA by funding faculty participation at ASA meetings, its primary source of revenue.
In light of the anti-Israel boycott approve by ASA, we called upon those universities to “decide whether they will become accomplices.”

One university has answered that call.

Penn State Harrisburg will be dropping its institutional membership.

That message was conveyed to me by Dr. Simon J. Bronner, who Chairs the American Studies Department, which has the only Ph.D program in American Studies in Pennsylvania.

Dr. Bronner is a prominent member of the ASA, in 2011 becoming Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of American Studies, a publication sponsored by the ASA.

Dr. Bronner has been an opponent of the resolution, having signed a letter in November opposing the resolution along with many other members including 7 Past Presidents of the ASA.  Dr. Bronner has spoken out about the damage the resolution would do to academic freedom

Dr. Bronner provided me with the following statement:

In the wake of the passage of the resolution by the ASA to boycott Israeli institutions, which programs and departments such as Penn State Harrisburg’s program in American Studies consider to curtail academic freedom and undermine the reputation of American Studies as a scholarly enterprise, the chair of the American Studies program at Penn State Harrisburg plans to drop its institutional membership and will encourage others to do so.

It will be interesting to see if other universities drop their institutional memberships.  Leadership by the Presidents of these Universities may be necessary as membership decisions often are made at the departmental or academic unit level.

A much tougher fight may be to convince University Presidents to heed the call of former Harvard President Lawrence Summers to curtail financial support for participation in ASA events.

UPDATE:  Dr. Bronner has asked that the following statement also be posted on his behalf:

As a prominent program in American Studies concerned for the welfare of its students and faculty, Penn State Harrisburg is worried that the recent actions by the National Council of the American Studies Association (ASA) do not reflect the longstanding scholarly enterprise American Studies stands for. The withdrawal of institutional membership by our program and others allows us to be independent of the political and ideological resolutions issued by the ASA and concentrate on building American Studies scholarship with our faculty, students, and staff. There might be alternative organizations forming in the future that better represent the field of American Studies. When and if that occurs, we will re-examine our independent position. In the meantime we view this move as one intended to protect students and faculty from opprobrium as a result of the ASA’s claim to represent scholars of American studies.

Boycotting Israeli universities: A victory for bigotry by Alan M Dershowitz (Ha'aretz, Dec. 17, 2013

Boycotting Israeli universities: A victory for bigotry

Singling out Israelis for an academic boycott is not only a blatant example of double standards; it is an act of complicity with the enduring prejudice against Jews.

By Alan M. Dershowitz | Dec. 17, 2013 | 12:19 AM | 12

The American Studies Association has just issued its first ever call for an academic boycott. No, it wasn’t against China, which imprisons dissenting academics. It wasn’t against Iran which executes dissenting academics. It wasn’t against Russia whose universities fire dissenting academics. It wasn’t against Cuba whose universities have no dissenting academics. It wasn’t against Saudi Arabia, whose academic institutions refuse to hire women, gay or Christian academics. Nor was it against the Palestinian Authority, whose colleges refuse to allow open discourse regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No, it was against only academic institutions in the Jewish State of Israel, whose universities have affirmative action programs for Palestinian students and who boast a higher level of academic freedom than almost any country in the world.

When the association was considering this boycott I issued a challenge to its members, many of whom are historians. I asked them to name a single country in the history of the world faced with threats comparable to those Israel faces that has had a better record of human rights, a higher degree of compliance with the rule of law, a more demanding judiciary, more concern for the lives of enemy civilians, or more freedom to criticize the government, than the State of Israel.

Not a single member of the association came up with a name of a single country. That is because there are none. Israel is not perfect, but neither is any other country, and Israel is far better than most. If an academic group chooses to engage in the unacademic exercise of boycotting the academic institutions of another country, it should do it in order of the seriousness of the human rights violations and of the inability of those within the country to seek redress against those violations.

By these standards, Israeli academic institutions should be among the last to be boycotted. 

I myself disagree with Israel’s settlement policy and have long urged an end to the occupation. But Israel offered to end the occupation twice in the last 13 years. They did so in 2000-2001 when Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state on approximately 95% of the occupied territories. Then it did so again in 2008 when former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered an even more generous deal. The Palestinians accepted neither offer and certainly share the blame for the continuing occupation. Efforts are apparently underway once again to try to end the occupation, as peace talks continue. The Palestinian Authority's President Mahmoud Abbas himself opposes academic boycotts of Israeli institutions.

China occupies Tibet, Russia occupies Chechnya and several other countries occupy Kurdish lands. In those cases no offers have been made to end the occupation. Yet no boycotts have been directed against the academic institutions of those occupying countries.

When the President of the American Studies Association, Curtis Marez, an associate professor of ethnic studies at The University of California, was advised that many nations, including all of Israel’s neighbors, behave far worse than Israel, he responded, “One has to start somewhere.” This boycott, however, has not only started with Israel. It will end with Israel. Marez’s absurd comment reminds me of the bigoted response made by Harvard’s notorious anti-Semitic president A. Laurence Lowell, when he imposed anti-Jewish quotas near the beginning of the twentieth century.

When asked why he singled out Jews for quotas, he replied, “Jews cheat.” When the great Judge Learned Hand reminded him that Christians cheat too, Lowell responded, “You’re changing the subject. We are talking about Jews now.”

You would think that historians and others who belong to the American Studies Association would understand that in light of the history of discrimination against Jews, you can’t just pick the Jewish State and Jewish universities as the place to “start” and stop.

Boycotting Israeli universities_ A victory for bigotry - Alan M Dershowitz - Haaretz, Dec 17, 2013.pdf https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5-JeCa2Z7hTy1UNnJYS0xnU3M/edit

A Slap in the Face for Anti-Israel BDS Movement

Abbas's stance against the BDS campaign should serve as a wake up call to all its supporters, especially those who are not Palestinians, that negative campaigns only serve to promote hatred and extremism in the region.
Many Palestinians seem to share Abbas's view. That is why many Palestinians continue to do business with Israelis on a daily basis and continue to hold joint conferences in Israel and different parts of the world.

The international campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions [BDS] against Israel received a slap in the face last week from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

As BDS supporters continue to campaign against Israel around the world, Abbas, asked about his position regarding the BDS campaign at a press conference in Johannesburg, where he was attending Nelson Mandela's funeral, stated that he does not support the boycott of Israel.

It is ironic that while Abbas is saying no to a boycott of Israel, the American Studies Association, an association of U.S. professors with almost 5,000 members, voted to endorse an academic boycott of Israeli colleagues and universities.

The U.S. professors obviously do not care about what the Palestinian Authority president has to say about the boycott of Israel. The professors, like BDS supporters, apparently believe that Abbas is a "traitor" because he is conducting peace talks with Israel.

Abbas's attack on the BDS movement is a serious embarrassment for the anti-Israel activists, many of whom are not Palestinians.

The statements have enraged BDS activists worldwide, with some calling into question Abbas's right to speak on behalf of the Palestinians.

Prominent Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab noted that Abbas's statement in Johannesburg "naturally has angered many Palestinian and international supporters of the BDS movement."

Kuttab wrote that Abbas's statement "reflects the absence of any clear strategy from the Palestinian political leadership except for negotiations. It is unclear whether the reason behind the Palestinian leader's public attack at the BDS movement is a result of trying to protect the Palestinian elite or not wanting to anger the Israelis and their US allies."

Abbas did, however, call on people around the world to boycott products of settlements. "No, we do not support the boycott of Israel," Abbas said. "But we ask everyone to boycott the products of settlements because the settlements are in our territories. It is illegal."

Abbas's statements conflict "with the Palestinian national consensus that has strongly supported BDS against Israel since 2005," Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of BDS, told Electronic Intifada.
"There is no Palestinian political party, trade union, NGO [non-governmental organization] network or mass organization that does not strongly support BDS," Omar Barghouti continued. "Any Palestinian official who lacks a democratic mandate and any real public support, therefore, cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people."

Salim Vally, spokesman for the Palestine Solidarity Committee in South Africa, told The Electronic Intifada that Abbas's comments were "shocking" and represented an "attack on the global solidarity movement."

The claim that Abbas does not represent the Palestinian "consensus" regarding a boycott of Israel is inaccurate. In fact, many Palestinians seem to share Abbas's view, which supports a boycott only of settlement products.

That is why many Palestinians continue to do business with Israelis on a daily business. That is also why, despite the BDS campaign, Palestinians and Israelis continue to hold joint seminars and conferences in Israel and different parts of the world.

In wake of Abbas's statements, the BDS movement should reconsider its strategy. Calls for boycotting any party do not contribute to the cause of peace. Abbas's stance against the BDS should also serve as a wake-up call to its supporters, especially those who are not Palestinians, that negative campaigns only serve to promote hatred and extremism in the region.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4095/abbas-bds

Audit: EU pays Palestinians in Gaza who don’t work

By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, December 11, 7:29 AM

BRUSSELS — European Union auditors recommended Wednesday that the EU stop paying the salaries of Palestinian civil servants in Gaza who don’t work.

The findings were made public by the European Court of Auditors, which scrutinized how 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion) in EU financial support to the Palestinian Authority has been used.

Some 65,000 civil servants and members of the security forces in Gaza stopped reporting to their jobs in 2007, when the Islamic militant Hamas seized the territory from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, leaving him with only the West Bank.

Abbas decided at the time to keep paying their salaries, on condition they stay at home and don’t work for the Hamas government. The practice is a key tool for Abbas to maintain political support in Gaza and counter Hamas’ efforts to deepen its control.

Many of the civil servants in the pre-Hamas government were loyalists belonging to Abbas’ Fatah movement.

The auditors said the EU pays one-fifth of the salaries of the Palestinian Authority’s 170,000 civil servants, both in the West Bank and in Gaza. European auditor Hans Gustaf Wessberg said spot checks found that in one office, out of 125 employees, 90 weren’t working.

Wessberg said the auditors recommend halting EU payments to Palestinian civil servants in Gaza and using the aid instead on the West Bank.

Faisal Abu Shahla, a Fatah leader in Gaza, said at the time of the Hamas takeover, the civil servants “responded to the orders of the leadership to stay home, and they are ready to resume their duties when the leadership orders them to do so.”
__
Associated Press writer Ibrahim Barzak in Gaza City contributed to this report.

Israel provides humanitarian aid to Syrians

Israel provides humanitarian aid to Syrians

By IAN DEITCH, Associated Press

Updated 9:22 am, Tuesday, December 3, 2013

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel acknowledged for the first time Tuesday that it is providing humanitarian aid to victims of the civil war inside neighboring Syria, saying it has funneled food and other emergency supplies to embattled villages just across the frontier.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon made the announcement during a visit to the Israeli-controlled side of the Golan Heights. Syrian troops and rebels have been clashing in the area for months, and hundreds of civilians have fled especially heavy fighting to neighboring Lebanon in recent days.

"We can't sit by and watch the humanitarian difficulties on the other side," Yaalon said. "We've transferred water, food, including baby food, taking into consideration that these villages are besieged and they don't have access to any other place. So therefore yes, we are assisting with humanitarian aid along the fence."

Israel and Syria are bitter enemies, and Israel has avoided taking sides in the Syrian fighting that pits President Bashar Assad's government against rebels seeking to oust it. Still, dozens of wounded Syrians have been treated at Israeli hospitals. Last month, a pregnant Syrian woman escaping the bloodshed gave birth in an Israeli hospital.

Yaalon's statement was the first time Israel has acknowledged sending supplies into the battle zone.

An Israeli defense official said the shipments have been going on for several months. He said much of the aid has been transferred through the United Nations, and other supplies are placed along the frontier so needy Syrians can get them directly.

The Israelis have not tried to hide the origin of the goods, and some items, including medicine and diapers, are made in Israel and have Hebrew writing on them, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information.

Israel has been carefully monitoring the Syrian war since it erupted in March 2011. While relations are hostile, the ruling Assad family has kept the border area with Israel quiet for most of the past 40 years. Israel is concerned that Assad's ouster could push the country into the hands of militant Islamic extremists or sectarian warfare, destabilizing the region. More than 100,000 people have been killed since the conflict began in March 2011, according to U.N. estimates.

The Syrian fighting, mostly errant fire, sometimes spills over into Israeli border communities, damaging property and crops, spreading panic and sparking fires. Israel occasionally retaliates.

Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on several weapons shipments headed to the pro-Syrian Hezbollah group in Lebanon. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied the airstrikes.

UN Human Rights Council - follow up

Reports that Israel joined the UN Human Rights Council’s Western group are premature

by Hillel Neuer
November 29, 2013

Reports that Israel has been admitted into the UN Human Rights Council’s Western group are premature. But something important is indeed afoot. 

In 2000, the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) in New York decided to admit Israel, on an initial temporary basis which has over time become permanent. This importantly enabled Israel to successfully submit its candidacy to various UN posts chosen by the General Assembly, and it allows Israel to bid for a seat on the Security Council. 

However, Israel remained excluded from the parallel regional group system at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. European states that had grudgingly approved Israel’s entry to the group in New York, which deals with elections, refused to do the same in Geneva, where WEOG discusses human rights. “Israel is not like-minded,” said the resisters, who somehow never had any problem allowing journalist-jailing, demonstrator-shooting, and Kurd-killing Turkey into the club.

This long-standing anomaly may soon be remedied.

While Israel’s admission is not yet final, there is hope that very soon Israel will be admitted into WEOG at the Human Rights Council, putting an end to a discriminatory practice in which all states were complicit through their participation in the restricted system, not unlike those belonging to a country club that bars blacks, women, or Jews.

Contrary to several news reports, admission to WEOG in Geneva does not mean membership on the 47-nation council. Israel like every other UN member state automatically has the status of an observer state at the council. Whether a state is one of the 47 voting members of the council, or one of its 146 observer states, all (except Israel) essentially belong to one of the five regional groups. 

The regional groups provide states with a forum to receive UN briefings, share information, and to affect certain institutional decisions and appointments. Some regional groups also coordinate positions on council votes; WEOG does not.

Contrary to exaggerated reports in the Israeli media, the country’s admission to WEOG would have zero effect on the Arab states’ continued ability to target Israel through excessive, one-sided and disproportionate resolutions, urgent sessions, and the special agenda item that focuses on Israel at every council meeting.

Rather, WEOG admission would merely allow Israel to participate together with all 192 other UN member states in receiving regular briefings, and to have its small say, like others, on the council’s selection of its investigators, known as special rapporteurs, and on certain other appointments.

What regional group admission would really mean for Israel is not so much increased power, but a sign of equal treatment.

It would mean the elimination of a painful, glaring symbol of bigotry, and the removal of an ugly stain upon the reputation of the UN.

While the Arab-dominated council will remain hopelessly hijacked for the foreseeable future, admitting Israel would mean that at least its democratic friends are no longer aiding and abetting the importation of intolerance from the Middle East into the halls of the UN’s European headquarters.

And that is no small thing.

Hillel Neuer is executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights organization in Geneva, Switzerland.

 

Israel invited to join UN Human Rights Council's Western nations group

Admission to the Western European and Others Group stands to ease Israel's isolation within the UN.

By Barak Ravid

Published 22:27 29.11.13 

 

The United Nations Human Rights Council's Western nations group has decided to upgrade Israel's status at the agency, a senior Foreign Ministry official said Friday.

Israel has been invited to join the UNHRC's Western European and Others Group, a development that stands to ease Israel's isolation within the often-critical UN. Among the group's members are the U.K., Germany, France and Canada, with the U.S. serving as an observer.

The invitation was extended on Friday afternoon at the conclusion of a 48-hour silent procedure that allowed members of the WEOG to voice their reservations and concerns over Israel's admission. No country submitted an objection.

The group is expected to release an official announcement on the matter on Monday.

"This is a successful conclusion to a diplomatic effort waged by the Foreign Ministry for several months," an official within the ministry said.

Israel's admission to the Western European and Others Group has been made possible after Israel agreed to resume ties with the UNHRC, ending a boycott that had endured for more than a year and a half. As part of the deal, Israel appeared at the council’s Universal Periodic Review on human rights issues three weeks ago. 

The step also comes in the wake of a diplomatic push by six of Israel’s allies. On November 6, the ambassadors of the U.K., Australia, Canada, Germany, France and the U.S. sent a letter to the UN’s institutions in Geneva and to the ambassador of Spain, who heads the WEOG. In the letter, the six ambassadors wrote that the time had come to bring Israel into the regional group.

“We, the undersigned, would like by this letter to recall Israel’s longstanding request to join the WEOG regional group in Geneva. We are strongly supportive of Israel’s membership at the earliest opportunity. We request that you kindly include this issue on the agenda of the next WEOG meeting in Geneva, to be held as soon as possible,” the letter read.

 

The Iran Deal by Jack Cohen

From: Jack Cohen <jcohen2@bezeqint.net>
Sent: Thu, Nov 28, 2013 1:39 am
Subject: The Iran deal

The interim deal agreed between the P5+1 international powers and Iran in Geneva is a diplomatic victory for Pres Obama and his allies.  But, it is a temporary solution for 6 months in the crisis relating to the potential acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons.  Whether you approve of this deal or not depends a lot on whether or not you think Iran can be trusted to keep the terms and spirit of the deal. 

 

Certainly it is better to avoid conflict if possible, but Chamberlain declared Hitler an honorable man and made a deal with him, that he broke when it suited his purpose.  North Korea made an agreement with the US that it would stop all nuclear activity, but a year later it revealed it had a secret program and had continued developing nuclear capability.  So the question is, can the supposed "moderate" Pres Rouhani or his boss Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei be trusted any more than Hitler, or Kim Jung Il.  Especially since Khamanei declared last week and again today that nothing could stop Iran from enriching uranium.

 

The deal gives Iran temporary relief of some sanctions (valued at ca. b$700) in exchange for promises not to develop any more enriched uranium above 3%, to reduce its huge stockpile of highly enriched 20% uranium and to stop any further addition of centrifuges to its enrichment facilities.  Also there is provision for the cessation of work on the plutonium reactor at Irak. The agreement also calls for daily verification of these terms by an independent agency.  However, as some have pointed out, not only has Iran broken its agreements before, but there is no way that improvements in other facilities and in areas away from the major plants can be detected.  It could build huge new capabilities without this agreement applying to it.  So it comes down to whether or not Iran's government can be trusted to keep its word. 

 

PM Netanyahu has rightly backed off his severe criticism of this deal now that it has become fait accompli, and is now considering how to influence the final agreement that is due to be negotiated after 6 months.  He is sending a delegation to Washington to consult with the Obama Administration over the terms of the supposed final deal.  Whether or not this deal is a defeat for Netanyahu depends upon your interpretation.  His opposition to a "bad" deal certainly helped to improve the conditions of the deal agreed by Iran.  Now we must wait and see how the deal pans out and then what the final deal will be.  If it avoids a military strike and war all to the good, but if the deal does not stop Iran developing nuclear weapons it will have achieved nothing.

Why Netanyahu won't yield

  Los Angeles Times Op/ED

Why Netanyahu won't yield

The prime minister's hard line on Iran reflects his deep sense of duty to defend the Jewish state against an existential threat.

By Michael Oren

November 21, 2013

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been labeled a warmonger, a wolf-crier and an opponent of peace at any price because of his policies on Iran.

Here's what Netanyahu's critics say: His warnings of a bad deal are designed to undermine measures to slow Iran's nuclear program and test its openness to long-term solutions. His insistence on strengthening, rather than easing, sanctions will weaken Iranian moderates and drive them from the negotiating table — precisely what Netanyahu allegedly wants. Similarly, his demands for dismantling Iran's uranium enrichment facilities and removing its nuclear stockpile are intended to replace diplomatic options with military ones.

The critics claim that he is again playing the doomsayer, the spoiler of efforts to avoid conflict and restore Iran to the community of nations.

Why would any leader subject himself to such obloquy? Why would he risk international isolation and friction with crucial allies? And why, as some commentators assert, would Netanyahu jeopardize a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear threat and drag his country — and perhaps not only his — into war?

The answers to these questions are simple.

Netanyahu is acting out of a deep sense of duty to defend Israel against an existential threat. Such dangers are rare in most countries' experience but are traumatically common in Israel's, and they render the price of ridicule irrelevant.

Moreover, when formulating policies vital to Israel's survival, the prime minister consults with Israel's renowned intelligence community, a robust national security council and highly specialized units of the Israel Defense Forces. Netanyahu may at times appear to stand alone on Iran, but he is backed by a world-class body of experts.

In 2011, these same analysts predicted that the Arab Spring, which was widely hailed as the dawn of Middle Eastern democracy, would be hijacked by Islamic radicals. They foresaw years of brutal civil strife. Netanyahu publicly expressed these conclusions and was denounced as a naysayer by many of the same columnists who are now lambasting him on Iran.

Yet it is precisely on Iran that Israeli specialists have proved most prescient. They were the first, more than 20 years ago, to reveal Iran's clandestine nuclear activities. They continued to scrutinize the program, emphasizing its military goals, even after 2003, when weaponization was purportedly halted.

Throughout several attempts at diplomacy, these experts have disclosed the ways that Iran systematically obstructed United Nations observers, lied to world leaders and hid nuclear facilities, such as the one at Fordow, which can have no peaceful purpose. Israeli intelligence has accurately tracked Iran's support for terrorist organizations, its role in the massacre of thousands of Syrians and its responsibility for attacks against civilians in dozens of cities around the world.

This does not mean that Israeli estimates are infallible. Since the failure to foresee the 1973 Yom Kippur War, intelligence officials are wary of long-standing conceptions and rigorously question them. Nevertheless, Israeli experts agree that for hegemonic purposes and internal security, the Iranian regime wants and needs the bomb.

Consequently, it will employ any ruse to preserve the ability to produce a weapon in a matter of weeks while obtaining some relief from sanctions.

Iranian leaders know — and Israel's analysts agree — that lessening the economic pressure on Iran will send an incontrovertible message to foreign companies, many of which are already seeking contracts with Tehran, that the sanctions that took years to build are ending. Iran could drag out any confidence-building period indefinitely while producing fissile materiel for multiple bombs.
Top-flight intelligence helped Israel grapple with the challenges posed by the Arab Spring, but the stakes regarding Iran — the lives of 8 million Israelis — are vastly greater. Pundits may posit that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is a moderate, but Israelis cannot indulge in speculation. Our margin for error is nil.

Knowing that, Netanyahu is duty-bound to warn of Iranian subterfuge, to insist that Iran cede its centrifuges, cease enrichment, close its heavy-water plant and transfer its nuclear stockpiles abroad.
He has a responsibility to explain that although Israel has the most to gain from diplomacy, it also has the most to lose from its failure. He is obliged to stress that the choice is not between sanctions and war but between a bad deal and stronger sanctions. And as the prime minister of the Jewish state, Netanyahu must assert Israel's right to defend itself against any existential threat.

Critics can call him militant or intransigent, but Netanyahu is merely doing his job. Any Israeli leader who did less would be strategically and morally negligent.

Michael Oren served as Israel's ambassador to the United States from 2009 to 2013.

UN Cements Its Support of Hamas

Lazar Berman, reports in today’s Times of Israel, that the outgoing commissioner of Palestinian refugee agency, Filippo Grandi,  says almost all Gaza projects are halted and calls on Israel to lift restrictions on imports to Hamas-run strip.

Mr. Grandi blamed Israel for harming Gazan civilians through its security policies.

“Given that Israel does not allow exports and hence a resumption of normal economic activities, prices are rising because commodities are becoming scarce, lack of fuel has provoked the closure of the power plant, the few jobs available in the construction industry are disappearing; and the list continues,” Mr. Grandi said.

Mr. Grandi claims that UNRWA has not been able to import building materials for the past month.

UNRWA is a United Nations agency established by the General Assembly in 1949 and is mandated to provide assistance and protection to a population of some 5 million registered Palestine refugees. Its mission is to help Palestine refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank and the Gaza Strip to achieve their full potential in human development, pending a just solution to their plight. UNRWA’s services encompass education, health care, relief and social services, camp infrastructure and improvement, and microfinance.

Last month, Elliot Abrams wrote about the discovery of a concrete tunnel built by Hamas.

Mr. Abrams wrote, “… Already in 2009 Pope Benedict had offered his prayers that the embargo would be lifted so that reconstruction could move faster, and in March 2010 Ban Ki-Moon had said that the Gaza blockade was causing “unacceptable suffering.” On June 1, the day after the ship was seized, Secretary of State Clinton said “the situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable… Palestinians’ legitimate needs for… regular access for reconstruction materials must… be assured.” She pressed Israeli officials to allow more building materials to enter Gaza, as did British Foreign Secretary William Hague. Former President Carter visited Gaza two weeks later and said the embargo causes “death, destruction, pain and suffering to the people here.” The Quartet called “for a lifting of the blockade on Gaza so that crucial reconstruction work can take place….” And this was the trope from virtually every EU government.

And so the cement flowed; Israel lifted its ban.  But now it turns out that what was being constructed by Hamas in Gaza was not an economy, not houses or public buildings, but tunnels whose purpose was to permit terrorist attacks into Israel. Most recently, Israel discovered a great project: a tunnel 60 feet deep and 1.5 miles long. Construction appears to have been started two years ago—after cement began to flow into Gaza.

As the AP reported, “Concrete walls and arches lined the tunnel and electrical cords could be seen along its walls….The military said it was the third tunnel found along the Gaza border fence in the past year. It estimated that 500 tons of cement and concrete were used, and the structure took more than a year to build.” Hamas has now admitted building the tunnel and claims that its goal was to permit the kidnapping of Israel soldiers, as The Times of Israel reported:

The tunnel…was meant to facilitate a complex terror attack involving an assault on soldiers or civilians, with the intention of seizing a captive Israeli and holding him or her as a bargaining chip. Senior Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk confirmed as much on Tuesday, two days after Israeli authorities revealed their discovery. “The tunnel which was revealed was extremely costly in terms of money, effort and blood,” Abu Marzouk wrote on his Facebook page. “All of this is meaningless when it comes to freeing our heroic prisoners.” He went on to detail the lucrative nature of the Gilad Shalit deal, in which 1,027 prisoners were released after the Israeli soldier was kidnapped in just such an attack.

What’s interesting here is not Hamas acting as Hamas always does: as a terrorist group that is uninterested in the welfare of the people of Gaza. What’s interesting is the number of proponents of lifting the blockade of Gaza who have now admitted error. The number appears to be zero. Not one has acknowledged that allowing construction materials into Gaza allowed Hamas to construct more tunnels, and that Israel may have been right to prevent their arrival. Being a critic of Israel apparently means never having to say you’re sorry.

Today’s Ma’an News Agency, the Egyptian media outlet, reported about the Aid convoy which entered Gaza for first time since June.

“An aid convoy entered the Gaza Strip via the Rafah crossing on Tuesday for the first time since the June 30 events which overthrew Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi.

Director of the Egyptian side of the terminal Sami Mutwalli told Ma'an that the convoy consisted of 100 tons of medicine, medical equipment and canned food.

The aid was donated by the international Rescue committee and to delivered to Gaza under the supervision of the Egyptian Red Crescent Association.

The Rafah crossing has been the principal connection between Gaza's 1.7 million residents and the outside world since the imposition of an economic blockade by Israel beginning in 2007.

Rafah has frequently been shut down or operating at reduced capacity in recent months due to ongoing unrest in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and political turmoil resulting from former president Mohamed Morsi's ouster by the Egyptian military in July.”

The fact that the Rafah crossing has been closed due to the unrest in Egypt has no bearing for Mr. Grandhi in his condemnation of Israel.

Caught on Tape, a U.N. Interpreter Wonders Aloud at its Israel Bashing

“There’s other really bad shit happening, but no one says anything”

By Yair Rosenberg|November 15, 2013 9:02 AM

Yesterday was “bash Israel” day at the United Nations–which is to say, Thursday. The U.N. General Assembly, which last year passed ^[1] 22 resolutions condemning Israel and only four against other individual countries, approved nine such resolutions ^[2] lambasting the Jewish state. Naturally, it had nothing to say about violations in the rest of the world, though it did manage to lament the situation in Syria–that is, Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights.
You don’t have to be a Zionist or a supporter of Israeli policy to recognize the profound injustice at work in the U.N.’s treatment ^[3] of the Jewish state. In fact, as it turns out, even an official U.N. interpreter would be hard pressed not to notice it. Thus, during yesterday’s session, between the sixth and seventh resolution against Israel, the interpreter on the floor expressed her mystification with the body’s obsession with Israel at the expense of other global concerns, not realizing her microphone was still on:

I mean, I think when you have five statements, not five, like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad shit happening, but no one says anything, about the other stuff.

As you can see in the video below, the remark was greeted by laughter among the assembled delegates, after which the mortified interpreter apologized. The proceedings then continued, with Mauritania asking to retroactively add its voice to the sixth resolution condemning Israel’s human rights abuses. Mauritania, of course, boasts ^[4] nearly a million people in chattel slavery. It is also the vice president ^[5] of the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Watch the whole circus  (the hot mic moment occurs at 1:56) by clicking here.

Ambassador Alan Baker refutes Secretary of State John Kerry

Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:47 PM
To: Secretary John Kerry

Alan Baker, Attorney, Ambassador (ret’)

P.O.B. 182, Har Adar, Israel 90836

Tel: +972-54-3322643

E-mail: ambassador.alan@gmail.com

The Hon. James Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State,

The State Department,

Washington D.C.

November 8, 2013

Dear Secretary Kerry,

After listening to you declare repeatedly over the past weeks that "Israel's settlements are illegitimate", I respectfully wish to state, unequivocally, that you are mistaken and ill advised, both in law and in fact.

Pursuant to the "Oslo Accords", and specifically the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement (1995), the "issue of settlements" is one of subjects to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. President Bill Clinton on behalf of the US, is signatory as witness to that agreement, together with the leaders of the EU, Russia, Egypt, Jordan and Norway.

Your statements serve to not only to prejudge this negotiating issue, but also to undermine the integrity of that agreement, as well as the very negotiations that you so enthusiastically advocate.

Your determination that Israel's settlements are illegitimate cannot be legally substantiated. The oft-quoted prohibition on transferring population into occupied territory (Art. 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention) was, according to the International Committee Red Cross's own official commentary of that convention, drafted in 1949 to prevent the forced, mass transfer of populations carried out by the Nazis in the Second World War. It was never intended to apply to Israel's settlement activity. Attempts by the international community to attribute this article to Israel emanate from clear partisan motives, with which you, and the US are now identifying.

The formal applicability of that convention to the disputed territories cannot be claimed since they were not occupied from a prior, legitimate sovereign power.

The territories cannot be defined as "Palestinian territories" or, as you yourself frequently state, as "Palestine". No such entity exists, and the whole purpose of the permanent status negotiation is to determine, by agreement, the status of the territory, to which Israel has a legitimate claim, backed by international legal and historic rights. How can you presume to undermine this negotiation?

There is no requirement in any of the signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians that Israel cease, or freeze settlement activity. The opposite is in fact the case. The above-noted 1995 interim agreement enables each party to plan, zone and build in the areas under its respective control.

Israel's settlement policy neither prejudices the outcome of the negotiations nor does it involve displacement of local Palestinian residents from their private property.  Israel is indeed duly committed to negotiate the issue of settlements, and thus there is no room for any predetermination by you intended to prejudge the outcome of that negotiation.

By your repeating this ill-advised determination that Israel's settlements are illegitimate, and by your threatening Israel with a "third Palestinian intifada" and international isolation and delegitimization, you are in fact buying into, and even fueling the Palestinian propaganda narrative, and exerting unfair pressure on Israel. This is equally the case with your insistence on a false and unrealistic time limit to the negotiation.

As such you are taking sides, thereby prejudicing your own personal credibility, as well as that of the US.

 

 

With a view to restoring your own and the US's credibility, and to come with clean hands to the negotiation, you are respectfully requested to publicly and formally retract your determination as to the illegitimate nature of Israel's settlements and to cease your pressure on Israel.

Respectfully,

Alan Baker, Attorney, Ambassador (ret'),

Former legal counsel of Israel's Ministry for Foreign Affairs,

Former ambassador of Israel to Canada,

Director, Institute for Contemporary Affairs, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,

Director, International Action Division, The Legal Forum for Israel

 

Copy:

H.E. Daniel B. Shapiro, US Ambassador to Israel,

71 Hayarkon Street