URU, Alm.del - 2013-14 - Bilag 76: Henvendelse af 7. januar 2014 fra Hans Knudsen om regeringens vurdering af den israelske besættelse af Vestbredden/Judæa og Samaria

Spørgsmål om regeringens vurdering af den israelske besættelse afVestbredden/Judæa og Samaria set ift. andre nationers sammenligneligebesættelser af andre områderDer er tre konkrete spørgsmål på side 3 i dette brev. Den forudgående tekst giverbaggrunden og konteksten for spørgsmålene.Et ½ års kibbutz-ophold i Israel år for tilbage har givet mig et vist kendskab til ogkærlighed til landet Israel - uden at jeg af den grund dog har mistet min kritiske sansoverfor Israel. En generel og forholdsvis bred historisk viden i kombination mednyhedsstrømmen i danske og udenlandske medier, herunder også nogle israelske,giver mig samtidig et godt grundlag for at se aktuelle hændelser i den langvarigeisraelsk – arabisk/palæstinensiske konflikt i et større perspektiv og fra begge sider.Det er på den baggrund min opfattelse, at der i Danmark (og i store dele af denvestlige verden i øvrigt) igennem mange år har været en udbredt diskurs, hvor Israelvedvarende både er udsat for en meget misvisende pressedækning, og en urimeligoguforholdsmæssigkraftig kritisk holdning til Israel fra en stor del af det politiskespektrum. Og hvor der på den anden side er en langt mindre opmærksomhed omhelt sammenlignelige situationer andre steder i verden. Ligeledes er der ofte enekstremt overdreven fokus på selv små fejltrin fra israelsk side, samtidig med atlangt mere kritisable handlinger udøvet af andre parter - i Mellemøsten såvel som iverden som helhed - får langt mindre opmærksomhed både i medierne og i denpolitiske debat.Der er selvfølgelig undtagelser fra dette mønster, men som overordnet tendens erdet desværre meget tydeligt – og det i en grad, så det efter min opfattelse giver etvildledende og decideret fejlagtigt helhedsindtryk.Som bekendt er nogle af de største uenighedspunkter i den langvarige israelsk –arabisk/palæstinensiske konflikt hvilken status der er for Judæa og Samaria, somudenfor Israel normalt betegnes som den besatte Vestbred, samt Østjerusalem, ogherunder specielt:ohvorvidt våbenstilstands-linien (den grønne linie) fra 1949 er at betragte som eninternational grænseellerom det netop ikke er en egentlig grænse,ohvorvidt Judæa og Samaria (som har været under israelsk besættelse siden1967, på præcis samme måde som den i perioden 1949-1967 var under jordanskbesættelse) er at betragte somulovligt besat(”illegally occupied”) territorium i enarabisk-palæstinensisk statellerom det blot er at betragte som etbesat omstridt(”disputed”) territorium, hvis endelige status inkl. den endelige fastlæggelse afgensidigt anerkendte grænser afventer en endelig fredsaftale imellem alleinvolverede parter,

Nogle historiske kendsgerninger, som til gengæld ikke er almindeligt kendte i dagensoffentlige debat, men som det – efter min opfattelse – er meget væsentlige at tagemed i betragtning for at have et bare nogenlunde retvisende og balancerethelhedsbillede, er:oAt de arabiske lande omkring Israel (i modsætning til Israel) forkastede FN’sdelingsplan fra 1947 og valgte at føre krig i stedet. At de arabiske lande, da detabte krigen i 1948-1949, valgte at de ikke ville slutte fred og at de ikke villeanerkende våbenstilstandslinien som en grænse. Og at de arabiske lande valgte1at gå i krig med Israel i 1967, hvilket som bekendt endte med de israelskeerobringer af bl.a. Østjerusalem og Judæa og Samaria.oAt den jødiske befolkning i Østjerusalem igennem århundreder og helt frem til1948 rent faktisk udgjorde den største befolkningsgruppe i byen, og at dennejødiske befolkning blev fordrevet og måtte flygte til Israel i krigen i 1948-1949,dvs. at den eneste årsag til at Østjerusalem ikke havde en jødisk befolkning i denkorte periode fra 1949 til 1967 var, at den oprindelige jødiske befolkningsimpelthen var blevet fordrevet.oOg at der rent faktisk er flere jøder, der blev fordrevet og måtte flygte fra alle deomkringliggende arabiske lande til Israel end der oprindeligt var arabisk-palæstinensiske flygtninge, der flygtede fra Israel til de omkringliggende arabiskelande. Se f.eks.http://israel-info.dk/default.asp?id=237ellerhttp://jewishrefugees.blogspot.dk/2012/12/the-unbearable-silence-about-jewish.htmlIsrael tog imod disse 850.000 jødiske flygtninge og integrerede dem i deressamfund, mens de arabiske lande derimod lige siden har fastholdt de oprindeligt600.000-700.000 arabisk-palæstinensiske flygtninge i deres flygtningestatus.Som konsekvens heraf er alle de arabiske lande i dag stort set jødefrisom følge af hvad der kan betegnes som en decideret etnisk udrensning.Samtidig er der i praksis reelt sket en udveksling af befolkningsgrupperimellem Israel og de omkringliggende arabiske lande - på præcis sammemåde, som det i øvrigt er sket i en lang række andre tilfælde op igennemdet 20. århundrede som en del af større fredsaftaler.I forlængelse af bl.a. den Israel-kritiske diskurs har EU i efteråret vedtaget nyeretningslinier, der forbyder at EU-midler kan anvendes i samarbejde med israelskeparter , der har aktiviteter i Østjerusalem og i Judæa og Samaria.De nye retningslinier er øjensynligt begrundet i, at de israelske aktiviteter i Judæa ogSamaria skulle være i modstrid med international ret og folkeretten.Disse retningslinier er netop trådt i kraft her efter årsskiftet.Det er imidlertid på ingen måde klart for mig, på hvilken måde den israelskebesættelse af Judæa og Samaria på nogen som helst relevant og betydende måde1

folkeretsligtadskiller sig væsentligt fra andre landes tilsvarende besættelser af andreterritorier, såsom den marokkanske besættelse af Vestsahara, den tyrkiskebesættelse af Nordcypern (og dermed endda en del af et EU-land) eller denkinesiske besættelse af Tibet. Disse besættelser har ikke givet anledning tiltilsvarende EU-retningslinier om begrænsninger af det økonomiske samarbejde medhhv. Marokko, Tyrkiet og Kina. Tværtimod er der endda et aktivt økonomisksamarbejde med disse lande; i nogle tilfælde endda med direkte relationer ogøkonomisk støtte til landenes aktiviteter i disse besatte territorier.Alt dette er nærmere beskrevet i en artikel af 25. december 2013 fra Times of Israel.Artiklen er gengivet sidst i dette brev, og kan i øvrigt findes på dette link:http://www.timesofisrael.com/?p=797806Det fremgår af artiklen – og specielt af det anførte citat“With regards to theallegation of using double standards for Israel and Morocco,our analysisis that thetwo cases are different and cannot be compared.”i EU’s og Hugh Mingarellis brevskrevet på vegne af EUs udenrigschef Catherine Ashton – at EU åbenbart harforetaget en konkret analyse af den israelske besættelse af Vestbredden/Samaria ogJudæa i forhold til den marokkanske besættelse af Vestsahara, og at EU på basis afden analyse har konkluderet, at de to sager er så forskellige, at de ikke kansammenlignes. Det fremgår samtidig af artiklen, at EU ikke har oplyst hvad det er forkonkrete forskelle, som er lagt til grund for den anførte konklusion.På den baggrund vil jeg derfor gerne stille Udenrigsministeren følgende spørgsmål:1) Kan Udenrigsministeren oplyse, hvad det er forspecifikkeforskelle, som EU haridentificeret i den omtalte analyse, imellem den israelske besættelse afVestbredden/Samaria og Judæa og den marokkanske besættelse afVestsahara, som leder frem til konklusionen om, at de to sager ikke kansammenlignes?2) Kan Udenrigsministeren oplyse, om det er regeringens vurdering, at denisraelske besættelse af Vestbredden/Judæa og Samaria på nogenrelevant ogbetydendemåde folkeretsligt adskiller sig væsentligt fra f.eks. den marokkanskebesættelse af Vestsahara, den tyrkiske besættelse af Nordcypern eller denkinesiske besættelse af Tibet?3) Såfremt regeringen – jf. spm. 2 – mener at den israelske besættelse afVestbredden/Samaria og Judæa adskiller sig væsentligt fra de ovennævntelangvarige besættelser (hhv. den marokkanske, tyrkiske og kinesiskebesættelse), kan Udenrigsministeren så oplyse de relevante folkeretsligejuridiskebegrundelserfor regeringens vurdering?Med venlig hilsenHans KnudsenSkovlundee-mail:[email protected]

Many Israelis have long felt that the European Union is biased against them. Two legal scholars – a formerIsraeli ambassador and an American Jewish international law professor — think they’ve found the perfectcase to prove the claim: A new fishing deal, signed between the Europeans and Morocco, which appliesbeyond Morocco’s internationally recognized borders, taking in the territory of Western Sahara, even thoughMorocco invaded that area in 1975 and has occupied ever since.The two scholars are now challenging EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to explain why theagreement, in not excluding Morocco’s occupied territory, doesn’t prove that the EU is holding Israel to adouble standard.The EU insists that any agreement it signs with Israel explicitly exclude the settlements in the “occupied”West Bank, the scholars notedin a letter sent last month to Ashton’s Brussels office.So why don’t the sameconstraints apply in the case of Morocco? This blatant inconsistency shows “an official double-standardpracticed by the EU,” Professor Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University and Israeli ex-ambassadorto Canada Alan Baker charged.Last week, the EU responded to the letter, saying, essentially, that Israel’s occupation is different, but withoutdetailing how and why.The EU maintains that Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unique, legally speaking,but consistently refuses to explain exactly how it differs from, say, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus orthat Moroccan presence in Western Sahara; while Rabat asserts ownership of the territory, not a single othercountry recognizes the claim.In their letter to Ashton, sent on behalf of the Legal Forum for Israel, the two scholars posited that the EU-MoroccoFisheries Partnership Agreement,approved earlier this month by the European Parliament,appears “to directly contradict what the EU has called obligations of international law in its dealing withIsrael.”“In fact, the EU has been negotiating this agreement with Morocco even as it imposes on Israelunprecedented funding guidelines and rules of origin requirements that say the exact opposite,” Kontorovichand Baker wrote, referring tomuch-discussed guidelinesthat, from January 1, ban any European fundingfrom going to Israeli entities beyond the Green Line or those with any connections beyond the Green Line.

Jerusalem’s fierce opposition to those guidelines famouslyjeopardized Israel’s participation in Horizon 2020,a highly lucrative scientific cooperation program; the Horizon partnership was ultimately saved.‘Whatever they have identified in their ‘analysis,’ they’re obviously not very proud of it. Had it beensubstantial, they wouldn’t hesitate to give more detail’The EU’s response, authored on Ashton’s behalf by the managing director of the union’s external actionservice’s Middle East and Southern Neighborhood department, Hugues Mingarelli, read: “With regards to theallegation of using double standards for Israel and Morocco, our analysis is that the two cases are differentand cannot be compared.” No further explanation was given.“Whatever they have identified in their ‘analysis,’ they’re obviously not very proud of it. Had it beensubstantial, they would have surely not hesitated to provide more detail,” Kontorovich told The Times ofIsrael this week.“The terseness of Ashton’s statement reflects the general moral superiority of EU officials toward Israel thatI’ve encountered in my attempts to discuss these issues with them,” he added. “The attitude is that they arethe judges, we are the suspect. How dare we accuse or judge them? As one senior EU official said when Ibrought these matters up with him, ‘We’re here to talk about you [Israel], not us.’ That is why they do notneed to give their reasons: They do not have to explain themselves. We do.”The EU delegation in Israel declined to formally comment on the matter for this article. Privately, local EUsources told The Times of Israel that, according to the United Nations, Western Sahara is a “disputed non-self-governing territory under de-facto Moroccan administration. This differs from the legal situation applyingto the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”Every situation is different from every other situation, Kontorovich allowed. “The question is whether thereare legally relevant differences.”According to his analysis of international law as it applies to belligerent occupations, Kontorovich said,Israel’s claim to the West Bank is actually stronger than that of many other countries ruling over conqueredterritory, mostly for historical reasons. Furthermore, he said, the case of Western Sahara is actually quitesimilar to that of the West Bank, because in both cases no sovereign state existed in the disputed territorybefore it was occupied.Mingarelli’s response constitutes the first EU admission to the effect that it treats Israel differently,Kontorovich asserted. “However,” he added, “they are entirely silent about the ‘differences’ revealed by their‘analysis.’ Of course, our position is that the EU does indeed treat Israel like a different case — but not basedon any recognized or legitimate criteria. Thus far they have more confirmed this than denied it.”Kontorovich, currently a visiting professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said the EU’s legalpositions, on which it bases its West Bank funding guidelines and other Middle East policies, are rooted in an

interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, which render Israel’s settlement activity “illegal under internationallaw” and a war crime.Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Conventionstatesthat an occupying power “shall not deport ortransfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Violations of the convention areconsidered war crimes under international law. Israel is a party to the convention and therefore bound by it.“The EU’s basic argument is that Israel’s presence in the West Bank is an occupation under the terms of theFourth Geneva Convention, and it draws many consequences from this interpretation of international law.But under the Geneva Conventions, there are no multiple flavors of occupation,” Kontorovich argued. “Sohow is the occupation of the West Bank different from any other occupation?”The legal scholar said his research has revealed that no other country has ever been accused, on aninternational level, of violating Geneva Convention 49:6. “The UN has condemned Morocco [for occupyingWestern Sahara], but never said the country commits a war crime” by moving some of its population there.According to Kontorovich and Baker — who in addition to serving as a diplomat used to be a legal adviser toIsrael’s Foreign Ministry — Rabat, after the 1975 invasion, pursued “an aggressive settlement policy, as aresult of which settlers may now be the majority in the territory.”The exact legal status of Western Sahara is the subject of muchscholarly debate;some consider Moroccomerely a “de-facto administrative power,” while others see it as a full-fledged occupier. The EU does notconsider Western Sahara to be occupied, and Israel has no formal policy on the matter.Another situation that is often compared to the West Bank is that of Northern Cyprus, which the EU does seeas being occupied by Turkey. And yet, Kontorovich said, the body supports Turkish “settlers” of that territory.“The EU knowingly and purposefully gives direct grants, funding, etc. to Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus,”according toa paper Kontorovich co-authored in October.“The EU’s official policy is that Turkey must end itsoccupation, and the Turkish invasion was condemned by every international institution from the SecurityCouncil on down. Nonetheless, the EUmaintains an entire programto direct funds to Turks in NorthernCyprus.”It would be one thing for the EU to say that Israelis shouldn’t build settlements in the West Bank, forwhatever reason, but the moment the union claims its position is anchored in international law, the bodyneeds to answer questions about how Israel’s occupation differs from that of other countries, Kontorovichsaid. The EU’s position to bar any tax dollars from benefiting Israeli institutions based beyond the Green Lineaims“to ensure the respect of EU positions and commitments in conformity with international law,” accordingto the settlement funding guidelines.Claims of a European double standard are common currency in Israel’s political establishment, especially onthe right. “The EU should also ask itself whether Israel is receiving equal and fair treatment like all otherstates,” Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin (Likud) said in November, in the presence of the EU’s

ambassador in Tel Aviv, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, at a Knesset session dedicated to European-Israelirelations. There is a “lack of equality given to the conflict here compared with other conflicts in the world,”Elkin lamented. The EU “allows itself to invest in Cyprus, a region of conflict, but asks us not to invest anymoney in Judea and Samaria.”But last month, Faaborg-Andersentold The Times of Israelthat while criticism of a double standard hasnever come up in his discussions with Israeli officials, if it did he would reject it by pointing to the uniquenessof the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Northern Cyprus, for instance, cannot be compared to the West Bank sinceit is a “totally different situation,” he said.“There is no legal parallel to the situation of the occupied territories and any other situation, be it NorthernCyprus or Western Sahara,” he went on. “The only parallel that exists, according to the lawyers in Brussels,is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” he added, referring to a region at the heart of a territorial feud betweenArmenia and Azerbaijan. The EU recently concluded an agreement with Armenia, which occupies Nagorno-Karabakh, and made sure to specify that the disputed enclave was excluded, he noted.