To the West, not all occupied territories are equal (UPDATE)

An interesting thing happened last week:

In today's meeting of EU Ambassadors, a majority of EU Member States indicated to favour the newly proposed EU-Morocco fisheries protocol, which opens for EU fishing in the waters of occupied Western Sahara.

Though many Member States voiced their concerns on the protocol, a majority could be reached in today’s COREPER meeting. The decision to sign the EU’s most criticised fisheries protocol will be formalised at a Council meeting in the coming weeks.

Throwing its massive voting weight in the scale, Germany ended up supporting the controversial protocol that the Spanish government has lobbied so hard for. As far as WSRW understands, the German government will issue a statement that their endorsement should not be viewed as uncritical support.

Five Member States could not agree to the proposed protocol. Sweden and Denmark voted against, while the UK, the Netherlands and Finland abstained. These countries’ stances were underpinned by concerns relating to sustainable management of the available fish stocks and EU fishing in non-Moroccan waters through a deal with Morocco.

The provisional protocol still has to pass through the European Parliament, which is not expected to express its opinion before December.

Here is a more detailed description of how the previous version of the protocol worked, and this one does not change these key points:

According to the EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement, to which the Protocol sets the terms and conditions, fishing can take place in “the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco”. This is the core of the problem.

While no state in the world recognises Morocco’s claims to Western Sahara, Morocco itself views the territory as its own. Since the Agreement fails to stipulate the southern coordinates of the fishing zones, it is left to Morocco to interpret where the European vessels can fish.

The EU is saying that they can directly exploit natural resources in illegally occupied territories.

Its not only Europe, though. Last month Canada decided it can take natural resources away from the occupied people of Western Sahara, by dealing with a Moroccan company that does business over the border:

On 24 October, the bulk carrier Ultra Bellambi is scheduled to arrive at Vancouver. On board of the freighter are 60.000 tonnes of phosphate rock from the Bou Craa mines in Western Sahara. The cargo is worth almost $10 million. That money however, will not end up with the Saharawi people of Western Sahara - the original and sole people of the territory - but with the Moroccan regime that has occupied large parts of their country since 1975.

The phosphate rock was purchased by Calgary based Agrium Inc, under the terms of an agreement it concluded earlier this year with Moroccan state owned company Office Chérifien des Phosphates (OCP). Agrium confirmed to Canadian newspaper The Tyee that it would import one million tonnes each year until 2020, and that part of the imports will be sourced in Western Sahara.

A UN Legal Opinion on exploitation of Western Sahara's natural resources is quite clear that such activity is illegal if not done in accordance with the wishes and the interests of the people of the territory - the Saharawi. The latter have unequivocally stated that they do not consent to Agrium's imports, through a letter by their political representation Frente Polisario to the company.

The EU made a big deal over saying that it had no choice but to adhere to guidelines restricting activity with Israeli companies that do business over the Green Line; international law demands it.

But it appears that it has no problem with such pesky legalities in the Western Sahara.

UPDATE: Eugene Kontorovich has more detail in a memo he wrote and sent me via email:

Differences With Israeli Agreements

1) Territorial Scope. The fisheries agreement applies not just to the “territory” of Morocco, but to all areas under its “jurisdiction,” which is understood to include Western Sahara. In agreements with Israel, however, the EU has only applied it to the “territory” of Israel, which is understood to exclude the West Bank, as well as Jerusalem. The new Funding Guidelines go further and exclude entities with operations in the territories. The guidelines claim that their approach is required by “international law” to avoid recognizing Israel sovereignty over the territories. The Moroccan case proves this concern false and pretextual.

2) Funding. The EU says that its “tax dollars” cannot be spent in occupied territory. Yet it pays Morocco specifically to exploit the scarce resources of occupied territory, against the wishes of its political representatives. This is much more severe than awarding science grants or prizes for, say, archeological research in the Golan. 

EU Parliament’s Formal Legal Opinion: Essential Resource for Israel.

The agreement was adopted despite massive opposition from the political representatives of the Western Saharan people, as well as some European nations. As a result of the controversy, the European Parliament obtained an opinion from its legal advisor.[1] The official opinion, in brief, says international law does not prevent Morocco from exploiting the natural resources of the occupied territory, let alone merely doing business there.  Despite the complete opposition of the Sawahari leadership, the incidental economic benefits of “development” (which the Sawahari deny exists) can be considered sufficient to satisfy Morocco’s obligation to them. Moreover, the opinion says it is legal for the EU to pay Morocco to exploit the resources of occupied territory.[2]

The Legal Opinion is consistent with all prior international law, including a 2002 opinion by the Security Council’s legal advisor, and a ruling of the French Court of Appeals. Indeed, the EU Parliament’s legal advisor may be a bit softer on the extent and nature of the benefit to the local population.

CONCLUSIONS

The positions adopted by the EU in its negotiations with Israel over grants and product labeling are inconsistent with those it has taken at the same time in its dealings with Morocco. While the EU does not recognize Israel’s control over the territories, and opposes it, the same is true of its policy towards Morocco in Western Sahara. Yet this policy does not require, nor does international law, the punitive measures adopted toward Israel. In particular, the EU has used entirely fabricated international law claims in its dealing with Israel, claims contradicted by its own legal advisors.

Perversely, the EU’s treatment of Morocco encourages Israel to conduct more economic activity in the territories. The EU was been under strong pressure to sign the deal with Morocco because of Spanish and French interests in the fish in the occupied territory. They simply did not want to lose an economic opportunity. Thus Israel’s problem may be not enough business in the territories, rather than too much. If significant Israeli defense, high-tech or biotech enterprises on which at least some European industries rely were relocated in eastern Jerusalem, the Golan or the West Bank, the Moroccan precedent suggests this would have the surprising effect of reducing diplomatic pressures on Israel.

---

[1] See Legal Opinion of Ricardo Passos, Director, Legal Service of the European Parliament, SJ-0665/13 (Nov. 4, 2013).

[2] The Opinion said international law would be satisfied if Morocco allocated “a certain amount of the financial contribution” fro Europe to the “population” of Western Sahara. Id. at Par. 31. By contrast, the EU settlement guidelines make a narrow exception for activities that “aim” at “benefiting protected persons,” an international law phrase intended to refer to Palestinians. Under the EU legal opinion, benefit to Moroccans in Western Sahara would suffice, and such benefit need not be the “aim,” but could be purely incidental.

Read More

France, and the EU, cozying up to Hezbollah

Al Monitor has a very sobering article:

On July 22, 2013, all 28 European Union (EU) countries unanimously agreed to add Hezbollah’s military wing to the EU list of terrorist organizations. But less than three months later, Europe has opened its doors to Hezbollah as a special guest. On Oct. 12-14, the French Foreign Ministry received Hezbollah deputy Ali Fayyad of the Lebanese parliament as a guest lecturer for French diplomats, analysts and experts; he explained how Paris was wrong and Hezbollah was right.

...Once there, Fayyad met with officials of the Middle East department and the center of analysis and exploration in the ministry, where he gave a two-hour introduction and question-and-answer session.

According to Hezbollah sources, the French have decided to open up to Hezbollah, the most powerful Shiite organization in Lebanon, and are ready to start a new phase of French and European dialogue with the party, while the party asserts that it is adhering to all its positions and choices.

But what has changed in these three months? Hezbollah circles confirmed to Al-Monitor that since the EU’s decision in July, it was clear to the party that the issue was not serious and did not reflect Europe’s actual convictions. Even before the decision was issued, three European ambassadors in Beirut visited Hezbollah officials and informed them that they were not personally convinced about the decision. They also noted that their governments were not convinced about the decision that was about to be issued. Even after the decision was issued, a record number of meetings were held between Hezbollah officials and European diplomats in the Lebanese capital. Even the EU ambassador to Lebanon, Angelina Eichhorst, visited Hezbollah’s international relations official Ammar Moussawi as well as Hezbollah cabinet ministers Mohammed Fneish and Hussein Hajj Hassan, within just one week of the decision.

[...]

Those watching the relationship between Paris and the southern suburbs of Beirut (Hezbollah’s stronghold) may note the various reasons behind the French and EU decision to invite Fayyad. Those reasons can be summarized as follows:

First, the French move came within the context of the recent American-Iranian openness. It is a factor that cannot be ignored with regard to the French initiative. It is as if those in Paris and Europe are trying to tell the Americans: “We are not mere followers or implementers of your policy. If Obama can contact President Hassan Rouhani, we too can host Hezbollah and hold dialogue with it directly.” Such French and European calculations don’t have to be read negatively. They can be interpreted positively: “Fine. You [the Americans] have decided to open up to Tehran. We too can help in this direction. And this is a small example of that.”

Second, Hezbollah’s visit to the French capital came in the context of the putative Russian-American agreement on Syria and the nearing of the Geneva II conference, in which Iran is likely to participate. It is clear that any settlement of the Syrian crisis will open up large horizons in the Levant, politically and especially economically. On the political level, there is the impression that the “Syrian solution” will be a model to be replicated to redraw the Levantine map as a whole and to resolve the wars and crises of most countries in the Arab region. That includes Lebanon, which France has historically cared about. Ending the Syrian war will also open up major investment opportunities in reconstruction and in energy sources and transportation routes in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean (Syria and Lebanon). Hezbollah is a key player in both countries and has a big impact on the developments there.

Third, those who are familiar with Hezbollah’s capabilities and its influence as a political force realize that the Shiite organization is present beyond Syria and Lebanon. It is present in Iraq, in all its detailed political composition. Some in Beirut say that representatives of the Iraqi political forces meet regularly in the cafes of Beirut’s southern suburb, where they discuss the outcome of their meetings with Hezbollah officials. Hezbollah is also present in Palestine, although to a lesser extent than before, given that its relations with Hamas have cooled somewhat. But Hezbollah still has contacts with Hamas and with other Palestinian factions. Hezbollah even has varying degrees of influence in Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia and various Arab Gulf states, where Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah can influence public opinion in each of these countries....

(h/r Herb)

Read More

Belgian Minister of Culture defends antisemitism on Facebook page

A Belgian professor wrote an opinion piece on the website of RTBF, Radio Télévision Belge Francophone, saying that Israel is a racist state. (He based this mostly from reading Ha'aretz.)

RTBF has a Facebook page as well, and this article was linked there as well.

Some of the comments, predictably, are insanely antisemitic.

You know, having killed Christ is not enough for them...the Jews in France are also racist! :)

Every Jew is racist to another human because for Jews they are like dogs ... they can kill a non-Jew and will not be condemned ...

Goldstein refused to do anything to save the life of a Gentile - this was not a personal quirk, but simply an command of the Talmud on which it is based.

These comments remain up on the page after moderation.

The Philosemitism blog reports that the person in charge of the page, Ms. Françoise De Their, answered that "Comments are moderated as soon as possible by the editorial departments concerned, in accordance with professional, legal and ethical requirements."

The French Community of Brussels Minister of Culture and Media, Fadila Laanan, responded that "I was assured that the comments are still on RTBF page of this social network are within the limits of the debate and are acceptable."

Incidentally, Laanan's parents were born in Morocco.

(h/t Rudi)

Read More

Surprise! EU auditors find billions of euros missing in WB/Gaza

From the Sunday Times:

BILLIONS of euros in European aid to the Palestinians may have been misspent, squandered or lost to corruption, according to a damning report by the European Court of Auditors, the Luxembourg-based watchdog.

Brussels transferred more than £1.95bn to the occupied territories between 2008 and 2012 but had little control over how it was spent, the auditors say in an unpublished report seen by The Sunday Times.

EU investigators who visited sites in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank noted “significant shortcomings” in the management of funds sent to Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist organisation by the EU.

The auditors complained about the lack of measures to mitigate “high-level” risks, such as “corruption or of funds not being used for their intended purpose”.

A spokesman for the court declined to comment.

No way! You mean that the PA under super-PM Salam Fayyad hasn't shed its decades-long reputation of corruption and theft of international funds? You mean that the hundreds of NGOs in Gaza and the West Bank aren't responsible with all the money being sent to them?

But...but...they are so moderate! They wear ties! They are modern, Western-style institutions, only interested in building a nation! We've been told this dozens of times by politicians and pundits - what possible incentive do they have to downplay corruption and theft in the PA while they blame Israel for everything under the sun?

Say it ain't so!

In a completely unrelated story, France just pledged €24 million to the PA the day after the PA honored the murderer of a French tourist. I'm sure that money will go to good use - like paying the salaries of other terrorists and their families, which takes up 6% of the PA budget.

(h/t Arsen)

Read More

Polish Mufti plans to slaughter sheep for Eid al Adha to challenge ban

The leader of Poland's Muslim community, Mufti Tomasz Miskiewicz, has been in the forefront of challenging the ban on kosher and halal slaughter that went into effect this year in Poland.

While Jewish groups in Europe have campaigned to overturn the ban, Miskiewicz has been more outspoken and innovative in his opposition. In June he noted that eastern European Catholics have a inhumane practice of bashing the heads of carp to kill them for traditional Christmas dishes, and no one is calling to ban that practice.

In September, the Mufti claimed that legal experts agree that EU law trumps domestic Polish law and that the ban was not legal. I cannot vouch for that legal argument, but he's giving it a shot.

Now, in the days before the major Muslim feast of Eid al Adha, where families traditionally slaughter sheep (in a more painful way than kosher slaughter), the Mufti has said that he will publicly slaughter a sheep himself to challenge the ban.
.

While experts have shown that kosher slaughter is far more humane than Muslim slaughter, in either case the religious requirements should not be trampled by people who often use "humanity" as a way to disguise their xenophobia (see the end of this post.) The focus should be on improving existing methods of ritual slaughter, not banning it.

Kudos to Mufti Miskiewicz for standing up to the haters.

Read More

PFLP-GC claims 23,000 Syrian Palestinians have fled to Sweden

The PFLP-GC claims that some 23,000 Palestinian Arabs from the Yarmouk camp in Syria have fled to Sweden during the civil war.

Yarmouk camp

The group, which supports the Syrian regime, blames the opposition for setting up their forces in the camp.

I couldn't find verification of the numbers, but they are not unrealistic. In 2012 there were over 2000 Palestinian Arabs along with some 8000 Syrians who sought asylum in Sweden, and things have gotten far worse this year.

There is of course one additional factor: Arab nations have been treating the Palestinian Arab refugees from Syria like garbage, either turning them back at the border (Jordan, Egypt) or putting inhuman restrictions on them (Lebanon.) (I have been unable to determine if Iraq is letting any Palestinian Arab refugees into its camps.)

Oil-rich Gulf countries don't want any of them, either.

It is not surprising that the ones that make it successfully to Sweden will communicate with their relatives and friends and tell them that Europe is far more friendly to Palestinians than their Arab brothers are.

For some reason, "pro-Palestinian" groups are silent as to how their pets are being treated by Arab countries. No rallies, flotillas, or other campaigns against Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon.  And the last time there was a Palestinian Arab refugee crisis - when they were expelled from Iraq by the thousands - Arab leaders were dead-set against them becoming naturalized in the West, because happy European Palestinian Arabs are no longer useful as cannon fodder against Israel.

It is remarkable how much the very people who pretend to love the Palestinian Arabs the most are the ones who care about them the least. Even more remarkable is that the Western media and "human rights" organizations all but ignore the discrimination and hate by Arabs for their own. 

Read More

French diplomats call terrorist Leila Khaled "an extraordinary woman"

Last summer, the French Consulate in Jerusalem held an event to mark the publication of a book.

On the occasion of the recent publication of the book Leila Khaled, an icon of Palestinian liberation, the author Sarah Irving and researcher Diana Butto, we will draw a portrait of this extraordinary woman.

Khaled is of course a notorious PFLP terrorist, involved in two airplane hijackings and hijack attempts. Now, apparently, the French consider her a heroine.

More details at JSSNews (French).

Read More

Analysis finds EU guidelines on Judea and Samaria legally problematic

The Kohelet Policy Forum has released a paper showing that the proposed EU guidelines against funding "activities" in Judea and Samaria are problematic under international law, even if you regard the territories as occupied.

Here is the executive summary:

EU’s Israel Grants Guidelines: A Legal and Policy Analysis


The Israel Grants Guidelines adopted by the European Commission are singularly discriminatory against Israel. They contradict international law as established in U.N. documents and leading court cases, as well as the European Union’s own interpretations of international law. 

The EU provides aid and financial cooperation to numerous countries that maintain settlements in what Europe considers occupied territory, such as Morocco, Turkey, and Russia. In none of these cases has the Commission imposed limitations on the aid akin to the Guidelines for Israel.

The Commission’s position that the Guidelines are mandated by international law are further belied by EU programs that provide grants specifically for settlers in belligerently occupied territory, such as the EU’s programs in Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus.

Under international law, there are no prohibitions regarding organizations engaging in “activities” in occupied territories, yet the Guidelines bar funding solely on the basis of such “activities.”

In pretending that the Guidelines fulfill the requirements of international law, the Commission exposes the EU to legal challenge for EU funding of parallel activity in belligerently occupied territories around the world, such as Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and Western Sahara, and exposes its businesses operating in such places to liability.

The Guidelines have no precedent in similar arrangements between the U.S. and Israel.

The Guidelines seek to undermine territorial arrangements that are established by existing Israeli-PLO agreements and foreclose issues that are preserved for negotiations.

The Guidelines do not advance the EU position on sovereignty because they do not relate to activities that legally establish sovereignty or constitute recognition of sovereignty.

The Guidelines are unlikely to be accepted by Israel in their present form. Non-discriminatory alternatives include borrowing language from scientific cooperation agreements with the U.S. and extending the Guidelines to all occupied territories with funding relationships with the EU.

Obviously the authors have forgotten the most important rule of modern international law: Israel is always guilty, and laws must be re-interpreted retroactively to ensure that result.

Once you understand that rule, then everything makes sense again!

Read More