NGO Monitor: Human rights, European money and the ICC wars
The Palestinian campaign to “bring Israel to the dock” at the International Criminal Court (ICC) did not suddenly arise out of “frustration” at the failure of the peace talks, the setback at the UN Security Council, or other recent events.INSS: Legal and Political Observations on the Defeated Palestinian-Jordanian Draft Resolution
Rather, the strategy was explicitly adopted during the negotiations of the Rome Statute that led to the establishment of the ICC, and has been moving steadily since then. In 1997, towards the end of this process, the members of the Arab League pushed through language inventing a new war crime to ostensibly cover Israeli settlements. The purpose was clearly to prepare the grounds for exploiting the ICC for “lawfare” to target Israel.
Since then, this legal war has proceeded step by step, led by a powerful army of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), largely funded by European governments under the façade of human rights and international law. While the exact amounts and NGO allocation processes in the European Union under frameworks such as the EU Instrument Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) are top-secret and exempted from Freedom of Information laws, the annual total for anti-Israel campaigning related to this warfare is estimated at approximately 100 million euros. (h/t Elder of Lobby)
While calling for total withdrawal from all the territories, including East Jerusalem, the Jordanian draft does, however, refer to the possibility of "mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps," a proposal not included in the Arab League initiative.Daniel Gordis: Palestinians Still Don't Want a State
Along with the artificially rigid timetable and the call for total withdrawal, the Jordanian draft proposes that the Arab refugee problem be resolved on the basis of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (III). Like the Arab League initiative, the Jordanian draft thus indirectly tries to introduce the so-called “right of return” as a condition of negotiations. When Resolution 194 was passed in December 1948, all the Arab states voted against it, and there is no reference to this resolution in UN Security Council Resolution 242, nor in the 1978 Camp David Agreement with Egypt, the 1979 Peace Treaty, the Israel Jordan Peace Treaty, or even in the Oslo agreements with the PLO. It is thus an attempt to introduce an element that is completely unacceptable to Israel and had in fact been quietly abandoned in all the agreements with Israel.
In voting against the draft, the US was not only expressing its political displeasure but was also fulfilling its obligation as part of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty, where the US reaffirmed its commitment to "oppose and, if necessary, vote against any initiative in the Security Council to … change Resolutions 242 and 338 in ways which are incompatible with their original purpose."
Abbas was much better off with the proposal dying an ugly death because the defeat enables him to use the ICC to indict Israeli soldiers, a move bound to infuriate Israel and rile up the Arab street rather than lead to negotiations.
Nothing sums up the Palestinian street better than comments made by Mahmoud Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and still a member of its leadership, this week. “This Palestinian resolution is catastrophic and has no future on the land of Palestine,” he said. “The future belongs to the resistance. We will continue to work to liberate all the land and achieve the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Hamas will not accept anything less than all the lands that were occupied in 1948.”
For decades, the Palestinian leadership has preferred conflict to statehood. When the UN voted on Nov. 29, 1948, in favor of the Partition of Palestine (and thus in favor of the creation of a Jewish State), the land allocated to Israel was home to 500,000 Jews and 450,000 Arabs. It barely had a Jewish majority. With the demographics almost equally balanced, birthrate differentials and the ease of encouraging Arabs from nearby lands to immigrate to this new state, Arabs could quickly have tipped the scales and created an Arab majority. There would have been two Arab States and no Jewish State.
But in 1947, the Arabs attacked Israel instead. The rest is history. If last week’s events are any indication, nothing much has changed.