Jerusalem: The European Union Keeps Lid on Policy of Annexation

January 11, 2006 11:19



A report from European diplomats denounces the Israeli policy of annexation of Jerusalem. The European Union refuses to publish it. French daily L'Humanité reveals its contents

For several months now, the diplomats of the European Union posted to Jerusalem and Ramallah have been working to edit a report accounting for the Israeli policy in the region of greater Jerusalem, a long report without ambiguity, together with a resumé and recommendations drafted by the diplomats themselves, but which has not been made public. The Israeli strategy of "fait accompli" is there studied and revealed in broad daylight. For the first time, a text originating from the diplomatic corps places side by side the expansion of colonies in the Cisjordan, the construction of the wall "of separation" or "of security", and the destruction of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem-East, only to arrive at the conclusion that "it is a matter of a deliberate Israeli policy - the end being the annexation of Jerusalem-East", that this "limits the perspectives for any agreement acceptable to the Palestinians on the final status of Jerusalem", and that "the Israeli initiatives radicalize a Palestinian population of Jerusalem that has been, until now, relatively peaceful". There is thus clearly a consistency in the acts of the Israelis, having nothing to do with questions of security, in fact nothing other than the continuation of the colonization of Palestinian territories.

The Palestinians scorned

The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, in the month of August, is also to be placed in this context. Ariel Sharon was well aware that the dream of Eretz Israel was no longer current, at least not in its biblical version. Returning the Gaza Strip, which is of no economic interest to Israel, to the Palestinians permitted the prime minister to appear in the eyes of the international community as a man of peace, and permitted one to forget that the removal was carried out unilaterally, with no consultation with the Palestinians. As a result, hidden behind the fake laurel leaves, Sharon continued his policy of annexation, in violation of international law, of the recommendations of the international Court of Justice, of the resolutions of the United Nations, and even of its own promises made in the context of the "road map" elaborated under the leadership of the "quartet" (United States, European Union, Russia, and the United Nations). The diplomats note, in connection with the wall, that "its trace isolated Jerusalem-East and its 230,000 Palestinian residents from the Cisjordan (it does more to separate Palestinians from themselves than to separate Palestinians from Israeli)", and that the wall "is not motivated solely by questions of security". Meanwhile, as the authors emphasize, "the viability of a Palestinian state depends in large measure on the preservation of links between Jerusalem-East, Ramallah, and Bethlehem, in the Cisjordan."

Simultaneously, "colonization continues at a rapid pace in the interior of Jerusalem-East, where there are already 190,000 Israeli colonizers." In brief, Sharon can surely speak of the creation of a Palestinian state, but when one looks at the map of the colonies and the construction of the wall, you can understand what it means to carry out an administrative but not geographic reunification of scattered territories with no economic viability.

A veritable political bomb

The report of diplomats posted to Jerusalem and Ramallah is a veritable political bomb, and places the European Union immediately before its responsibilities. But once again, instead of responsibility, it is cowardice that wins the day. On December 12, the European Union refused to publish a report critical of the Israeli presence in Jerusalem-East. For the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Jack Straw, whose government presided over the European Union until the end of 2005, "the political climate has changed in Israel, and there is a legislative election in coming months. So we didn't think it appropriate to accept or to publish this document, but rather to continue to make our suggestions through normal channels." Despite this, a month ago the ministers of foreign affairs of the 25 European nations believed that there was nothing to hide, and had announced the publication of the document. Javier Solana, the senior representative of European foreign policy, former general secretary of NATO, played a role in this decision which was scarcely negligible. He explained to the ministers, and with a straight face, that European influence over Israel would be largely compromised if the report were to be published [sic !]. Furthermore, the spokesman for the Israeli foreign office, Mark Regev, described this decision as "just". "There is no doubt that there is a new atmosphere in relations between the European Union and Israel. I am sure that the disengagement [from the Gaza Strip] has played a big role in this, and I think that the Europeans have decided to play a bigger role in the region" This is what Solana surely means when he speaks of European influence.

This was orginally published in French daily l'Humanité on 28 December 2005. It was translated by Henry Crapo. To read more articles from L'Humanité translated into English, go to http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/

See also




http://www.spectrezine.org/MiddleEast/McReynolds3.htm