The key to peace in the Middle East is an end to discrimination – open questions to Murray McCully

Dear Mr McCully,
Thank you for your letter dated May 4 in reply to our previous letter to you. Many questions arise from your response and we would welcome clarification. There is keen interest within global civil society in any expressions of support by UN member state governments for universally, rather than selectively, safeguarding justice and human rights under the provisions of existing international law. In 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing nation to extend the right to vote to all women and to recognise their right to run for office. That capacity for reforming leadership sadly flagged last century when our country was, for a time, reluctant to oppose South African Apartheid. Today another moral challenge confronts us: The world is asking whether New Zealand has the courage to end its diplomatic support for Israel and join the world in support of the International Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS).

Israel, in the course of maintaining its illegal occupation, is in violation of a number of UN conventions, including those against torture and ethnic segregation. As Archbishop Tutu said in his letter to Marrickville Mayor Fiona Byrne on 8 June, “In my own eyes I have seen how the Palestinians are oppressed, dispossessed and exiled. We call on all our Jewish and Israeli sisters and brothers to oppose the occupation and work for equality, justice and peace, between the River and the Sea, in the same way that so many South African Whites took risks to oppose the crime of Apartheid.” Desmond Tutu recalled in his letter how “ International Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions against the Apartheid regime . . . helped lead the South African people to our victory and an end to Apartheid.”

In your letter to us you stated that “New Zealand, and the international community, continue to urge both sides to re-engage in direct negotiations to reach an agreement by September 2011.” You go on to say that, “The imposition of UN sanctions against Israel would be counter-productive to this process.” That may be convenient for Israel but it is blatantly one-sided. Palestinians have effectively suffered under sanctions for decades. The acquisition of territory by war is a war crime, as is the transfer of population to such territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49 states that, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Do you believe that the victims of occupation should be required to negotiate away, under duress, their rights under the provisions of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in order to accommodate Israel's desire for territorial expansion? If so, please explain the New Zealand Government's reasoning for this. [1]

Mr McCully, you reply that “to ensure a lasting solution, any final settlement between the two sides needs to be negotiated to ensure both sides abide by the agreement.” On 4 June the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/peace-politics-and-patek-philippe-an-interview-with-ehud-barak-1.360701 quoted Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak acknowledging the unsustainable nature of Israeli Occupation by saying, “We have been ruling over another nation for 43 years . . .” The idea of land swaps has no legal standing. Pushed by the United States, the United Nations voted for the non-binding 1947 General Assembly Partition Resolution, which allocated 55% of Palestine to the Jewish immigrants. The rights of the indigenous Palestinian people were not considered and even their right to the remaining 45% of their homeland under the provisions of the Partition Resolution is challenged by Israel, which now controls 100% of Palestine. The “exchange” of yet more land would lead to forcible transfer of more Palestinians from within Israel and allow permanent Israeli annexation of the land upon which it has established illegal settlements. By what right should “any final settlement” allow Israel to “swap” land it does not legally possess? [2]

The creation of the State of Israel has inevitably resulted in the longest running refugee tragedy in modern history. Why should “negotiations” between two such manifestly unequal parties take the place of requiring Israel, under threat of sanctions, to abide by its solemn international obligations? [3] Can you explain why you are happy to support sanctions against Fiji and Iran but refuse to contemplate such measures against Israel? [4] The Zionist state also ethnically discriminates against its own citizens. For example, an article in Haaretz has reported http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/justice-ministry-admits-it-covertly-%20canceled-residency-status-of-140-000-palestiniansfrom from an Israeli Justice Ministry document that reveals that it has already cancelled the residency status of 140,000 Palestinians who were trusting enough to travel abroad. Palestinians in East Jerusalem are being forced to give up their homes to Jewish settlers.

This form of discrimination has its counterpart in Israel's refusal to recognise the right of return of Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their homes and land. The Israeli state's sole reason for defying the right, enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 194, is that Palestinians are not Jewish. Resolution 194, which was passed on December 11, 1948, also expressed appreciation for the efforts of UN Envoy Folke Bernadotte ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte ) after his assassination by members of the terrorist Lehi group ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29 "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel"), better known as the Stern Gang, The State of Israel, on the other hand, recognises the right of 'return' for Jews, even those who have yet to visit Israel, solely on account of their ethnicity.

Ethnic discrimination in the Occupied territories is evident in the segregated highways reserved for Jewish motorists and illegal Jewish settlers are enabled to consume 80% of the West Bank's water. This is apartheid and no country other than Israel would be permitted to get away with it. Without UN sanctions, is it likely that Israel will ever give up the advantages it has gained for itself through aggression and overwhelming military superiority?[5]

The international community is failing in its duty to protect Palestinian civilians who, through no fault of their own, are held captive and brutally ill-treated by the forces of a state that was imposed upon them by the outside world. The scale and relentlessness of Israeli crimes against a civilan population call for urgent redress; the PHRC would be happy to refer the Minister, if he would wish it, to testimony from many sources including eye-witnesses both from within Israel and in Occupied Palestine itself to attest to this.

According to the New York Times of 1 June 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?_r=3 a quarter of the passengers on the latest US aid boat to Gaza are Jewish. Many Jewish people are deeply distressed by Israel's claim that it speaks for them and openly contest the Zionist state's construction of a Jewish identity that is based upon the denial of Palestinian freedom. One passenger, Hedy Epstein, an 86-year-old woman whose parents died in the Holocaust, told the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?_r=2, “The American Jewish community and Israel both say that they speak for all Jews. They don't speak for me. They don't speak for the Jews in this country who are going to be on the US boat, and the many others standing behind us.” In most countries, including Israel, Jewish people and organisations, opposed to the practice of Israeli state Zionism, support the international movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

Minister of Defence Wayne Mapp is due to visit Israel shortly. The PHRC invites him to consider visiting the distraught parents of children abducted from their homes in the middle of the night by Israeli soldiers. Perhaps he could explain to villagers who have lost their farms and olive trees to illegal settlement building how it is that Prime Minister John Key can say that New Zealand has a lot to learn from Israel.

As Israeli, Miko Peled, http://mikopeled.wordpress.com/ the son of a war hero and uncle of the victim of a suicide bomber, said regarding the alternative to supporting Israeli state discrimination and violence, “The rest of us will move on in line with the rest of the Middle East which will follow the example of the people of Egypt to create something that will surely be a tremendous accomplishment – a democratic, secular state in our own shared homeland – a state where Muslims, Christians and Jews live as equals and educate their children to love their homeland with its multitude of cultures, its rich history and its promising future.

New Zealand could play a leading role, in the good company of people such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Miko Peled, to bring about a lasting transformation for peace in the Middle East. How about it, Mr McCully?

Leslie Bravery, Palestine Human Rights Campaign - 12 June 2011
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Summary of questions:
[1] Do you believe that the victims of occupation should be required to negotiate away, under duress, their rights under the provisions of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention in order to accommodate Israel's desire for territorial expansion? If so please explain the New Zealand Government's reasoning for this.

[2] By what right should “any final settlement” allow Israel to “swap” land it does not legally possess?

[3] Why should “negotiations” between two such manifestly unequal parties take the place of requiring Israel, under threat of sanctions, to abide by its solemn international obligations?

[4] Can you explain why you are happy to support sanctions against Fiji and Iran but refuse to contemplate such measures against Israel?

[5] Without UN Sanctions, is it likely that Israel will ever give up the advantages it has gained for itself through aggression and overwhelming military superiority?

© Scoop Media