UK's CAABU Chairman Asks British Government To Ban EU Arms Exports To Israel
London Al-Hayah 09 Dec 00 p 9
[Article by Sir Cyril Townsend, Chairman of the Council for the Advancement
of Arab-British Understanding, CAABU: "What Britain Is Required To Do." ]
Since 28 September 2000, the unfortunate day of Ari'el Sharon's visit to the
Al-Haram al-Sharif [Jerusalem sanctuary enclosing Al-Aqsa Mosque] under the
protection of around 1,000 policemen, one has not been able to read the
newspapers without shock and disgust at the increasing violence and the
Israeli army's use of excessive and disproportionate violence in the
occupied Palestinian territories.
Israel continues to use tanks and fire missiles from helicopters, as well as
live ammunition and rubber bullets against the Palestinian civilians of the
intifadah and the armed members that have emerged among them with the
increasing violence. This violence led to the death of over 250
Palestinians, 60 of whom were children, while almost 7,000 people were
wounded too.
The Israeli snipers open fire on the demonstrators with guns fitted with
silencers, targeting even children. The instructions the snipers have are to
target the upper part of the body. Reports say that 30 percent of the
wounded will be handicapped for the rest of their lives. Just imagine their
painful futures.
This organized violence imposed on the region for over two months comes
against a well-known backdrop. It happens, first and foremost, against the
continuous expropriation of Palestinian territories in the West Bank to
build and expand the illegal settlements, as well as to open the circular
roads [around the settlements] and set up military positions. Israel
continues to impose a ban on trade and movement of the Palestinians among
their towns and cities, and when crossing the borders. In addition, the
shelling of Palestinian homes continues. We must also not forget that 1,600
Palestinians are still being tortured in Israeli prisons without trial.
The confirmation of these events has not been restricted to journalists who
provided a lot of incontrovertible evidence about Israel's human rights'
violations. Organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
and Law and Justice have also done the same thing. In addition, a number of
consuls in East Jerusalem submitted reports about this matter, including the
British Consul General in Jerusalem Robin Kelly. Kelly leads a group of
professional diplomats who are conducting supervision missions in parts of
the Palestinian areas and working in coordination with the other diplomatic
teams.
The clear reality is that the Palestinian territories are witnessing
tremendous violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The United
Kingdom was right when it supported Security Council Resolution 1322, which
calls on Israel, the occupying power, to show strict adherence to its duties
and responsibilities according to the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the
protection of civilians during war.
Israel has ignored these duties and responsibilities both before and after
the Resolution was issued. In the United Kingdom's capacity as a major
signatory of the Geneva Convention, it is its legal responsibility to do
something to protect these civilians. If Britain does not carry out this
duty, then this will diminish the status of the charter. The question is:
How ugly must the violations be before Britain and others make any move? And
will other countries be allowed to carry out such practices [and
violations]?
Dr. Nabil Sha'th, member of the Palestinian Authority, is trying to apply
pressure on the British Government to deploy UN and multinational forces in
the Palestinian territories. It is a reasonable request, but it is difficult
to imagine that there is a government that would willingly deploy its forces
between Palestinians and Israelis. We can only point out with great regret
the ineffectiveness of the Scandinavian monitors that were deployed in
Hebron after the Ibrahimi Mosque massacre in 1994.
The friends of the Arabs in Britain are asking the Department of Foreign
Affairs to exert efforts to impose a ban on the export of weapons and
military equipment from the European Union and the Commonwealth countries to
Israel. The main source of weapons for Israel is the United States.
Nevertheless, the ban directs a clear message, just as the withdrawal of the
Egyptian Ambassador in Israel sent a strong message, albeit rather late, to
Israel and its supporters.
Irrespective of all that is said about such steps lacking any practical
significance, they remain, to say the least, better than standing back with
arms crossed. As for the Palestinians, they are facing a de facto arms
embargo because Israel controls the borders.
The Middle East Council asked the three major parties in the House of
Commons to suspend the trade agreement between the EU and Israel based on
article two of the agreement, one of its main articles stipulating abidance
to the human rights regulations, while the violation of these rights was,
even before 28 September, the rule not the exception in Israel's behavior.
There is a similar text on which the British Foreign Affairs Department
focuses on in the trade agreement between the EU and Syria.
It is likely that the Palestinian crisis will escalate during the coming few
months. There is also a great possibility that Israel will try to retrieve
certain regions in the West Bank it had handed over to the PA in accordance
with the Oslo Agreement. So far, Israel does not seem to understand that
there is no military solution to this intifadah, which is supported by the
vast majority of the people.
[Description of Source: London Al-Hayah in Arabic -- Influential Saudi-owned
London daily providing independent coverage of Arab and international
issues; commentaries occasionally critical of US policy.]
