Home
Search
עברית
Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
On the Brighter Side
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Lawfare
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
Photographs
Anti-Israel Conferences
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Donate
Number of visitors to IAM
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Articles by Hilla Dayan : "Europe and the Bitter Pill of the Israeli Occupation" and "The EU should not accept Israel's illegal occupation"

[Hilla Dayan is an Israeli sociologist living in the Netherlands, graduated from New School University, New York. Her Ph.D dissertation “Regimes of Separation: Israel/Palestine and the Shadow of Apartheid” analyzes the emergence and evolution in 1990s of domestic borders and border mechanisms such as internal travel permits in Israel/Palestine as a regime of separation.]

  http://www.unitedcivilians.nl/nl/doc.phtml?p=article&article=268

Europe and the Bitter Pill of the Israeli Occupation

01 december 2008

By Hilla Dayan

In June this year the EU stated its readiness to further intensify relations with Israel in the framework of the European Neighborhood Policy. Despite the fact that the EU has standard procedures that are supposed to apply to all ENP candidates, Israel’s peculiar standing in this process is striking. The process normally requires a country to undergo extensive reforms, monitored over a period of at least five years, as spelled out in an Action Plan. Israel’s Action Plan is set for three years only, and has so far hollowed out any conditionality standing in the way of meteoric progress. Some member states support the upgrade without posing any conditions beyond a single bullet point in the Action Plan, which refers to human rights in the most general terms possible. This way Israel would become a semi-member of the Union absent of legal obligations. This comes as no surprise to the international human rights community, who is used to the pattern of absolving Israel from its obligations under international law.  

 

A much less known aspect of EU-Israel relations nevertheless is the conspicuous absence of any reference to the territorial scope of the agreements. Israel made it clear it would not sign any agreement with the EU if the scope of its application explicitly excludes the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In other words, every agreement the EU makes with Israel necessarily applies to this sovereign entity as a whole, occupied territories and illegal settlements included. That means, that more the EU intensifies relations with Israel, the more it ties itself politically and economically to a sovereign, whose grip over the occupied territories has been unshaken and is poised to continue well into the future. The Israeli occupation should be put to an end through the effective enforcement of International Law. Accepting Israel as a European neighbour absent of conditionality, however, ensures exactly the opposite: a blow to international law. That Europe embroils itself ever more deeply in a commitment to Israel with the occupation comes with a price tag attached. Europe has been forced to pay for the cost of the occupation ever more generously through aid.

 

It is clear why Israeli officials see it as a national interest to strengthen ties with Europe, while remaining free of the obligation to end the occupation and withdraw to the 1967 borders. It is not clear why it is a European interest to accept Israel into its midst without making the end of the occupation a condition. In effect, the condition Israel itself sets for its integration is that the EU accepts an entrenched military dictatorship as part of the deal. But, can Europe accept that?

 

There are a number of ways in which Europe can take a distinct stand upholding conditionality in such a manner, which will force Israel to choose between European integration and the occupation. Respect for International Law must be defended from the potentially irreparable damage of accommodating a military dictatorship. Israel should be pressed to stop dragging its feet and accept the EU requirement that a formal sub-committee on human rights is created in the ENP process. The EU should take measures to ensure that the Jewish settlement economy will not benefit from preferential trade status. In short, the EU should not embrace the occupation in contradiction with its core principles and interests, as well as with legal commitments under International and European Law. The EU must make "greater Israel" a no go for upgrading relations, instead of swallowing this bitter pill and paying the bill.

 

Hilla Dayan PhD is an Israeli political scientist working for United Civilians for Peace, a Dutch platform that strives for a just solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/the-eu-should-not-accept-israel's-illegal-occupation/62953.aspx

The EU should not accept Israel's illegal occupation

By Hilla Dayan
06.11.2008 / 00:00 CET
The Union should avoid upgrading unconditionally its relations with Israel.

The general consensus is that there will be no change at all in US policy towards Israel, following Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election. Senator Joe Biden, the vice-president-elect, has, if anything, gone further than the Republicans in proclaiming uncritical loyalty to Israel. “My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head,” he told the National Jewish Democratic Council in September.  

All the more crucial then, for the EU to refuse to embrace the occupation, which goes against its core principles and interests, not to mention legal commitments under European and international law.

But the EU's standard procedures for dealing with European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) candidates do not apply to Israel. It seems reasonable to ask why not.

Despite no change in Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the EU announced last June that it planned to intensify relations with Israel.

The EU's action plan for Israel is set for just three years (the standard for most is five), and all conditionality standing in the way of meteoric progress has been hollowed out.

Some EU member states support the upgrade without posing any conditions beyond a single bullet point in the action plan – a vague reference to human rights. Israel is thus set to become a semi-member of the Union without any legal obligations.

Nor is there any reference to the territorial scope of the EU-Israel agreements. Israel has made it clear that it will not sign any agreement with the EU if the scope of its application specifically excludes the occupied Palestinian Territories.

What this means is outrageous: every agreement the EU makes with Israel must apply not just to Israel qua sovereign entity, but to the occupied territories and illegal settlements as well.

This also means that the more the EU intensifies relations with Israel, the more it ties itself politically and economically to an illegal occupation.

The Israeli occupation should be put to an end through the effective enforcement of international law. Accepting Israel as a European neighbour without conditionality ensures exactly the opposite. Europe's involvement with the occupation comes with a price tag attached: the EU is the largest donor of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian Territories.

It is not clear why it is a European interest to accept Israel into its middle without making the end of the occupation a condition. In effect, the condition that Israel itself sets for its integration is that the EU accepts an entrenched military dictatorship as part of the deal. Can Europe really accept that?

Israel should be pressed to stop dragging its feet and accept the EU requirement that a formal sub-committee on human rights be created in the ENP process. The EU also needs to ensure that the Israeli settlement economy is specifically excluded in any trade agreement made with Israel.

The goal of a ‘Greater Israel' should therefore be an unambiguous no-go to upgrading relations between the EU and Israel.

Hilla Dayan is an Israeli political scientist working for United Civilians for Peace, a Dutch group that campaigns for a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

http://gemak.ip93.allcommunication.nl/showdownload.cfm?objecttype=mark.apps.gemak.contentobjects.pdf&objectid=6303C683-1517-64D9-CC82841CFDABF372

5th of November 2008

On the separation regime

The Israeli separation regime is unprecedented and unique. It emerged in the early 1990s with the long-term goal of separating populations politically. It evolved into a system, which continues to deny a group of people collective and individual rights by extraordinary means. The Israeli regime of separation creates conditions of extreme fragmentation and differentiation among groups of people. The split worlds of citizens under a democratic regime and subjects under military occupation are managed and controlled by one sovereign power, the state of Israel. Lacking legitimacy, the regime relays on coercion to split subjects, both physically and administratively. The Israeli regime of separation is a laboratory experiment in creating, enforcing and legitimizing realities of separation, contested and unacceptable as they are.  

Guest:     

Hilla Dayan is an Israeli sociologist living in the Netherlands, who recently graduated with distinction from New School University, New York. Her Ph.D dissertation “Regimes of Separation: Israel/Palestine and the Shadow of Apartheid” analyzes the emergence and evolution in 1990s of domestic borders and border mechanisms such as internal travel permits in Israel/Palestine as a regime of separation. She is the co-founder of the foundation "gate48" in Amsterdam.  
Back to "Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities"Send Response
Top Page
Your Responses
    1.  האמת, הכותרת של העבודה שלה נורא
     From , Sent in 07-12-2008
    2.  The article of Hila Dayan "Europe
     From , Sent in 08-12-2008
    3.  Hilla Dayan questions if it is in the
     From , Sent in 02-02-2009
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 109752207Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version
    blueweb