Secret Documents Reveal How Israel Tried to Evade International Scrutiny of Occupation
Two classified Foreign
Ministry documents, from 1967 and from 1968, disclose how the government
tried to avoid application of the Geneva Conventions to the territories
immediately after they were captured and how it tried to prevent
international criticism of violations of the conventions.
They
also show how Israel tried to avoid granting the International
Committee of the Red Cross access to the territories as mandated by the
conventions.
In
the documents, senior civil servants admit to various violations of the
conventions, including the use of violence against the Palestinian
population. They also reveal how Israel sought to avoid defining itself
as an occupier in the territories, while admitting explicitly that this
claim was put forth for strategic reasons, to avoid criticism, even
though there was no substantive justification for it.
One
document is a cable sent in March 1968 to Israel’s then-ambassador in
Washington, Yitzhak Rabin, by Michael Comay and Theodor Meron. Comay, a
senior diplomat whose previous posts included ambassador to the United
Nations, was political advisor to then-Foreign Minister Abba Eban when
the cable was written. Meron was the Foreign Ministry’s legal advisor.
The
cable, which was classified top-secret, contains instructions from
Comay and Meron on what Rabin should do to prevent the United States
from forcing Israel to apply the Geneva Conventions to the territories.
“Our
consistent policy has been and still is to avoid discussing the
situation in the administered territories with foreign parties on the
basis of the Geneva Conventions. ... Explicit recognition on our part of
the applicability of the Geneva Conventions would highlight serious
problems under the convention with house demolitions, expulsions,
settlement and more — and furthermore, when we’re obligated to leave all
options open with regard to the issue of borders, we must not recognize
that our status in the administered territories is solely that of an
occupying power,” the cable said.
“In
short, our policy toward the administered territories is to try to
prevent clear violations of the Geneva Conventions without getting into
the question of the conventions’ applicability,” the cable continued.
Comay
and Meron acknowledged that the status of Jerusalem was particularly
problematic, because the government had already taken steps that would
likely be viewed as violations of the conventions.
“The
most serious problem is of course East Jerusalem, because here, if the
government were to follow the Geneva Conventions and the Hague
Regulations, it wouldn’t be able to make far-reaching administrative and
legal changes, such as expropriating land,” they wrote. “The Americans
recently said that our status in Jerusalem is solely that of an
occupation. On this basis, we can’t even talk to them about the issue of
Jerusalem, because although here, too, we’re trying to avoid actions
that would have international repercussions, there’s no possibility of
making all our actions in Jerusalem fit the restrictions that derive
from the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations.”
The
diplomats therefore instructed Rabin “to tell the Americans that there
are unique aspects to the status of the territories and to our status in
the territories. Before the Six-Day War, the Gaza Strip wasn’t Egyptian
territory, and the West Bank, too, was territory that had been occupied
and annexed by Jordan without international recognition. Given this
ambiguous, indeterminate territorial situation, the question of the
convention’s applicability is complex and unclear prior to a peace
agreement that includes setting secure and recognized borders.”
The
cable added that there is “no point in debating publicly” with the
Americans. “We recommend that you don’t get into any discussion or
argument over the aforementioned issues, but merely record their
response and leave the clarification to the embassy, without a circular
and without the participation of UN members,” it said.
Another
document, classified as secret, was sent by Comay to the Foreign
Ministry’s deputy director general several months previously, on June
22, 1967, less than two weeks after the Six-Day War ended. In it, he
advised that the ministry not use the word “occupation,” so as to avoid
committing to allow the Red Cross free access to the West Bank’s
civilian population.
“In
light of the fact that the international Red Cross is trying to assert
rights with regard to the civilian population, in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions ... it’s necessary to be careful about the use of
certain phrases noted in the convention; I’m referring primarily to the
phrases ‘occupied territories’ and ‘occupying power,’” Comay wrote. “Our
UN delegation and our legations must know that here, we’re avoiding
discussions with representatives of the international Red Cross about
the status of the territories.”
Comay
recommended replacing the phrase “occupied territories” with
“territories under Israeli control” or “territories under military
government.”
These
documents are not merely an interesting historical record of how Israel
initially related to the Geneva Conventions, nor are they merely an
admission of its violation. They are also relevant to the ongoing debate
today over the occupation’s legality.
“In
recent years, political actors have tried to insert a claim that wasn’t
serious even back in the 1970s into the discussion — that the
territories aren’t actually occupied and that their residents aren’t
entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions,” said Lior
Yavne, executive director of Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict Research, a left-wing research institute that works to uncover
and publicize archival material on the conflict. “The uniqueness of the
cable is the rare frankness with which the authors explain the reasons
for the government’s refusal to admit the convention’s applicability to
the territories, which were that some of its policies in the territories
simply contradict the convention’s rules, and also as a tactical step
in preparation for a future diplomatic agreement,” Yavne said.
Commenti
Posta un commento