My last fight at the Council of Europe
Dear friends,
Having just completed my last trip to Strasbourg as a member of the Italian Delegation to the Council of Europe, I would like to address what seems to me to be the most useful aspect of this commitment: the inevitable contradictions which come up when dealing with the issue of Israel and the Middle East. The Honourable Pietro Marcenaro of the Democratic Party (PD) presented The Middle East Report for which he was responsible. For decades, this report has been assigned only to the PD, which fights for it, successfully gathering the necessary votes. When I tried to get this Report assigned to me, the refusal to lobby for me was evident, even on the part of my political faction - the European People’s Party (PPE). Even though I was the only qualified expert on the Middle East. I am Jewish, and consequently, in the eyes of that European institution, I believe, I am synonymous with a lack of objectivity. If not worse.It is obvious from the Report’s measured and cautious tone that Marcenaro made an effort to be neutral. Yet the Report suffers from the political correctness that prevails with regard to the presumed violence of Israel and the supposed religious and racial persecution of the minority that calls democratic principles into question. This is an axiom that I have tried, in vain, to bring up for debate.
I presented many amendments to this report, but they never made it out of the Political Committee because we could not get the required number of votes to do so. It does no good to point out that the Arab minority in Israel has equal rights, while the Palestinians reject any prospect of an Jewish (Israeli) presence in their future state. Marcenaro’s effort, however, represents, above all, the decision to focus on the classic “two States for two Peoples” solution, this time with the additional decision to support two democratic and pluralistic States. This is a reflection of my initial work, which, though not accepted as an amendment, was reiterated during the presentation of amendments and approved by many of those present. We pointed out, for example, that this choice is in fact appropriate for Israel, the sole democracy in the region, while, for the Palestinians, that choice remains to be made. Discussion of the issue went pretty well, but Marcenaro’s approach tended to reaffirm a widespread position, with some echoes from Palestinians whom he encountered during his institutional meetings. Moreover, that pleased most of the deputies seated at the Council. In other words, that Israel is a democracy in name but not in fact because Arabs do not enjoy equal rights and because the Palestinians are persecuted. In addition, all the usual issues about the wall, check points, demolitions were dealt with as if there were no objective reason for them - as if Israel simply looked for opportunities to treat Palestinians cruelly, and, therefore, as if any security policy were not justified. But, in general, different points were accepted. It was undoubtedly a victory, for example, that, as a result of amendments and sub-amendments, the text finally included a condemnation of “anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic” provocation, and that it was specified that the term “anti-Israeli” covers any negation of the right of Israel to exist. The rapporteur was able to mediate with a sub-amendment that, in fact, saw my text approved and passed. Members also accepted the three Quartet conditions that would render Hamas “acceptable” in different instances. Marcenaro maintained that it was enough to make the point only once, since it appeared in the text, which made it unnecessary to mention it again in connection with the “lifting of the Gaza blockade” and Hamas’ recognition of the three conditions (This three terms are: 1. an end to all violence; 2. the recognition of Israel; and 3. the acceptance of agreements signed by Israel and the PLO.)
Also well received: emphasis on the arms flow problem in the Middle East and the need to deal with Egypt and Syria, an allusion to the power of protagonist groups leading the Arab Spring. As I said in my speech, I believe that it is up to the Council of Europe to strenuously condemn the horrific human rights violations currently taking place, not just in Syria but also in all of the countries where the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power. As I said in the National Assembly, this is inherent in the text.
Improved also: the section on the request for release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. We succeeded in adding that the request does not apply to those convicted of terrorism. Some other issues were not dealt with, most importantly that peace negotiations should take place “without preconditions.” Here, of course, the weight of European judgment falls on who should participate and takes precedence over a primordial desire to see the parties sit down to talk once again.
In general, as the amendments progressed through plenary discussions in a relatively hostile atmosphere, we always felt a certain amount of support -- at first ten people, and, then, increasingly more. As they listened to arguments favorable to Israel, many deputies came to understand that there is are differing views on the Palestinian position regarding their being victims of continuous violations of human rights, and as martyrs of history that absolutely have to be compensated for their loss. Many delegates came up after the session to thank me for having had the persistence and consistency necessary to carry the action forward. Others, on the other hand, maintained that it is better to be silent when victory is not assured. I wholeheartedly opposed to this way of thinking! In the Italian Parliament, for example, it was very beneficial to keep on repeating Israel’s positions, without hiding them and facing negative or doubting positions head on instead. This is how we managed to galvanize the majority that voted against the Goldstone report, to not go to Durban 2, and how we won support for Israel during the first and second Gaza wars. Finally, I would like to add that the situation was really damaged by an amendment from the Russian delegate who proposed replacing “Palestinian Authority” with “Palestine,” a position which the committee accepted.
Worse still, the formulation “two States” also was accepted and not “two States for two people,” a recent Palestinian propaganda idea that is gaining ground, specifically to deny the right of Jews to their State, Israel. I think that the delegates who voted in favor of "two states" proposal, failed to fully comprehend the gravity of this amendment presented by a Greek Cypriot. This time, Marcenaro had nothing to do with it, nor with my amendments. This defeat was linked to the mistrust stems from the European delegates’ spontaneous, yet persistent, desire to remain Europeans first. Nevertheless, our side left the Council of Europe with better relationships and a newly acquired consensus.