Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-136)
11 NOVEMBER 2003
DR SHIMON
T SAMUELS AND
MS ILKA
SCHRODER
Q120 Chairman: You are a Member of
the European Parliament so you have the opportunity of seeing
people like Chris Patten and Poul Nielson a bit more frequently
than we do. They do come and give evidence, indeed Pascal Lamy
was here only a couple of weeks ago giving evidence on the WTO.
My question, really, was what has been the responses to your questioning
of the European Parliament? What response have you had from Chris
Patten and Poul Nielson to the evidence which you have put?
Ms Schroder: I cannot say
that I was particularly satisfied by the response since, for example,
on the forcefully deducted 1.5-2% of the salaries for Fatah membership
fee, Chris Patten answered that this would be a normal procedure
within Europe, too, for example a forced membership for a trade
union. Now, you compare a membership fee to a trade union to a
Fatah membership fee, which has (as Shimon Samuels has pointed
out) a clear link to terrorist organisations and takes pride in
anti-Semitic action. So this is the comparison he made and, thereby,
he is saying "Everything is fine, we have the same kind of
procedure over here too." For me this just shows how little
he understands about the situation and about the anti-Semitic
part of the action. The currency exchange rates, he answered only
that it was wrong because the EU would not pay in dollars but
in euro, but we did not make the point between euro or dollar,
we said that whatever currency it would be, whether US dollar
or euro, it is exchanged into shekels, and here we have the problem.
On that one he never answered, he never said anything on that.
Then there is one more important point on the IMF control. Christopher
Patten and people who would stick to the EU policy, they would
all say "There is a perfect control mechanism by the International
Monetary Fund. What do we need to worry about?" The International
Monetary Fund itself says it has no proper control of where exactly
the money from the PA is going. This is a statement by the IMF
on the internet, you can get it from the IMF and we never got
an answer from the EU Commission itself or Mr Patten on how he
would react to that one—that there is no control. So I am
afraid that, after all those hearings that have happened in Parliament
and after the illegal stopping of having an inquiry happening
on this issue, the problems stand as they were a year ago and
two years ago.
Q121 Chairman: How do you think such
funds should be monitored?
Ms Schroder: I think the
problem cannot be seen just in an administrative way, because
all the problems that I described to you and the answers that
I put forward that came from the Commission, just very clearly
show that the political message is "We don't care. The PA
can do whatever it wants, we will cover up everything. We will
make an argument that doesn't fit, but we will make sure that
it's OK whatever you do with the money." You have so many
control mechanisms, you have so much development aid, and there
is so much experience with that. It is very easy to make, for
example, a very concrete help. You can give out cans with food,
you can give out material, if you want to make sure that this
is not misused for terrorist actions against Israel. Even here
you have a problem, and I cannot tell you how to solve it if the
EU policy towards the PA and its chairperson goes on like that.
You have cans that were given to the PA and it was found out that
they were sold by PA officials. So this is just a very simple
case of corruption. I cannot say how to resolve that problem.
As long as the PA continues its policy it started in 2000, when
it decided to start a so-called intifada, which was not a spontaneous
up-rising by some poor Palestinians—sure they are—but
it was planned by the PA, financed by the PA, and there is a statement
by the Information Minister from the PA and it is a clear statement
from the PA side, it does not want to solve the situation peacefully.
In that situation I cannot answer your question, properly because
as long as this political will stands you will probably not find
a way to give the money to the Palestinians they deserve which
really comes out where it is needed as humanitarian aid.
Q122 Chairman: Unless I misunderstand
you, the logic of that approach is this, is it not, if money is
not given to the Palestinian Authority and if, taking Dr Samuels'
answer to my colleague John Battle's question, the government
of Israel do not see a responsibility to provide funds for those
in the Occupied Territories, then we are going to have a situation
where the international community, ie not the government of Israel,
not the Palestinian Authority, in some way are going to have to
take responsible for all the service provision of people in the
Occupied Territories. Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms Schroder: I am suggesting
that we need to see where the problem starts. I cannot see at
the moment the political will from the Palestinian side to see
what Israel is about. Israel is the refuge to people who are perceived
as Jews or define themselves as Jews. After the Holocaust happened,
after the Shoah happened, anti-Semitism still went on worldwide,
and after the Shoah anti-Semitism wherever it is does mean a threat
to every single Jew or any person perceived as a Jew, an extermination
threat, therefore Israel is needed as the last refuge for those
people. I can see unfortunately—and I agree with many people
who have testified before—that there is a lot of intimidation
of terrorists within the Palestinian Authorities so probably there
is not a chance for people who would like to talk about anti-Semitism
in the Palestinian Territories to point it out. The situation
is that you have a society incited by anti-Semitism, it is financed
by different EU countries, it is spread amongst the camps and
the UN institution itself says we have a huge problem here. Usually
terrorists are kept out of those camps which are just there for
humanitarian purposes.
Q123 Chairman: I do not think there
is a single member of this House, on any side of the House, who
is anything other than supportive of Israel's right to exist as
a state. After all, it was the United Kingdom in 1948 which was
one of those in the United Nations which led for Israel's recognition
as a state. Let us set that aside, that is not an issue which
is an issue for debate in this House. What we have, and perhaps
I can ask my question, is a large number of Palestinians in the
Occupied Territories, they have to be fed, they have to be educated,
they need medical support, they need a whole number of provisions
and services. As I understand it from Dr Samuels, and that would
appear to be the case from elsewhere as well, the government of
Israel notwithstanding they are the occupying power, do not see
it as a responsibility to finance that service provision, so either
those funds have to go through the Palestinian Authority, or if
they do not go through the Palestinian Authority it means the
international community taking the responsibility of providing
those services direct through some other mechanism. So I just
want to be clear, is your position that no money should go to
the Palestinian Authority, and if so it must logically follow
you are arguing for the international community to fund some other
mechanism to look after the Palestinian people?
Ms Schroder: I am not willing
to give administrative advice how to finance the Palestinian side
as long as it has had aid by people and organisations whose aim
is to hurt Israel as much as possible, who have so much anti-Semitism
among them and who spread anti-Semitism as their ideology, and
whose aim is to destroy Israel as a state or as a Jewish state.
How can I advise you to finance those people? I said I would be
the happiest person, as probably many other people here, to give
the Palestinians the humanitarian aid they deserve. What would
you do if you saw all this humanitarian aid goes against Israel?
Q124 Chairman: I want to understand
the answer to my question. The answer to my question is that you
do not believe any humanitarian or development aid should go to
the Palestinian Authority? It is a simple yes or no.
Ms Schroder: As long as
it has had aid to a person like Arafat—and we have talked
about what he finances—
Q125 Chairman: So the answer is no
development or humanitarian aid should go to the Palestinian Authority.
Okay. I just want to understand then what mechanism you see the
international community adopting? We have a duty of care as part
of the international community to the people in the Occupied Territories,
just as we have to other people elsewhere. The levels of malnutrition
in Gaza and elsewhere are as bad as they are in parts of Sub-Saharan
Africa. How do you see that humanitarian aid being delivered?
Who do you see delivering it?
Ms Schroder: The first thing
which needs to happen is that any organisation or institution
which is commissioned to distribute this aid is very clearly making
statements and proving that they are not taking any action against
Israel or against the people who deserve to belong to the state.
That of course needs to be supervised. There are thousands of
mechanisms to control that, they are not applied and that is not
an administrational problem, but a political decision.
Q126 Chairman: Can I move on to another
matter. One of the criticisms made of the Palestinian Authority
is that they are doing insufficient to play a role in fighting
terrorism. I would welcome Dr Samuels' help on this. Throughout
the West Bank we saw police stations which had been demolished
and we heard evidence it was actually impossible for any Palestinian
police force to operate effectively as we would understand a police
force operating within the Palestinian territory. Unless the solution
is from your perspective that the Israeli defence forces police
the whole Palestinian Occupied Territories, how do you see the
Palestinian people themselves being able to police themselves?
Dr Samuels: I think you have to
look at capability as opposed to will. We have seen that when
Mr Arafat wants to close the tap or control some of his extremists,
he is well able to do so. I do not think it is a question of demolishing
police stations. It is a question of controlling the source of
funds. We have a document here which is in the original Arabic
and in translation which shows the money going at 2 shekels per
Kalashnikov bullet, how many bullets being ordered. You may be
aware of the civil suit which is being filed in Tel Aviv District
Court against the EU for damages for a British-born subject of
Israel, Stephen Bloomberg. His family was attacked while he was
driving, by EU-salaried police officials. He and his 14 year-old
daughter are bound in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.
His pregnant wife was killed. I am sure the "Parents' Circle"
who are here must know the family case very well. Bloomberg was
quoted as saying, "My parents in London are paying taxes
which go partly to the EU and that money has contributed to the
murder of my wife. European taxpayers should know their money
is used to blow up buses and cafes and to murder innocent civilians."
I think that is the main question. The question here is, how do
you control the monies which are being paid through the EU which
are creamed off to pay for those bullets?
Q127 Chairman: I asked that question
to Ms Schroder a second ago, how are you suggesting the money
should be monitored, and I think the answer I got from her was
that we should be giving no money at all to the Palestinian Authority.
That was her answer. If you have a different answer in fairness
you should be allowed to put it. How do you think we should be
monitoring money which should be given to the Palestinian Authority?
Dr Samuels: It is not my job to
tell the European Union how to monitor. They have better background
and experience of doing that. However, certainly some of the NGOs
involved have competent programmes. They are also, I am sure,
being monitored by the EU—one hopes so—although one
in particular which is called Law creamed off 40%—4 million
dollars of 10 million dollars—they received from the EU.
We have documents on that here in what I want to submit to you.
Monies can be more carefully monitored to see they get to their
target.
Chairman: It is obviously important in
a matter of confidence that everyone has confidence the money
is going where it should be going, so I would have thought you
might have given some thought as to how you would have confidence,
or what monitoring systems you might have confidence in, that
the money is going to the destination it is intended for.
Q128 Mr Khabra: You have presented
your own views and to me it looks as if it is a very grim picture
with no prospect of any peace between Israel and Palestine. You
mentioned money being used for corruption, being used to support
terrorism, the training of terrorists, etcetera. My personal view
is that even if what you said is true, there are no controls over
that, nobody on the EU is even monitoring it. Suppose all that
happens, that there is control over that money, that money is
being properly used by the PA and it does not get into the hands
of the people who are terrorists and who want to sabotage the
peace process and want to kill, can I ask you, without that money,
do you think terrorism will finish? Do you not consider that Hamas,
which is an organisation which is getting more popular day by
day, and Islamic Jihad, will be getting money from other sources?
There are a lot of other sources they can get money from to continue
or organise terrorism and they have a philosophy, and probably
you understand what that philosophy is all about, that they would
like to have political power and that is a very grim situation.
Do you not think Israel should take into consideration that it
is proper, reasonable and logical that the Palestinian Authority
should be helped to actually deal with the internal situation?
What happens, if there is occupation, check-points, other restrictions
on movements, is that Hamas becomes stronger and stronger and
the Palestinian Authority may be reduced to nothing at all. What
is going to happen then? I want to ask this question.
Dr Samuels: Mr Khabra, I agree
with you, the situation is very grim but terror did not begin
with this intifada. Palestinian terror began with the creation
of the PLO in 1964 which was three years before these territories
fell into the hands of Israel as a result of aggression against
Israel. Until that time they were in the hands of Jordan and Egypt
and yet terror was designed against Israel with the creation of
the PLO. Hamas has been launching terror, yes, you are right,
that has to be controlled, and money will continue to get to such
organisations from such sources as Iran and possibly other Arab
countries. What we are saying here is that the EU has no right
to see that money is getting to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or
to Hamas. This is what we say to the EU, and your Committee because
of the nature of its discussions is discussing with the EU. It
is vitally important that that money be snuffed out before it
gets there. We have seen the demonstrations in this past week
on television of women asking for their money from Hamas which
is not getting through any more because Mr Arafat got the point,
this is not good for his public image. So if it is not good for
his public image that the money does not get to Hamas at this
moment, in that case something is working. What we suggest is
whatever is working is a formula which has to be much more broadly
effective.
Q129 Chairman: I must declare a couple
of interests in the run up to this. One of my family was one of
the first of the Friends Ambulance Corps into Belsen. My tutor
at university, because I practised law, was one of the junior
counsel who prosecuted at Nuremberg, and indeed my predecessor
head of chambers is now prosecuting war crimes in Sierra Leone.
Many of the prosecutions at Nuremberg were brought because of
breaches against international humanitarian law, and the ability
of the Friends Ambulance Service, the Red Cross and others, to
operate and those prosecutions were brought about because of the
existence of the Geneva Conventions. As I understand it, your
organisation is a human rights organisation and I wondered what
steps you take as a human rights organisation to ensure that the
Fourth Geneva Convention is applied fairly, fully and properly
in Occupied Territories?
Dr Samuels: I consider the Fourth
Geneva Convention is certainly valid for every case of occupation.
It is perhaps mystifying it was only convened by the Swiss Government
in the case of Israel. It has never been convened in all the years
since 1949 in regard to the Chinese occupation of Tibet or any
other occupation. What we find here is a single-country-bashing
campaign against Israel. Unfortunately this is an atmosphere which
I experienced in the United Nations Human Rights Commission where
Israel is in the dock and there is one item on the agenda, Item
8, only against Israel, and Item 9 against all other issues of
human rights violations. So when the issue becomes a question
of universal concern and not just a cover for countries, particularly
despotic, totalitarian states in the UN, who use the bashing of
Israel in order to cover up their own human rights violations,
then in that case your question would be highly justified.
Ms Schroder: Considering
there was a war against Yugoslavia in 1999, no matter what opinion
you had on that one, it was true Yugoslavia was not a threat to
any western country, nobody even dared to think Milosevic would
attack any other country because he did not have the military
possibilities for that. NATO went in with air strikes which meant
minimum victims on your side, maximum civilians on the other side,
and we have lots of cases now against different NATO states. This
was something which was very obviously human rights violations
but the UN was not even part of it, and now it is Germany and
France who are making a big row about Iraq because it was not
dealt with by a UN Resolution but they took part in Kosovo. Now
you take the Jenin case and what happened there. There was a demand
by the Israeli Government as always to the PA to look for their
terrorists, especially the ones in official positions, they gave
them lists to check. What happens to those people? There are a
lot of connections between the PA and anti-Semitism terrorism
so nothing will happen. What does Israel do? Again, abstracting
from your position, whether it was right or wrong, the Israeli
defence forces went into Jenin, they took ground forces because
they did not want air strikes which they could have done because
they wanted minimum civilian victims on the other side, and they
did exactly the contrary to NATO. I am not a military expert and
I never want to be but if you take into account how Kosovo was
evaluated, how Jenin was evaluated, I cannot see that the Middle
East and Israel in particular are different. The decision is to
see Israel as the perpetrator and the Palestinians will always
be the victims once you have taken this decision, and you can
see that very clearly if you compare the situation with so many
others. This is the official EU policy and you can see what comes
out of it. We have had opinion polls two weeks ago which came
out in the European Union and more than 50% of the European population
believe that Israel is the main problem for world peace. This
is what you do when you have a blind, one-sided, pro-Palestinian
position from the EU which does not take into account any anti-Semitic
actions. This is what you get out of it.
Q130 Chairman: In fairness that was
not my question but let me try it another way. From my perspective,
and I would not speak for other colleagues, I do not see any evidence
of a peace process at the present time. The Prime Minister of
Israel has made it clear he is not going to negotiate with the
Palestinian Authority whilst Arafat is heading it or whilst anyone
who is talking to Arafat from the Palestinian Authority is involved,
so we almost certainly are going to have a long period of time
of occupiers and occupied, because however one looks at it, using
words as neutrally as possible, the Israeli defence forces are
occupying the West Bank and Gaza. I am interested as a lawyer
in how that situation in international law is dealt with, and
it seems to me international law has dealt with it by the Geneva
Conventions—in civilised nations that is how it is done.
I cannot see and I do not understand why a human rights organisation
would not wish to see the Geneva Conventions applied in that occupation
as anywhere else. I put that question again to see if I get any
different answer.
Ms Schroder: If it was like
"anywhere else" everybody would agree, but as you can
see it does not apply.
Q131 Chairman: So you are saying
the Geneva Convention should not be applied?
Ms Schroder: I am saying
that everything you refer to as international law is always applied
in a very different way to Israel than any other nations.
Q132 Chairman: Are you saying international
law should not be applied in the Occupied Territories?
Ms Schroder: I think you
do not want to understand, I made a very clear statement, if it
was a world where you did not have very specific actions taken
against Israel—and I explained before what I think is so
specific against that country because I do not think everybody
has understood that well. I see at the same time the human rights
violations in Israel sanctioned, but many other much worse violations
elsewhere are not. So should I not wonder why they are applied
in Israel but not in many other places?
Q133 Chairman: At the present moment
there are war crime trials going on, the international community
is taking action against those accused of war crimes in Sierra
Leone, in Rwanda, in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, these
are all areas where the international community is taking action.
Anyway, you have given your answer and that will have to stand
on the record.
Ms Schroder: This is a very
good example, this trial against Milosevic, because if you look
at the civilian victims killed by the NATO-led war against Yugoslavia,
in the logic of the court there should be many other people in
front of it who will never have to justify their actions in front
of any court.
Dr Samuels: May I ask you a question?
Q134 Chairman: Of course.
Dr Samuels: I think your use of
the word "occupation" requires definition. The Geneva
Convention, as far as I remember, was never raised in terms of
the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of these territories you
are discussing today. Israel unilaterally withdrew from occupied
territory of Lebanon and yet the war on the Lebanese border continues
with the claim that Israel is in fact still occupying the Shaba
Farms, which is in fact Syrian and not Lebanese. The definition
of occupation, where an occupation begins, where it ends, is it
conceivable do you believe, Mr Baldry, that were Israel to unilaterally
to leave these territories and just exist on the other side of
the fence—even if that fence were on the green line—all
the claims against Israel would end? Would there not be claims
for Tel Aviv, for Haifa, for Jaffa? Do you not believe this would
be a continuing process because this is not a war just for the
West Bank and Gaza?
Q135 Chairman: The difficulty is
this, is it not, international law generally hates a vacuum. One
cannot have people without citizenship, without rights, without
remedies. For a long time the international community has been
striving through the peace process, through the road map, through
the quartet, to find a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.
There will come a point, if that does not work, where the international
community is going to say that every citizen, every person, every
individual who is within the boundaries of the state of Israel
is de jure a citizen of Israel. One cannot have a situation
where there are large numbers of people within one state who are
effectively stateless. So if the two-state solution cannot be
found to work then international law is going to say de jure
and de facto there is a single state?
Dr Samuels: Are you asking me?
Q136 Chairman: I am putting it to
you as a question. There was a question mark at the end of that
statement.
Dr Samuels: I personally and not
institutionally, and not in any way beyond myself, do believe
in a two state solution. I believe it is inevitable and it has
to happen in order to allow both communities to divorce. I think
all of the plans for a new Middle East and the illusions of functional
interdependence between these two peoples have been disappointed
over these past few years and I do not see any possibility of
doing that without division. I think that separation should allow
both to develop for themselves. That does not mean to say that
when you talk about occupation the claims will come to an end,
I am certain they will not. I am certain that even with the most
benign administration in this state of Palestine, no matter what
its dimensions or where its borders will be, it will not be enough
for the Palestine programme of some elements in that country.
Coming back to this question of the Geneva Convention, the Geneva
Convention applies to civilians but unfortunately within these
territories the acts of violence and terror are committed by ostensible
civilians, they may not be wearing uniforms, but they are terrorists
and therefore the whole thing has to be seen within a prism of
sensitivity to the victims of terror. I come back to the responsibility
of your Committee, Sir, in its role of providing guidance to the
EU in the spending of funds to see those two shekels being paid
out for Kalashnikov bullets to kill British citizens living in
Israel.
Chairman: Thank you. Thank you for coming
and giving evidence, and thank you, Ms Schroder, for coming
from the European Parliament.
|
